If you are looking to buy a new camera and not sure if you should go with a DSLR or mirrorless camera or possibly even making a switch away from DSLR to mirrorless, it's important to know what advantages each system has to better fit your needs.
While mirrorless camera systems are much newer than DSLR systems, it doesn't necessarily mean they're the best choice for everyone. In this video, David Flores with B&H shares the differences between each system and highlights the advantages they have over each other to help assist you in making the correct decision for yourself and your needs. Today, mirrorless cameras seem to be the popular answer among many photographers. While many are happy with this path, not all experiences have been optimal, resulting in some photographers going back to DSLRs. I would say that mirrorless cameras are increasingly getting better at narrowing the gap of disadvantages between their counterparts. With either option, you will be able to create beautiful results, and in the end, the answer is user preference.
Which type of camera system are you currently using and what are some of the key factors of you choosing that platform?
Neither: TLR
:P
While I really appreciate the promise of mirrorless cameras, and the newest crop of Sonys seem to deliver on most of them, I am sticking with my DSLRs for my work as they are paid for, make brilliant images, dead reliable with long battery life and are paid for. They are business tools. Did I mention they are paid for?
Selling them and the catalog of lenses I own would incur a significant cash hit for, at the moment, scant advantage.
My work is largely confined to architecture and commercial photography that does not meaningfully benefit from the mirrorless strengths of exposure evaluation via EVF (I use flash and am often tripod mounted and moving slowly), silence and slightly lighter weight.
Were I a wedding photographer I would be on a new mirrorless system yesterday.
I think you've definitely made the right choice for your situation!
Im a wedding photographer. Im not moving to ml anytime soon. Love the long battery life in the d4s d4 combo and I absolutely love the ergonomics heft and feel when using it with a 70-200. I used a sony a7s2 lens for video and it did have a grip. The ergonomics is terrible. Battery life isnt great. I may move over to ml in the future if there is no choice but as I can assume it wont be for quite a few years. Very curious what nikon will bring with their ml, though I wont be getting it as never buy version 1 of anything.
From what I have seen Sony (in the mkIII versions) have very good video and with a grip, excellent battery life.
Were I coming in new to photography I would be seriously looking at them. Particularly if I shot weddings, events, and lifestyle type work.
Not even close to the ergonomics feel and robustness of my dslr. Battery life with enel18 is amazing i get over 3000clicks.even with the amazing enel15 it gets 1500 clicks. The new z battery gets to 900 ergonomics is terrible for 12+hour weddings give me a ml with a dslr body/battery life and we can talk about it. Otherwise I laugh at sonys offerings
12 hr weddings is precisely why I stopped doing them.
The battery life on My 5DsR and my mkIV are quite a bit lower than previous models unfortunately. Nikon is much better in this regard.
I wouldnt touch it only because of their bad battery life and horrible ergonomics. When you use a d4s, nothing compares with ergonomics and battery life. The sony a7 cameras are horrible ergonomics with their squarish blocky body vs the contoured nikon. I hope nikon doesnt fall to the sam trap and make a dslr shaped body like a d750. I am not going for that shitty df style body when I need to shoot 12+ hour weddings. I dont need worn out fingers with a thin body
I started shooting weddings in 1980. I used a Minolta X-GM. Later was using Nikon F2 and 3s and Mamiya RB. Gear was completely un-ergonomc. Fortunately weddings were not the princess fantasies they are today.
I was doing 12 hr weddings with 2 shooters up until 2013. Then I looked at the cost/ benefit ratio and realized it wasn't worth it in terms of money and health.
I used Canon 1Ds and 5Ds and they are ergonomic but heavy. Particularly with a 70-200 zoom. Carrying two cameras and strobes take a toll no matter how ergonomic they are.
Right now the Olympus EM-1 mk II with a 12-100 seems to be the camera I would choose for verstility and low mass in a 12 hr event. 20MP is more than enough for any of the wedding party's needs considering we made heroic images with 8MP.
