When will mirrorless take over DSLR ... and time to sell mirror DSLR equipment??

[smirking]

I keep thinking about thinning out my gear. But every lens has a job. I think my 10.5mm fisheye has been out with me about 2-3 times in 7 or 8 years!

I have one of those massive 150-600mm's. I'm not a birder. I thought I could figure out some creative uses for it so I used it as a walk-around lens for street photography one time.

PRO TIP: Do not do this. You will vault into the leading position for weirdo of the week. You might as well wear a t-shirt that says "Peeping Tom" on it. Everyone I ran into kept glaring at me and asking me what I thought I was doing.

 

[bunnspecial]

I keep thinking about thinning out my gear. But every lens has a job. I think my 10.5mm fisheye has been out with me about 2-3 times in 7 or 8 years!

Of all the lenses I've had, I actually had never owned a fisheye before about two months ago.

The opportunity presented itself for what was a great deal on probably more of a collector's piece-a Nikon 8mm f/8 Fisheye.

This is the old stye "invasive" fisheye, or in other words can only be used with mirror lock-up. It actually officially only fits a handful of Nikon bodies-basically the single digit Fs(aside from the F6) and the Nikkormat range of bodies. These are the only Nikons with real, true mechanical mirror lock-up.

Even better-or worse perhaps-for use on those bodies it comes with an external finder. This is a Nikon F era lens, and the F did not have an ISO standard hot shoe or accessory shoe, but instead had an accessory rail(with flash contacts) around the rewind crank. The F2 use the same form factor accessory rail, while the F3 used the same general design but just different enough that F/F2 accessories don't securely fit it. That means, practically speaking, this is an F or F2 lens(and really an F2 lens because of how weird MLU is on the F...) although there are adapters that let the finder fit either the F3 or a standard dimension accessory shoe.

Some brave souls will use these invasive lenses on a DSLR in live view, but you have to keep your wits about you.

They can come into their own on mirrorless, though, within reason. I have used the Fisheye on my X-T5, and it actually works decently well. There is no focus on this lens, but it's not really needed on an f/8 maximum aperture fisheye. Of course on a full frame camera an 8mm gives a 180º angle of view as a full circle in the frame with black edges. On APS-C it gives you more of an oval(full height, black horizontal edges). Of course too, no external finder is needed on mirrorless either.

Still, though, as I'm sure you know, fisheye lenses are incredibly different to use well. I've not gotten beyond the "Hey, look at how weird this looks" playing around stage.

BTW, I have another of these invasive lenses-the Nikkor-O 2.1cm. Mine is super early-probably 1959 by the SN. A few folks have used them on Z cameras, but I've not been brave enough to try on my X-T5. The rear element gets REALLY close to the shutter. In fact, it's close enough that there's an extra prong on the lens mount(that I didn't even know was a thing before getting this lens) that blocked it when new from mounting on the Nikkormats, as their Copal Square shutters were considered too "thick" and could potentially hit the rear element. I think the F3 is the newest camera it will properly mount on. The results I've seen from Z cameras, though, have been underwhelming. It's a known issue that digital, with the design of the microlenses, is very sensitive to having the rear element too close and can do crazy things. The 8mm fisheye is fine, although most of these effects show up at the frame edges where the fisheye is dark anyway. The 2.1cm of course is a full frame lens, but also sits closer than the fisheye, so using it on a mirrorless camera really isn't much more than proof of concept.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Of all the lenses I've had, I actually had never owned a fisheye before about two months ago.

The opportunity presented itself for what was a great deal on probably more of a collector's piece-a Nikon 8mm f/8 Fisheye.

This is the old stye "invasive" fisheye, or in other words can only be used with mirror lock-up. It actually officially only fits a handful of Nikon bodies-basically the single digit Fs(aside from the F6) and the Nikkormat range of bodies. These are the only Nikons with real, true mechanical mirror lock-up.

Even better-or worse perhaps-for use on those bodies it comes with an external finder. This is a Nikon F era lens, and the F did not have an ISO standard hot shoe or accessory shoe, but instead had an accessory rail(with flash contacts) around the rewind crank. The F2 use the same form factor accessory rail, while the F3 used the same general design but just different enough that F/F2 accessories don't securely fit it. That means, practically speaking, this is an F or F2 lens(and really an F2 lens because of how weird MLU is on the F...) although there are adapters that let the finder fit either the F3 or a standard dimension accessory shoe.

