Jump to content

Why go DSLR?


Recommended Posts

<p>Not necessarily a Canon EOS question but, seeing as Canon EOS DSLRs are some of the most popular, can we have some input as to why many of you choose to shoot with a DSLR instead of a mirrorless system camera?<br>

Yes, you read that right. The opposite question is frequently asked in the mirrorless category (Why go Mirrorless?) etc so I want to hear why people would choose to shoot with a DSLR instead of a mirrorless camera.<br>

I shoot with a Canon EOS 5D MkII but I also use a little mirrorless Olympus E-PL5. I have my own thoughts and opinions on this but would like to hear others.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>No reason to exclude one over the other. Enjoy them both. I carry a GX1 or E-P3 in my messenger bar 24/7. They replaced my point 'n shoot and iPhone for causal shooting. IQ whips my S90 and iPhone silly and nips at the heels of my 7D. Their main advantage over my 7D/5D2 is being small and light I don't mind carrying them even if I probably won't use them.<br>

On the other hand, mirrorless are difficult to hold steady, controls are tiny and difficult to use and the EVF/LCD are a PITA. So, for my serious photography--travel, landscape & macro--I always reach for one of my DSLRs. Not just because IQ is better, but because they are much faster and easier to use: large, easy to feel controls, large VF without smear or jerk and no problem holding steady. And no fun balancing a large telephoto on a mirrorless or trying to operate buttons my feel while looking through the EVF.</p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>DSLR/SLR systems are, ahem, systems, with lots of optics, accessories, support, repair and rental network, etc. which can't be said about non-system cameras. That alone is enough for many people to choose DSLR/SLR, esp. if they make money with their equipment.<br>

Then there is the viewfinder... I am a true "thru-the-lens" person and simply can't get used to optical or electronic viewfinders, period. (Yep, I did try many times...) I can shoot TLR, large format rigs and SLR/DSLR of any format only if I have TTL (or sort of TTL, like in a TLR camera) viewing. There is something iffy in non-TTL optical finders and no electronic TTL/off the sensor viewfinder can hold a candle to a true optical (glass pentaprism based) TTL VF. EVF does have some merits (say, bright image in low-light situation) but one can't really tell what the image will <strong>really</strong> look like.<br>

I do have the Oly OM-D but, despite its high image quality, it is my snapshot camera, because I am not comfortable with its VF (among other things.) I do have a film rangefinder but I don't use if often, only when the "hipster" mood strikes me :-) because I hate its VF (yep, it is a Leica M...)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me: Mostly the optical viewfinder. I can't stand LCD lag, no matter how short. I miss too many good moments that way. Yes, I know an EVF can be "fast," but it can't be as fast as the speed of light. And say what you will about an EVF, but it's never as nice as a good optical finder.</p>

<p>Otherwise, large sensor, large lens selection, versatility and compatibility, comfortable feel. Above all, I'm just comfortable with it. There's no need to ditch a great tool that's comfortable and familiar to use!</p>

<p>Sometimes I do carry a compact (G11), but it's never the camera I pull out for serious photography. Sure, I'll take snapshots with it, and I'll even take the occasional serious shot if I have no other camera in my hands, but it's just not the same. Not by a long shot.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tested a no mirror camera and I was impressed by some of the features. But it was disappointing in some ways. The autofocus was

particularly unreliable. Lens selection was limited. IQ and ISO were respectable, but they can't compete with full frame DSLRs. No

complex off camera flash functionality available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dslrs are better at</p>

<ol>

<li>tracking AF,</li>

<li>fast action sports,</li>

<li>extreme lowlight work,</li>

<li>screaming pro shooter here</li>

<li>and maybe flash utilities...</li>

</ol>

<p>Everything else is either opinion (preference) oriented, neglectable enough or simply diehard tradition POV. And screaming pro shooter isn't always an advantage. Same with flash work, mirrorless/evf are better suited with LED, and not flash based lighting... </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>...An interesting follow-up question is "How many of these problems will still exist for mirrorless cameras in 5 years, in 10 years?"</p>

<p>I think it's safe to assume the lens systems will expand and improve. As some pros switch to mirrorless, the cameras will get larger and have better interfaces and more buttons. As sensors improve and faster lenses become available their low-light performance will become good enough for most applications.</p>

<p>They'll never have optical viewfinders, though EVF quality could improve so much it hardly matters.</p>

<p>Without inserting optics between the lens and sensor, I'm not sure how they will ever match the AF speed of a DSLR. Though who knows what might be invented.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Alan, for example, some mirrorless cameras already AF faster than some dslr. Mirrorless are slower when they come to either tracking or extreme lowlight only. My sony p&s (RX100) focuses (and shutter lag) faster than my d200 (and most other dslrs) in most lighting condition...</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'll have to take your word for that.</p>

<p>I played with a friend's micro four-thirds a few weeks ago at a party. It was interior light. My 5D3 and 70-200/2.8 had no difficulty focusing. The mirrorless was struggling with some shots. Faces in profile, for example, completely defeated it. With other shots it was pretty good. With front views of faces it did very well. It was interesting for how much the performance varied based on the subject.</p>

<p>It was definitely not faster than the 5D3. In better light it might have been close.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's the <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-6d/canon-6dA6.HTM">figures</a> for a 2k Canon 6d and the $600 RX100's <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100/sony-rx100A6.HTM">figures</a>... </p>

<p>Look at single point AF at wideangle. 6d: 0.290 || RX100: 0.153</p>

<p>Prefocus lag. 6d: 0.059 || RX100: 0.013</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...