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

[r.harris1]

Having had my first taste of mirrorless with Sony’s NEX 7, and now a more updated and thorough taste of it with my A7R IV, I can tell you that absolutely there is no way I would ever return to a DSLR. I love my mirrorless full-frame camera with its IBIS and its EVF and its various bells and whistles that all work just so very nicely for me....

I totally get it. I have 2 mirrorless cameras that are awesome. Wouldn’t trade them for anything! They’re the future, or a future, anyway.

But in keeping with the original post, again, there are zero compelling reasons to sell my d850. Why would I? It has world class AF, astonishing image quality that is the equal of any mirrorless system on the market (because it’s the sensor+glass+image science, not the mirror, of course), unbeatable glass, and a large, clear, bright OVF and feels perfect in my hands. I’d also certainly buy a DSLR - a D6, maybe used D5 - but there are other things to save for, like more yummy glass ?.

Don’t get me wrong. Mirrorless cameras are great. I love the Z bodies I’ve had the opportunity to shoot from friends. Some of the Z glass is hands down the highest quality I’ve seen and I may pull the trigger on a used Z6 for some video use cases for work. Oddly for me, I seem to have been bitten by the video bug. Maybe it’s all the crappy video conferences for work that made me start thinking about production value, who knows? But my d850 isn’t gonna fund it and I’ll wait until I save the dough. Why have fewer cameras when you can have more ?

 

[Invisible Elf]

I bought a neat tiny fuji camera and I am selling my Nikon D800

 

[Expos of 1969]

I bought a neat tiny fuji camera and I am selling my Nikon D800

Which model did you get?

 

[Clix Pix]

I totally get it. I have 2 mirrorless cameras that are awesome. Wouldn’t trade them for anything! They’re the future, or a future, anyway.

But in keeping with the original post, again, there are zero compelling reasons to sell my d850. Why would I? It has world class AF, astonishing image quality that is the equal of any mirrorless system on the market (because it’s the sensor+glass+image science, not the mirror, of course), unbeatable glass, and a large, clear, bright OVF and feels perfect in my hands. I’d also certainly buy a DSLR - a D6, maybe used D5 - but there are other things to save for, like more yummy glass ?.

Don’t get me wrong. Mirrorless cameras are great. I love the Z bodies I’ve had the opportunity to shoot from friends. Some of the Z glass is hands down the highest quality I’ve seen and I may pull the trigger on a used Z6 for some video use cases for work. Oddly for me, I seem to have been bitten by the video bug. Maybe it’s all the crappy video conferences for work that made me start thinking about production value, who knows? But my d850 isn’t gonna fund it and I’ll wait until I save the dough. Why have fewer cameras when you can have more ?

I traded in my Nikon gear because I had not been using it for quite a long time; I either used the NEX 7 or, after I bought it, the RX10 IV, and found that I enjoyed using those cameras so much that I knew full-frame mirrorless was in my future. Why have lenses and DSLR bodies sitting around unused when they still certainly had potential value to someone, and since I knew I would never touch them once I had that FF mirrorless body, it just made sense to me to do the logical thing and since I had some expensive lenses in mind along with the expensive body, make the switch less financially painful by using the Nikon gear as a way of paying for some of the new gear I was buying.

One reason it took me so long to make up my mind about what I was going to do was that I knew Nikon itself was going to be entering the mirrorless fray and I waited for that to happen -- I figured that it wouldn't make sense to sell off all my lenses and then have Nikon come out with a system into which I could incorporate my older lenses. Well....they did and they didn't, to my disappointment. After the release I reviewed the listing of lenses compatible with the new Z bodies and the FTZ adapter and surprisingly few of mine were, and/or many of them were suddenly going to be MF only, which would not make my aging eyes happy.

In the small list of native lenses there was no sign of a macro lens, and no indication of when they would be releasing one. Since one of my primary reasons for wanting to get something new in FF was to be able to shoot more macro I was definitely not happy with this. Unavailable lenses, a need to use an adapter? I shifted my attention back to the Sony system, which was already pretty complete, and then waited a little longer until they'd released their newest flagship, the A7R IV.

