Mirrorless vs. DSLR

[rigrx]

Hey guys!

What do you think is better? I found a few articles about this topic which are very interesting:

https://photographylife.com/mirrorless-vs-dslr
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/mirrorless-vs-dslr.htm
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5479&news=migration+to+mirrorless+ditching+the+DSLR+Olympus+Sony+Fuji
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/dslr-vs-mirrorless-cameras,news-17736.html

They all listed other benefits and advantages of these cameras. So... what is your opinion to this? Which is better? What do you like more? Will DSLRs die?

Tell me what you are thinking!

 

[Loswr]

The dSLR is already dead, six years ago there was a prediction that the rise mirrorless meant the end of the dSLR in five years. I guess I missed the funeral.

Mirrorless still represents only a small fraction of ILC sales, that doesn't seem to be changing appreciably. Small is nice, I have an M for that. But fast zoom lenses are big, mitigating the benefits of a small body. Tracking focus is still better with a dedicated phase AF sensor.

The dSLR is here to stay...for a while, at least.

 

[3kramd5]

So... what is your opinion to this? Which is better? Will DSLRs die?

Currently, I prefer optical view finders to electronic. As processing power increases, I presume they will eventually be (mostly) indistinguishable from a lag perspective. At the point, EVF will have some significant advantages, including what information it can be programmed to display, accurate DOF, etc.. OVF will still have the power advantage (notwithstanding the overlays, it doesn't always need to be on during use).

Currently, I prefer dedicated phase detect AF sensors. Contrast detection done on sensor is slow, hybrid is little better. I haven't yet used a DPAF camera, so I don't know how they feel (though I believe they'd need to be quad rather than dual to do phase in multiple directions).

Will SLRs die? Probably not. Will they become niche like 35mm film? Probably, but not in the near term.

 

[RLPhoto]

I mean if you get rid of the mirror and add fast 2.8 zooms or big f/1.2 primes with USM AF, they are huge and heavy. It's kinda moot that you go rid of the mirror and lost the advantages of keeping it in. Mirror less makes sense with smaller sensored cameras and slow lenses, but then again, why not just use slower smaller lighter lenses on a mirrored camera? I don't see mirrorless taking over the dslr anytime soon for speed.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

What do you think is better?

For photographers who prefer mirrorless, the mirrorless cameras are the best for them
For photographers who prefer DSLRs, the DSLR cameras are the best for them.

Why does one have to be better than the other?

 

[sdsr]

I guess dslrs will eventually die out - technology tends to become obsolete, after all - but there's no sign they're doing so yet despite the endless predictions on mirrorless sites. As for whether mirrorless cameras deserve to make them obsolete now because of the inherent advantages of mirrorless (which is probably what such commentators mean to say), it's a matter of preference whether the benefits of mirrorless are in fact an advantage to anyone. My preference is for mirrorless because, among other things, I prefer EVFs, like using old MF lenses (MF is easier on mirrorless cameras than any other sort, and getting exposure right is easier with EVFs) and, when I do use AF don't want to have to even think about AFMA issues; plus, they tend to be smaller, which is nice when you're able to use smaller lenses. Given the state of current technology, if I routinely photographed birds flying around, fast-moving sports, etc., my preference would probably be dslrs (I still own a couple), though evidently more than a few people manage those things with mirrorless cameras. Are there enough such people to influence the market one way or another? I don't know (though I hope the interest in old manual lenses remains small enough to stop prices increasing too much!).

All that said, I have no idea to what extent camera-buying decisions are based on such considerations or something else entirely ("I want one that's white" "I'll buy a Nikon because I like Ashton Kutcher" etc.). And if phone cameras keep getting better any sort of pure camera may end up being a niche product of interest to only a tiny minority, in which case the whole inquiry may become moot....

 

[dak723]

I have both a DSLR and a Mirrorless. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. That's about the extent of it.

 

[mackguyver]

I have both a DSLR and a Mirrorless. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. That's about the extent of it.

+1, and I get really tired of hearing that we're all idiots for shooting with DSLRs. If you notice, they are almost all written by street shooters or others whose needs are fully addressed by mirrorless cameras. Until mirrorless cameras and their lenses can match the 1D X and L lenses I use for wildlife and sports photography, I wish they would just shut their mouths. And, just because you can make a camera smaller doesn't mean it needs to be smaller.

I own both and enjoy using both, but they certainly have their own niches. Someday that won't be the case, but I think that's several years or more away. Samsung is really pushing the limits of mirrorless right now and I think they're the ones to watch.

 

[PureClassA]

I have both a DSLR and a Mirrorless. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. That's about the extent of it.