Hey do me a favor keep the past there. I dont core about older film cameras. Im not stuck in the past. I only look forward. For me the d4s/70-200 is fine. No complaints. 80/70-200 were never light and f3 with grip and f4/5 werent either. I had them too. I love the ergonomics the cameras have today. If nikon goes sony a7 body route, im out. I dont think they will. Theyll realize the a7 is a flawed design. Nikon makes the best ergonomics in camera imo. They read comments.
I have a DSLR and some good lenses. I am not really seeing anything compelling in a mirrorless camera such that I would sell all of this gear and begin the process of acquiring new gear.
I like the battery life on my D750.
I have big hands and I have heard complaints about the comfort of holding some of the mirrorless cameras.
To my understanding, the main advantage would be slightly less weight for hiking. Meh.
My mirrorless set up is 1/3 the weight of my DSLR set up. And the tripod is half the weight of the tripod I use for the DSLR.
Also, i shot 360 frames (jpg + RAW) tonight for slightly more than half the charge.
And I'm 6'3" and am having no issues with the grip.
Nikon D750 is listed at 1.65 lb / 750 g body only
Sony alpha A7 III is listed at 1.43 lb / 650 g body only
Are the lenses going to be any difference in weight between a DSLR and Mirrorless full-frame camera? I would think that glass is glass, but maybe there is something that I don't know here.
For reference, the Sony 24-105mm kit lens and the Nikon 24-120mm kit lens weigh almost the same.
I can't see how this allows one tripod vs. another. Is there some other factor that would affect the tripod?
I don't know that I could feel a 8% weight difference in carrying a camera/lens. But I have never held or shot with the Sony. I would never buy a Sony product, but I am assuming that a future Nikon mirrorless would have about the same weight advantage.
For reference, my mirrorless camera is the Sony A6000, which weighs less than 500g body and lens (I'm running primes). I also own a D3.
The A6000 is VERY good.
Moving on.
OK, I just picked a mirrorless full-frame on B&H to compare to my camera. I am sure there is a lot of variation.
You were comparing an APS-C camera and lenses to a FF DSLR with integrated grip and (I assume) similar lens types for relative weight?? That has nothing to do with mirrorless.
The weight of the Hasselblad X1D body is 725 g (1.60 lb / 25.57 oz)
You were saying?
But sure, body only with batteries:
- D3 = 1,414 g
- D700 = 1,075g
- D300 (APSC) = 903g
- D5500 (APSC) = 480g
- D7200 (APSC) = 765g
- A6000/6300/6500 = 453g
The A6000/6300/6500 are all pretty much the same bodies, and in terms of quality and capability would be most appropriately compared to the D300 and D7200.
The bulk of my point had to do with comparing the D3, specifically, to an APSC camera along with the fact comparable lenses for the different formats also contribute quite a bit to the weight disparity. You weren't comparing like with like.
I have nothing against mirrorless cameras. There are lots of reasons to choose one or the other but weight isn't as big a factor as people think, depending of course on your lens selection.
Anyway, to each their own. :-)
If you go back to my initial response, you will notice that I expressly used the word "my".
However, what I said holds, as the weight of the X1D demonstrates. And as comparisons between the A6000 series and comparable APSC Nikon also demonstrates.
Edit: I still shoot my D3; there is something to be said for a 8.46 micron pixel pitch.
I don't want to belabor the point but I wouldn't compare the weight of the D300 with the much newer A6xxx series. I would think the newer cameras would use lighter materials. Maybe not. The D7200 makes more sense and the difference isn't a third. What lenses on the D3 are you comparing to what lenses on your A6000? And out of curiosity, what kind of photography are you using each for?
I shoot with a Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 and a 50mm f/1.4 Ais. Occasionally, I will shoot with a 105mm f/2.5 Occasionally (mainly for forests) I will shoot with a Nikkor 70-200 f/4
And on the Sony I'm using the Sigma f/2.8 19mm, 30mm, and occasionally 60mm.
The Ais lenses aren't the lightest animals; however, I would note that there isn't a huge difference between the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8g at 185g and the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 at 135g
My subject matter is primarily landscape/seascape, nature, and architectural.