Some brave souls will use these invasive lenses on a DSLR in live view, but you have to keep your wits about you.

They can come into their own on mirrorless, though, within reason. I have used the Fisheye on my X-T5, and it actually works decently well. There is no focus on this lens, but it's not really needed on an f/8 maximum aperture fisheye. Of course on a full frame camera an 8mm gives a 180º angle of view as a full circle in the frame with black edges. On APS-C it gives you more of an oval(full height, black horizontal edges). Of course too, no external finder is needed on mirrorless either.

Still, though, as I'm sure you know, fisheye lenses are incredibly different to use well. I've not gotten beyond the "Hey, look at how weird this looks" playing around stage.

BTW, I have another of these invasive lenses-the Nikkor-O 2.1cm. Mine is super early-probably 1959 by the SN. A few folks have used them on Z cameras, but I've not been brave enough to try on my X-T5. The rear element gets REALLY close to the shutter. In fact, it's close enough that there's an extra prong on the lens mount(that I didn't even know was a thing before getting this lens) that blocked it when new from mounting on the Nikkormats, as their Copal Square shutters were considered too "thick" and could potentially hit the rear element. I think the F3 is the newest camera it will properly mount on. The results I've seen from Z cameras, though, have been underwhelming. It's a known issue that digital, with the design of the microlenses, is very sensitive to having the rear element too close and can do crazy things. The 8mm fisheye is fine, although most of these effects show up at the frame edges where the fisheye is dark anyway. The 2.1cm of course is a full frame lens, but also sits closer than the fisheye, so using it on a mirrorless camera really isn't much more than proof of concept.

I bought mine for like £50 so it wasn't much of an investment. But It's not one that i naturally think to put in my camera bag too often. It only works on a cropped body as I recall, and my D750 (FF) gets a lot more trips out than my D7100 (cooped body).

 

[Clix Pix]

Fisheyes are fun to use, but definitely a novelty lens. I've got one but have only shot a handful of images with it.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Fisheyes are fun to use, but definitely a novelty lens. I've got one but have only shot a handful of images with it.

You can easily straighten out a fisheye shot shot with DXO as I vaguely remember.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

You can easily straighten out a fisheye shot shot with DXO as I vaguely remember.

Yes, some straightening can be done. And if using a Canon, the free Digital Photo Pro (DPP) can do numerous things. But DPP is not the easiest photo editor to learn. Every now and then the University Of Alaska and NASA post beautiful fisheye photos, including some that show space rockets launches with the auroras in the foreground. This is done at the University Poker Flats Facility in Fairbanks.

 

[Clix Pix]

You can easily straighten out a fisheye shot shot with DXO as I vaguely remember.

Ah, but for me the whole purpose is to shoot the fisheye shot specifically with that interesting complete circular shape or the more common 180° diagonal fisheye. When I'm shooting a fisheye image, it's going to show off that characteristic fisheye look! ! I have ultra wide lenses that I can use when I want something super-wide and with less distortion.

Yes, you can use DXO's PhotoLab and I suppose other programs, too, to straighten out a diagonal fisheye image if one wants to do so. Actually I have done the reverse; a couple of times I've gone into the "distortion correction" section in PhotoLab and deliberately created distortion in what had been a perfectly normal straight image, just to create something different and interesting... It's rather surprising what can come from a bit of experimentation.

 

[mtbdudex]

Update on my photography journey & transition to mirrorless:
Fully sold all my Canon DSLR EF/EF-S lens.
The R5 and 3 RF lens (L 24-105, 10-20, 100-500) I have serve my needs well.
Truly love the compactness of RF lens over EF lens, grown to appreciate it.

Retired 2 months now, catching up on home projects, done a few photo excursion days.
I’ve been asked to display my photos at our church art exhibit wall October - December 2025.
It’s a 50/50 fundraising thing, been going on for 2 years now pretty successful.

 

[ChrisA]

So I am thinking seriously of buying the Nikon Z50. No chance as yet to handle it. Hoping the sensor is solid enough to do slide copy work. Had good success with an old Canon APS-c format but that was with 4x5 slides & Negs. The Z5 would obviously be my first choice but for any thing else the Z50 would be better as it would allow lighter travel with just a single zoom lens. Will probably go with the 50mm ƒ2.8 macro, although the 100 would work even better if the depth of field is up to dealing with minor film curl.

