It seems as if the world of photography is currently turning all around this topic: Is the time of DSLR over? On the web, people get into heated discussions about this issue. Should you join in?
A Hot Topic
A few weeks ago, I published an article about different stages of growing photographers. It might not have been my best one, but the reason why it has been criticized really struck me. I wrote a little innocent sentence in the description of (stereo)typical photography beginners:
You bought an entry-level DSLR, because you don’t know what mirrorless is, yet.
Instead of comments about the content of the article, this almost meaningless sentence was the most discussed issue. It might be dependent on culture, but in the two countries in which I stayed the most during the last years (India and Germany), the term “mirrorless” is yet known by a small group of experts. DSLR is what laymen tend to call any camera which is not a smartphone or action cam.
Articles which discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems are everywhere on the world wide web. In Facebook groups of photographers, you will usually find a meme of a popcorn-eating people in the comments, whenever someone posted something in favor or against any system. You can be sure that you’ll soon witness a dirty battle, insults, and furious dialogues. Some people just lean back and enjoy the show, while others join the battle. It may happen in the form of positive criticism, but too often it will end in destructive online behavior, which would make the authors' moms very sad and disappointed.
In this situation, the sensor stabilization of my mirrorless camera allowed me to shoot a 1/4 sec. exposure without a tripod. My DSLR would not forgive me those little shakes that happen when you stand on slippery stones.
Where’s the Threat?
I shoot with both systems on different occasions. At the last wedding I shot, I thought: “Well, sometimes I wish the shutter of my DSLR was more silent.” On a recent road-trip with friends, I was surprised how quickly the battery of my mirrorless died, compared to my DSLR. That’s it. I would not consider either of them better or worse. There are just few occasions where I feel the difference. Mostly, it’s just the sensor and body size.
You might think differently. Maybe you’ve got really good reasons to choose one over the other. That’s fine and I guess one of the most money-saving skills of a photographer is to know exactly which gear you need. Why fight over it with others? Is there a real threat? Of course, you won’t get new lenses, if the end of DSLR was near, whoever does believe that. But aren’t there enough already? If you love your system and people invest into new ones, you might be lucky getting a bargain on their second-hand gear.
Switching Will Always Be Possible
There is no problem in switching from one system to the other, yet. It’s literally just a mirror. Use your DSLR in live-view and you almost got a mirrorless (don’t get angry, it’s just a joke). Real differences in cameras are their designs, features, and performance. It’s not about mirrorless versus DSLR in general. Every model has its specific advantages and disadvantages. If you gifted a Nikon D850 to an Olympus OM-D E-M1 user, I guess the reply wouldn’t be: “No, sorry. Mirrorless is better.” Maybe it would rather be: “Sorry, I travel a lot, so this camera is too heavy for me. I’ll sell it and buy a plane ticket.”, or "Hell, that's an amazing camera."
Adjustment is another factor, why some people prefer one system over the other. That’s an old debate, too. Give born Nikon-users a Canon DSLR and they will need some time to adjust. It’s not impossible, though. If you switch from a Nikon DSLR to a Nikon mirrorless, there will be no big issue. There might be a surprised yell when the digital viewfinder turns on (“heck, what’s that?”). At least that's what happened to me, when I encountered a mirrorless for the first time. Some might like the new experience, others won’t.
Of course, it’s nice to share your experience and opinion, but is it worth getting angry? Remember your first lesson in photography? The photographer makes the image.
If I planned to shoot at night, I'd never even think about my Micro Four-Thirds mirrorless camera.
Photograph and Let Photograph
I don’t want to call people out and of course, it’s an interesting debate which system suits to whom and if there is a future for DSLR users. Yet, I wonder if it is worth all the fight? Shouldn’t we all respect each other and simply choose the gear which we prefer? After all, photography is more than just pressing the buttons of a specific body with a specific lens adapted to it.
