Anyone coming BACK to FX from mirrorless?

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Jeff, I certainly agree with your sentiment but I think it is important to remember we are all here on a gear forum. You chided the OP for making an anecdotal statement I think it is only fair to say that your view does not necessarily reflect all professionals. And nice photo btw :)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>I said like-for-like. Going from Nikon DX to m4/3 is not like-for-like.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, enough so that it was like-for-like for me. The big advantages of size outweighed the "advantage" of the larger sensor, for my use. The photos I'm taking are virtually the same, but I am definitely an amateur.</p>

<p>And for really serious photographers who are pixel peepers, the Sony glass just isn't there. So there's no like-for-like there either I don't think.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>the Sony glass just isn't there</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a different story - and I haven't mentioned that one yet. Another reason I did not move fully over into the Sony system is connected to what you wrote - not necessarily the optical quality of the lenses (there isn't much to debate between the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 and Nikon's lens, or the two companies' 70-200/4) - but my next step (had I considered the changeover) would have been to have a closer look at the rendering of the Sony/Zeiss lenses and whether or not I actually like it.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> in a like-for-like comparison, there isn't all that much difference..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not sure how we can arrive at this conclusion. mirrorless offers significant weight savings.</p>

<ul>

<li>D3s (2.7 lbs) + 24-70 (1.9 lbs) = 4.6 lbs. </li>

<li>Sony A7II (1.3 lbs) + 24-70 (0.9 lbs) = 2.2 lbs.</li>

<li>Fuji XT1 (0.9 lbs) + 16-55 (1.5 lbs) = 2.4 lbs.</li>

<li>Nikon d7200 (1.6 lbs) + 17-55 (1.6 lbs) = 3.2 lbs.</li>

</ul>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>for really serious photographers who are pixel peepers, the Sony glass just isn't there.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yes and no. for prime shooters, the 55 and 35 and supposed to be excellent and the 28/2 addresses the need for a fast wide prime. There's also the Zeiss Batis series, and Sigma already makes lenses for E-mount, so can FE be far behind? the primary issue with the Sony glass AFAIK is the f/4 zooms which give back a stop from the full-frame sensor, compared to a 2.8 lens on APS-C. I dont know how serious an issue that is for all photographers, probably not so much for landscape shooters. But then concert shooters get an extended ISO range with the A7s. and there are a lot of really serious photographers who are all-in on Sony, if you read LuLa and DPreview comment boards.<br>

<br>

Anyway, this is a moot point if Sony cameras can adapt Canon lenses with full AF, as the A7IIr does. I think i noted earlier this technology is coming to F-mount. That won't result in significant weight savings to use a 35mm format full-frame lens on a mirrorless camera, but it does mean you can switch bodies between brands and use the same lenses. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Eric, those aren't fair (D3 style body versus A7II without grip) and the Sony 24-70 is f/4 versus f/2.8 for the Nikkor. I agree with Dieter's point - I haven't seen much evidence there is a major weight difference for mirrorless versus DSLR across the same format. The mirrorless camera body is likely to be more compact and less weight, certainly.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>not sure how we can arrive at this conclusion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have given my example in my first post above - a fair one - much unlike the ones you list (which aren't like for like by any stretch). By your measure I would need to tell you that you can save the most by buying a Lumix LX100 - not even a pound of weight ;-)<br /> <br /> Take a Nikon D810, add a 16-35/4, 35/1.4, 85/1.8, and 70-200/4 and compare to a A7RII, 16-35/4, 35/1.4, Batis 85/1.8, and 70-200/4 - and you will save one the order of one pound - almost all due to the smaller and lighter camera body (*). The fact that I can select a Nikon system that weighs more than twice is immaterial (like D4s, 14-24, 70-200/2.8) as I was comparing systems that I wanted to purchase (and not cherry-picking light Nikon and heavy Sony/Zeiss lenses).</p>

