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?
Like several have mentioned, at the present time switching my system to mirrorless would not give me any new capability that would make me any more money.
I was in a position in government to determine 'way back in the early 80s that digital imaging would overcome film.
I knew it was just a matter of time before the technology available to the government would trickle down to civilian use.
But having been a Canon shooter since 1975-- I didn't get into digital myself until the Canon 10D and didn't go completely digital until the Canon 5D. When I went to the 5D, it actually paid for itself within 60 days just in being able to offer huge prints with a camera I could easily use on any job (as . It just wasn't going to pay off the cost of conversion until then.
For me, mirrorless cameras are the same thing. I totally expect DSLRs to become more obsolete than vinyl albums and film (not even a cult favorite of hipsters). I expect that the next time I'll need--need--to upgrade my current cameras, Canon will have made the transition and I'll buy their mirrorless full-frame professional camera as a matter of the normal progression of technology.
Unless someone comes up with a technology that is better in enough ways to show immediate additional profit in numerous ways.
That is a good point. Unless you are going to shoot far more video in 4k. About the Canon mirrorless, you'll just have to wait and see if it is good. Canon has a tendency to give the least what they can give.
It was Canon's incremental updates that resulted in my not upgrading for a cycle or two. It was that arrogance (or simply not understanding the market) that made me look afield. I was actually looking at trading everything in and going for a D850 (wow, what a camera!) earlier this year.
Everyone's always talking about the weight advantage...really there isn't much of one. A Sony with a 70-200 or 24-70 on it isn't that much less than a DSLR with a similar lens. Also, IMHO, I don't like the "look" of Sony images. Maybe more low light superior than my 5D MkIV, but I really like the results of the images I get from that camera.
That being said, I own a Fuji, and when I want to travel light I use it with primes or sometimes a Minolta MD lens. I wouldn't use it on a shoot I was getting paid for, but it's completely fine, and actually enjoyable to use shooting friends and family. Also the smaller size works well for street style shooting as well.
The thing is that mirrorless is a very diverse range of options.
When I was trying to choose between Sony and Panasonic, I had the same criticisms. Plus cost. Sony G Master lenses are damn expensive!
To go to a Sony A7 III, 24-105F4 + 70-200F2.8 would have resulted in a heavier kit that what I normally run with. If I went for a Panasonic G9 and equivalent lenses (well, the 70-200 equiv is actually f2.8-f4 from memory) the kit would weigh 43% of my current setup.
For landscapes, the G9 has a high res mode that takes it up to 80MP with caveats. For everything else I shoot, 20MP is ok. Not great, but acceptable.
I chose to move slowly to Panasonic because I'm doing more street and travel photography and the incredible size advantage made sense. Also, I can get a grip if I want and bring the body up to mid-size SLR dimensions.
Come on, DSLRs also have and LCD and you can use use them as a Mirrorless. And when the LCD and the EVF are not suitable (Beaches at noon, for example) we can use the optical viewfinder. Same for sports and TTL Flash where the optical viewfinder is much more precise (reliable) thanks to its metering system.
Why wouldn't an EVF be suitable in such situations?
In what sense, much more precise?
If you're using an LCD screen on a DSLR to shoot without a tripod, you're probably compromising the stability of your shooting stance. The exception would be if you're using some sort of LCD loupe that lets you put your eye up to the LCD to create that connection point with your camera.
Unclear as to why you think that an optical viewfinder would be more precise as far as metering is concerned.
Also, Mirrorless cannot do Sports and Birds because they do not have the proper lens lineup
Not natively but, from what I understand, some lens adapters are very good.
Question of time
A limitation in the availability of lenses (which are clearly coming at some point) is not a limitation on the technology itself.
I was a point where I was looking at:
A. Updating old Canon cameras (1ds, 1dmk2, 5d2) and lenses like 1st gen AF 70-200, 16-35, 24-70, 300 2.8) = $
B. Selling Canon for Sony = $
C. Retiring = ¢
A was my first idea but the Canon sensors kept betting bigger but not better (5Ds) and my experience with 5d2 autofocus (aka If you want perfect AF get a 1Dx or a Nikon) made me look elsewhere.
B is what I did. I have a bunch of new lenses and 2 Sony bodies (4 if you count the a600 and RX100) that I use professionally. I could not be happier withe the files (I use C1) and the lenses, the bodies with a grip aren't bad, the cost is relatively close to Canon and Nikon glass, I have grown to love the EVF, the weight issue is a moot point because I always seem to carry half an suv of gear to every job anyway... :(
TBH I still use the 1dmk2 and a Sig 24-105 for some higher framerate stuff.
While C was appealing it is early for that.
I live in LA so Sony Pro Support is closer than Canon CPS in Irvine, Batteries are or will get better, to me it's like complaining about having to stop recharge my Tesla more than putting gas in my F150. not a hard wrk around, carry a couple batteries...
Looking forward to what ML Canikon comes up with.
Question : seriously, and in the higher honest way possible : how did your photos improve going from Canon dSLR to SONY MILC ?
If you jumped from 5D MkII to 5D Mk4, don't you think the jump was far less expensive for similar improvments ? (real life photos DR is on par between latest Canon sensors and others brands, only tortures tests are giving the edge for anything but Canon)
Really, I am still puzzled how easy some photographers can swap their system to another, and finaly none have improved results apart for thoses searching a cheap and basic moviecam...
And how can you bear the livestream that is not in native resolution of the EVF ? chimping in EVF is nice, but the liveview is horrible and I cannot stand nor understand how SONY can release such sub-par EVF experience whereas the OLED EVF panel could give really better results (but still far as nice than an OVF, for me).