4 ms·

Congrats on your purchase, I wish I went with mirrorless when we bought our DSLR camera back around the birth of our first child! I thought I would want access

Congrats on your purchase, I wish I went with mirrorless when we bought our DSLR camera back around the birth of our first child! I thought I would want access to all the available lenses and accessories for an established product. But my photographer friend was right - mirrorless are better for amateurs and have one huge benefit: they can record video much more easily since they can focus and record at the same time.

mschuster91 7y ago
If you're going from mirror-based to mirrorless and stay with the manufacturer, there's always adapters meaning you can continue to use your existing lens collection without losing functionality such as auto-focus or stabilizers. Switching manufacturers is a different beast however and you'll likely be limited to manual focus and a gimbal/in-sensor for stabilization.
Dork1234 7y ago
Some Canon cameras (80D, 90D, 7D), have on dual pixel CMOS focus points that work in video mode. It is clear things are moving to mirrorless, but I feel we are still in the transition period for lens and focus technology. For certain type of photography either manual or traditional cross type focus points work best still. I think the biggest benefit of mirrorless cameras for amateurs is size and weight, the best camera is the one you have on you.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  I'm a huge fan of the Olympus u4/3 range. The size is, for me, just right. Small enough to toss in a backpack with other things during travel and camping. Light enough to wear on a sling most of the day without discomfort. And still really nice photos. About once a year, I consider moving to Fuji. Or to some other larger format mirrorless. But, the size and weight penalty just isn't worth it. All that said, my wife's old Canon S90 compact is near the end of life. I thought about buying her a replacement, but I may just splurge on an iPhone XS instead.
  - acomjean 7y ago
    I'll second the canon micro 4/3 cameras. Great for traveling, very small, and good selection of lenses. On my last trip I think the weight/size of my dlsr equipment was cut in 1/3 with the same focal range. (the picture in this article is comparison of camera/lens size..) https://www.wildernessshots.com/why-you-dont-need-full-frame-camera/ https://www.wildernessshots.com/why-you-dont-need-full-frame...
    - Stratoscope 7y ago
      No doubt it was just a typo, but you mean Olympus and Panasonic, not Canon.
  - Glyptodon 7y ago
    I don't think micro 4/3ds gets enough credit for how convenient the smaller lenses are. I know full frame mirrorless is all the rage now, but even my dad's and brother's (respectively) APS-C gear is much larger and heavier when it comes to lenses.
    - alistairSH 7y ago
      Yup. The "cheap" primes from Olympus and Panasonic are fantastic. I have the Oly 17mm f.18 and 25mm f1.8 and one or the other lives on my second body. Heck, even the "large" 12-40mm F2.8 Pro lens on my primary body is about the same size as a mediocre kit lens on a full-frame SLR.
      - baq 7y ago
        The 45mm 1.8 is absolutely fantastic, too.
      - rimliu 7y ago
        And the best thing: these lenses are sharp wide open. On other systems you get 2.8 lens, but need to stop it down to 4.0 be useful. On u4/3 you get 45/1.2 and you can use it at 1.2.
  - 7y ago
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
My wife is a part-time pro photographer in her 40's. She's looking to go mirrorless because, on long shoots, the weight of traditional cameras takes a toll on her neck and shoulders.
- ubermonkey 7y ago
  The great news is that there are some awesome full-frame mirrorless bodies out there. Of course, because they're full-frame cameras, the glass is still big, so you don't get the hyper-compact size of a micro-4/3 body+lens, but it's still waaay smaller than, say, a 5D + a lens.
  - lb1lf 7y ago
    Full-frame glass can get quite small, too. A 35mm f/2 for the Leica M system weighs in at 250g/0.55lbs. I believe the equivalent APS-C Fuji 23mm f/2 is around 200g/0.45lbs. Of course, with the Summicron you give up such new-fangled innovations as, say, autofocus.
    - ubermonkey 7y ago
      Yeah, that's a hard stop for some folks -- me included. I'm sure the AF material is a big contributor. The glass for my Sony A7ii is significantly larger than (most) lenses I had for my Olympus m4/3 body. The exception is the main prime on both systems -- I have the Sony 50mm/1.8, which is about the same size as the Panasonic/Leica 25mm/1.4 that filled the same role on my Olympus.
- paggle 7y ago
  Mirrorless is only a weight advantage in the APS-C size. At full frame there is almost no advantage.
  - Green_man 7y ago
    Most of Sony's fe zooms are around the same weight (with some small benefits at wider angles) as an equivalent canikon lens, but it's the wide angle primes that you'll get a big size and weight benefit over full frame glass. The comparisons are complex, and lining up equivalent lenses only works sometimes, because many DSLR wide angle lenses are just zooms, since the primes are large anyways. Mirrorless lens designers have also doubled down on wide primes (like laowa's 15mm f2, or voigtlanders FE ultrawide primes) some of which don't exist for DSLR because they wouldn't be a good value/weight. But the mirrorbox in a DSLR means that the lens can't get super close to the sensor. So a 24mm DSLR lens will actually be a 40mm or so, with reducers put over the front. This means you get a larger lens overall, with more elements. So if you are going to go 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, then you won't see much size benefit. But if you shoot wider/standard primes, there are a lot of compact options for full frame mirrorless.
copperx 7y ago
The problem that I have with mirrorless is the inherent delay between what you see on the screen and the photo taken. I don't know if they have improved from the time I tried them. The advantage of a mirror is that capturing the right instant is much easier when you're photographing subjects that aren't posing, such as children. You want to get that facial expression just right! Not a few hundreths of a second later.
- paggle 7y ago
  That delay is much lower now than it was a few years ago. It’s now around 10-20ms for the best performing models.
- rimliu 7y ago
  Olympus has a feature they call Pro Capture. Camera takes a couple dozens of shots before you press the shutter, so you won't miss anything.
ghaff 7y ago
I still have a Canon 5D Miii and a lot of lenses for it. (I shot with EOS cameras pre-digital as well.) I do still use the 5D for certain types of shooting--mostly sports and anything that benefits from very wide or very long lenses. However, assuming I'm taking photos with anything besides my smartphone (which I probably use a greater and greater percentage of the time), it's going to be my Fujifilm mirrorless camera. I think if I were starting over, I'd just go with mirrorless and just forgo the specialized cases that the DSLR and its lenses are better for.

