Photographers and videographers are lucky to have a wide range of general-purpose full frame mirrorless cameras that can competently handle a lot of genres and scenarios. If you are wondering which model is right for you, this fantastic video compares the Sony a7 III, the Canon EOS R, and the Nikon Z 6.
Coming to you from DPReview, this great video discusses the Sony a7 III, the Canon EOS R, and the Nikon Z 6 cameras. While there are a lot of more extreme cameras, these three cameras represent great balances between cost and capabilities, offering a lot of versatility for a wide range of shooting scenarios. I was a particular fan of the Sony a7 III in my review, as it offers a fantastic balance of image quality, technical capabilities, and advanced features all in a very fairly priced body. On the other hand, one important thing to remember is that if you are coming from Canon or Nikon DSLRs, you can use your EF and F mount lenses on the respective Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras with near native performance (or sometimes even better), which can make the transition to mirrorless far easier on the wallet. One thing is for sure: we are not without choice these days. Check out the video above for a helpful look at these three cameras.
For some reason Mirrorless has become synonymous with 35mm. So we are always comparing the same with the same. Let’s mix it up. What sort of sharpness wide open do you get on a Medium format “Mirrorless” vs a 35 mm “Mirrorless” vs an APS C “Mirrorless”.
I mean why does the mirror matter so much really?
Indeed the Mirrorless offerings of the reviewed cameras are bigger than “Mirrorfull” SLR cameras in the 90s and 80s. Anyone got an answer for that? The sensor? Really?
There are enough MFT and APS-C offerings in the mirrorless world. Most of the time it will suit the users better. But influencers are all about FF.
For my taste mirrorless ff doesn't have any substantial size and weight advantages over dslr ff.
Comparing output from MFT vs APSC - mirror, 20mp vs 24mp, + excellent optics, I see no difference. The joy of MFT is in the kit size and lens adaptability. FF digital doesn’t appeal to my wallet, and I can go film up to 6x7cm still. Video not so much. 👀
Mirrorless = no mirror to negatively impact the camera. It means no AF fine tuning ever, which is massive if you want sharp images with every lens. Reduced/zero blackout time is also a thing, along with faster fps for less money. For example, the $450 GX85 shoots at FPS that only current DSLRs costing 6x as much or more can match/beat. Same with all of the sub-$1K Sony A6xxx cameras, and plenty of other mirrorless cameras in the second half of last decade. The sensor has way bigger benefits, being designed to be fast enough to operate as an AF sensor along with an imaging sensor, but only because the mirror was removed did sensors evolve in that direction.
Interesting thanks! To me the biggest benefit would be size. I had no issues with fps or AF on, say, the D700 or D850. As for costs ... I guess camera makers are just making a greater profit
Well, the D850 and D700 were the 2nd highest tier cameras Nikon made at those points in time. ;) Then again, I've had a hell of a time with Nikon cameras that used variants of their Multi-cam 3500/II pro AF module and getting accurate AF. The #1 reason I moved to mirrorless, and haven't had an issue since.
Woosh! This video was too complicated for me. But what I loved was that they were all good cameras, and the man was truthful and nice. What a good way to make a video. So many good choices from people who make good things.
I am happy with my camera now but I will go to this man and his friend when I want a new one (that is if I keep up with my new hobby and I stay happy and healthy and wealthy!)