As everywhere on the web, we tend to forget that we deal with human beings on the other side of the wire. Even if we have a debate about the issue and make a considerable point, do we need to become arrogant? Why do so many of us see those discussions as a platform to make one’s mark? Listening could help us learn something from others. We could see that mirrorless fulfills our desires. Or maybe the experience of others could also prevent us from making investments we don’t need to make. We can’t know if our situation and our taste fits to others. That’s why we can make suggestions but shouldn’t devaluate other photographer’s opinions.
We all know the saying "The best camera is the one that's with you." In this case, I wish it was my full frame DSLR, because of its wider dynamic range. Yet, it was to heavy to carry it all day and this shot wasn't planned but just happened.
Don’t Get Sucked Into the Fight
Luckily, on Fstoppers, most comments and members are quite moderate, but watch out for some photography groups on Facebook or other platforms. Cyber bullying can escalate quickly, and people can become quite personal. It’s hard, but simply don’t react to them. Be aware that there are trolls and other frustrated people out there who simply aim at bringing you down. Aggression is a downwards spiral with no winners.
If someone makes a suggestion, keep in mind that their position might be different from yours. Check their portfolio and evaluate if you are on the same level. Do you trust his or her opinion? If so, you can ask for details. If not, you can still say "thank you". You won’t win a price for having the last word about a camera system. It’s not about being right, it’s about learning something. And we should enjoy this together, no matter which system or brand we use.
So are you telling me you can tell the difference between a photo taken with a camera that has a mirror and one that doesn’t?
So there is no point to this whole discussion?
It's simple - DSLR
For me as an amateur, hobyst photographer, entry model with great crop sensor (D3400), is a no-brainer.
I use my camera in "A" mode most of the time, and doing some light correction in Lightroom. Final results are absolutely stunning for me, and I really enjoy going through my photos again and again.
DSLR's are cheaper, much cheaper (mirrorless entry models with EVF are almost double the price), and I have realized that photography really makes a massive difference once you start using different lenses.
And for DSLR's, a vast ammount of good, used lenses are literally sold everywhere.
And the best part - you can get them really, really, almost dirty cheap.
For mirrorless, you can forget about that, even used, they are pricey.
Entry level DSLR combined with also "entry" lenses - prime lens 50 or 35 mm, and one decent all-around lens like 18-130, are all I will ever need in my life (casual, 2-3 times per month photographer).
And for me as a casual photographer, story ends here. Final costs are the only, and only criteria. Plus, I also like DSLR handling much more, due to my large hands.
Advanced options, rugged body, full frame, FPS burst capability, video recording,...etc, are nothing I need and will never use, since photography for me is a hobby, neither tool, job, or my income source.
And in that game, DSLR still have no match, not even close one.
Regards :)
This is such a pointless "debate" at this point. Unless someone else is willing to buy my camera bodies for me, I'll decide what I spend my money on, based on my own wants/needs/reasoning. Get over it; change happens, this is just like when digital took over, and when cars started going electric, the industry WILL move to where consumers take it, regardless of what existing DSLR/Mirrorless owners opinions are.
Like someone else said, the camera is just a tool. I'd be more interested in a topic around the pros and cons of all the latest photo editing software, such as Capture One, Lumina, Lightroom, Alienskin etc... afterall, the camera captures the photograph, then you (might) make the images in software.
Photography is a hobby for me, one of many, so I try to not spend too much (but the right amount).
I have a Nikon D600, it can produce very good images, and its price was very low (due to the bad reputation, but cleaning the sensor once a month is ok for me).
As long as the Z6 (or sony a7 III) cost will be too high, I'll stay with my D600.
I have so much to learn before thinking of moving into mirrorless systems so it doesn't matter anyway.
People are loyal to a brand and after spending their money do not want to feel like the brand they have isn't validated or that there might be something better. However it's totally internal, no one other than yourself cares if you have a dslr or a mirrorless camera but the angry comments we see from site to site from people who wish to defend their purchasing decisions make good fodder for articles to generate clicks. Even I am here clicking on it. No one can tell from looking at a photo which type of camera was used, and this makes the consumer market a free for all for pricing things sky high with new models coming out.
