Why I'm Not Switching to a Mirrorless Camera Yet

Why I'm Not Switching to a Mirrorless Camera Yet

This has been the year of mirrorless! There have never been so many attractive options for DSLR shooters to make the transition as there are now. But should we?

Okay, despite the hopefully catchy opening lines, I’ll bury the lead and give you the short answer. Maybe. How’s that for taking a definitive stand?

But before I am accused of dodging the question, I think I should also mention that for me personally, the answer is more like “probably not.” Let me explain.

Like many of you, I have watched the seemingly endless stream of new mirrorless camera announcements from Nikon and Canon with high levels of anticipation. I am a longtime Nikonian. I cherish my beloved D850 enough that I wrote an essay about it. And the only real negative I’ve ever found to be consistent with my current setup is that paired with my preferred 24-70mm f/2.8, carrying the combination around can offer as much of a workout for my bicep as for my creativity.

So, for me, the real appeal to the new mirrorless systems would be the decrease in weight. Notice I said “weight” as opposed to sheer “size.” I’ve had the good fortune of shooting with the excellent Sony a7R III and loved the image quality. I also loved the lighter weight. But for my own personal taste, the body of the Sonys were almost too small. Perhaps it is just because I’ve been shooting Nikon for the better part of the last two decades, but the ergonomics of the Sony just didn’t work for me personally. I stress again that I am making a subjective judgment based on my taste, and that is not intended as a knock of any kind on the camera itself.

So, when Nikon announced that it would be making a mirrorless camera, I was super excited. Perhaps I could finally get the best of both worlds. The ergonomics of a Nikon with a weight closer to that of the Sony or my beloved Fuji X-T2. I love that camera. And, looking over the specs, Nikon pretty much nailed it.

The two cameras have identical 45.7MP sensors. Identical ISO sensitivity. The two are basically comparable in almost every way. The Z7 has a slightly better burst rate. The D850 has the advantage in much talked about number of card slots. And, as it was my main motivator, I definitely took notice that the Z7 body comes in at 585 grams versus the 915 grams of weight provided by my D850. When you consider that my current 24-70mm f/2.8 comes in at 1,070 grams as opposed to the new Z-mount 24-70mm f/4 at 500 grams, the difference in overall weight would be significant (acknowledging the loss of one stop). Even as I write this now, I’m tempted to switch from “probably not” to “maybe.”

But still, even despite definite advantages, I am choosing for the moment to stick with what I’ve got. But why?

Well, let's start with a couple of simple facts. Whether it will be five years from now or fifteen, mirrorless is the future of the camera market. Just like you can buy many types of legacy cameras and lenses to this day, DSLRs won’t completely disappear anytime soon. But, you’d expect that the majority of manufacturers' R&D budgets will go towards the mirrorless market for the foreseeable future. So, it’s highly likely that I will also make the switch to mirrorless at some point.

It is also a fact that for NIkon and Canon, these new cameras are their initial entry into the mirrorless market (at this level at least). Just like comparing the first iPhone to the just-released iPhone XS, companies tend to have a kink or two with their initial product launches, which they refine and improve as time goes along. So, as cool as the Nikon Z7 may be on paper, I’m pretty sure the Z7B or Z7 II or whatever they will call it will be that much better.

Also, since Nikon and Canon are just entering this market segment, it’s fair to acknowledge that Sony has a leg up in mirrorless, at least for now. However one may feel about their cameras, they have already had time to work through a number of early issues and refine their product while defining what consumers expect in the mirrorless market niche. Again, regardless of how you or I may feel about the current result, it’s clear that they have the most experience. And experience counts. Given my experience with both Nikon and Canon through the years, I don’t doubt they will produce quality products. But it is a consideration.

But, all those things aside, before deciding to invest in the Z7 system, I would first have to answer a series of questions. First, is it appreciably a better camera than my current D850 DSLR?I would say no. It’s lighter, for sure. Otherwise, they are very similar. Had Nikon not done such a good job of getting my money just about a year ago for the D850, this may be a different decision. If I was instead trying to decide between my older D800 body and upgrading to either the D850 or the Z7, it might require more consideration.

Likewise, if I were just entering the full frame market or buying my first camera, this may also change the calculus. I still think the D850 is currently the better camera. But if I wasn’t already heavily invested in F mount lenses and other support gear and were more free to chose without financial concerns, then the Z7 could be more appealing. As we said, the mirrorless wave is coming. So, if investing from scratch, it may make more sense to start with mirrorless to give you a cleaner growth path in the future. Then again, in that scenario, you would also have more options to consider like Sony or Canon or even Fuji if you don’t need full frame.

As I’ve stated many times before, there is no such thing as a perfect camera. There is only the perfect camera for you. So, I can only base my decision on my own particular needs.  And while I expect many of you may be in a similar boat, it is also clear that many of you will be in completely different situations.

You notice, for instance, that I haven’t spent a lot of time talking about the dreaded single card slot on the Z7. And while I can definitely see the point of wanting two card slots, it simply doesn’t make much of a difference to my own workflow, as I shoot mostly tethered now anyway. The files go straight from the camera to the computer, bypassing card slots completely. I don’t shoot weddings where a redundant card slot would be a major advantage. So, for me, that’s not a deciding factor.

The other advantage of mirrorless is that it can give you a preview of your settings when you look through the electronic viewfinder. It’s very close to being WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). But, as I am using strobes a large part of the time, which only go off for a split second and wouldn’t be visible before I click the shutter, the live preview is not as useful to me. Again, if I were a shooting more natural light or continuous sources, that would be a big upgrade. But in my situation, this would fall into the nice to have category as opposed to a necessity.

