Mirror-less vs SLR: the future is on its way...

[Deon Reynolds]

Mirrorless is more compact and lighter in weight, but I'm not switching to a mirrorless because I'm too invested in EF prime lenses. Plus I don't see an image quality or megapixel increase to warrant such a move. I'm shooting with Canon 5Dsr's, I own four of Canon's newest TS-E lenses (tilt-shift) and they are not going to make them anymore. I understand there is an adapter for EF to RF, but why? You're right back to the same size and weight of a DSLR. Canon and Nikon should be able to make better lenses since there is no mirror to get in the way (especially wide). But, so far I'm not seeing anything more than a smaller lens with the same optics inside. It's as if these companies are saying goodbye to the professional market to satisfy the Prosumer market. I get it, there are way more prosumers than professional photographers out there, so they follow the money.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Deon Reynolds

[Ed_Ingold]

Professional photographers have never constituted more than a tiny minority. On the other hand, mirrorless cameras are well-adapted to professional use. EF and Nikon SLR lenses can be used with most of their features, including auto-focus. Most of us have found that convenient when switching over, but not a long-term solution. Lenses designed for mirrorless use perform better than their SLR counterparts. The latter work their way out of the carry bag, into the closet (or eBay).

[paddler4]

Mirrorless is obviously the future, but that in itself is no reason to change gear now. My DSLR gear works exactly as well now as it did when I bought it. At the moment, I would change only to get specific features that I would find useful. At present, there are two: far better AF tracking, and (coincidentally, nothing to do with mirrorless per se) an articulating LCD. Not enough to make me spring for it yet.

I have been reading reviews of how well EF lenses work on mirrorless bodies with an adapter. The reviews are inconsistent, but taken together, they seem to suggest "pretty well, but not as well as native RF lenses in the case of difficult AF tracking situations".

Given my age, I'm thinking more and more about switching to lighter gear, but if you actually do the arithmetic, you don't save all that much weight by switching to FF mirrorless, once you add in the lenses and accessories. Substantial decreases in weight at this point seem to require a smaller sensor, as well as lenses designed for the smaller image circle.

[Rick Helmke]

This has been an interesting discussion but still hasn’t answered my basic question: what can you do with mirrorless that you can’t do with a good quality dslr? My answer is nothing. Autofocus? I learned how shoot college and pro level sports with an F2 so I had to learn how to focus all by myself. I still can and often do. The D1 and 2 series bodies were so easy to fool that I had to turn it off to get images in sharp focus. You can’t miss a big play or the couple kissing at the wedding because your camera was so busy playing with itself it never actually recorded an image. Maybe it’s the old tired bastard in me talking but if you never learn to do it all in manual mode then when auto whatever fails, and it will, you’re screwed. I’ve got a photo of Charles Barkley playing in his college days. Notably, he still had hair. Good sharp image shot on pushed Tri X with an F2 and a 135/2.8 focused with my right eye and left hand. When anyone here gets good enough to do that without thinking about it first, you’re nearly at pro level. How about a challenge: everyone go shoot an image using a basic light meter and no other automation at all. Manual focus. It must be an action shot, maybe sports or some other motion rich environment. To make it more interesting it all has to be in b&w, no color. As an option, I dare you to use film. Email only one image to me at f2shooter@hotmail.com and send by noon on New Years Eve. I’ll put as many as I can on a new thread without crediting the photographer. Everyone looks through all of it and gives me your five favorite. Notice I didn’t say your five best but favorite. There’s a world of difference. On say Jan 15 I’ll put the photographers name on each image.  No fair voting for yourself! Anyone up for it? 
 

Rick H.

[Ed_Ingold]

2 hours ago, Rick Helmke said:

This has been an interesting discussion but still hasn’t answered my basic question: what can you do with mirrorless that you can’t do with a good quality dslr? My

• Silent (electronic) Shutter
• Use nearly any SLR or rangefinder lens, at least in manual mode
• Track auto focus to the edges of the FOV, even beyond (a Sony will remember patterns if they are only off-screen momentarily, or obscured temporarily) AF sensors have over 90% coverage of the FOV
• Precise manual focusing in nearly any level of light (through focus magnification, peaking, etc)
• Intelligent auto-exposure. Sony offers face-priority, which is a boon for candid photos and video.
• 100% WYSWYG electronic finder
• Many levels of shooting data available in the viewfinder (or none)
• High-speed stills, up to 30 fps
• Eye-level video with finder, internal recording without special setup, or more useful, via an HDMI connection to an external recorder)

The list can go on. However, the first two items sold me on mirrorless, after 50+ years of film, Leica and SLR use.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Ed_Ingold

[Robin Smith]

The thing I find the best in my mirrorless is the superb in body IS aided by the full electronic shutter (no vibration). This is quite miraculous even compared to the lens-based IS of my DSLR. The things that Ed mentions are indeed nice to have, but to my mind not essential for most photography if your experience of photography stretches back to film and you have a fairly recent DSLR. I also like the much smaller footprint, but in my case this is largely because I have opted for a smaller format.

[antonroland]

On 11/28/2022 at 5:47 AM, Rick Helmke said:

I’m staying with dslr technology because I see no reason to change. There’s no real tech reason I can find, sure mirrorless is shiny and new but on a day to day basis what can it offer that is worth having that I don’t already have? Electronic viewfinders, so what.? Fewer moving parts? Again so what? A decent dslr can makes thousands of exposures with no problem. For that matter most of my film slr  bodies can and have done the same. The mirrorless bodies and all the lenses needed to go with it are stupid expensive and selling off the old stuff is losing a lot more. As far as I can see the manufacturers just needed to make something different so people will run out and buy it because they aren’t replacing current equipment with new every two or three years. 
 

Rick H.

I SO agree with all the points you raise! 
 

I recently played briefly with one of the lower end/older EOS R bodies and to say that I am ABSOLUTELY unimpressed is probably a huge understatement. Sure, the upper end models probably have very advanced gadgetry but the look and feel is that of a kiddies party pack toy.

For my needs I will stick with D-SLR indefinitely. I mean up to recently I still shot my EOS 1Ds MkII very happily and she was running on her third shutter…

Let the next guy keep up with the Jones’ family🤪