The whole fight was ignited by Sony. It's so obvious. And people are sheep, very easy to ignite
Brand loyalty and gear acquisition syndrome over photography makes this happen.
hmmmm. seriously, get over it. i have fuji xt10 and xt1, nikon j1, nikon d600 and d800, sony hx80, iphone x max. every camera has its pro and cons. i use the xt10/xt1 35mm 1.4/56mm 1.2 for daytime ourdoor portrait work when i need to travel light. the d600 stays at the studio with the 24-70, or only when i need to shoot my daughter's concert in dark settings with the 70-200 2.8. the d800 is permanently attached to my tam 15-30 2.8 for astrophotography. when i need to shoot distant video outside and need travel light, i get the sony hx80 with it's super zoom. iphone is for sharing quick social images to update my friends and family. j1 with the ft1 adapter and 70-200 is for when i need the extra reach for wildlife.
People just like to fight. Ego is the enemy.
I recently switched from Nikon DSLR to Sony Mirrorless. I love the mirrorless platform, the fact that you can work in your composition right there in your camera by picking adjustments and see changes happening right there life in your viewfinder does not have comparison with any thing in the DSLR world. I still adapting to the new AF which seems a lot better and sometime slower. Another main difference is that you can currently adapt almost any lens and use it in your Sony mirrorless. That give you access to really old German and Russian manual lenses at a fraction of the cost of same new quality lenses. Manual focus in a Sony mirrorless is the best I have seen.
But the bottom line to me is that a camera is a tool and what makes a big difference is how well you mastered that tool and the options available to you on that tool. The end result coming from a DSLR or a Mirrorless can't be detected after post edition and that's what counts to me. The rest is a discussion about how comfortable you feel using your camera.
And the other big question when choosing your platform is how much can you afford.
I have read many many articles and reviews on mirrorless....and have borrowed friends XT-3's and loved them...and often look at my 5DMk2 as a dinosaur....yet...I have recently put serious thought into going back to my roots and re-buying the camera that made me most happy and shot my favorite images. Pentax 6X7. Manual focus. Shutter and aperture. Hand held meter. Auto...NOTHING.
SLR. We don't NEED no stinkin' "D" (though we like it like Mikey). That is a classic.
I'd looooove to play with that thing.
This is an easy one. People tend to hate change and are threatened by it. They have also invested a lot of money into their equipment. They also tie their identity up in their choice of gear. It reminds me of the last 2 times this has happened in my career. 1st Auto focus all the old timers freaked out said it would never last, Nikon lagged behind and Canon dusted them. 2nd Digital same as above. I was with Canon until last year and had a lot of gear, I could see the future was going to be mirrorless. I waited and waited and finally Canon puts out the RF... WTF..... I sold all my gear for a pretty good price a year ago and switched to Sony. Is it perfect..NO... Its growing on me and the same gear I sold a year ago has dropped in value... a lot. Canon will release their last pro body and a couple consumer bodies and likely no more lenses for EF. So go ahead and keep it all and I will chuckle at your cute videos in a couple years about all the Cheap L glass you can buy and adapt to your new R mounts.... I really do like my A9 and A7rii and I sometimes miss my Canon gear. But no looking back.
If you want to hump a full complement of lenses up a mountainside, you might find that wide RF mount has some disadvantages.
That's an easy answer for me. I shoot a lot of weddings, concerts and indoor performances. The silent shutter and low light and eye auto focus on the A9 is game changing. Absolutely astonishing and very useful for me. The low light (noise) performance no rolling shutter in silent mode and dual card slots are required for me. Also, the native lens selection is far better. I don't want one more thing to deal with, converter for old lenses. I use to love my Canons and believe eventually they will catch up to Sony but I didn't want to wait a few more years. Lastly, the cameras are way lighter and over several hours of shooting it makes a noticeable difference.
