DSLR vs mirrorless

<p>Just want to hear opinions on this topic. You see/hear a lot of photographers saying that mirrorless cameras are the future and our DSLR's are going to fade out and not be able to compete. I'd like to think that they're wrong.</p>

<p>I think neither is the future of general photography, cell phones are.</p>

<p>The problem is that the Interchangeble Lens Camera market has been on a steady decline for a while, and companies aren't making money hand-over-fist on them anymore.</p>

<p>For me, DSLRs didn't work anymore (I'm an amateur, like virtually all of the people who are driving the market). So I switched to a nice small µ43 system that I like better.</p>

<p>Horses for courses...<br>

If I was a sports shooter or action shooter or what have you, no way would I have made that move.</p>

<p>as far as i know the mirrorless cameras work on contrast based autofocus not phase detection, so i am not interested.<br /> <br />digital viewfinder.<br /> yuk</p>

<p>Yup, there are definitely trade-offs (although I would argue that there are tradeoffs both ways).</p>

<p>Both have a place for now.</p>

<p>Cell phones are required in practice to be ultra thin and so long focal lengths cannot be implemented without giving up the thin form factor and pocketability to some extent. I don't think cell phones can get around this limitation. Another limitation is that their user interface is good for social communication but not so good for holding a camera steady, and they have no viewfinder, and very limited controls. What the cell phone can do for a more serious photographer is act as the hub that links a dedicated camera to the internet and the world. For example the D7200 links itself to the phone by tapping the two into each other (NFC) and establishing a wifi connection; to my understanding after this has been done the phone can be used as a remote control for the camera and has access to the images for posting online or e-mailing. I haven't used this myself but I think it is likely to be quite convenient enough.</p>

<p>As for mirrorless cameras, I find most of them too small for comfortable use (my hands are not getting any smaller) and the autofocus in low light doesn't seem to work especially well. I do not like electronic viewfinders and find the delay and update artifacts (rolling shutter etc.) objectionable. I greatly enjoy the optical viewfinders of DSLRs (ones that have a proper glass pentaprism). I don't foresee myself using a mirrorless camera as my main camera system in the future. </p>

<p>There are mirrorless cameras with phase-detect AF and it can enhance tracking of a moving subject over pure CDAF but at least in some cameras it doesn't work in low light. I think dedicated PDAF AF sensors in DSLRs are more sensitive in low light and they are constantly evolving in this respect as well (e.g. D7200, D750 have enhanced AF sensitivity in low light). </p>

<p>Depends on what you want to do with your camera. The Nikon 1 mirrors system has phase detection auto-focus, just like the DSLR's, though in really low light it switches to contrast detection.</p>

<p>For shooting in low light, especially fast action, the DSLR still cannot be beat, but if you don't need to shoot fast action in low light, mirrorless sure has some advantages in size and weight.</p>

<p>Again, depends on what you want to use the camera for.</p>

<p>whata bout extreme cold conditiones and mirrorless?<br>

any experiences there anyone?</p>

<p>I shoot with both, and neither can replace the other for some tasks. While mirrorless may be the future, I live in the present, so I use the tools currently available. Most of the time I shoot with the Panasonic GH3, which is a wonderful camera, but the nicest thing about it is the small and light lenses. The 12-35 2.8 and 35-100 2.8 lenses are excellent, and are tiny compared to their SLR counterparts. You can carry the camera with four lenses all day and not feel it. However, if I need to make large prints, or need higher IQ for whatever reason, the D810 comes out.</p>

<p>FWIW, I can make good 20 x 30s from the Panny. But I can make better ones from the D810.</p>

<p>Yes, no, maybe, depends on what you're doing and what your preferences are.<br>

Whatever technical deficits the mirrorless cameras today may have, I'm quite sure they will be solved. The gap is already closed significantly. Whether that means mirrorless is THE future.... well, quite possibly for the mass market, it will be. And that makes quite a lot of sense too - for the mass production. Whether mirrorless can fully close the gap to DSLR for high-speed action, I do have some doubts - EVF, no matter how good, are never as real-time as optical, and the development of AF systems for DSLRs do not stop, so they'll probably keep their progressive edge for quite a lot of time.<br>

So, a shift for the mass market, will that automatically means that DSLRs will fade out? I guess it means so in the same sense that rangefinders, view cameras and medium format film cameras fade out - so no. It will become more niche, it will become more a high-end thing but there isn't a single reason why the market would not be able anymore to support DSLRs if that happens. In the same way the market for P&S cameras is now moving more to bridge cameras and high-end, as the low end small zoom range has been eaten by cellphones.</p>

