DSLR or Mirrorless?

[bp1000]

I have a nikon d610 and a fuji x100s

I love the fuji it is everything I want in a camera. I get exited just thinking about it. A camera I usually have with me at all times being a street photographer.


I don't love the d610 but I higher admire it's versatility and reliability. It's FF quality and dynamic range is unbeatable at its price point. Trumped by the d800 but both are cumbersome to carry around. For portraits and the occasional time I shoot a landscape I use the nikon. All other times i have my x100s in my jacket pocket zone focused and ready.

Sensor is stunning all things considered. Tweak ability very nice and I rarely edit those files, mainly due to the photography style. I underexposed by a 1/3rd, tweak the tone curve to compress shadows and highlights, turn off sharpening and I have wonderful gritty (not in the literal sense) files. 6400iso is remarkable for a aps-c

 

[Apple fanboy]

I have a nikon d610 and a fuji x100s

I love the fuji it is everything I want in a camera. I get exited just thinking about it. A camera I usually have with me at all times being a street photographer.


I don't love the d610 but I higher admire it's versatility and reliability. It's FF quality and dynamic range is unbeatable at its price point. Trumped by the d800 but both are cumbersome to carry around. For portraits and the occasional time I shoot a landscape I use the nikon. All other times i have my x100s in my jacket pocket zone focused and ready.

Sensor is stunning all things considered. Tweak ability very nice and I rarely edit those files, mainly due to the photography style. I underexposed by a 1/3rd, tweak the tone curve to compress shadows and highlights, turn off sharpening and I have wonderful gritty (not in the literal sense) files. 6400iso is remarkable for a aps-c

PM me your address and I'll take that D610 off your hands. An unloved camera is a sad as an unloved dog!

 

[bp1000]

PM me your address and I'll take that D610 off your hands. An unloved camera is a sad as an unloved dog!

I know

I really do admire the d610 it really is a wonderful bit of kit. I am by no means taking away how technically brilliant it is. I guess I have seen the light for small high quality mirrorless cameras.

It is important to make one distinction. On technical merit the x100s looses. You can't match a FF sensor, dynamic range, noise performance and metering from the d610. The autofocus is much better too, like significantly and the d610 has a slower module than other FF bodies.

However, the ergonomics, size, weight, quiet pocketable body and great features make me love this little thing. For me it's great, zone focused it reminds me of the first body I used a nikon FE and that has sentimental value. Focus peaking and EVF in a rangefinder style body is just awesome for my street shooting.

 

[epic-retouching]

Sony a6000

 

[Meister]

I don't love the d610 but I higher admire it's versatility and reliability.

I think if you would know how to make use of the D610 you would stop using the Fuji.
Despite the weight!

What is best bang for buck when it comes to image quality, DSLR or Mirrorless?
... is a cheaper DSLR than that going to get me same or better?
Basing my priorities on this:
Image Quality >
Price >
Features >
Size

If cheaper cameras would provide the same quality then (almost) noone would buy expensive ones.
If your highest priority is image quality get a hasselblad for 50k.
Its got a medium format sensor and the bigger the sensor the better the image quality. Its physics.
If (like for most mere mortals) budget is a priority you will have to go smaller.

The advice given on this thread is mostly very good and extensive. I like it more than dpreview.
It is said that most dslrs and mirrorless are very good nowadays.
It is also said that mirrorless cameras are the future.
This might be true but it doesnt mean that you should buy one now. Its not the future yet!

Let me explain:
If you decide for a camera you buy into a system which mainly means lenses.
Lenses dont get outdated and classic dslrs systems like Nikon take decade old lenses.
I am not convinced by the current mirrorless systems yet in this regard. We dont know which ones will establish themselves yet and what we want to invest in. I think sooner or later they will just leave the mirror out of dslrs and thats it. People will still have old lenses and they will want cameras with the matching mount.

Most mirrorless cameras have small sensors. This means inevitabily worse iq and low light performance. Also the best lenses on the market are soley made for full frame. The mirrorless ones with full frame sensor are almost as bulky as dslrs which in turn completely defeats the point of mirrorless - form factor! And even crop mirrorless dont fit in your pocket when the lens is on.
If you dont like the weight just put a standard 50mm on your dslr and walk around with it. Thats what i do.

So if portability is everything i would just stick to point and shoots.
But if you want to get serious with photo and videography then there is no way around a good full frame dslr.
What brand i dont know since ive used nikon all my life except for my canon powershoot.
It is said though that all established brands are about equal in quality so choose the one that feels best.