+1, and I get really tired of hearing that we're all idiots for shooting with DSLRs. If you notice, they are almost all written by street shooters or others whose needs are fully addressed by mirrorless cameras. Until mirrorless cameras and their lenses can match the 1D X and L lenses I use for wildlife and sports photography, I wish they would just shut their mouths. And, just because you can make a camera smaller doesn't mean it needs to be smaller.

I own both and enjoy using both, but they certainly have their own niches. Someday that won't be the case, but I think that's several years or more away. Samsung is really pushing the limits of mirrorless right now and I think they're the ones to watch.

Screw that. Mirrorless Cameras are old news. I have this razor thin camera made by Apple you dont even have to change the lenses on because it zooms digitally and has an led flashlight too! It stores images right ON the internal SSD so I dont even require a card! Best part is it also lets me load the pictures straight up to facebook because it has built in wifi, LTE, AND a damned PHONE !! Haha!! Mirrorless is for old people!! Get the Apple 6 Camera!

 

[mackguyver]

I have both a DSLR and a Mirrorless. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. That's about the extent of it.

+1, and I get really tired of hearing that we're all idiots for shooting with DSLRs. If you notice, they are almost all written by street shooters or others whose needs are fully addressed by mirrorless cameras. Until mirrorless cameras and their lenses can match the 1D X and L lenses I use for wildlife and sports photography, I wish they would just shut their mouths. And, just because you can make a camera smaller doesn't mean it needs to be smaller.

I own both and enjoy using both, but they certainly have their own niches. Someday that won't be the case, but I think that's several years or more away. Samsung is really pushing the limits of mirrorless right now and I think they're the ones to watch.

Screw that. Mirrorless Cameras are old news. I have this razor thin camera made by Apple you dont even have to change the lenses on because it zooms digitally and has an led flashlight too! It stores images right ON the internal SSD so I dont even require a card! Best part is it also lets me load the pictures straight up to facebook because it has built in wifi, LTE, AND a damned PHONE !! Haha!! Mirrorless is for old people!! Get the Apple 6 Camera!

LOL - Nice one!

 

[Marsu42]

What do you think is better?

On some forums like doom9, you get banned for asking the "better" question ... so the real question would be: what's more adequate for what you want to achieve given the *current* mirrored or mirrorless cameras on the market.

The answer in this forum will be clear, as it's the stronghold of old-school enthusiast dslr shooters (nothing wrong with that, mind you!). If people want gadget or bleeding edge, they probably don't go Canon and don't participate here.

The interesting timeline prediction is when mirroless will outclass mirrored for what purpose, and of course when there will be electronic viewfinders around that satisfy people being used to the optic version. Killer features available only on mirrorless will pave the way, but as the eos m shows there's not enough there yet.

As dslrs continue to sell at high prices, it'll be rather later than sooner. But with the film being replaced with a sensor that can see the image all the time, the main reason for the legacy mirror construction and duplication of functions (af, metering) is gone for good.

 

[canon1dxman]

[/quote]

Screw that. Mirrorless Cameras are old news. I have this razor thin camera made by Apple you dont even have to change the lenses on because it zooms digitally and has an led flashlight too! It stores images right ON the internal SSD so I dont even require a card! Best part is it also lets me load the pictures straight up to facebook because it has built in wifi, LTE, AND a damned PHONE !! Haha!! Mirrorless is for old people!! Get the Apple 6 Camera!
[/quote]

+1

I have a 1DX ad 7D2 but the iPhone 6 has produced some cracking pics.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'm all for a mirrorless version of my 5D MK III that retains fast phase detect AF and a optical viewfinder. But that's physically impractical to implement, since the viewfinder relies on a mirror.

Canon, and the apparent majority of consumers are wanting smaller cameras that produce high quality images. As a contradiction to this, polls of consumers show that most believe that the big DSLR's are professional and will produce higher quality images. They also do not understand that lenses do not get smaller just because you reduce the size of the body.

Manufacturers are increasing the high end Consumer cameras to 1 inch sensors, and pushing out more full frame models. APS-C sensors remain the big profit centers, but Cameras like the 5D MK III turn in a huge profit for Canon, far more than the expected before the 5D MK II came out.

I'd be in line to buy a Canon FF body with mirrorless if it retained the size and performance of my 5D MK III, or even that of the 6D.

 

[docsmith]

I mean if you get rid of the mirror and add fast 2.8 zooms or big f/1.2 primes with USM AF, they are huge and heavy. It's kinda moot that you go rid of the mirror and lost the advantages of keeping it in. Mirror less makes sense with smaller sensored cameras and slow lenses, but then again, why not just use slower smaller lighter lenses on a mirrored camera? I don't see mirrorless taking over the dslr anytime soon for speed.

Exactly. Plus, I like my OVF. Get to the point where an EVF is better than an OVF and then lets talk.