It is not uncommon for people to be running two systems, or for sentimental reasons to hang on to gear that they're no longer using, but yes, other people often do choose to sell or trade unused gear in order to make some changes in their shooting without totally wrecking their bank account.

 

[Invisible Elf]

Which model did you get?

X-T30 with 16-55mm + 23mm f2

 

[r.harris1]

I think it’s safe to say that it’s a great time to have an interest in photography. It’s very hard to go wrong as there are so many options to please any taste, all with the potential for superb image quality. There’s certainly no one right camera and a wide array to choose from depending upon needs. Fantastic, indeed!

 

[ssmed]

I think it’s safe to say that it’s a great time to have an interest in photography. It’s very hard to go wrong as there are so many options to please any taste, all with the potential for superb image quality. There’s certainly no one right camera and a wide array to choose from depending upon needs. Fantastic, indeed!

In the end composition will win out over technology in many circumstances. We use a D850 at work and the ability to zoom in on things gives us and the students a completely different view of the world, but it is big and heavy and no one takes a picture with a camera this is at home.

 

[mtbdudex]

I'm so droooolllliiinnngggg at the R5 now ... darn the website for being back up ...

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...dslr-and-mirrorless-cameras/mirrorless/eos-r5

 

[NathanCH]

My DSLR equipment is about 11 years old now. Crop sensor and crop lenses.

I've been researching upgrading to full frame and I gotta say, mirrorless is not very compelling right now. The technology seems comparable, but there are big trade-offs. I agree it's the future, but the value-add is very low right now. Spend 50% more for a few nice features, but you also lose nice features.

Buying DSLR gear will save you thousands at this point.

 

[ericgtr12]

My DSLR equipment is about 11 years old now. Crop sensor and crop lenses.

I've been researching upgrading to full frame and I gotta say, mirrorless is not very compelling right now. The technology seems comparable, but there are big trade-offs. I agree it's the future, but the value-add is very low right now. Spend 50% more for a few nice features, but you also lose nice features.

Buying DSLR gear will save you thousands at this point.

I'm with you here, for the most part it's the size and quiet shutter that are nice-to-have but not a deal breaker for me. The biggest feature is seeing how the photo will look in post before snapping the shot, I would think that's a huge advantage. Although, I've gotten to know my gear and settings for the most part that I can get what I want, especially understanding how to use the histogram.

I'm heavily into long exposures, especially at night and would love to hear from those of you who have used mirrorless for that. Is the experience similar and how much info can the camera give you on say a 15 second exposure prior to taking the shot?

 

[robgendreau]

I'm with you here, for the most part it's the size and quiet shutter that are nice-to-have but not a deal breaker for me. The biggest feature is seeing how the photo will look in post before snapping the shot, I would think that's a huge advantage. Although, I've gotten to know my gear and settings for the most part that I can get what I want, especially understanding how to use the histogram.

I'm heavily into long exposures, especially at night and would love to hear from those of you who have used mirrorless for that. Is the experience similar and how much info can the camera give you on say a 15 second exposure prior to taking the shot?

I'm with you and NathanCH in thinking that DSLRs and esp APS-C DSLRs are some of the best values out there, esp in used gear. Part of that is that mirrorless and full frame are the fads of the day right now, and the newer cameras not only have those features but additional ones (better wifi, clean HDMI, stacking, IBIS, etc etc) that make them more attractive. Some DSLR models are languishing, when if they had some upgrading they could be very competitive despite the mirrors. And of course, some of us just like OVFs.

I generally prefer my Pentax full frame DSLR for night stuff, since I like to see a truer dim light image optically. Even if I sometimes switch to the rear LCD for focus. Esp in those dark twilight, first stars scenarios. But it also has Astrotacer, so I admit that influences my choice as well.

I have mirrorless too, and no matter how much I tweak the EVF view it just isn't as nice. But still quite usable, and sometimes easier to focus. My mirrorless also has a special starry focus mode where it auto focuses on stars at infinity. Very nice, but I would think a DSLR could do that too if it had the firmware. It also does Live Composite, where it only adds bright, so great for light painting, trails, etc. But again, not sure that's per se a mirrorless thing, just a feature that happens to be, I think, only on mirrorless.

