DSLR vs Mirrorless camera?

[OreoCookie]

It's clear that people are moving towards mirrorless, because mirrorless cameras are way more than good enough and sport the same sensor sizes as their dslr brethren (plus m4/3). You're not even making any sacrifices in terms of image quality, and have plenty of choice as far as lenses go.

I say that as someone with a dslr and a mirrorless camera: ever since getting my Fuji X100s once my Nikon dslr breaks, I will not replace it. Nowadays, you have tons of choice as far as body types go: you can get traditional dslr-like and rangefinder-like bodies (e. g. Fuji's T2 and Fuji X-Pro 2), more modern approaches (e. g. Sony's mirrorless cameras), sensor sizes from m4/3 to APS-C, full frame and medium format, a wide choice of lenses at all sorts of price points.

What are some advantages of dslrs? Well, the most important one is that the best AF sensors built into dslrs are still better than what you can get in mirrorless cameras. Depending on the combination of camera and lens, this may not be an issue. The second weakness that many mirrorless cameras share is battery life. I always need to take spare batteries for my Fuji X100s. I never do with my dslr, I've shot 1600+ pictures on one charge with no problem.

Personally, I'm partial to Fuji's X-mount cameras because I love the way these cameras handle. But I got to play with a Sony full frame mirrorless in Tokyo recently, and the sensor can literally see in the dark. I'm not a big fan of the UI, though. But you do have a lot of choice.

 

[v3rlon]

Judging by every who switches, Mirrorless cameras are made for people who hate DSLRs, in particular for weight and size. That is what they always talk about. DSLRs are for people who hate mirrorless for autofocus and battery life. That is what they (we) always fight back with.

I looked at the Fuji, and there is a lot there to like. Not enough to get me to switch.

If the size of a DSLR keeps you from carrying it, then maybe mirrorless is the answer. Of course, folks shooting from cell phone cameras are going to use your same arguments against you. "You carry 25 pound messenger bags. I just whip out my phone." and "I used to carry a mirrorless, 3 lenses, and lights and ..."

It depends on what you want to do. Somewhere along the way, you need to bring light and glass. I compared the Sony FF mirrorless in size and weight when you include the trinity of fast glass and enough batteries to keep up. (search this forum). You didn't save much of anything if at all compared to Nikon or Canon, unless you counted how much lighter your wallet was.

Now if you want M43 or APSC, you can start saving weight, but that applies to the DSLRs also. I leave that exercise to someone else. People who want FF want FF. This includes portrait and glamour.

 

[dotnet]

People who want FF want FF. This includes portrait and glamour.

And of course, to them full-frame means 6cm x 4.5cm.

 

[MCAsan]

Which mirrorless.....FF like Sony A7rII , 35mm crop like Fuji or Sony A6300, or MFT by Panasonic or Olympus. All very different cameras. I know several landscape and still-life shooters who left 35 DSLR for either Sony A7rII or one of the Fuji bodies.

 

[phrehdd]

And of course, to them full-frame means 6cm x 4.5cm.

Just having a bit of ol' time fun here -

6x4.5 was referred to as a crop image of the 6x6 back in Rolleiflex, Yashicamat and Hassie days.

 

[jerwin]

Just having a bit of ol' time fun here -

6x4.5 was referred to as a crop image of the 6x6 back in Rolleiflex, Yashicamat and Hassie days.

Of course, that was back in 2014. Sounds like he changes his mind a lot.

 

[lvar]

Just having a bit of ol' time fun here -

6x4.5 was referred to as a crop image of the 6x6 back in Rolleiflex, Yashicamat and Hassie days.

6x6 is a crop size compared to my 6x9

 

[Apple fanboy]

Okay so we're all using a crop sensor!

Btw I think this image best sums up what Mirrorless shooters think DSLR's are like

 

[simonsi]

And DSLR does not use fully electronic features till it shoot but mirrorless camera always need to be operational because of the sensor.

