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

[jtvang125]

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.

 

[IronWing]

Sunk cost in lenses is the only thing for me.

 

[corkyg]

Sunk cost in lenses is the only thing for me.

Don't the lenses fit the mirrorless of the same brand as your DSLR?

 

[Rifter]

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.

 

[jtvang125]

Don't the lenses fit the mirrorless of the same brand as your DSLR?

With Canon, yes. I don't think Nikon has launch any apsc mirrorless cameras yet. Both can be adapted to Sony but I believe AF is only possible with Canon lenses.

 

[corkyg]

I guess that's why I asked - all my DSLR stuff & lenses are Canon. I don't keep up with the other brands - too much invested.

 

[MrSquished]

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.

It's not just the body that gets lighter and smaller, all the lenses do too. The difference between my Canon 40D setup with the same 4 lens range lenses was at least twice as big as heavy as what I am getting now with my OMD setup. It's gamechanging.

 

[fleshconsumed]

My only experiences with mirrorless are Canon EOS-M, Canon EOS-M3, and Fujifilm (don't remember exact model). They all have slow wake up time and slow focus times compared to DSLR. Perhaps newer models are better, but I wouldn't know. So for me it's slow wake up/focus times, lenses, and I still find viewfinder useful in sunny conditions or wherever I need to snap an action photo. I like mirrorless for their small size and light weight, but DSLR still have their advantages.

 

[MrSquished]

My only experiences with mirrorless are Canon EOS-M, Canon EOS-M3, and Fujifilm (don't remember exact model). They all have slow wake up time and slow focus times compared to DSLR. Perhaps newer models are better, but I wouldn't know. So for me it's slow wake up/focus times, lenses, and I still find viewfinder useful in sunny conditions or wherever I need to snap an action photo. I like mirrorless for their small size and light weight, but DSLR still have their advantages.

The EOS-M was reviewed pretty poorly. I don't think Canon made a serious enough attempt. Mirrorless has come a long way and you are missing out if you don't try out some of the newer stuff out there if you can.

 

[repoman0]

Yeah, any slowness issues are resolved, mirrorless cameras often have a nice viewfinder, and lenses can be extremely high quality. I'm in the Fujifilm ecosystem and the viewfinder on my X-T1 is miles ahead any of my old APS-C DSLRs. It's about the size of a full frame mirrored viewfinder but you get your expected exposure immediately as you adjust settings. These Fuji lenses are also ridiculously sharp and high quality for the price -- still expensive of course I use their 16-55mm f/2.8 standard zoom (24-85 equiv) and a 23mm f/1.4 prime (35mm equiv). I plan on adding the 50-140 f/2.8 at some point as well as an ultrawide.

Would not go back at this point. Plus I love the retro look and feel.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Also, totally forgot, but another thing that I love about DSLR is there is no battery draining screen, I can shoot 1400 photos on single 7D battery. I can only do a fraction on my mirrorless EOS-M3 because of the screen.

The EOS-M was reviewed pretty poorly. I don't think Canon made a serious enough attempt. Mirrorless has come a long way and you are missing out if you don't try out some of the newer stuff out there if you can.

I do think that EOS-M bashing was undeserved. It wasn't much worse than Fujifilm of the same generation. And as I implied, I also own EOS-M3 which came out less than 2 years ago, so relatively new entry, and it's nowhere near as fast as my ancient 8 year old 7D Mark I. If I find mirrorless camera that is as fast to wake up and focus as my old 7D, that would make me think again, but until then it's hard to give up DSLR.

Yeah, any slowness issues are resolved, mirrorless cameras often have a nice viewfinder, and lenses can be extremely high quality. I'm in the Fujifilm ecosystem and the viewfinder on my X-T1 is miles ahead any of my old APS-C DSLRs. It's about the size of a full frame mirrored viewfinder but you get your expected exposure immediately as you adjust settings. These Fuji lenses are also ridiculously sharp and high quality for the price -- still expensive of course I use their 16-55mm f/2.8 standard zoom (24-85 equiv) and a 23mm f/1.4 prime (35mm equiv). I plan on adding the 50-140 f/2.8 at some point as well as an ultrawide.

Would not go back at this point. Plus I love the retro look and feel.

Damn, OLED viewfinder? Nice, looks like about 1920x1200 actual resolution? How's the actual EVF image lag? Is there any noticeable lag? Mirrored viewfinder is nice because there is zero lag and zero refresh rate issues, it's mirror. How is X-T1 EVF lag, especially in low light situations? And how is battery life? Hard to give up 1400 photo battery life on my 7D.