So both are great, and usable, and other features of the camera influence the choice considerably. Even IBIS.

 

[mollyc]

I'm with you and NathanCH in thinking that DSLRs and esp APS-C DSLRs are some of the best values out there, esp in used gear. Part of that is that mirrorless and full frame are the fads of the day right now, and the newer cameras not only have those features but additional ones (better wifi, clean HDMI, stacking, IBIS, etc etc) that make them more attractive. Some DSLR models are languishing, when if they had some upgrading they could be very competitive despite the mirrors. And of course, some of us just like OVFs.

I generally prefer my Pentax full frame DSLR for night stuff, since I like to see a truer dim light image optically. Even if I sometimes switch to the rear LCD for focus. Esp in those dark twilight, first stars scenarios. But it also has Astrotacer, so I admit that influences my choice as well.

I have mirrorless too, and no matter how much I tweak the EVF view it just isn't as nice. But still quite usable, and sometimes easier to focus. My mirrorless also has a special starry focus mode where it auto focuses on stars at infinity. Very nice, but I would think a DSLR could do that too if it had the firmware. It also does Live Composite, where it only adds bright, so great for light painting, trails, etc. But again, not sure that's per se a mirrorless thing, just a feature that happens to be, I think, only on mirrorless.

So both are great, and usable, and other features of the camera influence the choice considerably. Even IBIS.

Full frame is a fad??

 

[ericgtr12]

I'm with you and NathanCH in thinking that DSLRs and esp APS-C DSLRs are some of the best values out there, esp in used gear. Part of that is that mirrorless and full frame are the fads of the day right now, and the newer cameras not only have those features but additional ones (better wifi, clean HDMI, stacking, IBIS, etc etc) that make them more attractive. Some DSLR models are languishing, when if they had some upgrading they could be very competitive despite the mirrors. And of course, some of us just like OVFs.

I generally prefer my Pentax full frame DSLR for night stuff, since I like to see a truer dim light image optically. Even if I sometimes switch to the rear LCD for focus. Esp in those dark twilight, first stars scenarios. But it also has Astrotacer, so I admit that influences my choice as well.

I have mirrorless too, and no matter how much I tweak the EVF view it just isn't as nice. But still quite usable, and sometimes easier to focus. My mirrorless also has a special starry focus mode where it auto focuses on stars at infinity. Very nice, but I would think a DSLR could do that too if it had the firmware. It also does Live Composite, where it only adds bright, so great for light painting, trails, etc. But again, not sure that's per se a mirrorless thing, just a feature that happens to be, I think, only on mirrorless.

So both are great, and usable, and other features of the camera influence the choice considerably. Even IBIS.

Interesting, really great feedback here. On my first shoot of the comet I really blew it with my focus, just the right twilight hour with it breaking between puffy dark/pink clouds and as soon as I opened it in post my heart sank because it was soft. Hard lesson learned right there. Using the real LCD for focusing on infinity is actually a really good idea I hadn't thought of, so thanks for that.

Would love to see some of your long exposure work!

 

[mtbdudex]

Interesting, really great feedback here. On my first shoot of the comet I really blew it with my focus, just the right twilight hour with it breaking between puffy dark/pink clouds and as soon as I opened it in post my heart sank because it was soft. Hard lesson learned right there. Using the real LCD for focusing on infinity is actually a really good idea I hadn't thought of, so thanks for that.

Would love to see some of your long exposure work!

If I use a zoom lens that does not have a fixed infinity - like my 70 - 200 mkII L, then I used live view 10x, set the zoom, move to brightest star, and manually focus till it's a point, re-composition to area of sky desire to capture.

My Tokina 11-16 UWA has fixed infinity so easy-peasy infinity focus at any zoom

 

[ericgtr12]

If I use a zoom lens that does not have a fixed infinity - like my 70 - 200 mkII L, then I used live view 10x, set the zoom, move to brightest star, and manually focus till it's a point, re-composition to area of sky desire to capture.