The Nikon Z6 has a quiet enough mechanical shutter that one can shoot in most places without resorting to silent shutter. Game changer over the A7 III which is really clackety-clack like a rifle shot. If going Sony, go A9, that's for sure though as the silent shutter feature is finally usable. That's a lot of coin though for a low resolution body (not that there's anything wrong with 20 or 24 MP. Pixels have not looked this good (Z6) since the original Canon 5D (12 MP).
I love my Canon 5DM3. When it breaks, I'll love the mirrorless camera that will replace it. Yaaaaawwnnn.....
The day my D810 dies and it becomes more expensive to fix it rather than getting a mirrorless, I will switch....or mirrorless can make my photography significantly better...I will switch...until there...NO.
When going over my event shots, there's times I wonder if a mirrorless would have gotten the shot that I missed? Things like missing focus, maybe auto eye-AF would've been quicker, or I was too limited with only 52 phase detect points. Indoor to outdoor exposure. Did my meter measure the scene wrong that I missed on the first shot? Where an EVF would've told me right away that the highlights are too bright or the shadows too dark without having to chimp on the 2nd shot.
Shooting with an old D300, there's a lot of "what ifs" that make me want to lean mirrorless. The right tool for the job, and sometimes that tool is a specialized one. My hesitation is glass. Because going mirrorless means either getting an adapter or converting the whole ecosystem.
The Nikon Z6 is absolutely bulletproof with Nikon F glass and the FTZ adapter. You don't need new glass. Buy yourself the 50mm f1.8 S just for fun at $300 on sale to have a taste of the Z glass you can buy later.
It is a shame that an article on civility is necessary for something as trivial as camera technology. Social media has become the artillery of social interaction. It allows you to injure from afar without the troubling interference of conscience.
Photography is an art. Ansel Adams produced some of the most spectacular images the world has ever seen using only the crude photographic equipment of the time. Technology may keep raising the bar as to what are good and what are great photos, but the gap between good and great will always exist. Great is sometimes the result of blind luck, but it is most often the result of vision and hard work. It is seldom the product of "better" technology. If it were, great photographs could be created by anyone with the cash to buy the latest and "greatest" camera.
In art, there is no right or wrong. The best tool is the one you know how to use to produce the result you intend. I commend the author for reminding us that we would benefit more from considering differing opinions and applying them to our particular objectives, than condemning varying views.
"Ansel Adams produced some of the most spectacular images the world has ever seen using only the crude photographic equipment of the time."
Not sure I would call his view camera equipment crude. Same equipment is still in use today and cannot be beat- even by digital.
@kenessyphoto on IG...
Moving on.
What do you define as "better"? Technically more perfect (sharper, fewer abberations, more post processing)? I suspect that you can go online and find better images (especially technically better) than those produced by Renoir or Raphael, but their images do not cease being great.
If not digital, I bet a lot of those better images were still produced on a view camera.
Ansel Adams was an incredible gearhead who wrote an entire book called "The Camera" (rather dull stuff for other gearheads) and followed it up with another full length book called "The Negative" and then finally "The Print". Photography geek Ansel Adams makes fstoppers look like normal human beings.
Mirrorless have the same advantages that rangefinders had over analog SLR in terms of optics (mainly for wide angle lenses). Not having to account for the mirror extra distance to the film plane) and not needing to add retro-focus means simpler, better quality optics with fewer compromises.
Mirrorless is the future, but DSLRs will persist for a long time (in the used market) because they can still produce excellent results.
at the moment for the beginner, mirror-less is way to expensive. Nikon have the D3000, D5000,D7000 ranges to choose from , all way cheaper than the Z range. Until those get rerplac3ed with mirror-less equivalents they will always have a place.
Please no more.
I really think it cannot be made more simple.
MIRRORLESS — is the direction the market is heading.
The “problems” with ML used to include substantial lag between what you might be looking at on the internal video-viewfinder screen and real-time. Or that the viewfinder wouldn't be bright enough in most full-sun situations. Or that its brightness would be “out of whack” compared to looking at the reflected-in-a-mirror image that DSLR's have always had.
Some of those issues remain, especially the third one.
