Mirrorless or DSLR for (re)starting out?

[gary evans]

Fell in love with photography back in like 2003, had a few photos published, learned a lot and took tens of thousands of photos of my kids when they were young. After my wife passed away, I was left a single parent of 3 kids 5 and under and just didn't have time to shoot any longer.

 

I was using a Nikon D200 at the time. Had a handful of lenses, some crappy G lenses, some mid-levels and a couple of really good ones.

 

I opted to sell everything in 2010 since I didn't know if I would ever shoot seriously again.

 

Well, catching the desire to now that the kids are older and mostly independent. My youngest is 14 now and has a expressed a desire to learn about photography, so I was considering getting back in to it again.

 

But man, the game has changed.

 

I recognize that the world is moving towards mirrorless, even read a few comments here with the opinion that the last DSLR's have been released already.

 

At first I was thinking I should stick with whatever NIkon's modern day equivalent to the D200 prosumer model was (D7500...?). Then I kind of teetered over to thinking I should just go ahead and jump in with the obvious long term winner and figured maybe the Canon R6 was the way to go.

 

But then I started looking at prices of glass for the Z/R mounts and holy crap!!! Seemingly $2500 at the minimum for any zoom that is faster than f/5.6 on the short end. Primes are a little more reasonable, but not by much - where's the bargain 50mm f/1.8?

 

What I loved about the D200 was that it had some heft and felt great in the hand, compared to like the D70/D65, or whatever the consumer models were 10-15 years ago. Plus, the magnesium alloy body felt so solid.

 

I mostly want to shoot landscape stuff along with personal portraits and some general photography. I guess I'd go ahead and use a mirrorless as a camcorder for home movies if I went mirrorless, but that's not all that important to me.

 

So should I go with mirrorless and one 24-70 f/4 type of lens to start? Since any body I buy will likely be obsolete within 5-10 years, should I go with a DSLR and the more reasonable glass and let the people that have to have the latest and greatest pay the R&D premiums on the Z/R glass? And then just update to mirrorless when I'm ready and use the adapter to use DSLR lenses on mirrorless body? Or should I buy mirrorless body now to get the more up-to-date censors and processing power and use DSLR glass and adapters off the bat?

 

Budget is around $4k give or take. I'd like to have a body, tripod, speedlight for family photos, remote release, vertical grip would be a nice bonus but not necessary, though I do want the camera to take one, and some glass.

 

Recommendations?

[Karim Ghantous]

The short answer: I always recommend mirrorless as they are better at everything.

 

Mirrorless gives you true WYSIWYG, it gives you compatibility with more lenses (for the most part), and it offers superior AF if you want it, including object tracking. Eventually every mirrorless camera will have an electronic shutter only. That's progress.

 

The D200 would still be useful today, at least for your son. Nothing wrong with it. I used to own one. I believe it had a CCD, which at the time produced nicer results than some CMOS sensors.

 

Mirrorless lets you build a bigger camera if you want, but a DSLR can't get any smaller than it is. One of my cameras is an Olympus E-M5 II. I have a battery grip for it, but I haven't really used it. It might be handy for events where I don't necessarily need the smallest camera body. I also have an E-M1 II. Plus several lenses.

 

In addition to that I have a couple of old Sony NEX bodies. On those I use manual focus lenses (there are reasons I won't get into here).

 

So. What system? It's up to you. I really like Olympus. Some would say Fuji X series, as APS-C is seen as the 'sweet spot' in terms of size, quality, speed, price. Personally I love the Micro 4/3 system because the super telephotos are small. Compare a Sony 600/4 with an Olympus 300/4. Never mind the Olympus 150-400/4.5.

 

Of course, there is a point where a sensor can get too small. For me, that barrier is anything below the 1" sensor. But Micro 4/3 is my pick.