As I said, I am fully aware that mirrorless is the future. And hopefully, this article can’t be read as a condemnation of one particular camera model or brand. Within 3-5 years, I expect that I will have at least one full frame mirrorless camera in my bag. If history is a guide, it will likely be a Nikon. Although, since regardless of brand, entering full frame mirrorless would likely lead to me re-buying a number of lens ranges, the fiscal need for brand loyalty is somewhat less decisive.

But, whatever is the right choice in the future, I can sleep soundly knowing that I still have the right camera for the my own peculiar process. And I am more than happy sticking with what I’ve got. For now.

Christopher Malcolm's picture

Christopher Malcolm is a Los Angeles-based lifestyle, fitness, and advertising photographer, director, and cinematographer shooting for clients such as Nike, lululemon, ASICS, and Verizon.

Log in or register to post comments
61 Comments
Previous comments

You realize, of course, I'm going to shamelessly steal your argument and claim it as my own, right? ;-)

I find this a bit strange as photographing interiors isn't really a situation that I associate with difficulty composing due to high dynamic range.

Yes, the EVF presents a limitation, but the chances are probably pretty high that even if you're using a DSLR, you're on a tripod and composing in Live View with an articulating screen which would present the same limitation.

When I'm doing real estate photography, I deal with this by just using my eyes and seeing what the view looks like from the camera position. No OVF or EVF needed. That's what I did with the D850 and that's what I'm doing now with the A7RIII.

A lot has changed since switching, but shooting interiors or real estate in general has stayed pretty much the same sans the paranoia of sticking a heavy DSLR and lens on a painters pole.

"the chances are probably pretty high that...you're on a tripod and composing in Live View"

Nope. I hate the experience of live view. Composing is a nightmare on a tiny camera back. I'll review flashes on the camera back after the shot is lined up though.

When we're using TS-E glass and gear heads to make micro adjustments to a comp - every advantage makes a difference ;-)

Your back and knees must hate you at the end of the day.

LOL well the angle finder helps on awkward spots:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183200-REG/Canon_2882A001_Angle_F...

I personally think that all the consternation people are having with these offerings, and their clearly sub-standard features is two fold.

One being -- we are just too early in the development stages from all these companies for all of the features, modes, glass, and more at this stage of the game. People have come from 2000 with a Nikon D1 starting the real digital age of DSLR models, all the way through to today in 2018. Lets face it, we're a little spoiled with 48 MP this, high ISO ranges, and all the other features that we carry today. It's just mirrorless is not something advanced enough at this point in time.

The second issue is the largest. What is the point of the exercise here?

Why all the going on about a mirrorless body to shoot with? Until some huge tech comes along to REALLY shrink all of the inner guts of these, and, optical tech follows right behind it, we are stuck with slightly smaller body and an inordinately over-sized chunk of glass (which totally defeats the purpose straight out of the gate) on making a smaller system.

Look at all the offerings up to this point. We have some nice sizes, nice features (although lacking when compared)... But to look at their optics offerings! What you've lost in body size, it totally made off balance with huge ugly ill-weighted optics. You're basically hauling around a lame DSLR with one fuggly lens not properly balanced.

And at this stage of the game. Unless there is ONE or TWO must-have features on one of these offerings, the price of selling off and repopulating your lineup is in a word.... Insane.

Surely a sane person wouldn't go into a Canon or Nikon system, just because they've spared us the lion's meal fate by offering an over-priced adapter for optics..

* IF * I was to entertain sliding into a system like this (as a friend once said to me) 'she'd have to have sparks flying out of her (insert orifice here) to get me to climb all over that'. It would have to be 100% WOW and no whammys,

And I'm just tired now.. tired of all the "global release" statements, fan-fare, disappointments, people going on and on ad-nauseum about what they do and don't like current models. This has all the noise of the Nikon hipster Df model -- and just as many foreseen let downs.

As a canikon shooter you shouldn’t switch to mirrorless. Your options are not good enough.
But you should certainly switch to a better system. Like sony.
:)

When you're joking, it's helpful to use a winking, smiley face. A regular smiley face looks like you almost believe what is obviously a joke. ;-)

I just come here for the FREE PEANUTS!

"As I said, I am fully aware that mirrorless is the future." And so thought the makers of Packard and the Corvair (autos)! I started my photography journey with a Nikon F, and stayed with the SLR primarily due to the fact that I consider my photog eye to be the critical factor, not the instrument itself. For me, photography is about "seeing", which I do through a SLR. I have a Roli TLR for amusement, but prefer the SLR. Rangefinder cameras just doesn't fit with my sensibilities of creative vision and craft. I'm not knocking the later, just my preference in tools and instruments pushed toward the SLR. One of the reasons by I rejected the point and shoot is that I am not really "seeing" the subject I am composing, but just viewing it on a screen - just seemed out of joint for me. I'm staying with my DSLR (a Nikon D800E) series for the creative satisfaction it provides me. So, is mirrorless really the wave of the future? Maybe, maybe not. Might not work out like the Packard and the Corvair.

Okay, everyone try not to laugh too hard, but I've got a bag full of old Nikkor screw-type AF lenses and neither enough justification to switch to all AF-S lenses nor to use all my old glass as manual focus. I agree, though, that we'll likely be forced to switch at some point. Probably DSLR development will slow down and by the time the D850 bites the dust, there might not be all that many attractive DSLR options any more. 'Course I could pull out the F4 and a few rolls of film...