My Tokina 11-16 UWA has fixed infinity so easy-peasy infinity focus at any zoom

The 2.8? That's the same lens I used for that shoot. Same technique of focusing to infinity and then locking, then recomposing as needed but I was obviously off, the live view seems the way to go here.

 

[Hughmac]

Full frame is a fad??

Yes, I was surprised to read that as well.
My father's 35mm rangefinder from the 1950's is full frame - it'll never last

Cheers

Hugh

 

[Clix Pix]

Frankly, full frame has been around for years, so it's no fad. Something that I think probably IS a fad, though, is "focus stacking," which all of a sudden I seem to be reading about everywhere.....

 

[NathanCH]

If you Youtube search "Full frame vs Cropped" you will find a dozen videos claiming that you can achieve the same look with crop as a full frame. They're not entirely wrong. If you intentionally try to achieve the same photo with both, you can. Simply crop the full frame photo, or step-backwards to compensate for the crop sensor.

I get what they're doing though. For beginners it's important to recognize you don't _need_ full frame. As I said in my last post, I've used crop sensor for ten years now. What's missing from the disucssion on Youtube is that full frame matters at the edge cases. And generally, when you upgrade gear, it's the edgecases which are satisfied by the upgrade.

Anyway, I'm a bit off topic now

I do have a question for you mirrorless owners; how is startup time affecting your shooting? My understanding is that mirrorless cameras use more battery, so I'd think that means you tend to shutdown the camera as frequently as possible inbetween shots. But don't they also have longer startup time?

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I don’t know if “fad” is the right word, but it does seem like there is a strong sentiment of ”FF or nothing” out there on review sites and forums. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with FF, but every format has its benefit, IMO, so it can be a pick-and-choose situation. For what I shoot, FF would be a heavy kit, and I really like the lightness of my EM5iii. It’s easy to carry with the 40-150 2.8, and I can get to 300mm (600mm eq) with the MC-20 teleconverter. Now, pair it with a prime, any my body and lens weighs less than 1lb, and I can put two or 3 more primes in my pocket as well. I’m not here to sell everyone on the format I’ve chosen, but I’ll be really sad if my format disappears because another format was pushed too hard. What I have does just what I need.

35mm certainly was the main standard back in the film days, but as a kid, I had a smaller body and smaller film format rangefinder camera that took cartridge-style rolls. So even then, we had format choices, and we really need to have them today, too. I also think that when you get into comparing to film standards, it’s worth considering that any modern digital ILC has way more dynamic range than film, and you don’t need to worry about what ISO film is in the body.

Hope no one hears me wrong, as I’m not trying to discount anyone’s choice—no doubt you arrived where you are at through as much painstaking deliberation as I have!

 

[Clix Pix]

Some years ago when Nikon was first really getting into the digital camera business and eventually started offering full-frame alongside their APS-C camera bodies and of course full-frame lenses and DX (crop) lenses, a lot of people bought both, because the full-frame cameras offered more with being able to pull out detail in images, which was important for some subjects, especially when shooting macro, close-ups and product photography.

On the other hand, bird and wildlife shooters as well as sports shooters were reaching for the APS-C bodies and DX lenses because that offered more "reach," or seemingly so, when trying to get a bird up in the sky or a baseball player running from base to base. Both types of camera body have their devotees, and many camera users do own and shoot with both, depending upon what their chosen subject might be. Neither is "right" or "wrong," and neither is a "fad."

 

[MacNut]

If you Youtube search "Full frame vs Cropped" you will find a dozen videos claiming that you can achieve the same look with crop as a full frame. They're not entirely wrong. If you intentionally try to achieve the same photo with both, you can. Simply crop the full frame photo, or step-backwards to compensate for the crop sensor.

I get what they're doing though. For beginners it's important to recognize you don't _need_ full frame. As I said in my last post, I've used crop sensor for ten years now. What's missing from the disucssion on Youtube is that full frame matters at the edge cases. And generally, when you upgrade gear, it's the edgecases which are satisfied by the upgrade.