I own a 5DIII, 7D, and EOS-M. I really enjoy the size of the 5DIII. I use it >99% of the time. I take the EOS-M when I want something small or light. But, even then, sometimes it isn't even small enough. I am thinking of getting a S120, or something....the biggest advantage of the EOS-M I see is that it can be a backup camera to my 5DIII when traveling.

 

[Aglet]

I have both a DSLR and a Mirrorless. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. That's about the extent of it.

+1, and I get really tired of hearing that we're all idiots for shooting with DSLRs. If you notice, they are almost all written by street shooters or others whose needs are fully addressed by mirrorless cameras. Until mirrorless cameras and their lenses can match the 1D X and L lenses I use for wildlife and sports photography, I wish they would just shut their mouths. And, just because you can make a camera smaller doesn't mean it needs to be smaller.

I own both and enjoy using both, but they certainly have their own niches. Someday that won't be the case, but I think that's several years or more away. Samsung is really pushing the limits of mirrorless right now and I think they're the ones to watch.

ditto, I now use both about equally but for different purposes and I like each of them for the benefits they can provide.
However, as many MILCs as I have, it's the ones with EVFs that get the most use.

Today's EVFs are good enough for most typical shooting. Complaints about using big lenses are just nitch-pickin,' Keep an SLR around.

 

[preppyak]

And, just because you can make a camera smaller doesn't mean it needs to be smaller.

Yep, and with heavy/large lenses, the camera body being small is actually an impediment. Good luck using something as big as the 70-200 on a mirrorless body and not having your hands cramp up after 2 minutes.

When I shoot action sports in the field (meaning I had to take the camera with me on the water, etc)...then I take my smallest kit and accept its limitations (slower AF, slower apertures, <fps). Otherwise, I want the most that I can get out of it, so, no reason to limit myself with what mirrorless currently is.

I am excited for the point where mirrorless AF is fast enough at the entry camera level that I can use it. Would love something as small as the Sony Axxxx line that performed like a Canon xxD does now

 

[Marsu42]

And, just because you can make a camera smaller doesn't mean it needs to be smaller.

Yep, and with heavy/large lenses, the camera body being small is actually an impediment. Good luck using something as big as the 70-200 on a mirrorless body and not having your hands cramp up after 2 minutes.

I'm amazed manufacturers' marketing people have managed to tie size/weight to "expensive": For the old film eos systems like 620/r5/..., there were inexpensive, exchangeable grips for larger hand sizes. And heck, if your camera is too light to stabilize your lens Canon might offer some lead weights you can attach to the camera body

Arguing against mirrorless with this is like saying cars with smaller motors won't work because no more than two people can fit into them

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

And, just because you can make a camera smaller doesn't mean it needs to be smaller.

Yep, and with heavy/large lenses, the camera body being small is actually an impediment. Good luck using something as big as the 70-200 on a mirrorless body and not having your hands cramp up after 2 minutes.

I'm amazed manufacturers' marketing people have managed to tie size/weight to "expensive": For the old film eos systems like 620/r5/..., there were inexpensive, exchangeable grips for larger hand sizes. And heck, if your camera is too light to stabilize your lens Canon might offer some lead weights you can attach to the camera body

Arguing against mirrorless with this is like saying cars with smaller motors won't work because no more than two people can fit into them

Your analogy seems to fail. Big cars went away because of the cost of fuel. Small camera bodies do not use less power.

Consumers still like large vehicles, which is why pickup trucks are the top selling vehicles in the USA, just as they have been for the last 35 years.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/01/06/pickups-best-selling-vehicles-2014/21334373/

 

[zim]

The answer in this forum will be clear, as it's the stronghold of old-school enthusiast dslr shooters (nothing wrong with that, mind you!). If people want gadget or bleeding edge, they probably don't go Canon and don't participate here.

Woha what happened there, I started out with a mirrorless and upgraded to a dslr when I became a big boy, does that make me old-old school

 

[old-pr-pix]

I have both MILC and DSLR. As others have said, I like both for different reasons and uses. Mirrorless can be significantly smaller and lighter (in m43 sensor size), even with longer lenses. Stuff I shoot usually winds up on web pages or in non-profit newsletters, flyers, etc. Micro4/3 is plenty good for that. But, I do like OVF and longer battery life of DSLR.

CIPA data shows global shipments of MILC arguably on very slow growth path while DSLR sales are falling. U.S. sales don't seem to reflect that global trend though.

I feel the threat to DSLR's comes in the lower end "Rebel" class product. That's a lot of volume for Canon and Nikon, but who knows how that relates to their profit picture. Likely the enthusiast/pro class products will hang-in there for quite a while. The concern is whether Canon can generate enough profit on xxD, XD chassis with falling Rebel class sales to justify the amount of R&D we'd like to see them invest.