The only substantive difference is that a DSLR needs the mechanical mirror assembly to work to shoot, a mirrorless needs the screen to work to shoot. From a reliability point of view the electronic screen should far outlast the mechanical shutter. All other elements need to work in both bodies and are electronic (ie metering, WB etc etc). The only reason you would choose a DSLR over mirrorless from a reliability point of view is if you don't trust the manufacturer's quality control. That being said, mechanical mirrors have survived in the professional market for decades, the professional answer is to have a backup body and use the best tool for the job for the individual photographer.

 

[phrehdd]

6x6 is a crop size compared to my 6x9

And a 6x9 is a crop of a 6x17 panaramic <g>

 

[Ray2]

Fashion and portrait happen to be the 2 markets where pro's started switching to mirrorless. Weddings, reportage and travel followed.

Focusing on myself, a huge sample size of 1, I shot slr's and dslr's for 35 years. dslr's and mirrorless for about 9 years. Once I no longer needed to cover action, mirrorless (Fuji) -- another 6 years. During that period I've never had a camera go down. Even after dropping an slr down an escalator at O'Hare -- top to bottom, naked body and lens -- and a couple of Fuji's on cobblestone streets.

Sorry, but unless you're shooting action, this thread makes little to no sense. Get the camera you want, there's little to no difference anymore. If lenses are important to you, mirrorless. You get a lot more bang for the buck and Fuji, Oly and Panny have some stellar lenses at good prices. I say if as I'm always amazed how many people spend a small fortune on a dslr body and pick up some entry level zooms.

 

[mavericks7913]

Fashion and portrait happen to be the 2 markets where pro's started switching to mirrorless. Weddings, reportage and travel followed.

Focusing on myself, a huge sample size of 1, I shot slr's and dslr's for 35 years. dslr's and mirrorless for about 9 years. Once I no longer needed to cover action, mirrorless (Fuji) -- another 6 years. During that period I've never had a camera go down. Even after dropping an slr down an escalator at O'Hare -- top to bottom, naked body and lens -- and a couple of Fuji's on cobblestone streets.

Sorry, but unless you're shooting action, this thread makes little to no sense. Get the camera you want, there's little to no difference anymore. If lenses are important to you, mirrorless. You get a lot more bang for the buck and Fuji, Oly and Panny have some stellar lenses at good prices. I say if as I'm always amazed how many people spend a small fortune on a dslr body and pick up some entry level zooms.

Well, I was in Adorama to try some mirrorless cameras: Sony, Fuji, and etc. However, 3 out of 5 cameras were malfunctioned and didn't work when I was testing. A staff told me this is how mirrorless have still problem with durability compare to DSLR. Im sorry but I still can't rely on mirrorless yet while I'm still using 5 years old DSLR which never ever failed me.

 

[Ray2]

Well, I was in Adorama to try some mirrorless cameras: Sony, Fuji, and etc. However, 3 out of 5 cameras were malfunctioned and didn't work when I was testing. A staff told me this is how mirrorless have still problem with durability compare to DSLR. Im sorry but I still can't rely on mirrorless yet while I'm still using 5 years old DSLR which never ever failed me.

I think that's an excellent plan. A 60% failure rate sounds about right. That's why they haven't penetrated the market.

 

[MCAsan]

We have 4 E-M1s and not first problem traveling in and out country. They will be with us for 2 weeks in Alaska shooting brown bears before the end of the month. With second shoot on my Canon 5DII in Yellowstone the body died. Thank goodness I had my 7D on that trip.

 

[v3rlon]

Of course, that was back in 2014. Sounds like he changes his mind a lot.

Well FF 35mm is still 1.5x larger than APSC. With regard to DOF, that is like a 1.5 multiple on your aperture. F2.8 becomes more like F4.2 (for DOF, NOT lighting! Tony Northrup fans, this means you). If you are ok with this, go on with your bad self. The pictures are misleading in that the relative size matters


Next up. Technology changes for EVERYONE and all sensor sizes. The APSC pixels are not magically better or worse or bigger or smaller than FF.