I guess I would also observe that I'm a hiker, and the stories about the ultralight weight hikers cutting the ends off their toothbrushes to save weight are not apocryphal. Grams do matter, and not as some abstract in the same way that photographers argue about gear on forums. Carrying less weight in gear leads to a much easier and more enjoyable experience.
The shooting that I did a couple of nights ago involved walking long distances (probably around 15km all up) through the city and working very quickly. I'd done the same thing a week before with my DSLR, and the difference to my quality of experience was obvious.
My only real criticism of the mirrorless is that I find it very difficult to use a polarising filter; however, I don't know whether that is unique to me, as I haven't heard anyone else say it.
Oh. Well, for hiking, I take everything back! :-)
Actually, lighter cameras tend to need heavier tripods. That is, total weight of camera+tripod is a plus, not a negative.
So, if there is little or no wind, and I am using a 10s self timer, and there is no mirror...
I'm pretty happy that 10s is enough time for any vibrations to stop.
Well, on the day when your fairy godmother wakes up and touches you with her magic wand and everything goes your way, that works. On other days, maybe not. But professionals need to be ready for those days when their fairy godmothers sleep in.
Yet another idiot who doesn't realise that the word "professional" is not a synonym for "excellence", rather it simply means 'runs a business'. And while I'm on the subject, photographoc professionals encompass more than just wedding and portrait hacks, who are heavily time constrained.
However, my images are pin sharp. And do you know what, I'm more than capable of using my DSLR or my medium or large format kit if circumstances require. For example, I'm about to head for a hike in the mountains, and since it's a shortish day hike and I intend to take my time, I'll be shooting on medium format and using a 5kg tripod.
You seem to think I rely upon luck, it's funny how I'm consistently 'lucky'.
By "professional" I do mean "run a business" and, specifically, being prepared succeed when the universe doesn't behave the way I want it to...such as being prepared to turn out salable results whether there is a wind or not.
Inferentially, you are utterly incapable of looking at a weather report and applying sound judgement.
But let's just flesh this out a little:
1. You are dumping on me because I chose to use a lightweight Gitzo Mountaineer instead of bumping my ISO.
2. I did so because I was walking a fair distance through the city and working quickly. I had done the same a few days prior with my heavy kit, and my output was nowhere near as high, nor as high quality. Carrying heavy kit is tiring.
3. You assert that "professionals" use heavy tripods because of quality and consistenct of output. OK, let's just accept that.
In 6 weeks I'll be mountaineering, and according to you, if I want quality results I should be carrying a heavy tripod. Sure, with the attendant risk of a) not making it up the mountain, b) potentially putting those with me at risk, and anyone who may have to rescue me, and c) being too tired to shoot, and if I can bring myself to shoot, certainly not having the surplus cognitive energy to be creative, or move around at all.
Yep, totally professional.
Your position is manifestly absurd.
Sorry, man, but you're doing all the childish "dumping."
But you can have the last word.
I'll take you up on that.
A "professional" who is happy to shit on someone while you believe that person is using flimsy low end gear, but once it becomes clear that you made an idiot of yourself you folded.
A "professional" who fails to realize that all gear involves compromise.
You may indeed be making your livelihood from photography, but there is nothing "professional" about your conduct. You're a complete disgrace, and representative of all that is wrong with photography forums.
I use a Canon 5D and Olympus E-M1 Mark II. They're both great for different reasons, there's room in the world for both.
At the end of the day, it's about the right tool for the job.
I recently purchased a mirrorless (Panasonic) and took it out to a dusk/night street photography meetup. For that kind of shoot, it's a better choice than my DSLR because I didn't need a tripod and I blended in more. Also, by bracing against a lamp post I was able to get a crystal clear shot with a shutter speed of 3.2 seconds. My best braced shot with an DSLR was under a second and hand held .3 @ ~50mm.
The Panasonic wouldn't be the best tool for studio work though. Perhaps Sony may be better than CaNikon for studio, but it's another ecosystem.
As for battery life - A valid argument until this year or late last. Any current model from Panasonic or Sony (don't know about the others) will last just as long as your average DSLR, but with the bonus of being able to run (and charge) from USB.