<p>As for me personally, much as Ilkka said: most mirrorless are too small to be comfortable to my taste, and I vastly prefer optical viewfinders. If DSLRs really go the way of the dodo, I'll switch fully to SLRs to satisfy my needs - so far, film seems to survive just fine, so I guess it'll still be around by then ;-)</p>

<p>Mirrorless is a wide market. The camera could have almost any size sensor and any size physical shape. It's could be for instance a small pocketable big sensor camera or a dSLR like very capable camera with smaller lenses.</p>

<p>But mirrorless is really a camera without a mirror. I have a GH3 (mirrorless) and the viewfinder is great except that the dynamic range is not nearly as good as the eye in an optical viewfinder.</p>

<p>Autofocus implementation is more a question of how and what technology the manufacturer chooses to implement. To my knowledge no one has tried to make a mirrorless sportsshooter camera in the class and price of the Nikon D4 or Canon 1DX. What we do know is that the mirror is in the way of high fps.</p>

<p>So I predict the mirror to eventually disappear from all new cameras and cameras that are dslrs today would then have electronic viewfinders instead. But it will take at least 10 years or more. The average consumer will of course use their phones to take photos so the market for "dedicated" cameras will become smaller and smaller.</p>

<p>I have doubts that cold will affect a mirrorless camera any more than it affects a DSLR. Other than even more shortened battery life since they are smaller. By "extreme" cold, I assume you are talking about temps of 30 to 40 below zero. I've been thinking about eventually moving to a Fuji X platform for a travel camera, or the Olympus 4/3 system.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>DSLR cameras are too much big&heavy for many tasks. Right now they are the most capable, but I think they are because there is no interest at all to make other more interesting cameras. Like with the first DSLRs, they awaited for the market to be saturated with APS-C sensors before the release of full format sensors... I think it will be the same, when the saturation of FF reflex were complete, the high quality mirrorless cameras market will start the competition.<br /> <br /> It doesn`t makes sense to use a pro DSLR camera with heavy lens to make holiday photos. But the other choice is to buy a "degraded" version (cheaper material, trimmed features) or to jump to a mass product, consumer, two-years-life-mini-sensor compact camera... so many people at the end opt to buy expensive DSLRs.<br /> <br /> Put good full format mirrorless cameras on the market (say, Leica type, Nikon D800 quality) and I bet the top DSLR market will be reduced in half. I believe technology is perfectly ready to do so, but there is no commercial interest in killing the DSLR goose yet...</p>

<p>@ kent</p>

<p>i had my eos 1d mark 3 black out on the display after too long in heat..it was a pain to me too belive me that..it kept on taking photos, i just couldnt see them.<br /> i also had some issues in extreme cold weather, ice in and on the viewfinder and weird distorted crytsals on the back of my screen, this did only happen once to my very beaten up d3.</p>

<p>i am not so sure but if my display can go black and distorted in heat or extreme cold i would say my electronic view finder can too..<br /> i am not willing to test drive a mirrorless system as i wasted too much money over the last two years on breaking equipment anyway...it just ...doesnt feel right. should test it.<br /> i have seen images taken in norway or iceland too..but i dont trust them as my d3 went mad after two days near tromso..</p>

<p>The extreme cold thing is another kind of shooting. For me, if it's cold enough to freeze out an LCD display, it's probably a good opportunity for a film camera isn't it?</p>

<p>I honestly don't know as I don't shoot under such demanding conditions.</p>

<p>i did not expect that to happen and i do not know what happened but i am guessing i was handleing lenses wrong.<br /> a beginners mistake, i guess.<br /> but it did freeze up..and that was not so funny.<br /> i had been shooting in -20 to -30 degrees for quite some times already..yeah..i like snow :).. and only had a couple of problems.<br /> this was one.<br>

<br /> i think it is relevant as i do not know what might happen to the crystals in the EVF..what if they black out?</p>

<p>based on that, i would say big dslr as the current 1dx or d4s are unlikely to vanish anytime soon.</p>

<p>Smart phones and professional camera equipment are the future. Professional gear is about the lenses, and that is the Achilles Heel of mirrorless, not enough market demand for high end glass.</p>

<p>I am new in mirrorless micro 4/3 with the Olympus OMD E-M1. Still learning about it - and again chickened out last night from using it in a real event (lol) because I had not used the flash (FL 600R) enough, or read the manual, to understand its TTL capability.</p>

<p>Don't know much about other mirrorless, but here are some info about this camera related to the discussion so far:</p>