Anyway, I'm a bit off topic now

I do have a question for you mirrorless owners; how is startup time affecting your shooting? My understanding is that mirrorless cameras use more battery, so I'd think that means you tend to shutdown the camera as frequently as possible inbetween shots. But don't they also have longer startup time?

Depends on the system. The new Sony batteries can give you 700 shots per charge.

I have never noticed an issue with startup time.

Just checked, one second from flipping the switch to usable.

 

[Clix Pix]

I've never noticed any issues with my Sony A7R IV and startup time, nor any battery issues. The batteries that were used with the NEX 7, though, did run out of juice more quickly. The current batteries are much more robust. At the time I bought my A7R IV I promptly bought two extra batteries in anticipation of needing them, and I have yet to need to use the third battery during a shooting session.

The RX10 IV, though, does have a little longer startup time but part of that is due to the fact that it is a "bridge" camera with fixed lens (a long zoom range) that has to be fired up and ready for action, too. It still uses the older batteries, the same ones the NEX 7 used, and they definitely run out of juice far sooner than one would like. I always make sure I've got several of those batteries charged, although I tend not to use that camera for extensive shooting sessions these days.

 

[Ish]

X-T30 with 16-55mm + 23mm f2

Nice. I recently got the X-T20 and love the way it fits in my hand. I've been shooting Fuji for a number of years now though so have several lenses.

 

[robgendreau]

I don’t know if “fad” is the right word, but it does seem like there is a strong sentiment of ”FF or nothing” out there on review sites and forums. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with FF, but every format has its benefit, IMO, so it can be a pick-and-choose situation. For what I shoot, FF would be a heavy kit, and I really like the lightness of my EM5iii. It’s easy to carry with the 40-150 2.8, and I can get to 300mm (600mm eq) with the MC-20 teleconverter. Now, pair it with a prime, any my body and lens weighs less than 1lb, and I can put two or 3 more primes in my pocket as well. I’m not here to sell everyone on the format I’ve chosen, but I’ll be really sad if my format disappears because another format was pushed too hard. What I have does just what I need.

35mm certainly was the main standard back in the film days, but as a kid, I had a smaller body and smaller film format rangefinder camera that took cartridge-style rolls. So even then, we had format choices, and we really need to have them today, too. I also think that when you get into comparing to film standards, it’s worth considering that any modern digital ILC has way more dynamic range than film, and you don’t need to worry about what ISO film is in the body.

Hope no one hears me wrong, as I’m not trying to discount anyone’s choice—no doubt you arrived where you are at through as much painstaking deliberation as I have!

Thanks; that is what I meant when I said "fad." I didn't realize it would be taken sort of pejoratively; "very popular" vs say the often more affordable APS-C might be a better way of putting it. It's driving down costs pretty rapidly and for many the downsides don't matter. I expect it won't be long before we see a $750 FF kit in CostCo.

And after reading about focus stacking as a fad, which sort of falls into the same class (and add HDR), and I guess that's evidence that nothing really that revolutionary has come down the camera pipeline in a decade. I've got an Oly from 2010 and it has both IBIS and an EVF, being mirrorless. They thought it was the future...but I guess it's not their future, at least as Olympus.

 

[Clix Pix]

I've been using full-frame cameras for quite a while, as for the type of shooting I most like to do they provide more detail and such..... In the past I also used to have a FF camera and also an APS-C camera and would use the latter for doing wildlife shooting, etc., because of the perceived greater reach. Right now I'm back to just FF and perfectly happy with that.

Yes, this focus stacking thing definitely seems to be the latest fad, but it's not something which particularly interests me, even though I do shoot a lot of macro and tabletop or closeup photography. I rather like the artistic, creative blur which when skillfully handled can be utilized when shooting with a wide-open lens or with one which offers good bokeh; I don't necessarily need to see all of my flower or other macro images tack-sharp all the way through the entire photo. Sometimes too much blur or too much bokeh in an image can be a negative thing, and ditto for too much sharpness throughout the entire image. Achieving a happy medium, a nice balance, using a body, lens and technique which works out best in these situations, just as it does in daily life. That said, if Sony ever gets around to implementing some sort of in-camera focus stacking process, I would be willing to try it out a time or two just to see what happens.....