It is particularly hard to address … to have an image covering a million-to-one absolute range.
But I've little doubt that it'll eventually be “done right”.
Then there's the battery-life thing. Simply, the mirror in a DSLR 'lights up' the viewfinder “just fine”, with no input power whatsoever. None. So, even tho' it takes additional burst power to lift the mirror out of the way in order to shoot a shot, over the longer term (minutes-to-days), the mirror is an energy king. I've gone on 2 week vacations with only a second set of batteries for my D90, and only had to use the 2nd one on the last day of shooting. … Can NOT do that with an ILM camera.
The other 'gotcha' is more of a legacy-vs-newbie thing … If you already have older lenses, you'll need to purchase at least a barrel-conversion thingy for the newer ones. Very old lenses might not be useful no matter what. But as a newbie, who cares? Your pocketbook is the sole limit on what new fun stuff you can buy!
DSLR — has its issues too.
• № 1 Noisy — for sure. Its only a matter of time before the Press Corps will be required to use no-clicky mirrorless cameras.
• № 2 Heavier — generally (tho' not always!) the shells are bigger, the stuff-inside heavier, the lenses “longer”, thus heavier. Dunno. This is a pretty important one.
• № 3 More dust potential
• № 4 Less resilient to drop-bang torments. All those little springs and gears…
• № 5 Needs somewhat more professional tweaking over the LONG haul.
• № 6 Lower cycle time, shot-to-shot. Mirrorless definitely is eating everyone's lunch here.
• № 7 Constrained HSL (hue saturation luminance) dynamics due to 'industry' expectation.
№ 7 is probably the least talked about, yet one of the most important 'things to watch' that will define how Mirrorless competes … not with DSLRs … but with SmartPhones. I'm serious!
My brother (D750 + Samsung Smartphone), and I (D90 + iPhone) went on a 3 day weekend-to-have-fun-photographing. When we finished it off, we exchanged all our shots, then proceeded — independently — to back-end photo process them. Photoshop, other tools.
Grinding away, not talking, we had a conversation a couple days later.
BOTH of us had come to the same conclusion: it is remarkable how much better the smart-phone shots were in challenging (and vexingly 'ordinary') lighting situations compared to the DSLRs. Even when the DSLRs were on their best auto-behavior, the shots just … paled (except for resolution and geometric acuity) compared to the SmartPhone shots. oh… after photoshopping, the DSLR shots could be “pulled and tugged” into being not just comparable, but often superior to the SmartPhone shots. But it took WORK!
I think this is where the ILM mirrorless cammera will have their hardest competition, and not being held to the same ancient linearity constraints as the DSLRs, they will adopt much wider and more accomodating hue-saturation-luminance models, far better 'white temperature' auto-adjustment, and so forth. For just about all naturally-and-artificially lit scenes. JUST like the smartphones are improving.
And then … it'll become obvious.
If you are a PHOTOGRAPHER, you will use both smartphone and ILM cameras. They each have their place. Small, spontaneous, the smartphone always, always wins. But excellence in geometric acuity, much better optical resolution and all the 'big box' attention to photographically useful features … that would nominally frustrate the 'mom-and-pop-and-kids' users of SmartPhones, will excel.
Just Saying,
GoatGuy ✓
I use my Note 8 a lot to take photos of my 2 year old , they are unpredictable so you need a camera on you always.
always point fingers!!!! <-------
Most new shooters haven't even scratched the surface of what a camera phone can do with raw capture and manual controls. But the handwriting is on the wall. Removing the mirror allowing the creator to better see what will be captured in real time will win out. The iphone and all the have followed can be thanked for that. Eventually, grandpa dies and wont' be buying the D10 at 12K. New buyers will want the ability to create, not guess and crunch numbers. They'll want to see what they're about to capture...no mirror allows for this. And it's a dollars and cents thing. Solid state will be and is cheaper to produce over mechanical whizzy wigs.
Two articles on this in one week? This topic bored me so much that I started looking at Editor picks on here and was wondering how many pics chosen in the last year were from mirrored or mirrorless? Which brand here has the most Editor picks?
