Mirrorless is going to completely kill DSLR? Really?
I need to do some serious soul-searching before I continue buying DSLR equipment, assuming this is true. More research needed.
I need to do some serious soul-searching before I continue buying DSLR equipment, assuming this is true. More research needed.
The primary advantage of mirrorless cameras is the smaller weight and size, but if you do extended photo sessions you'll soon find the weight difference doesn't really matter and the smaller size of a mirrorless is actually a disadvantage.
There's a very real reason professional DSLR bodies are massive with defined grips, it's because your hand can start to cramp or it can otherwise be uncomfortable to stay in position for a long time waiting on a shot if you have a small body or poor grip angles. When doing wildlife photography and insect photography this becomes incredibly obvious because both require patience since you can't control your subject.
At this point I either go out the door with my DSLR kit or I stick to my phone. A phone camera is very good these days and can even shoot in RAW with manual adjustments for everything but aperture. When I need to specifically do distance or macro photos, nothing beats a full sized DSLR on ergonomics.
I love the Sony tech, but unless they end up building an optional grip systems for their bodies I doubt I will ever attempt mirrorless again.
It may depend on the kind of photography you're doing too. For street photography and hiking I'd never go back to DSLR. They are simply bulky and (for street) do not look nearly as friendly.
However, for things like sports, events, and weddings, where you are carrying the pro f/2.8 zooms (which are about the same size and weight whether it is on Sony or Canikon) on multiple bodies, I find that the well-defined grips and balanced handling of the Canikon pro bodies (and the OVF rather than the EVF) are less fatiguing personally.
That said, for my typical trip I take my Fujifilm gear because it's so much lighter and more compact. I just wish they'd do an X-E3.
I'm not going to get rid of my DSLR gear because I do use it but I know people who have.
I eventually sold off my nikon gear.
The XT-2: Dedicated aperture dial, ISO dial, shutter speed dial. Compact, looks more friendly to onlookers (can be important if you shoot street photography). I like the ergonomics of them a lot (esp compared to the Fuji E-series, which is not so good).
If you enjoy shooting film, it has a very similar feel.
The digital viewfinder shows you exactly what the sensor is seeing, so you have a better idea of what the final image will look like.
They focus better during video.
I think there are also some technical details on how the auto focus points work better mirrorless and the depth of field in the viewfinder is more accurate. I think DSLRs hold the apature wide open when you look through the view finder, then stop it down when you take the photo -- this keeps the view finder bright but effects the depth of field. Not 100% sure on this though.
But a SLR or DSLR with a bright 100% view finder is a thing of beauty. So big and crisp and clear.
Old school management thinking. The most common speculation as to why Canon and Nikon are behind in mirrorless is that they're afraid of cannibalizing their DSLR product lines.
As soon as you've said you have to start over again (Maybe with some kludgy options for existing high end telephoto glass) you've basically eliminated whatever advantage you may have as an incumbent.
It's as if Microsoft introduced a great new operating system that couldn't run any existing applications. (This has been done in various ways like Apple with Intel but it's hugely painful.)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System
Reminds me of the Porsche Boxster/Cayman. Mid-engined cars is a fundamentally better design than the rear engined 911 but the company culture and legacy requires that the best performing Porsche models are the 911s.
I'd love to see Canon/Nikon build a 918 equivalent, just go all out building a mirrorless using their best tech. Unfortunately they are ceding the ground to Sony/Fuji/Olympus...
Not really. If your photographic needs are satisfied with DSLR equipment, why worry about it? Don't change for the sake of change.
I've read some great reviews of mirrorless cameras, but they always seemed a bit fan-boyish -- and I don't want to invest in gear simply because it's something all the cool kids are doing.
All I care about is the art, and I understand that there's always going to be trade-offs. Quite frankly, the main attraction to me right now with mirrorless cameras is the incredibly high ISO I'm seeing. But since photography is a long-term hobby, and since I don't go out and buy the new stuff simply because it's the new stuff, I figured the DSLR guys will be along in a few years with just as good sensitivity only it'll work with all of my other stuff, right?
I have no problem shooting with a cell phone if I think I've got a good shot. The problem is when I gear up and specifically go out to try and get something. At that point, what does mirrorless really get me? (assuming the DSLR bodies catch up over the next few years) I'm already hauling stuff. I'm thinking the mirror itself is a nit either way at that point.
Like I said, I need to keep an eye on this. The field is evolving quickly.