If you have 10 micron pixels on both sensors, they will perform about the same in the same light.

on the FF camera, there will be 3600*2400 = 8.64 megapixels.
on the (Nikon) APSC there will be 2360*1570= 3.71 megapixels.

Under THESE circumstances, the lowlight performance would be equal. But, suppose Nikon says the APSC needs to get to 6.0 megapixels. The only way to do that without changing the sensor size is with smaller pixels.

Smaller pixels have less area and receive less light from the lens. So, it take more light to match the quality of the FF sensor.

Now sensors are manufactured on silicon wafers. They are likely either 200mm or 300mm in diameter. Because the sensor size if fixed, you can't do a process shrink like AMD, NVidia, or Intel. Your die size is the sensor size. this means you can make 2.33 (864/370 square mm ) times as many APSC sensors on the same wafer using the same technology as you can a FF, but the wafers will cost the same to manufacture. That is to say a 200mm wafer will make about 36 FF sensors while the same wafer would make about 84 APSC sensors, but the manufacturing cost for that wafer would be nearly identical. Also, because defects are more likely to impact larger die, you will have measurably lower yield on the FF sensors. So there is a lot of cost to be saved using smaller sensors. BELIEVE that manufacturers are looking for ways to save that money day and night. FABs aren't cheap. Foundry work isn't cheap.

M43 or smaller sensors gain even more advantage. This is why I believe that dual (or more) sensor cameras and/or software is going to find a way to solve our bokeh problem some day. There is just too much money not to.

 

[simonsi]

Well, I was in Adorama to try some mirrorless cameras: Sony, Fuji, and etc. However, 3 out of 5 cameras were malfunctioned and didn't work when I was testing. A staff told me this is how mirrorless have still problem with durability compare to DSLR. Im sorry but I still can't rely on mirrorless yet while I'm still using 5 years old DSLR which never ever failed me.

Lol - thats quite shocking, you remove the biggest mechanical part and the reliability drops like a stone??? I have no plans to go mirrorless but that is a shocking statistic and comment.

 

[mavericks7913]

Lol - thats quite shocking, you remove the biggest mechanical part and the reliability drops like a stone??? I have no plans to go mirrorless but that is a shocking statistic and comment.

You know mirrorless camera always on which consume a lot of energy. Sensor is always on, both display and viewfinder use high battery power, and stabilizer such as Sony. It's not about mechanical shutter but the mirrorless camera itself consume a lot of battery power compare to DSLR.

 

[simonsi]

You know mirrorless camera always on which consume a lot of energy. Sensor is always on, both display and viewfinder use high battery power, and stabilizer such as Sony. It's not about mechanical shutter but the mirrorless camera itself consume a lot of battery power compare to DSLR.

Ummm I didn't mention battery power. Thats self-evident to me given the same battery tech in both and the higher power requirements of mirrorless. I was only talking about reliability...

 

[Nordichund]

After shooting a Nikon DSLR for many years, I decided I wanted a new camera. I started looking at the full frame cameras. I took a close look at the 750 and drooled over the 810. Let's face it, no matter how brilliant cropped sense are, to really get the best out of the great Nikon lenses you need full frame. But then a talented photographer can take amazing photos on anything with a lens and a sensor.

For some reason or other I started to look at Fuji. As someone who prefers using prime lenses I picked up the 100t and four batteries. Now it is the only camera I really want to shoot with. The new T2 looks like it has a lot to offer, and Fuji glass, built especially for the Sony sensor, does not disappoint.

Thing is it doesn't matter what others say or how much they have bought into one or another system. It is what you want to do from behind the lens. The best equipment is the one that suits you. Fortunately there is a lot of choice out there.

 

[dwig]

You know mirrorless camera always on which consume a lot of energy. Sensor is always on, both display and viewfinder use high battery power, and stabilizer such as Sony. It's not about mechanical shutter but the mirrorless camera itself consume a lot of battery power compare to DSLR.