One concern with the entire Nikon line is that cropping seems to be either 16:9 or square. I would much prefer 3:2 or 4:3. Is the viewing grid good enough to automatically find the cropping points? Can't figure out why the standard crop would be for movie format, especially as movies don't need the full sensor resolution.

In terms of pixel count a video could be done with cropping the center of a sensor. But what we care a lot about is

(1) Depth of field. Using the full sensor allows us to create a more narrow DOF and isolate the subject and
(2) Pixel size, we get much better ISO perfeoormance with larger pixels, combining several pixels reduces nois and makes the camera more sensitive to light
(3) Image stabilization with a DX sensor works best with small pixels that later will be resampled. This in effect allows for sub-pixel image shifts even if the sensor if fixed and can't move

 

[Apple fanboy]

Update on my photography journey & transition to mirrorless:
Fully sold all my Canon DSLR EF/EF-S lens.
The R5 and 3 RF lens (L 24-105, 10-20, 100-500) I have serve my needs well.
Truly love the compactness of RF lens over EF lens, grown to appreciate it.

Retired 2 months now, catching up on home projects, done a few photo excursion days.
I’ve been asked to display my photos at our church art exhibit wall October - December 2025.
It’s a 50/50 fundraising thing, been going on for 2 years now pretty successful.

Nice. Enjoy your kit. The weight of my mirrorless 600mm means it travels a lot more than my old 200-500mm ever did.

 

[bunnspecial]

Ah, but for me the whole purpose is to shoot the fisheye shot specifically with that interesting complete circular shape or the more common 180° diagonal fisheye. When I'm shooting a fisheye image, it's going to show off that characteristic fisheye look! ! I have ultra wide lenses that I can use when I want something super-wide and with less distortion.

Yes, you can use DXO's PhotoLab and I suppose other programs, too, to straighten out a diagonal fisheye image if one wants to do so. Actually I have done the reverse; a couple of times I've gone into the "distortion correction" section in PhotoLab and deliberately created distortion in what had been a perfectly normal straight image, just to create something different and interesting... It's rather surprising what can come from a bit of experimentation.

With the caveat that I've owned several fisheyes, both full frame and circular, and never actually held onto them, I see both approaches as useful.

On one hand, yes I agree that the fisheye "look" is part of the appeal of them.

At the same time, fisheye projection is optically simpler and less complicated than ultrawide rectilinear, and generally speaking a fisheye lens will be both lighter and sharper than an otherwise comparable UW(although there are a lot of cheap, crummy fisheyes out there). There's a reason why, just for example, Nikon's rectilinear 13mm f/5.6 is a lens a lot of people will never even see in person, where pretty much anyone who really wants an 8mm f/2.8 fisheye of the same age can get one. One of those is a 4 figure lens that I believe was made in the tens of thousands, while the other is a typically a 5 figure lens with production in the low hundreds.

Modern engineering has given us really good rectilnear lenses even wider than 13. At the same time, an 8mm(on 24x36) fisheye still has a wider field of view than say a 12mm rectilinear, and "defishing" the 8mm can show you more than just using the 12mm. Whether or not that's aesthetically or artistically a good choice is another discussion, but the option is there.

Personally, I agree with you that I'd rather just use a wide lens. I'm a wide angle junky, but struggle to effectively use anything wider than 14mm(on 24x36) so that's where I stop. Making a compelling composition with an 8mm is really difficult for me, and the few times I've been successful I'm not sure that the image would even work as a rectilinear. If I did defish something, I suspect I'd end up with what I would have had by starting with something in the 14-18mm range, and if I'd just gone there in the first place I'd have been able to actually see the final result in the viewfinder rather than trying to mentally straighten it while composing.

 

[ssmed]

Subject title says it all:
When will mirrorless take over DSLR ... and time to sell mirror DSLR equipment??

I've been in this as a hobbyist since 2009, Canon T1i now a Canon 70D.
Did the lens upgrades over the years, now have the 2.8f L 70-200 mkII + 2 TC's, UWA 11-16 lens, and a few others.

I've been ... well lagging using the photo equipment recently, enough that I'm on fence post of selling it all ...
I'm 57, looking at retiring 3-4 years max, then get back into photography for hobbyist fun.

Truly love Photography, but if mirrorless is the way of the future for DSLR is now the leading edge to sell when my gear will get decent $'s, instead of 3-4 years later when the resale will tank??

Thoughts?

It has, but I wouldn’t change if you have good equipment that is working. I have a Nikon D850 for work and a couple of older models as backup and would love to upgrade, but economically not worth it.