 

I don't need outright image quality, but if I did I would buy a Fujifilm GFX system. 36mm systems like the Nikon Z or Leica SL or Sony A7 are great and all that. But they offer no advantages to the GFX system, or the Hasselblad X system, as far as image quality goes. Even the 'low end' 50Mpx sensor, made by Sony, in the Fuji/Hasselblad is superior to the Sony A7 IV and even the Sony A1. Not in terms of speed, but it terms of image quality.

 

Finally, dedicated lenses for your chosen system aren't necessarily going to be expensive. One of the bargains in the Micro 4/3 system is the 75-300 zoom. It's made in Japan and yet it's very affordable. I'd pay more for it, but just don't tell Olympus I said that.

 

You can build a serious kit for less than your budget of $4K. Needless to say, it just depends on how much you want to spend on the lenses vs the bodies. IMHO, it's better to have two superseded bodies than a single new generation body. Worth a thought.

 

Feel free to ask more questions if you like. Others will soon be contributing their perspectives, too.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Recommendations?

Buy used. Buy older models - though personally I would stay away from 1st and 2nd generation Sony A7 bodies on account of their small batteries. I recommend mirrorless over DSLR - simply because you can build a lens system that'll last instead of putting money into one that's on its way out. Given your interests, I'd go with a Sony A7R3 and the 24-105/4 lens. Or consider the Tamron set consisting of 17-28/2.8, 28-75/2.8, and 70-180/2.8 (though that's likely beyond your budget's limit). Nikon mirrorless currently doesn't have much in terms of third party lenses - so you are stuck with what Nikon offers. A Z7 with 14-30/4 and either the 24-70/4 or the new 24-120/4 might be an option. Their 24-200 lens gets quite a lot of praise too. I am not recommending Fuji or Canon simply because I have no experience with their systems.

[AJG]

I'm a happy enough Pentax DSLR user, but if I were starting from nothing I would probably go with mirrorless from someone--Sony, Nikon or Canon in random order, depending on how you feel about the handling of the bodies of the different systems. There really aren't any terrible new DSLR or mirrorless cameras out there, only good ones and better ones. One thing that may influence your lens buying decisions is how much better newer cameras are at high ISO settings than your Nikon D 200 was. Unless you have to have extremely shallow depth of field slower lenses on a mirrorless can work well while weighing and costing less and not losing image quality.

[Gary Naka]

If I were starting fresh, I would go mirrorless.

BUT . . . there always are buts.

• 3rd party lenses.
  
  • Sony has 3rd party lenses.
     
    
  • Nikon and Canon mirrorless do not have 3rd party lenses. So you have to pay premium OEM prices.
    
  • Nikon and Canon dSLRs have 3rd party lenses.
    

  [*]Lens system

  • Sony has a fleshed out lens systems.
     
    
  • Nikon and Canon are still building their mirrorless lens system, and do not yet have all the lenses that they have in their dSLR line (such as the 70-200/4). So, for those lenses, you have to use dSLR lenses via an adapter.
    
  • Nikon and Canon dSLRs have a decent APS-C and nice FF lens systems.
    
  • Canon APS-C mirrorless cameras CANNOT use the FF mirrorless lenses, because the lens mount is different. Whereas the APS-C dSLR can use FF dSLR lenses, because the lens mount is the same.
    

  [*]During this shift to mirrorless, you can find some GREAT deals on dSLR cameras and lenses, as those owners move to mirrorless.

  [*]While Nikon and Canon may not make any new dSLR models, there still is support for the dSLRs, and lots of lenses from the OEMs and 3rd party mfg.

  [*]Check the weight specs. I think the mirrorless cameras may be LIGHTER than your D200. So you may loose "heft."

  • The Nikon Z50,Z6, and Z7 are all lighter than my D7200.
    

  [*]Depending on what and how you shoot, a mirrorless may not buy you much more functionality than a dSLR.

  • I LOVE the Electronic Viewfinder, for use in difficult lighting conditions. I can see and adjust my exposure in real time. That is MUCH easier than shooting a dSLR.
    

  [*]Mirrorless SUCKS battery power.

  • The battery in my D7200 will go all weekend on a single charge. I only use ONE battery.
     