The practical reasons I can think of to choose a DSLR over mirrorless camera if you're buying into a system today:
1. You need tons of battery life (like TONS).
2. You don't have a lot of money so having a big used gear market with tons of affordable options is important.
3. You plan to take your camera out into inclement weather.
4. You have big hands and most mirrorless cameras don't fit them well ergonomically.
5. You are going to regularly be using large, super-telephoto lenses which are either not available or just don't balance all that well on most current mirrorless cameras.
6. Reliable and quick professional servicing options is particularly important to you.
---------------------
The practical reasons I can think of to choose a mirrorless camera over a DSLR if you're buying into a system today:
Pretty much everything else.
"Pretty much everything else" makes it sound like a multitude of reasons. It's not, depending on the type of photography you engage in.
Well, if someone brand new with no prior investment in any photographic equipment at all came up to you and asked what camera system they should start buying into, would you recommend a DSLR system?
Unless they had some very specific use scenario that warranted it, I certainly wouldn't recommend a DSLR simply because I think it would be a horrible investment for somebody to start buying into a DSLR system today since it's a technology that's likely to start being phased out as R&D dollars gets allocated away from it by all of the major manufacturers.
This isn't to say that certain people don't have a preference for DSLR's, but there are also rangefinder loyalists out there and that didn't stop the major manufacturers from ceasing production of those types of cameras either. It makes no sense for these companies to keep up R&D on two separate technologies that serve the same exact function and compete for the same exact market. I think we all know which direction the market is heading at this point.
DSLR or mirrorless, in the end, you can't tell which was used when you look at the final product so all of the debate is going to be focused on the user experience. It seems to me that on that front, there's far more reasons that one might want to choose a mirrorless camera than a DSLR. Once manufacturers start producing mirrorless cameras that have good ergnomics, weathersealing, and are rugged enough to take some hits, the only thing really left is going to be the few people who just hate EVF for whatever reason.
That makes a lot of sense for that scenario. I didn't think about that; rather an existing photographer considering moving to mirrorless or not. When someone asks me what to get, after establishing their wants and needs, I always offer the possibility of mirrorless even though I wouldn't have one. I agree with there being no difference in output, assuming those genres where they're equally capable. I'm not sure I'd characterize someone's preference for an OVF as hate for an EVF. I do think, however, that EVFs take something away from the experience that no amount of technology can make up for. I'm also certain they add to the experience for some people.
Yeah, for most people who are already invested in a system, I don't see the difference as so great that it makes sense to take the hit and switch. Presumably, if you have enough investment in a DSLR system that the thought of switching gives you pause, you probably know how to use the equipment well enough to capture what you want (otherwise, I don't think you would be that heavily invested). The existence of mirrorless cameras doesn't make DSLR's any less capable than they were before so most current DSLR shooters will probably be just fine and I highly doubt that a switch to mirrorless will make a meaningful difference in your ability as a photographer if you already have the fundamentals down.
As far as the OVF vs. EVF thing, I phrased it poorly, but yeah... Sometimes it's just a preference thing. The last time I really spend any amount of time with an EVF was borrowing an older Sony from a friend a while back and I remember not really liking it. There was just something weird about the experience. I chalked it up to unfamiliarity, though and I imagine that they've probably improved since then and are getting better with each generation. The only times I really find myself wanting one is in really dark situations, but I don't find myself in too many of those so it's fine for me.
It will be interesting to see how the market looks when it's time to replace the D850 I just bought. Will Nikon still be making DSLR's or DSLR lenses in 5 years or so? Who knows? Honestly, I wouldn't really mind them going the Leica route and sticking to a niche market as a smaller company focusing on DSLR's similar to how Leica focuses on rangefinders, but I'm sure there will be many who disagree with this (probably including Nikon shareholders). Before they completely abandon mirrors, though, I would love it if they ended it all with a film body that was able to use all of their DSLR lenses. One can always dream, right?
I agree with everything and especially your last paragraph. I don't think there's anything wrong with them becoming a niche company or at least carrying a niche line. But I'm not convinced they'll abandon mirrors. I know a lot of younger people (a lot of people are younger than me) embrace technology but, you're right, there IS something weird about EVFs. There are photos of everything out there. Taking your own photos is as worthy a goal as having the end result. Sometimes I use the LCD on my camera when I need to achieve critical focus but it always feels wrong.