<p>(*) thanks for making that point for me in your own comparison:</p>

<ul>

<li>Fuji XT1 (0.9 lbs) + 16-55 (1.5 lbs) = 2.4 lbs.</li>

<li>Nikon d7200 (1.6 lbs) + 17-55 (1.6 lbs) = 3.2 lbs.</li>

</ul>

<p>Lenses are almost the same (and there are lighter options than the behemoth Nikon) - and we have 325g weight difference in the body (which shrinks to 30g if you replace the D7200 with the D5500). And if you replace the D3S with a D750, then the camera body weight difference shrinks to about 1/2 pound.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, those aren't fair (D3 style body versus A7II without grip) and the Sony 24-70 is f/4 versus f/2.8 for the Nikkor. I agree with Dieter's point - I haven't seen much evidence there is a major weight difference for mirrorless versus DSLR across the same format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chip, even if we add a grip to the A7ii, we're still talking a 1.5 lb difference. i'm not sure why you are belaboring a point for which the math is not on your side. i already addressed the sony zooms being f/4 so i dont know why you are bringing it up as if i never mentioned it. there's even more weight savings if we compare m4/3, which does have 2.8 zooms that are considerably lighter than full frame equivalents.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have given my example in my first post above - a fair one - much unlike the ones you list (which aren't like for like by any stretch).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's unfair? i went with the Nikon rig i currently use. why is that problematic for you? if you want exact equivalents across all formats, you're going to have to concede that 'like for like' doesnt always exist. for example, i get equal or better image quality with the fuji 18-55 as i do with the nikon 24-70. sure, it's not constant 2.8, but in situations where that matters, i simply bring the larger rig. most of the time, it's irrelevant. also, you are ignoring the fact that DSLRs are physically larger than mirrorless setups, so it's not just weight but bulk. it also seem silly to insert a d5500 into an allegedly 'like for like' comparison since that is not equivalent in features to a high-end mirrorless body like the XT1, nor are they equivalent in price point. if we compare the d5500 with an XE-series Fuji, we see it's about 25% heavier and much more bulkier. we can't even do a realistic 'like for like' comparison with the featherweight Fuji 35/1.4, since a) Nikon has no 35/1.4 for DX and b) the FX version is not only weightier, but cost-prohibitive. more realistically, a DX shooter would use the 35/1.8, which is far inferior to the Fuji 35.</p>

<p>what neither Dieter nor Chip are willing to concede, it seems, is that equivalent or even better optical quality, if not 100% equivalent performance, can be achieved with mirrorless kits which are easier to carry and take up less room overall. with my XE1s, i can take a two-body travel kit in a fanny pack with several lenses. this just simply isn't possible with DSLRs because of the added bulk. sure, if we add long zoom lenses to these small cameras, it can defeat the purpose of going small, but as someone who has mirrorless, DX, and FX systems, i've personally experienced the impacts and results of using each of these--not on paper, but in the field. your experience may be different, but you can't tell me mine isn't valid. for example, my x100, which has a 35mm equiv. lens, weighs less than my 35/1.4 ART lens for Nikon FX by itself. if im just taking casual shots, there's no way i'm lugging all that extra weight when i don't need to. </p>

<p>in any event, to bring this discussion full-circle, there are times when mirrorless is the better option and times when DSLRs are the better option. there's no one size fits all category, but having said that, mirrorless technology seems to be advancing faster then DSLRs, at this point in time.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>I have used Nikon equipment for a long time. No question the mirrorless m4/3 system for an equivalent range I carry (D800 + 24-70 + 70-200) is much much lighter.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>why is that problematic for you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It isn't - you can compare whatever you want. If for you a D3S with 24-70/2.8 is the equivalent to an A7II with 24-70/4 - fine. Guess there is also a point in comparing strawberry jam to motor oil.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>also, you are ignoring the fact that DSLRs are physically larger than mirrorless setups</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you read what I wrote than it should be clear that I am not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it also seem silly to insert a d5500 into an allegedly 'like for like' comparison</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe for me a X-T1 is closer to a D5500 than to a D7200 - despite the price differential?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but you can't tell me mine isn't valid</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not aware that I did.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>m4/3, which does have 2.8 zooms that are considerably lighter than full frame equivalents</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Equivalent in focal length, not with regard to the DOF they provide; there seems to be a rather sparse selection of f/1.4 zooms that can do what an f/2.8 does on FX.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> hat neither Dieter nor Chip are willing to concede, it seems, is that equivalent or even better optical quality, if not 100% equivalent performance, can be achieved with mirrorless kits which are easier to carry and take up less room overall</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Done already in my first post above: I kept the A7 and build a small, compact system consisting of M-mount lenses around it: 15/4.5, 21/1.8, 40/1.4, 90/2 - all fits in a small Think Tank Retrospective 5 bag - for those time when I don't want or can't take the larger Nikon bag along (or when I want to take advantage of the different look that the M-mount lenses provide).</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>There can never be an exact apple to apple comparison. My conclusion is that the M4/3 system for the equivalent focal range <strong>I normally use</strong> is much lighter.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Just out of curiosity: A Fuji X-T1 with 10-24/4, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 56/1.2 or 90/2, and 50-140/2.8 does not seem to save me much in weight over the "equivalent" D810, 16-35/4, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.8, and 70-200/4 - but I am sure I can stash it in a one-size smaller bag.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Dieter, I don't use the same lenses you use.</p>

