If you're a DSLR user, what's keeping you from going to mirrorless?

[Red Storm]

The bigger battery, 4K video, dual card slot are all nice, but it's the much improved AF that is really tempting. Especially when one tries to photograph their 2 year old son who never stops moving.

 

[turtile]

Can't fault him. The a7iii definitely ticks all the right boxes to be a more superior camera compared to the a7ii. Way better AF, increased DR, increase buffer, dual card slot, 4K, and bigger battery. Even with my a6500 I getting a little bit of GAS. Then I think about the lens prices and that knocks some sense back into me.

It looks like it will be the most usable AF for a cheap FF camera. I can't stand Nikon and Canon's habit of shoving all of the focus points in the middle of the image. What's the purpose of that? I hope they change on their next releases. And I hope that sensor lands in the Nikon D750 replacement. The 15 stops of DR along with even cleaner images looks great.

 

[Paladin3]

'Cause my current equipment still does the job. When I do need to upgrade I'll probably stick to a DSLR because I need to shoot sports and in low light a bunch.

 

[NAC]

I have both: a Canon 80d with 6 lenses, and a GX85 micro 4/3 with two. For now, I’m keeping the Canon for photography for a few reasons:

• The cost of getting equivalent lenses for micro 4/3.
• There is no native micro 4/3 lens like the Sigma 18-35. I just LOVE that lens. I can adapt it to my GX85, which I plan to. But a native lens could be a bit smaller and lighter and focus faster.
• The Canon focus is better for action like dance / soccer.
• I prefer the optical viewfinder.

I do prefer micro 4/3 over the Canon in several ways:

• Video. Seriously, there is no comparison, Panasonic video rocks. I never shoot video on my Canon anymore. This was the reason I started the switch, Canon video sucks.
• Size & weight. My 35-100 2.8 is positively tiny in comparison to a Sigma 50-150 2.8 which is about the equivalent.
• For static subjects, it doesn’t miss focus. A DSLR will occasionally miss focus, especially with a narrow depth of focus.

I’ll see how things pan out. I wouldn’t be surprised if in 5 years I’ve moved away from Canon to be entirely micro 4/3.

 

[carusoswi]

I don't make the change because I have no motivation to make the change. My current gear answers all my wants. Sometimes, we go out back and play frisbee catch with our standard poodle. It can be a challenge for me to catch well focused shots of the dog in action, but I attribute failure to my lack of skill in shooting that sort of action. It's not the camera, and I don't really value the resultant successes enough to get GAS over the shots that i miss. I own lenses that will allow me to catch photos of birds in flight, and I have had some success, but locating and getting out to places where opportunity for good shots of birds in flight is high is a bigger challenge than taking the photos.

My gear is no impediment in my attempts to capture the type of shots that are important to me, holiday photos of my family, photos of my grandchildren doing whatever (most action type shots). The image quality that my gear provides will compete with any of the newer cameras. More importantly, the display methods in fashion today require that I downsize my photos, so rarely do I the opportunity to share photos at the highest quality that I can achieve.

For all the above reasons, I'd rather spend my time taking photos than acquiring and learning new camera bodies.

Each of us is different. I have been through my GAS stages with photo, video, and audio equipment. I enjoyed that stage, but I am over it now. What went a long way to dampen my enthusiasm for new equipment was the realization that the latest greatest never stayed that way long, and, while I always tried to buy the best I could afford, spending money did not always translate into gear that held up well.

I purchased some really high-end prosumer video gear back in the day, shot a lot off video on holidays and vacation trips, but the gear literally rotted while in storage (not rot as in rusted or grew fungus, it just stopped working), and then I was left with a worthless brick.

Nevertheless, I feel we should all enjoy our hobbies and/or our work no matter our stage with respect to GAS.

Happy shooting.

Caruso

 

[jhansman]

Three things: cost, cost, and (yep) cost. I would love to start over with a Sony a9 system, but I can't even afford the body, let alone the several lenses I would want. No, I'm staying with my dSLR for the duration.

 

[Fir]

When viewfinder tech looks as good as an optical viewfinder (resolution wise and absolutely zero lag) is one thing.
Eventually it will happen. I'd love to have a 50-75MP medium format that could do 100fps burst mode. Spray and pray never will be the same again!

