Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera

[Dylan777]

Lack of lens Selection.
Lack of a Mature Flash system.
Lack of Ergonomics for Long Handheld use.
Laggy EVF in Low Light.
Slow AF.
Crap Battery Life.
Crap Sync Speed (A7R)
No PC sync port.

Despite all the above, I still want Fuji 35mm sensor with same body style as x100s.

 

[Aglet]

granted we have different uses for our gear but I can not agree with many of your points, I've rebutted within the quote re my experience with Fuji, Olympus and Pentax.

Lack of lens Selection. - MFT system has a lot of great glass covering UWA to long zoom, Fuji X has the UWA to medium tele covered with long tele coming. The real limitation is MFT ultimate resolution is lower.

Lack of a Mature Flash system. - I'm not familiar with the Oly yet, I think it has some pretty decent capabilities, but Fuji X system flash is definitely weak. Pentax ML work with existing Pentax kit which is decent, but not extensive

Lack of Ergonomics for Long Handheld use. - definitely not. Every ML body I've got or used has a very comfy, if optional, grip available. E-M1 feels custom made for me even w-o the grip so this is, if anything, subjective.

Laggy EVF in Low Light. - last year, probably. newer systems, not really. Some gain-up very well in low light and maintain decent frame rates, like Fuji XT1 & XE2. I find they're quite easy to get used to using and compensating for any slight lag.

Slow AF - compared to what? Top line sports-oriented DSLRS?... then yes. good current ML systems AF speed is comparable to consumer/prosumer SLR, i.e., fast enough for most things, most users, and the accuracy is often very high.

Crap Battery Life. - will give you that one, most ML bodies w EVF do have some energy management options you can set that improve battery life by turning displays off if you've not got your mug up to them. But nowhere near the battery life of an efficient SLR - then again, ML's are still mostly handicapped by compact body forms and tiny batteries rather than the larger capacity batteries used in prosumer + SLRs. This could easily change with design alteration with present tech.

Crap Sync Speed (A7R) - ya, some could be faster, so could some SLRs too. -

No PC sync port. - it's right there on my Fuji XT1, and a simple and cheap hot-shoe adapter for everything else.

Viva la MILC! ;D

 

[DesignJinni]

I believe ML have really changed how we look at cameras especially with Fuji XT-1 and the native lens which they have and will have soon. Just to be clear ML are not targeted towards sports. But most of us amateurs it should be a very good option to consider and it does complement if one already owns DSLR + lenses
Here is a very good comparison Fuji APSC vs 5D3 Full frame
http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/

Here is what Fstoppers have to say: https://fstoppers.com/gear/new-fuji-your-dslr-will-love-hate-9450

There are many professionals who have made the switch because it suits their style of work. Is it for everyone, NO. But it can suit the style of many amateurs photographer and professionals too. Just YouTube and google and you will be able to find many stories related to these.

Some Switch Stories:
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/10/25/switch-from-dslr-to-mirrorless-camera/
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/09/27/10-awesome-professional-photographers-who-use-fuji-x-cameras-for-work/
http://www.bestmirrorlesscamerareviews.com/2013/08/23/13-amazing-professional-photographers-who-use-mirrorless-cameras-on-the-job/

Zack Arias: Sensor Size – Crop Or Crap? Thoughts on Fuji Mirrorless with sensor size debate..
http://photographylife.com/zack-arias-full-frame-vs-aps-c-debate

 

[Ivan Muller]

I would imagine that pro wedding photographers have other priorities than megapixels. /they also have to buy a backup camera of similar quality. I would imagine good AF - fast and many 'outer' AF points, also in low light, high flash syncro, good high iso quality, and dynamic range would be higher on the priority list. Perhaps why 5d3 is popular (if it indeed is) I do my share of weddings but i am not a pro wedding photographer, but rather a 'pro' commercial, architecture, portraits etc. Here my 6d has just been perfect. I need and want higher megapixels for my personal photography and for the odd client where I print to size Ao.

 

[RLPhoto]

granted we have different uses for our gear but I can not agree with many of your points, I've rebutted within the quote re my experience with Fuji, Olympus and Pentax.

Lack of lens Selection. - MFT system has a lot of great glass covering UWA to long zoom, Fuji X has the UWA to medium tele covered with long tele coming. The real limitation is MFT ultimate resolution is lower.

Lack of a Mature Flash system. - I'm not familiar with the Oly yet, I think it has some pretty decent capabilities, but Fuji X system flash is definitely weak. Pentax ML work with existing Pentax kit which is decent, but not extensive

Lack of Ergonomics for Long Handheld use. - definitely not. Every ML body I've got or used has a very comfy, if optional, grip available. E-M1 feels custom made for me even w-o the grip so this is, if anything, subjective.

Laggy EVF in Low Light. - last year, probably. newer systems, not really. Some gain-up very well in low light and maintain decent frame rates, like Fuji XT1 & XE2. I find they're quite easy to get used to using and compensating for any slight lag.

Slow AF - compared to what? Top line sports-oriented DSLRS?... then yes. good current ML systems AF speed is comparable to consumer/prosumer SLR, i.e., fast enough for most things, most users, and the accuracy is often very high.

Crap Battery Life. - will give you that one, most ML bodies w EVF do have some energy management options you can set that improve battery life by turning displays off if you've not got your mug up to them. But nowhere near the battery life of an efficient SLR - then again, ML's are still mostly handicapped by compact body forms and tiny batteries rather than the larger capacity batteries used in prosumer + SLRs. This could easily change with design alteration with present tech.

Crap Sync Speed (A7R) - ya, some could be faster, so could some SLRs too. -

No PC sync port. - it's right there on my Fuji XT1, and a simple and cheap hot-shoe adapter for everything else.