I dream all the time! :-)
"3. You plan to take your camera out into inclement weather."
This is why I have yet to switch. I have been thinking about still jumping into mirrorless as a second camera system.
Not wanting to sound like a fanboi but... Panasonic's weather sealing is pretty decent now. Their training videos show a guy watering the camera with a hose and using the buttons. I think that was overkill, but it was an official Panasonic video.
The kit lenses aren't a scratch on the Leica glass, but they're not bad for weather sealing. I'd put the kit lenses as similar to Canon's 24-105 F4 for weather sealing and the Leica lenses as closer to Canon's 70-200 F2.8.
As for the body - Allegedly better sealing than Canon's crop-sensor cameras, but not sure how it'd stack against a 5D. Sorry I can't compare to Nikon, as I've not used their gear.
Put it this way, I'm more likely to take my Panasonic into the rain that I am my Canon crop-sensor. Both will get a rain cover if the rain gets too heavy, but I'm not going to baby either of them.
Of course, Pentax is probably more weather sealed than anything CaNikon have... Or so the fanbois say ;-)
If I were a betting man, I would bet that the maker of this video is a die-hard D-slr fan. Talking about AF systems, maybe they should have mentioned how limited the af is in most d-slrs, even in high-end d-slrs the af system offers far less points and far less coverage.
Have you ever looked through the OVF of the cheaper cameras. It is like looking through a straw at the world. While the top-end d-slrs may have excellent viewfinder with very expensive prisms. Most OVFs of the cheaper cameras don't use a prism and are rather dark.
It is not a well-balanced video.
If not, it's by far the exception. Most of these kinds of videos are skewed toward mirrorless.
Funny how mirrorless users always have to compare entry level dSLR or 5-10 years old top dSLR in order to confort themselves.
Do mirrorless know dSLR improve themselves too ?
Nikon D500, D850 and D5 are nowhere bad at autofocus.
Canon is a little bit behind, but nothing to rave about.
Oh ? you love buying a new camera every years, because previous iteration was finaly not so top notch as marketed ?
Sorry, but for the moment, EVF are still ugly and apart focus highligh, the experience is horrible.
How can you bear the live stream that do not match the native OLED panel resolution ?
All are so picky with DR, IBIS or other tricks, but the fancy and awkwards different video streams seen in EVF is a no go for me.
Ever got an eye to a FHD stream in a FHD cinecam EVF ? you'll never go back to theses photocamera EVF before SONY manage to get the same resolution for live view stream as the EVF panel.
Regarding AF performance - dSLRs are still theoretically way ahead of most mirrorless cameras there. Obviously there are exceptions, a couple of Sonys come to mind, but most mirrorless use DFD or contrast detect - Not a scratch on phase detect for speed or reliability.
The problem is this: Does it really matter if one system locks on 1/500th of a second faster? Especially since once the first lock is achieved, it's software engineering that'll win the race.
Where dSLRs are still behind, and will probably remain, is in focus point coverage. The mirrorless I purchased (G85) was an older model, but wow - The focus point coverage blows a Canon 7D Mk II away.
I think that there's room for both at the moment, but that the future is mirrorless for an increasing number of roles. Just my opinion.
Personally, I don't care what anybody shoots. As long as they are happy.
The biggest problem with mirrorless is heat. They have terrible heat management. A sensor that is turned on gets hot. And heat = noise. Also, shooting in a hot environment with mirrorless puts me at risk of having the camera shutdown for overheating. This has happened on more than one occasion.
Not in the latest versions.
Yes.... even in the latest versions. They do not have the heatsinks that adequately remove the heat from the sensor. Why do you think that RED, Alexa, Canon Cinema cams, BlackMagic Ursa cams all have such large bodies compared to DSLR and mirrorless cams? They have fans as well as very large heatsinks to keep the sensor at a relatively constant temperature. Heat is one of the enemies of digital imagery.
Sure. These are dedicated video camera but in a totally different price range.