 

[Raduque]

Money.

 

[bigi]

With mirriorless now on par with the performance of a DSLR and surpassing them in some areas, what is still keeping you from making the change?

I went from a P&S (an expensive one at that) straight to mirrorless with Sony's E system and never looked back.

Great topic OP. In a nutshell:

1. Current investment in body/glass/accessories. Even hobbyists have tons of money invested in current system. Once one considers switching, it is always a loss.

2. Mirror less don't often offer glass equivalents in terms of focus length, brightness and AF performance. Often, there is no equivalent at all. Ex, 500mm f/4 (Canon/Nikon), 800mm Nikon... and many more (wide angles, tilt shift, macro)

3. Build quality and ergonomics. Compare Nikon D5/Canon 1D series to ... Fuji, Sony? The latter ones are just too wimpy for real/pro work.

4. AF, ISO, dynamic range: below is from 4 year old camera with very inexpensive consumer lens. I am just not sure if 4 years later mirror-less can match it reliably.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5N4bAanhe34

5. Availability and performance of service.
https://petapixel.com/2016/08/03/canons-crazy-dslr-stockpile-rio-olympics/

YMMV of course. All depends of individual usage scenarios.
Apparently, it works fine for you.

Happy shooting.

 

[Denly]

about 3k in lens is stopping me. Besides the size of the camera is freaking pointless anyways, who the hell cares if its DSLR size or down to cell phone size when you are carrying a backpack full of lens and flash and tripods anyways.

When the camera body itself is less than 10% of the total volume of gear carried its size is really irreverent.

I carry an Olympus E3 - shit old weather seal pro body a tag smaller than 5D, the lady carry a EM5ii - latest weather seal body weight 2lb +/- with 25mm prime. She would clip it on her belt while I haul my rock. If you don't think there is a massive different in size and weight you need to go check them out in the store.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

My old DSLR camera ain't broke and I've never been much of a gear slu-umm... gear "enthusiast." I'm the limiting factor and I'm at peace with that.

 

[imported_Irse]

I have both but much prefer my DSLR. I like the optical VF and the quicker AF.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Looking into Panasonic Lumix DC-G9. Any thoughts? This would be my first dive into camera system. I'm really like it's video capabilities but read that it might not be the best for sports/active photography compared to others. Not sure if I should look at a less expensive mirrorless camera to start with or even DSLR.

 

[imported_Irse]

Looking into Panasonic Lumix DC-G9. Any thoughts? This would be my first dive into camera system. I'm really like it's video capabilities but read that it might not be the best for sports/active photography compared to others. Not sure if I should look at a less expensive mirrorless camera to start with or even DSLR.

What are you planning on shooting?

 

[Capt Caveman]

What are you planning on shooting?

A little bit of everything. I do a lot of hiking - landscape, baby owl(it's been grounded and have been observing it almost daily at a local wooded area as it's slowly getting bigger and climbing up trees), my dogs who have an instagram account. But lately, I have been going to a lot of road races taking photos of them with my Pixel 2 XL. They love the photos I take and give to them. Almost all outdoors.

 

[jtvang125]

QUOTE="Capt Caveman, post: 39399956, member: 160176"]Looking into Panasonic Lumix DC-G9. Any thoughts? This would be my first dive into camera system. I'm really like it's video capabilities but read that it might not be the best for sports/active photography compared to others. Not sure if I should look at a less expensive mirrorless camera to start with or even DSLR.[/QUOTE]

It was marketed as a sports oriented camera but the review from DPR wasn't so sure of that. They manage to get a few keepers but felt a camera with better AF would make the task a lot easier. But that was a very challenging shoot (indoor basketball) so if the action you plan on shooting isn't as fast paced then it might be fine. Panny has it down on the video featuers and their IBIS is top notch. The price is kinda high though for just a m4/3.

For mirrorless Canon has the recently released M50 but 4K is pretty cripped with a high crop factor and no DualPixel AF. Sample footage I've seen is pretty bad cause of the constant focus hunting. 4K on their DSLR doesn't show up til you get up to the 5Dmk4. Nikon has 4k in the D5 but AF in live view is probably going to be similar to the M50 with no OSPDAF.