<p>My current M4/3 system is: Olympus Em1 + fisheye + 12-40 + 40-150 f/4 + macro (60mm)</p>

<p>My Nikon equivalence (but not exactly equal) is: D800 + fisheye + 24-70 + 70-200 + macro (105mm).</p>

<p>If you use f/2.8 in mirrorless, you should compare it with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, not f/4. :)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe for me a X-T1 is closer to a D5500 than to a D7200 - despite the price differential?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>um, okayyy... what were you saying about motor oil? not sure i understand what criteria could compel one to equivocate a current mid-line DSLR with a current flagship mirrorless. it's even more confusing because that's clearly not a 'like for like' comparison, which was your original criteria. i guess if we allow for contradictions, we can say anything and justify it. but at the end of the day, the XT1 competes with cameras in its price range, as does the 7200 and 5500.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Equivalent in focal length, not with regard to the DOF they provide; there seems to be a rather sparse selection of f/1.4 zooms that can do what an f/2.8 does on FX.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>annnd... the nitpicking continues. the original criteria for this was weight. now you want to judge the comparison on DOF because obviously the 2.8 m4/3 zooms are lighter than APS-C and FF counterparts -- which also dashes your 'like for like' criteria since FF is obviously not equivalent to m4/3 under this new criteria you have developed. sneaky! but just to show you another example of you being wrong, let's look at the fuji 40-150 (995g) and the nikon 70-200 VRII (1.54kg). hmm, well... looks like the full frame lens is 50% heavier than the mirrorless lens. anyone who's ever lugged one of those around for hours at a time will tell you that figure is indeed statistically-relevant. and to your other point, anyone who buys an m4/3 2.8 zoom probably isn't expecting equivalent DoF from a smaller format. but both 2.8 zooms will allow for the same level of light transmission, while increased DoF could mean less focus accuracy issues. so less DoF isn't necessarily better, and you'll still get lots of compression at 200mm or equivalent, so subject isolation shouldn't be a major concern, especially if you space your main subject and the background accordingly. if it is a major concern, then i suppose only FF will do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just out of curiosity: A Fuji X-T1 with 10-24/4, 16/1.4, 23/1.4, 56/1.2 or 90/2, and 50-140/2.8 does not seem to save me much in weight over the "equivalent" D810, 16-35/4, 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.8, and 70-200/4 - but I am sure I can stash it in a one-size smaller bag.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the sneakiness continues. now we're comparing a 40-150/2.8 with a 70-200/4, which is obviously lighter than a 70-200/2.8. but in terms of light-gathering abilities, f/4 is f/4, while 2.8 is 2.8. again this is sneaky because the 70-200/4 is more optimized as a landscape lens, while the 40-150 is an event-capable lens. also, this comparison is highly subjective. why did you choose the 16/1.4 and the 24/1.4 as "equivalent," but not the 85/1.4 instead of the 1.8, which is almost 50% lighter? the 1.8 is obviously not equivalent in low-light shooting to a 1.2, and here it must be noted that the increased DoF of the APS-C sensor on the Fuji comes into play with a 1.2 lens, making it more viable to shoot wide open--i typically stop down my 85/1.4 to f/2 or 2.2 when shooting people because the DoF plane is just a thin sliver. the same argument holds for m4/3, but even more so, since the DoF is even deeper. this has obvious implications for macro shooting, but also for things like shooting groups of people in low light. i guess if you prioritize shallow DoF over everything else, maybe it makes sense some kind of way to someone, but it seems disingenuous to me. in any event, i think most shooters would be more than happy to have either kit, and in terms of optical quality (probably most people's top criteria), the fuji lenses easily hold their own or surpass the nikons, so we can therefore evaluate either system by the remaining meaningful and relevant criteria with some degree of objectivity and logic, and not by subjective means. <br>