P.S. isn't internet wonderful? Looks like X-T1 has significant blackout time after taking a shot - another thing you don't need to worry with mirror.

 

[CuriousMike]

The difference between my Canon 40D setup *snip* *and* OMD setup.

Apples and pears; APS-C/Full Frame lenses cannot be compared to their m43 mirrorless brethren without understanding the differences.

If you're comparing APS-C/Full Frame DSLR glass to mirrorless APS-C/Full frame glass, they're the same. It's physics.

The size of the mirrorless body is nice.
The EVF is nice - but in my OMD and my Fuji XT2 (and a past A6000), the quality of the EVF is akin to a nice VHS camcorder EVF from 1997. I know that EVF's have "gotten better", but ... honestly, they are not wow.
The ability to see exposure in real time is a wow.

Controls largely favor DSLR's - bigger bodies = more room to spread buttons out and give some room.

Battery life has improved tremendously with mirrorless - probably closer to 1/3 or 1/2 the life of a DSLR.

If someone is just starting out in photography, the mirrorless options are almost no-brainers now.

But large bodies aren't completely dead yet - feel and user experience still matters to some.

The new Pany's and Olympus' sensor stabilization with or without lens stabilization is a wow.

Features tend to favor mirrorless ( i.e. focus stacking in body ).

Autofocus - the best mirrorless cameras are now matching almost-best DSLR AF systems.

Video - the AF on my DSLR (Nikon) SUCKS. The video quality is nice.
The AF on my Fuji X-T20 is very nice - with good video quality.

Does that new Sony A7 III have low-energy BT ? That thing, on paper, is amazing.
But like every Sony so far, they end up with some achilles heel.

 

[MrSquished]

Apples and pears; APS-C/Full Frame lenses cannot be compared to their m43 mirrorless brethren without understanding the differences.

If you're comparing APS-C/Full Frame DSLR glass to mirrorless APS-C/Full frame glass, they're the same. It's physics.

The size of the mirrorless body is nice.
The EVF is nice - but in my OMD and my Fuji XT2 (and a past A6000), the quality of the EVF is akin to a nice VHS camcorder EVF from 1997. I know that EVF's have "gotten better", but ... honestly, they are not wow.
The ability to see exposure in real time is a wow.

Controls largely favor DSLR's - bigger bodies = more room to spread buttons out and give some room.

Battery life has improved tremendously with mirrorless - probably closer to 1/3 or 1/2 the life of a DSLR.

If someone is just starting out in photography, the mirrorless options are almost no-brainers now.

But large bodies aren't completely dead yet - feel and user experience still matters to some.

The new Pany's and Olympus' sensor stabilization with or without lens stabilization is a wow.

Features tend to favor mirrorless ( i.e. focus stacking in body ).

Autofocus - the best mirrorless cameras are now matching almost-best DSLR AF systems.

Video - the AF on my DSLR (Nikon) SUCKS. The video quality is nice.
The AF on my Fuji X-T20 is very nice - with good video quality.

Does that new Sony A7 III have low-energy BT ? That thing, on paper, is amazing.
But like every Sony so far, they end up with some achilles heel.

I should have been more specific and referenced mirrorless systems like M43. My bad.

I find the performance of my OMD rigs to easily match and surpass what I was getting with my APS-C gear for my styles of shooting. I do use my OM-D EM5 MarkII with a portrait grip and find it to be quite ergonomic that way, and too small without the grip. I find my EM-1 to be ergonomic enough as is. Focusing since my original EM-5 has clearly evolved. I'm happy with the EVF of my two cameras now. Internal OS was a huge selling point to me when only Oly had it and I use it often. And my kit is half the size and weight of my APS-C rig. I was on a trip to turkey and I had my 40D setup with my four lenses and it was a bear to carry and really took away from my enjoyment of the journey significantly. That's when I discovered the future potential of M43 and then never looked back.

Hoping to get an EM-1 Mark II later this year actually.

 

[repoman0]

Damn, OLED viewfinder? Nice, looks like about 1920x1200 actual resolution? How's the actual EVF image lag? Is there any noticeable lag? Mirrored viewfinder is nice because there is zero lag and zero refresh rate issues, it's mirror. How is X-T1 EVF lag, especially in low light situations? And how is battery life? Hard to give up 1400 photo battery life on my 7D.