Shoot I'm just old enough to remember the same debates with digital vs film. How many pros are making a living with film now? What happened to the ones that refused to switch? Thats right 99.8% OF THEM AREN'T shooting anymore. (edited for those who want to argue as the author stated... funny how they are proving the author's point)
As photographers we must always embrace the new to stay relevant. My personal equipment has always been Canon but this year I switched to Sony. But with my employers I've used just about every camera system out there. Why? Answer those two questions above. I think in the future it will be Canon and Sony as the top dogs. I need to learn video now. Canon just continues to embrace the old way of doing business by only including certain features with certain models Sony doesn't play that.
I agree with the author on this. I've seen some pretty ugly comments. Especially so on the Sony articles. Those comments where there before I switched. But the more research I did. The more Sony made sense for me.
There are pros who market film as a value add or point of difference; this being most notable in weddings. Likewise, there are a significant number of pros still shooting on D700s, D3s and D4s (and I imagine the Canon equivalent).
Given that capital expenditure in business is about nothing more than cost-benefit, I would suggest your premise is flawed from the point of view that it is incomplete.
Obviously, I meant in the larger scale. Yes, there are some film shooting going on, but its not "everyone" like it was before.
That's not what you said.
Fixed it. Even if you wanted to take what I said literal its still basically correct. Arguing over less than 1% is dumb. Its the same reason that Kodak doesn't exist anymore. Didn't embrace the future.
I was trying to keep my comments short. I wasn't here to write an article. I was here to make a clear quick point. You two are making the author's point for him.
How many of my fellow professional shooters, 8 of them, in this studio using film? None. How many film cameras did I see at PhotoPlus? One. How many rolls of film did I see? None. How much sheet film did I see? None. How much halide paper did I see? None. Out of all the pros I know personally, meaning their phone number is in my phone, how many use film? One... Occasionally.
Rather than getting upset when you publish a statement that is imprecise and then others assume you mean what you wrote, how about you just get it right in the first place.
You have just expended a lot of energy because you are embarrassed and now have to protest you are not a moron.
And to be clear, objecting to your blanket statement is hardly making the author's point; you know, given that the author's point was not "people will slap you for making blanket statements which are obviously wrong".
Kodak doesn't exist anymore? You might want to fix that one, too. They still sell film and chemicals, and this year even introduced a new version of Ektachrome, E100, which is very, very good. And of course they still make their Vision3 stocks for the many movies still shot on film. It's fine if you don't know or care what's going on in the film world (nobody's saying you should), but why talk about it if you don't?
Just to get you started learning about the actual state of pro photography today (rather than just ill-informed assumptions), here are a few I know of shooting film: Harley Weir, Tim Walker, Luo Yang, Emily Soto, Paolo Roversi and Jamie Hawkesworth. All big names, and all just off the top of my head. There are many more names I can't remember right now.
Yes, I know there are people. I know this. But its not the market it was. You want to throw down over less than 1%? Hold on let me go make some popcorn.
Oh I didn't know Jamie Hawkesworth, I had seen some of his YouTube videos about Leica and RZ67 , didn't know who he is ... cool ...
refuse to switch from film ? there are many photographers till using film.
In real life it doesn't matter. No one in my local photo club cares if someone uses a dSLR or a MILC. Just choice whatever fits your needs.
It's the so called influencers (the likes of Tony Northrup and Jared Polin) who try to start polarization between users of dSLR and MILC. All for the views.
Agreed completely. For the next 5-10 years, both will be just fine. In 5-10 years, the DSLRs may become classics, and new sensor technology will be out, likely mainly in mirrorless (or maybe cell phones only, who knows). I am shooting mirrorless (Fujifilm XT-2), but I am still shooting film also.
Anyone in your local camera club shooting film?
People rely too much on you-tubers like Polin who have their own vested interests. My advice is go to a reputable camera store and talk with the experts.
Where are there any camera stores? It's basically an online business these days.....