<br>

is weight/bulk a factor? quite possibly for some shooters, particularly those who carry other gear in addition to photography equipment, eg, hikers, journalists. is AF-C tracking a factor? yes, for sports/action shooters. is DoF a factor? yes, but this goes both ways. is sensor size a factor? yes, for high-ISO in extreme low-light and printing super-huge; not so much in good light (an area where good results can be gotten from an even smaller-sensor camera like the Sony RX at base ISO or thereabouts).</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>If you use f/2.8 in mirrorless, you should compare it with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, not f/4. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no f/4 for Fuji - so I have to pick what's available (and suitable for me). And f/4 is sufficient for me on FX - f/2.8 on DX at least gives me the same DOF. DOF is one reason I don't even consider m4/3 - I need f/1 lenses to duplicate DOF for f/2 on FX. Using a m4/3 40-150 f/4 is like shooting at f/8 on FX all the time - I would find that quite limiting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There can never be an exact apple to apple comparison</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The comparison between Sony and Nikon that I provided is definitely apples to apples - with the only difference being a mirrorless body vs a DSLR.</p>

<p>Mary, I assume you have the Nikon system so that you can shoot with shallower DOF? Or when you need higher resolution for bigger prints? Otherwise I don't understand the point of duplicating the same setup for two different formats.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the nitpicking continues</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We just have different priorities - I have provided my arguments for a apples to apples comparison for the format that counts for me - FX. I am not interested in m4/3 and no longer in DX as well. As soon as one starts comparing across formats, "equivalent" and "like-for-like" become somewhat arbitrary - as the discussion shows. Comparing across formats has never been my intention - and if one stays within on format, then the differences for FX are negligible, and for DX the comparison becomes somewhat skewed since Nikon doesn't provide a complete set of DX lenses.<br>

<br /> For me, f/2.8 on DX is equivalent to f/4 on FX - that's what I am comparing. The m4/3 40-150 is not even the equivalent of a 70-200/4 on FX - which weighs actually less. If your criteria are different - horses for courses.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>And FWIW, I chose the Nikon/Fuji comparison the way I did because that's what I would need to purchase to do what I want to do. I don't need a 85/1.4 on FX - the f/1.8 does what I need (and f/1.2 on DX is equivalent to f/1.8 on FX in terms of DOF).</p>

<p><br /> You seem to favor low-light shooting - and I don't see how DX and certainly not m4/3 can ever have an advantage there over FX. With all your compelling arguments why mirrorless is so much better, I am beginning to wonder why you still bother with a D3S? Your criteria are obviously not the same as mine - let's just leave it at that.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p> As soon as one starts comparing across formats, "equivalent" and "like-for-like" become somewhat arbitrary </p>

</blockquote>

<p>then why apply such criteria in the first place if you know it's flawed? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For me, f/2.8 on DX is equivalent to f/4 on FX - that's what I am comparing. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>but i've already explained why that's not a totally equivalent comparison. in fact it's only equivalent in terms of DoF, which may or may not be relevant. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The m4/3 40-150 is not even the equivalent of a 70-200/4 on FX - which weighs actually less.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>hoo boy. the m4/3 equivalent to a 70-200 would be the 35-100, which weighs substantially less (almost 2/3rds) than the 70-200/4 and is a paperweight compared to the 70-200/2.8. the 40-150/2.8 olympus isn't a fair comparison to the 70-200/4 since its 100mm longer. if you can only win your argument by skewing your own criteria, you haven't actually won your argument.</p>