    
  • The battery in my Olympus EM1-mk2 will only last about 3 hours (continuous). :eek: I have and use FOUR batteries.
     
    
    • Variable: Some lenses suck more power than others.
      

    [*]The "power ON" time seems to be more relevant for battery life on a mirrorless. Whereas on a dSLR it is shutter actuation.

    [*]I do not know what the battery life is on the Sony, Nikon and Canon mirrorless.

As for lens.

• For FF, I would personally go with a Canon/Sony 24-105/4 or Nikon 24-120/4 as my GP lens. I prefer the longer zoom range, over the 24-70.
   
  
• For APS-C, I would go with a Canon 18-135 or Nikon 18-140, as my GP lens.
  

 

Gud Luk

[BeBu Lamar]

The answer is simple.

1. If you want to go with the crowd then mirrorless it is as I don't think there will be new DSLR introduced.

2. Look thru the viewfinder of each. Try to manually focus with each. Which one do you like? The mirrorless has all the advantages over the DSLR in my opinion. Battery life is generally not as good but they fixed it now and the problem will be moot in the future. For me everything is better with the mirrorless except the EVF. I do not want the EVF so I stick with the DSLR but if you like the EVF it's all good. They said the DSLR has shutter and mirror to protect the sensor when you remove the lens but that is taken care of with new version of the mirrorless.

[SCL]

I struggled with this issue a couple of years ago. I ended up keeping my Nikon D300 (and older film bodies), but jumped into mirrorless M4/3 used to see how I liked the results. I was won over, partly because buying used was really inexpensive, results were excellent, and I could use all of my vintage lenses (manual focus), in addition to the couple of new AF ones. Earlier this year I went full frame mirrorless with a Sony A7Rii, and again my old gear languishes. I'd encourage you to go with used mirrorless gear, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. New stuff is too costly...save those bucks for your kids!

[conrad_hoffman]

I sold my D200 and almost all my Nikkor lenses collected over about 50 years of photography. I loved the D200 but the sensor noise was way higher than modern cameras. IMO, for almost everything you can just crank up the ISO on a Z6 and be perfectly happy with slightly slower lenses. I find the kit lens of 24-70 f/4, plus the 14-30 f/4 wide angle, plus the 105 f/2.8 macro does everything I need. Stick with the S-series if possible. I'm not a long lens user but if the need arises you can get an inexpensive longer manual lens and use it with an adapter, in my case a 300 f/4.5 IF ED AiS. The bird people couldn't live with it, but I'm not a bird guy. Some people work in dim light or need very high shutter speeds, so they just have to pay the higher price for faster lenses. For me it would just be bragging rights, not a meaningful improvement.

 

This will probably be my kit to the end of my days, with maybe a body upgrade or spare at some point, depending on where Nikon goes and what deals are available used. So far the results have been better than I've ever had and it was no mistake selling everything else off to afford a complete (to me) system.

[Niels - NHSN]

My first digital mirrorless camera (Lumix GH1) served me well over 10 years, and could have continued to do so had it not been for an attractive trade-in discount i got when I upgraded to a Nikon Z6ii. I upgraded primarily to facilitate film scanning and to have a full frame platform for my film camera lenses.

If you buy wisely, I don't see why a current camera wouldn't last much longer than 10 years.

Also forget about what you thought you knew about lenses. Those Nikon S lenses, like the 24-70/4, are exceptional already from wide open, and with the much improved ISO sensitivity it doesn't really matter if it is 1:2.8 or 1:4.0. If your only reference is the D200 you are in for a pleasant surprise.

A 24-70/4S may be all you need, but the recently introduced 40/2 is reasonably priced and would offer more subject separation if you so desire and could be a nice supplement.

The Nikon Z5, Z6 are probably where you can save if needed. I personally have more than enough pixels with 24MP.

 

If you were comfortable with Nikon, I personally wouldn't change. I much prefer the way Nikon thinks in terms of user interface than Panasonic, Olympus or Sony (just mentioning those I have tried).