P.S. isn't internet wonderful? Looks like X-T1 has significant blackout time after taking a shot - another thing you don't need to worry with mirror.

Yep there are definitely quirks like that — blackout time post-shutter click is probably around a quarter of a second on the XT1. Supposedly more like a tenth on the XT2, so it is something they iteratively improve. The XT2 is apparently a big improvement over the XT1 in a lot of ways. I’ll be grabbing one once the new XH1 comes out and hopefully drives prices down.

Lag is unnoticeable in decent light but it slows down a bit in very low light. Never enough to bother me, but it is there if it’s very dark. As for battery life you will never get 1400 shots on this thing more like 300-400. I bought a couple extra third party Wasabi batteries for 20 bucks and just rotate them. I’ve never had to swap mid day while traveling and I’m not careful about turning it off or anything. That said I do keep the back large LCD set to off.

So yeah — there are absolutely still places where a good DSLR is king, like fast action in low light and if you really hate your charger. I shoot almost entirely static scenes (landscape, cityscape, travel) so the trade offs work out easily in my favor.

 

[turtile]

1. Weather resistance doesn't compare
2. Only the newest Sony FF has decent battery life
3. Lens selection is very small in comparison to major DSLR brands - I use many of the more exotic lenses
4. Manual focus is still easier with a mirror in some cases

These will change in the future but I don't see any reason to switch unless I moved to video.

 

[tdawg]

Don't the lenses fit the mirrorless of the same brand as your DSLR?

With Canon, yes. I don't think Nikon has launch any apsc mirrorless cameras yet. Both can be adapted to Sony but I believe AF is only possible with Canon lenses.

Natively? No. Even Canon m-series cameras require an adapter to mount EF & EF-S lenses to the mount of the m-series cameras. The difference in distance from sensor to lens requires some sort of adaptation or different lens design.

 

[jtvang125]

Natively? No. Even Canon m-series cameras require an adapter to mount EF & EF-S lenses to the mount of the m-series cameras. The difference in distance from sensor to lens requires some sort of adaptation or different lens design.

Yes, all dslr lenses will need to be adapted if used on a mirrorless to take up the space due to a shorter registration distance (mount to sensor). Some of the older lenses lack a stepper motor too so AF might be a little slower when adapted to a mirrorless.

 

[Rifter]

It's not just the body that gets lighter and smaller, all the lenses do too. The difference between my Canon 40D setup with the same 4 lens range lenses was at least twice as big as heavy as what I am getting now with my OMD setup. It's gamechanging.

Smaller lens do intrest me, but not enough to start over with a whole new system that cant use any of my existing equipment.

 

[ElFenix]

i haven't found a new mirrorless body that takes delta.

 

[Anubis]

nikon does not make a mirror-less camera

 

[shortylickens]

Image quality I guess.

We all have tiny pocket cameras so theres no reason to go with the big boys unless you care about image quality.
At this point I honestly dont see the need for all the stuff in the middle like compacts or such.

 

[repoman0]

Image quality I guess.

Mirrorless can and often does have the same caliber image quality as a DSLR.

 

[Red Storm]

As someone fairly new to the dedicated camera world, I went with mirrorless (Sony A7II) mainly for the smaller size and weight of the bodies. Lenses are expensive for sure, but it also felt like Sony was putting more effort into their lineup. Have not regretted my choice, am now fighting the temptation to sell my A7II and go for the A7III.

 

[CuriousMike]

As someone fairly new to the dedicated camera world, I went with mirrorless (Sony A7II) mainly for the smaller size and weight of the bodies. Lenses are expensive for sure, but it also felt like Sony was putting more effort into their lineup. Have not regretted my choice, am now fighting the temptation to sell my A7II and go for the A7III.

Suggestion - ignore the GAS. When you can point to a particular issue that your current gear is stopping you from achieving that the new gear will 100% fix, then go for it.
In the meantime, use your top-of-the-line AR7II and take more photos.
If you're deadset on buying more camera stuffs, consider a new lens before considering a new body.
Or, consider spending any money instead of on stuff and spend it on a trip where you can use what you have.

 

[jtvang125]

Suggestion - ignore the GAS. When you can point to a particular issue that your current gear is stopping you from achieving that the new gear will 100% fix, then go for it.
In the meantime, use your top-of-the-line AR7II and take more photos.
If you're deadset on buying more camera stuffs, consider a new lens before considering a new body.
Or, consider spending any money instead of on stuff and spend it on a trip where you can use what you have.

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.