<p>i think it's fair to say that, while DoF may be a ne plus ultra for you, that's a pretty subjective argument to make which doesnt necessarily apply to the majority of potential users of each system in question. but evaluating pros and cons strictly by that flawed criteria is problematic, since light-gathering abilities of 2.8 lenses, as i said before, are actually quite field-relevant.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>And FWIW, I chose the Nikon/Fuji comparison the way I did because that's what I would need to purchase to do what I want to do. I don't need a 85/1.4 on FX - the f/1.8 does what I need (and f/1.2 on DX is equivalent to f/1.8 on FX in terms of DOF).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>again, this is entirely subjective reasoning. by being inconsistent in your evaluative criteria, it weakens your argument to the point where it only applies to you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You seem to favor low-light shooting - and I don't see how DX and certainly not m4/3 can ever have an advantage there over FX. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>it's true that i do shoot in low-light environments a lot. it's why i got an FX system in the first place, because my D300s was limited above ISO 1600. the Fuji bodies, however, are at least 1 1/2 stops better, at least. that covers a lot of the critical zone for nightclub/no-flash shooting, i.e. 3200-6400. i typically don't go over 6400 even on FX, since i'm dealing with uneven stage lighting which can overexpose at high ISOs (and it typically spotlit on faces, which is where you dont want overexposure). if i can keep the ISO lower by using a wider aperture, i can get some of that back with fast lenses, and that extra stop of DoF can be the difference between a focused shot and missed focus when shooting moving subjects.<br>

<br>

However, i don't exclusively shoot in low-light. i shoot documentary, and portraits, and PJ stuff too, often in good light. if i dont specifically need FX high-ISO goodness, i'll use DX or APS-C because the results are essentially the same and the kit is lighter. that makes a big difference when covering rallies and demonstrations where i have to cover a lot of ground. i dont have any M4/3 gear, but the smaller form factor can be a plus in getting candid shots or moving through tight, dense crowds. Big cameras with beastly lenses can be intimidating, and the key to getting candids is to put people at ease. i dont shoot candids with a 70-200 for that reason.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>With all your compelling arguments why mirrorless is so much better, I am beginning to wonder why you still bother with a D3S?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i dont think you've been paying attention. i never, ever said, "mirrorless is better" as an absolute statement. which would be subjective and unprovable, thus false. i dont use a D3s for trail hiking, for instance. and for stealthy PJ work, the smallest, most competent camera which can go where other cameras can't is an asset. i already have an x100, but i would consider an RX100 or an LX100 because a zoom offers more versatility. if i shot more video, i would also have to take a longer look at m4/3 as well as the RX10. i will admit, however, that i do love the shots i get with the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 combo. since i dont have those focal lengths on DX or Fuji X, sometimes i bother with the D3s just for that. <br>

<br>

it's perfectly ok to have one's own subjective criteria for gear, but i think that needs to be balanced with objective criteria when recommending gear for others. i see a lot of comments on here advising beginners with $500 cameras to get $2000 lenses or completely ignoring stated limits on budgets, because that's what works for them. i try not to do that. instead, i think about where the OP is coming from, and maybe try to add some perspective from my own experience. i realize that everyone on the Internet thinks they're an expert, but some of the advice given here regularly from undoubtedly good-intentioned shooters -- who may not have any expertise in the specifics asked for -- makes my eyes roll. </p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>I couldn't disagree more. THE reason I went to mirrorless from DSLR is size/weight. Period. I suspect there are a lot like me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Count me as one of those.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>then why apply such criteria in the first place if you know it's flawed?<br /> if you can only win your argument by skewing your own criteria, you haven't actually won your argument.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For Pete's sake - I haven't applied such criteria (see above: Going from Nikon DX to m4/3 is not like-for-like; we would need to determine if you want to equal apertures or equivalent apertures in your lenses (and if it's the later, than I doubt that the m4/3 f/2.8 lenses save much weight vs their Nikon f/4 counterparts) and I haven't tried to win any argument - and that's the end of it! My only mistake in this thread was to respond to you at all!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>again, this is entirely subjective reasoning. by being inconsistent in your evaluative criteria, it weakens your argument to the point where it only applies to you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unlike you, I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself and have not claimed any so-called objectivity.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>i think that needs to be balanced with objective criteria when recommending gear for others</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Enough is enough! I have not made any gear recommendations to others in this thread! And I sure hope your last sentences aren't aimed at me - they are way off base if they are! </p>

[jonbrisbin]