I can highly recommend the Nikon D600/610 or D800. Dont get the kit lens. Buy a 50mm 1.8 instead and later invest in better lenses. The D4 and Df are great, too but they make no sense for hobby photographers imo.

 

[Parkin Pig]

It is also said that mirrorless cameras are the future.
This might be true but it doesnt mean that you should buy one now. Its not the future yet!

It never will be the future - it's always now.

Let me explain:
If you decide for a camera you buy into a system which mainly means lenses.
Lenses dont get outdated and classic dslrs systems like Nikon take decade old lenses.
I am not convinced by the current mirrorless systems yet in this regard. We dont know which ones will establish themselves yet and what we want to invest in. I think sooner or later they will just leave the mirror out of dslrs and thats it. People will still have old lenses and they will want cameras with the matching mount.

There's nothing to say that crop mirrorless and FF mirrorless won't both exist together.

Most mirrorless cameras have small sensors. This means inevitabily worse iq and low light performance.

True, but as you can see on these forums, some people can work wonders with a mirrorless, whereas some DSLRs appear to never be taken out of fully automatic 'point and shoot' mode.

Also the best lenses on the market are soley made for full frame. The mirrorless ones with full frame sensor are almost as bulky as dslrs which in turn completely defeats the point of mirrorless - form factor!

Not really. Mirrorless = less moving parts = less to go wrong.

And even crop mirrorless dont fit in your pocket when the lens is on.
If you dont like the weight just put a standard 50mm on your dslr and walk around with it. Thats what i do.
So if portability is everything i would just stick to point and shoots.
But if you want to get serious with photo and videography then there is no way around a good full frame dslr.

I totally disagree - a good photographer with a crop mirrorless can be a very serious photographer and videographer. And there's a massive quality difference between a crop mirrorless and a point and shoot, so your argument of just dismissing mirrorless for portability doesn't hold up at all.

I know that a good DSLR is technically superior to a crop mirrorless - until recently my weapon of choice was a Canon EOS1D mkIV, complemented with some very tasty glass.
I now have an Olympus PEN E-P5, and that little gem produces some top class results.

Which mirrorless camera do you have extensive experience with?

 

[MCAsan]

I am considering an EM-1. Looks like it is close as you can get to DSLR capabilities for wildlife within MFT bodies. I definitely want the 2x crop factor.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Most mirrorless cameras have small sensors. This means inevitabily worse iq and low light performance.

Isn't pixel size more indicative of low light performance than sensor size? All other things being equal, a smaller sensor with bigger pixels should have better low light performance than a bigger sensor with smaller pixels.

 

[Meister]

It never will be the future - it's always now.
There's nothing to say that crop mirrorless and FF mirrorless won't both exist together.

True, but as you can see on these forums, some people can work wonders with a mirrorless, whereas some DSLRs appear to never be taken out of fully automatic 'point and shoot' mode.

Not really. Mirrorless = less moving parts = less to go wrong.

I totally disagree - a good photographer with a crop mirrorless can be a very serious photographer and videographer. And there's a massive quality difference between a crop mirrorless and a point and shoot, so your argument of just dismissing mirrorless for portability doesn't hold up at all.

Which mirrorless camera do you have extensive experience with?

It was late last nite and I think my post was a bit missunderstood.

I have almost no experience with mirrorless systems! There is too many brands, cameras and systems.

Todays point and shoots are great but mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras should be better of course.
I was trying to emphasize how good point and shoots are. Not degrade mirrorless!
Of course "real" photgraphers will do great work with them.
I think the problem with mirrorless sytems today is the missing lens mount compatability with good lenses.
Also the lenses on them are smaller (with less moveable parts) they are still somewhat bulky.
That why i would not recommend them to anyone as their main camera.
But if i would have funds to spare i would buy mirrorless as an addition and probably like it.

Ff and aps-c will continue to coexist for the foreseeable future but ultimatly there is no advantage to smaller sensors except for camera size and budget. The bigger the sensor the better!

----------

Isn't pixel size more indicative of low light performance than sensor size? All other things being equal, a smaller sensor with bigger pixels should have better low light performance than a bigger sensor with smaller pixels.

Larger sensor = better low light performance. Parkin Pig explains nicely below.
Thats why the high end ff dslrs have low megpix counts.

 

[Parkin Pig]

Isn't pixel size more indicative of low light performance than sensor size? All other things being equal, a smaller sensor with bigger pixels should have better low light performance than a bigger sensor with smaller pixels.