<ul>

<li>It has a 16.3MP sensor</li>

<li>Has both contrast and phase detection AF</li>

<li>Weather resistant - a YouTube video soaks it in water and still shooting away. Having had Nikon camera/lenses in water, mud, hale-rain storms, fine sands of Death Valley, and damaged at Niagara Falls mist before, this aspect has some practical relevance to me.</li>

<li>Claims to tolerate cold temperature to -10°C (-50°F?). Hope I will never ever need to test this.</li>

</ul>

<p>Dan Brown, after Olympus releases its 7 - 14 zoom and the 300mm f2.8 later this year, there will be pro lenses including (35mm equivalents):</p>

<p>14-28 (7-14) f4<br>

24-80 (12-40) f2.8<br>

80-300 (40-150) f2.8<br>

600 (300) f2.8</p>

<p>All of those are weather sealed, too.</p>

<p>In addition, there are fast primes from Olympus in equiv. focal lengths of 24, 35, 50, 90 and 150 that are all stellar, not to mention what Panasonic has to offer (which is also essentially a full range of pro lenses).</p>

<p>You lose some shallow depth-of-field advantage when shooting mirrorless, that's still a big drawback these days imho, but those lenses are pretty pro and capable of shooting pretty amazing stuff.</p>

<p>The real exciting thing would be if Nikon made a similar DX (or even FX) offering. Their mirrorless foray has been, imho, an expensive toy like Pentax's.</p>

<p>Hmmm . . . . a contentious topic for sure, so here's my gasoline on the fire . .<br>

<br />As an advanced amateur/enthusiast I currently have 3 mirrorless cameras (Panasonic G5, GX7, Sony A7r) and one DSLR (D800). I shoot just about everything.<br>

For tripod work the D800 is about as good as it gets. For any kind of very low light work the D800 is tough to beat.<br>

For any kind of spur of the moment candid work or video I much prefer my GX7. I have fast primes and a few zooms and the speed of focus (non-AFC) and focus accuracy are excellent. 16MP is more than enough for 90% of what I do.<br>

I get frustrated with my fast lenses on my D800 as the PDAF is just not accurate enough - hence my A7r which I can see the actual DOF and nail the focus (like with my 135/2 APO Ziess). <br>

I was talking to the local Nikon rep this past weekend and she quizzed me on why I would buy a mirrorless (m43 or Sony FX) and I told her:<br>

- Accurate focusing (m43 and Sony FE)<br>

- Ability to have silent shutter (m43)<br>

- Compact, light weight body (m43 and Sony FE)<br>

- Accurate DOF preview with really fast lenses<br>

- Customizable EVF display<br>

- Ability to use high quality legacy lenses of just about any kind<br>

DSLRs will surely stay with us, but the majority of bodies will likely move over to mirrorless due to the following reasons:<br>

- Cheaper to manufacture (no mirror mechanism, no AF sub-sensors, heavy OVF optics, etc.)<br>

- Advances in fast readout from sensors and processing<br>

- PDAF on sensor<br>

- EVF display/optics improvements (they are already very very good)<br>

- Power draw from electronics and battery power<br>

I asked the Nikon rep to please pass on to Nikon that at the very least I want a D810 mirrorless version - call it the "DM810". Keep the F mount if they must, but put on-sensor PDAF, EFCS (or better yet totally electronic shutter), an excellent EVF, IBIS and I would buy one. Not going to happen any time soon unfortunately.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Dan Brown, after Olympus releases its 7 - 14 zoom and the 300mm f2.8 later this year, there will be pro lenses including (35mm equivalents):<br>

14-28 (7-14) f4<br /> 24-80 (12-40) f2.8<br /> 80-300 (40-150) f2.8<br /> 600 (300) f2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Olympus has had a 300mm/f2.8 four-thirds (not Micro 4/3) lens for their now defunct DSLRs for a long time, over 10 years. It is not exactly new. I have played around with that lens, and it is just as big and heavy as any Canon or Nikon 300mm/f2.8, of course, but it is more expensive: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/301933-REG/Olympus_261004_300mm_f_2_8_ED_Lens.html</p>