<p>Thanks for all the [ah] stimulating [yeah] debate! :)</p>

<p>If I can summarize:</p>

<p>1) Mirrorless <strong>does</strong> save some size and weight (which has been my own experience). However, whether the savings are significant enough to make any difference is completely subjective and simply cannot be applied between two shooters because they'll never agree about how much size and weight is acceptable. Some people still shoot 8x10 LF. I have a Sinar 4x5 and with that camera on the stable tripod, it weighs on the order of 20 pounds. I used to have a 7D with grip and 2 batteries and a Sigma zoom (which weighed more than the camera). Compared to that you can save size and weight with an equivalent setup in mirrorless. My X-T1 with 40-150 weighs considerably less than my previous setup and fits in a ThinkTank Retro 5 bag which the Canon wouldn't even fit into. But the X-T1 with grip, 2 batteries and zoom is not lightweight by any means. Nor is it super easy to handle. So while there are savings to be had, I wouldn't characterize them as huge--although I will say the X-T1 is much easier to carry <em>over a period of time</em> and doesn't require a monopod. But the trade-off I make for all that weight loss is a huge--and I mean <em><strong>gigantic</strong></em>--drop in battery life and the camera gets very hot when shooting out in the sun. The X-T1's battery life, because of the lack of an optical viewfinder, is infinitesimal compared to a DSLR. So yeah, I get less weight in my hand but I make up for the difference in the number of batteries I have to carry to equal the same battery life as a DSLR. Plus carrying lots of batteries and turning the camera off and on all the time is just a hassle. Plus it takes <strong>forever</strong> to charge them and the charger is exorbitantly priced.</p>

<p>2) Mirrorless is competent enough to use as a sports camera in a pinch (again, my own experience backs this up) but the AF, battery life, and heat generation characteristics are so weighted in the DSLR's favor that you simply have to acknowledge that what you give up in weight and size you pay for in those areas.</p>

<p>I love my X-T1. The IQ from the X-Trans sensor and XF lenses is simply stunning. The high ISO is pretty good as well. But as much as I love those parts of it and can rely on it when the other stuff doesn't matter, I'm starting to realize that it's impractical to write off the DSLR entirely.</p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>I was speaking from my own experience, that the M4/3 system that works for <strong>me</strong> is much lighter and it requires much less space than the Nikon equivalent. I have used Nikon equipment for a long time and I can probably say that I own, and have used, an above-average amount of Nikon equipment. Hwvr, I don't deal as much with the technical theories as some of you folks do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Using a m4/3 40-150 f/4 is like shooting at f/8 on FX all the time - I would find that quite limiting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the cheap M4/3 lens I am using now, and I am surprised the occasional wildlife I shot with it is quite impressive (if you like, I can show you a blue heron I shot a few days ago - surprised to see the eyes were sharp even at 150mm (300mm-Nikon FX) - <strong>handheld</strong>. I am sure the f/2.8 version may yield even better results. Hwvr, even the f/2.8 version is not heavy. What's the weight of the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 again? ;-)</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Mary, that's the ticket isn't it.</p>

<p>Most people who buy cameras are not pros. I'm certainly in that camp.</p>

<p>So my Olympus µ43 system takes better photos than my Nikon DX did. Why? Simple. I was leaving the Nikon at home and the Olympus is so small I carry it everywhere.</p>

<p>ymmv, imho, one size doesn't fit all, etc.</p>

<p>If I was a pro, I'd be all over Nikon FX. That'd be totally different.</p>

[chuck]

<p>Interesting, it seems the Nikon 1 system is such a nonentity in the mirrorless world that it wasn't even mentioned once in a thread about mirrorless where the name Nikon popped up a lot.</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Chuck,</p>

<p>Yup. Nikon missed the boat SO much on that product, imho. What I think we wanted was a fuji-like mirrorless offering that would, with an adaptor, work just fine with existing Nikon lenses for DSLRs that was smaller and easier to deal with than DSLRs. Basically everything cool about µ43 with a bigger sensor.</p>

<p>What we got was a system with a sensor that was too small, that had a clunky interface, hard to hold (most of them) and so darn many models it's impossible to figure out.</p>

<p>But... in Nikon's defense, Canon's mirrorless option was maybe even stupider.</p>