In the Sony camp you have the a6500 as the top asp-c model and the new full frame a7iii with a beast of a AF system. Prepare to spend big $ on the FF lenses though.

IMO if you're going to spend ~$2000 on camera I would definitely get one that shoots 4K to be future proof.

 

[CuriousMike]

I'm barfing in my mouth a little saying this, but the A6300/A6500 might work well for your use case. Pair it with a good lens, maybe their 17-70 f4.
Or, go with their average kit lens and look at their 70-300 lens - that'll work nice for Wildlife and races.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Thanks for the suggestions! Looking into the A6500, it appears to provide better photo image quality but without losing too much video quality. Read the A6700 is coming out in July and will have improved video quality, so I may wait a couple of more months to see what it has.

 

[imported_Irse]

I tired a Panny before. Forgot which model. Video was good but I thought focusing was a little slow. I also don't care for EVF for fast moving subjects.

 

[jtvang125]

Thanks for the suggestions! Looking into the A6500, it appears to provide better photo image quality but without losing too much video quality. Read the A6700 is coming out in July and will have improved video quality, so I may wait a couple of more months to see what it has.

Other than adding 4k60p I don't really see Sony adding any additional video features. I doubt they'll do internal 10bit 4:2:2 sampling cause that will cannibalize their video cams and it'll be a first on the a7 series if they ever do. I can see improvements of the camera (newer battery type, improved AF, usb-c, dual card slot) and that's always a plus. With Canon and Nikon's entry in mirrorless I think Sony is going to try to cram as much as they can into their models so they'll be so appealing that it wouldn't make much sense to go with Canon or Nikon.

 

[bradly1101]

The size is meaningless because of the size of the lenses plus 'SL' in 'SLR' means "Single Lense." Why WOULD I want a mirrorless? The viewfinder is unimportant?

 

[bradly1101]

Actually the size of the lenses to me demands a bigger camera. I just upgraded from an amazing 40D (+ 17-55 EF-S 2.8 IS USM, and 70-300 EF 4-5.6 IS USM [big lenses]) to a 77D. It feels too small for me. I use DX0 for RAW since it can be purchased (not rented) and isn't too expensive.

 

[MrSquished]

Actually the size of the lenses to me demands a bigger camera. I just upgraded from an amazing 40D (+ 17-55 EF-S 2.8 IS USM, and 70-300 EF 4-5.6 IS USM [big lenses]) to a 77D. It feels too small for me. I use DX0 for RAW since it can be purchased (not rented) and isn't too expensive.

when you get an M43 setup the lenses are much smaller also due to sensor size. It's pretty amazing. The whole setup is smaller and that's what makes it work. I don't see the benefit nearly as much of just shrinking the body when the lenses stay the same size.

 

[bradly1101]

when you get an M43 setup the lenses are much smaller also due to sensor size. It's pretty amazing. The whole setup is smaller and that's what makes it work. I don't see the benefit nearly as much of just shrinking the body when the lenses stay the same size.

Yes, the glass I've already invested in would work, and you're right, if I ever went that way I'd get smaller lenses. I know it makes no sense versus an electronic viewfinder, and I like to see through the lens directly. Again, I'm aware that that makes no sense.

 

[thatsright]

As others have said, I'm locked into the Nikon FF system with traditional lenses and DSLRs (over $10k). I know how to use my gear, and while heavey-ish, its preferable to spending thousands more for a FF mirrorless camera and all new lenses. My D800, while not cutting edge any more, is great. But the lenses I have are the best out there and only fit the Nikon F mount of DSLRs. Several companies have come out with great/exciting mirrorless systems (except Nikon, they are expected to this fall), but don't have the lenses that are on par optically with the Nikons lenses for DSLRs. Of course, if someone wanted to start to get into digital cameras, I would tell them to seriously consider mirrorless. But with the caveat the lenses might not be optically at the same high, high level of lenses available for traditional full frame DSLRs. This is just my experience and opinion. Others might feel differently.