The only difference in power usage is that mirrorless cameras keep an EVF on all the time that the camera is being used. All of the other big power loads (e.g. AF "brain", AF motors, main CPU, ...) are basically the same. Users that keep their DSLR's rear LCD on all the time end up with very similar battery load as the typical mirrorless. The increased cache size and faster CPU and data buses needed for high FPS in pro level cameras, DSLR and mirrorless equally, actually increases battery load significantly.

The big reason that mirrorless cameras, as a group average, get fewer pictures per charge than the typical FF DSLR is that market pressure for mirrorless demands a smaller size leaving less space for the battery. Battery capacity, given matching tech, is proportional to its volume. Smaller batteries = fewer pix per charge.

 

[bgd]

Smaller batteries = fewer pix per charge.

Which means it's easier to carry a few spares. Batteries have never been an issue for me. I try to be selective about what I take so I'm not a high volume shooter. If that was to change then I'd just carry a few spare batteries.

I'm old enough to recall when electronic shutters were becoming mainstream. One of the arguments against was the reliance on a battery. Some cameras had a hybrid shutter allowing some speeds to be used without battery. Times have certainly changed.

 

[phrehdd]

Which means it's easier to carry a few spares. Batteries have never been an issue for me. I try to be selective about what I take so I'm not a high volume shooter. If that was to change then I'd just carry a few spare batteries.

I'm old enough to recall when electronic shutters were becoming mainstream. One of the arguments against was the reliance on a battery. Some cameras had a hybrid shutter allowing some speeds to be used without battery. Times have certainly changed.

As someone who came from film days, if you didn't invest in a heavy bulk film back, you had to change out your film cartridges, roll film and sheet film. After 36, 24, 20, 7-8-9, 1 shot you had to change. So I don't really pay much attention to those that feel upset having to change batteries after 200+ shots. I rather carry the extra batteries or a grip that contains more batteries (more shots before needing to change/recharge) than trying to squeeze out the 37th frame (for those that remember). Incidentally, I kept only one of my film cameras for nostalgic reasons - a camera that used a battery only for the meter - Nikon FM2, as the shutter and aperture were completely manual.

 

[Precision Gem]

This week I picked up an Olympus OM-D M1 micro4/3 mirror less. My main digital is a Nikon D750. So far, I am not seeing a large difference in image quality between the two. The Nikon performs better with very high ISO speeds, but for most shooting, the difference in size and weight will have me selecting the Olympus. I do some nature things from time to time, so I bought the Olympus 75-300mm zoom, which in full frame terms is 150-600. The lens weighs less than 1 lb, and is about 5 inches long! For the price of one Nikon Lens, I can buy 2 or 3 micro 4/3 lens.
So far I am really pleased with the camera. I bought the 12-40 f2.8 lens, and a 60mm Macro.
Olympus has built in focus stacking, which is pretty slick especially when taking macro images.

 

[Apple fanboy]

This week I picked up an Olympus OM-D M1 micro4/3 mirror less. My main digital is a Nikon D750. So far, I am not seeing a large difference in image quality between the two. The Nikon performs better with very high ISO speeds, but for most shooting, the difference in size and weight will have me selecting the Olympus. I do some nature things from time to time, so I bought the Olympus 75-300mm zoom, which in full frame terms is 150-600. The lens weighs less than 1 lb, and is about 5 inches long! For the price of one Nikon Lens, I can buy 2 or 3 micro 4/3 lens.
So far I am really pleased with the camera. I bought the 12-40 f2.8 lens, and a 60mm Macro.
Olympus has built in focus stacking, which is pretty slick especially when taking macro images.

For nature shots what glass are you using on the D750? I'd be interested in a compearible shot between the two.

 

[Precision Gem]

For D750 I use: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8G ED for most things, along with the Nikon AF Zoom-Nikko 80-200 mm F2.8D ED. Sometime the 50 mm prime. I also have the Nikon 200mm f4 Micro lens, which is a total beast to carry around, and a 28-300 Nikon lens.
All the Olympus gear combined doesn't weigh what Nikon Micro lens does.