Bigger pixels will indeed collect more light, but unfortunately all other things are unlikely to be equal. A full-frame camera will use larger lenses than, for example, a micro four thirds camera. The larger glass will let in more light. An aperture of f2 on a M43 lens is equivalent to f4 on a FF camera lens. This also means it's easier to get a much tighter depth of field on a FF system.

If you Google it you'll get a better technical explanation than I could give.

 

[elppa]

I sense the same snooty attitude on both dpreview as I do at high end camera stores. The NEX is a fabulous camera system, same sensor as some Nikon cameras.

The only thing they're not as good at is super fast accurate focusing e.g sports, this is where having a dedicated phase sensor excels. IMHO this gap will vanish as sensor technology improves.

Good prediction – I see Sony are claiming a best case scenario of 0.06 seconds auto focus on the Alpha 6000, which combined with the 179 phase detection auto focus points and 11 FPS continuous shooting with AF tracking starts making it suitable for scenes which only DSLRs could only previously handle.

Most mirrorless cameras have small sensors. This means inevitabily worse iq and low light performance.

But no worse than APS-C DSLRs, which by far and away represent the majority of DSLRs purchased by everyone except professionals.

Also the best lenses on the market are soley made for full frame. The mirrorless ones with full frame sensor are almost as bulky as dslrs which in turn completely defeats the point of mirrorless - form factor!

Full frame mirror less cameras are still considerably smaller and lighter than full frame DSLRs.

And even crop mirrorless dont fit in your pocket when the lens is on.

I've never understood this argument: “if it doesn't fit in my pocket I might as well carry around a camera 2 times as large!”.

A smaller camera means more space in your bag for lenses or other items.

 

[elppa]

please delete - merged with post above

 

[Meister]

But no worse than APS-C DSLRs, which by far and away represent the majority of DSLRs purchased by everyone except professionals.

Full frame mirror less cameras are still considerably smaller and lighter than full frame DSLRs.

I've never understood this argument: “if it doesn't fit in my pocket I might as well carry around a camera 2 times as large!”

There is a lot of affordable ff dslrs out now (d610/600, 6d, ...) they are not reserved for pros.
Mirrorless cameras have a form advantage. The sony a7 looks interessting for example.
The question is if that makes a big difference to the user.
Also if you want to maybe make money with photography this might be a disadvantage.
Customers expect a big camera. They think big = better and more pro.

And most important imo: The best lenses in regards to resale value and dxomarks only come for ff dslrs.

 

[elppa]

And most important imo: The best lenses in regards to resale value and dxomarks only come for ff dslrs.

I don't understand why a lens for a full frame mirrorless camera couldnt be every bit as good as a lens for a full frame DSLR?

DxOMark have an FE lens at #4 already. #1 on the Optical Metric scores.

That to me suggests there isn't a reason. Things are quickly changing.

 

[blueroom]

Looking forward to getting my hands on the Sony A6000.

 

[LethalWolfe]

I know "low" is a relative term but don't the Sony A7r and Nikon D800 have 36MP FF sensors? Or are those not considered high end (seriously, I'm not too familiar with camera pecking orders)?

Bigger pixels will indeed collect more light, but unfortunately all other things are unlikely to be equal. A full-frame camera will use larger lenses than, for example, a micro four thirds camera. The larger glass will let in more light. An aperture of f2 on a M43 lens is equivalent to f4 on a FF camera lens. This also means it's easier to get a much tighter depth of field on a FF system.

Right, that why I was limiting my comment specifically to sensor size because that's the only way to get an apples to apples comparison. If you have two sensors of the same size in the same/similar camera systems then the sensor with more pixels will have worse low light performance by comparison. For example the NEX 6 (APS-C, 16MP) has better low light performance than the NEX 7 (APS-C, 23MP) and they are nearly identical cameras save for the sensor size.

 

[Meister]

I know "low" is a relative term but don't the Sony A7r and Nikon D800 have 36MP FF sensors? Or are those not considered high end (seriously, I'm not too familiar with camera pecking orders)?

The flagships like the canon 1d and the nikon d4 have relatively low pixel counts. The a7r and d800 are considered pro cameras. they are best for controlled light situations. Ff lets in more light hence better lowlight performance. Considering sensor surface the hasselblads have a low pix count,too.

 

[Lumix G team]

There is a lot of affordable ff dslrs out now (d610/600, 6d, ...) they are not reserved for pros.
Mirrorless cameras have a form advantage. The sony a7 looks interessting for example.
The question is if that makes a big difference to the user.
Also if you want to maybe make money with photography this might be a disadvantage.
Customers expect a big camera. They think big = better and more pro.