<p>Olympus' problem is that they have locked themselves into the 4/3 sensor, about 2/3 the area as APS-C. Perhaps it is great for amateur use due to its small size, but for any low-light, high-ISO application, it has a major inhalant disadvantage. Of course, Nikon 1 mirrorless goes even further with an even-smaller sensor. History will tell, but choosing the tiny CX sensor for mirrorless maybe one of the major errors in Nikon history.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Weather resistant - a YouTube video soaks it in water and still shooting away. Having had Nikon camera/lenses in water, mud, hale-rain storms, fine sands of Death Valley, and damaged at Niagara Falls mist before, this aspect has some practical relevance to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />You can demo a lot of wonderful things on a video. Use that camera in the demo video under similar, real-life tough environments and see how it performs. That is what it counts.</p>

<p>I hope DSLR vs. mirrorless will not be the future endless debate topic as Canon vs. Nikon and Film vs. Digital previously. One thing I am certain about is that technology will continue to improve rapidly so that cameras will continue to evolve. Not having a mirror clearly has its advantages and disadvantages. I have tested a few mirrorless cameras, from Olympus, Nikon, etc. So far, I see no reason for me to buy one, from any brand with any sensor size, but the situation will certainly change over time and at some point, perhaps it will make sense to get a mirrorless camera.</p>

<p>I agree that for a lot of casual situations, the camera on my old iPhone 5 is more than sufficient. I carry two phones (one work, one personal) essentially all the time anyway. There is no need to carry another camera for casual images.</p>

<p>I owned a GF1 for about a year and then a GX1 for another year and a half. I used a nice zoom (P14-45), the Oly 17mm pancake, and the Rokinon 7.5mm fisheye. I had an F-mount to M4/3 adapter, but did not use adapted lenses very often. On the Nikon side, I have been using a D200 and then D300 for the past 4-5 years. </p>

<p>For me, the M4/3 cameras worked great but I just did not prefer them to my DSLR set up. The small size was helpful on a few occasions but I found I don't really mind the size of the Nikon DSLR. If I am going to carry a camera, the size difference is mostly inconsequential. </p>

<p>M4/3 annoyances: (1) battery life; (2) durability; (3) ergonomics. The image quality was great but I am convinced I can usually spot a M4/3 "look" to images that I vaguely dislike. There is a sort of high sharpness and high DOF quality I perceive when I see many M4/3 images. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I find I prefer the image characteristics I see with APS-C and 35mm film. </p>

<p>Also, I just got back from a road trip with lots of photo taking. With my DSLRs, they just go. You can leave the camera turned on and it is ready to shoot, no concerns about battery life. No need to wake up the EVF or LCD screen. The Nikon DSLR materials are quite robust - I don't worry about my camera being tossed into a pack or swinging around on my neck. The ergonomics are also excellent for handling the camera in difficult conditions and quickly adjusting settings. I expect the mirrorless cameras will continue to improve on battery life, EVF quality/durability, etc. and the future should include plenty of good camera options for all :)</p>

<p>Efforts to predict things nearly always just projecting existing trends. In the short term this works sometimes.<br /> Longer term predictions fail precisely because of the inability to imagine something different.<br /> All those powered balloons in 19th c. pictures of the future (<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=19th+c+pictures+of+future&num=100&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=CHoZVc2ND8WYgwSf0IOQDw&ved=0CB4QsAQ&biw=1388&bih=1074">link</a>). 1930s sci-fi stories with slide rules on board spacecraft. Even <em>Star Trek</em> couldn't imagine the laptop or tablet.</p>

<p>The majority of "photographs" are simple snapshots. That market is long since gone the way of the horse and carriage.<br /> We may not yet have seen what will replace dSLRs for 'serious' photography, if any, although it's unlikely that, whatever it is, it will have mechanical parts.</p>

<p>As a longtime hobbyist who could spend the money on cameras, I went from film SLRs through point and shoot digital compacts, to DSLRs. I currently have a Nikon Coolpix A. It's mirrorless, has the APS-C sensor and processor of a D7000 DSLR, and a very high quality fixed lens. Not having to do sports, birds, etc., the wide angle is fine for 90% of my interests (travel, family, landscape). Pocketability is very welcome, after years of hauling the big bag.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Efforts to predict things nearly always just projecting existing trends. In the short term this works sometimes.<br /> Longer term predictions fail precisely because of the inability to imagine something different.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Anybody can predict the future, mostly incorrectly. Those with a lot of imagination to shape the future are visionaries, and some can find a way to make that reality. A recent example is Steve Jobs.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, it is very obvious that I am nowhere, absolutely nowhere close to that league. </p>

<p>If there's one thing you can learn from this thread, though, it's that if you are shooting one and want to investigate the other, it's best not to sell everything and then switch, but rather to dip your toes into the water and see.</p>

<p>For me, that meant I had no regrets switching away from DSLRs. But YMMV of course.</p>