Viva la MILC! ;D

You must be crazy to think ML cams are ready for prime time wedding shooters. Those reasons are perfectly valid as to why 99% of the wedding industry sticks with DSLRs.

Plus we are not talking fuji, we are talking sony. Even with fuji, a lot of that applies. Where am I going to get a 24mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2, 85 mm 1.2, and on a body comfortable enough to handhold a 70-200II with a big flash all day long? Then when I try to use it in a candle lit reception see the AF and EVF flounder about try to get focus and when it does I can't take the shot because the battery died.

No aglet, ML is not ready for mass adoption for weddings.

 

[Aglet]

I do not disagree. In most types of challenging conditions I have more confidence in SLR AF for getting the shot too. In some others, the ML can actually do better.
A fast-paced and chaotic wedding is not the best place for a 'tog with slow gear. Altho if you're old enough to have shot film and manual focus lenses, you might have to concede that today's ML can actually outperform most of those in most situations. Last wedding I shot was a few years ago and slow enough of a pace that I didn't have to run very often and today's ML systems would have handled the whole day just fine.
So ML is not likely to be adopted en masse for wedding work just yet, not when SLRs are available and adequate and their users are more comfortable with them, but MLs are capable of delivering satisfactory results. Some pro's are actually trying Fujis and other ML for weddings and doing OK with the change.
.
They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>
I also don't have any need for the absolute biggest and brightest lenses as that super shallow DoF is not always desireable.
But BIGGER is usually more impressive to a north american audience.

 

[RLPhoto]

I do not disagree. In most types of challenging conditions I have more confidence in SLR AF for getting the shot too. In some others, the ML can actually do better.
A fast-paced and chaotic wedding is not the best place for a 'tog with slow gear. Altho if you're old enough to have shot film and manual focus lenses, you might have to concede that today's ML can actually outperform most of those in most situations. Last wedding I shot was a few years ago and slow enough of a pace that I didn't have to run very often and today's ML systems would have handled the whole day just fine.
So ML is not likely to be adopted en masse for wedding work just yet, not when SLRs are available and adequate and their users are more comfortable with them, but MLs are capable of delivering satisfactory results. Some pro's are actually trying Fujis and other ML for weddings and doing OK with the change.
.
They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>
I also don't have any need for the absolute biggest and brightest lenses as that super shallow DoF is not always desireable.
But BIGGER is usually more impressive to a north american audience.

People shoot weddings with leicas, sonys, Panasonics, Iphones etc... but the DSLR will continue to be king until ML can overcome those issues. I'm a fan of reading old film photography books that can be had for less than a coke and One I read on film weddings was they used to pack Big huge Speedotron strobes to use as room lights, shoot 400/800 ISO film and F/8 to get the best focus in manual focus. They used MF for outdoor weddings to get fill flash at higher sync speed and for formals.

However, times have changed and the shallow DOF look is in demand, speed is in demand, and flash is in demand and no flash is in demand especially. I could add a Fuji X100s for its sync speed on certain photos but It would be harder to shoot a whole day with it.

ML isn't there yet, give it another generation cycle, New Speedlites, and A stack of new hyper primes/zooms then we'll might see it catch on. (Which by the time it does, it will be just as heavy as our DSLR's anyway. So what was the point?)

 

[Woody]

They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>

After I surveyed the weight/price of certain mirrorless lenses such as the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS and Fujifilm 50-140 f/2.8, I decided I'll stick to passe SLR technology. These lenses are not any lighter than Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS.

 

[tomscott]

They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>

After I surveyed the weight/price of certain mirrorless lenses such as the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS and Fujifilm 50-140 f/2.8, I decided I'll stick to passe SLR technology. These lenses are not any lighter than Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS.

The sony 70-200mm G doesn't perform as well either and is more expensive.

 

[Dylan777]

They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>

After I surveyed the weight/price of certain mirrorless lenses such as the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS and Fujifilm 50-140 f/2.8, I decided I'll stick to passe SLR technology. These lenses are not any lighter than Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS.

I spent some $$$ renting many sony/zeiss lenses to test with my a7r. The ONLY lens that I feel has best fit is FE 35mm. The next best is FE 55mm.

I'm thinking selling my a7r and replace with a7s. Hope they will release some UWA prime to match with A7 series thin bodies.

 

[EOS AE1]

The normal customer out there is better served with a smaller m43 camera.
Especially when compared to Canon Rebels.

The Rebels offer not much better image quality but they are bigger and lenses are often more expensive.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

They're also a lot lighter, so could be easier to carry around all day as a few extra batteries they need don't weight all that much either. :>

After I surveyed the weight/price of certain mirrorless lenses such as the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS and Fujifilm 50-140 f/2.8, I decided I'll stick to passe SLR technology. These lenses are not any lighter than Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS.

Just because you change the body, whatever technology that body uses to capture the image, the physics of the lens optics doesn't change. (At least given the materials we are currently using: glass, plastic, metal, etc.)

 

[RustyTheGeek]

I gotta say that I'm with RLPhoto on this. I just received the EOS M and while it's nice, it's honestly more of a toy than a useful tool. My S95 is even easier to use. Definitely my SL1 is easier to use. In other words, there are other options that simply work better. Granted the EOS M, while not junk, is not as well done as the Sony (et al) ML offerings but it's still a very convoluted and limited market.

If ML ever becomes as prolific and adoptable as the SLR, that is still many years away. For many of the reasons RLPhoto already mentioned. Just making a camera smaller/lighter with decent IQ does not make it a camera to rely on for universal professional use. There is so much more to the equation not the least of which is trust in the company that stands behind it for years/decades to come.