And most important imo: The best lenses in regards to resale value and dxomarks only come for ff dslrs.

Hi Meister,
You're right to say that customers expect a big camera - as they think they're better & more pro.

But that's not necessarily true. A lot of professionals are using mirrorless / DSLMs now as they have the same performances as DSLRs (same features + less moving parts than DSLRs) and are easier to carry around as lighter & smaller - which is very handy if you're on a shoot for one day and need to have your camera material with you all the time.

We're open to the debate and would be more than happy to respond to your questions .

--
Aurelien on behalf of Lumix G UK
whyDSLR.co.uk

 

[FWRLCK]

Bigger pixels will indeed collect more light, but unfortunately all other things are unlikely to be equal. A full-frame camera will use larger lenses than, for example, a micro four thirds camera. The larger glass will let in more light. An aperture of f2 on a M43 lens is equivalent to f4 on a FF camera lens. This also means it's easier to get a much tighter depth of field on a FF system.

If you Google it you'll get a better technical explanation than I could give.

Whoah, hoss. f/2 is f/2 on all formats in terms of exposure. The f-number is the ratio of focal length to aperture, nothing more -- the light that hits a square millimeter of sensor will be the same for full frame, APS-C, m43s or 1" sensors. What is different is the photosite density on the sensor, which will naturally be higher for smaller sensors at a given resolution (e.g. the photosite density of a 16MP m43 sensor will be 4x as high as a 16MP FF sensor). Higher density means that each photosite is collecting less light, which leads to lower low light performance, assuming equal sensor technology.

What you may be thinking of is equivalent DoF. The Pana-Leica 25mm/1.4 lens gives a 50mm FF-equivalent field of view because of the crop factor of the m43 mount. However, it's still a 25mm lens and it renders DoF as a 25mm lens. The DoF calculation is linear on focal length and aperture, so you frequently see this written as a FF equivalent 50mm/2.8 (but you still get f/1.4 of light gathering).

 

[Parkin Pig]

Whoah, hoss.

Corrected! I'd been reading about the difference in DOF between M43 and FF, and while chewing over the doubling of the effective focal length of the lens for M43 had extrapolated it in my head to the calculation of the f-number.

 

[OreoCookie]

The flagships like the canon 1d and the nikon d4 have relatively low pixel counts. The a7r and d800 are considered pro cameras. they are best for controlled light situations. Ff lets in more light hence better lowlight performance. Considering sensor surface the hasselblads have a low pix count,too.

Regarding low-light performance, that's only true for cameras like the 1D X or the D4s which have low pixel count. The D800, on the other hand, has a pixel density that is comparable to APS-C-sized sensors (at twice the resolution). You're right about the »controlled« part, but for candid photography, a smaller camera may be preferable. Camera size and type are at least as important as other, technical aspects.

 

[maflynn]

I'm a little late to this thread, but I'll throw my $.02 to the discussion.

I've used both DSLR and Mirrorless. I'm currently rocking with an OMD EM5. The cost for the body is less then a DSLR as is most lenses. There are short comings with the ML, but generally for needs its a great camera.

It handles low light very well, extremely fast autofocus and 16mp is more then enough for me.

DOF, is shallower then a DSLR but I've not really missed it. Lens selection is decent but not as good as DLSR but I have a working set that good for my needs.

Overall I think its a great option and the camera is much smaller then a DSLR which I'm very thankful for when I'm going to DisneyWorld

 

[Meister]

Regarding low-light performance, that's only true for cameras like the 1D X or the D4s which have low pixel count. The D800, on the other hand, has a pixel density that is comparable to APS-C-sized sensors (at twice the resolution). You're right about the »controlled« part, but for candid photography, a smaller camera may be preferable. Camera size and type are at least as important as other, technical aspects.

All true. I took a look at the a7 a couple of days ago and it looks like a fine camera.
It boils down to what user experience you prefer. I would buy what feels best for you.
For me the D610 is far superior to the a7. Thats my subjective opinion. Both cameras are excellent.
Here is a good comparsion: http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D610-vs-Sony-A7

In any case hasselblads, d800s, 1ds, d4s make no sense for hobby photographers unless you have an unlimited budget.

 

[MCAsan]

In any case hasselblads, d800s, 1ds, d4s make no sense for hobby photographers unless you have an unlimited budget.

Perchik: Money is the world's curse.
Tevye: May the Lord smite me with it. And may I never recover.
...Fiddler on the Roof

 

[ManhattanBeach]

give mirrorless cameras a few years to develop and i think their true potential will really begin to shine