mschuster91 7y ago

If you're going from mirror-based to mirrorless and stay with the manufacturer, there's always adapters meaning you can continue to use your existing lens collection without losing functionality such as auto-focus or stabilizers. Switching manufacturers is a different beast however and you'll likely be limited to manual focus and a gimbal/in-sensor for stabilization.

Dork1234 7y ago

Some Canon cameras (80D, 90D, 7D), have on dual pixel CMOS focus points that work in video mode. It is clear things are moving to mirrorless, but I feel we are still in the transition period for lens and focus technology. For certain type of photography either manual or traditional cross type focus points work best still. I think the biggest benefit of mirrorless cameras for amateurs is size and weight, the best camera is the one you have on you.

alistairSH 7y ago
I'm a huge fan of the Olympus u4/3 range. The size is, for me, just right. Small enough to toss in a backpack with other things during travel and camping. Light enough to wear on a sling most of the day without discomfort. And still really nice photos. About once a year, I consider moving to Fuji. Or to some other larger format mirrorless. But, the size and weight penalty just isn't worth it. All that said, my wife's old Canon S90 compact is near the end of life. I thought about buying her a replacement, but I may just splurge on an iPhone XS instead.
- acomjean 7y ago
  I'll second the canon micro 4/3 cameras. Great for traveling, very small, and good selection of lenses. On my last trip I think the weight/size of my dlsr equipment was cut in 1/3 with the same focal range. (the picture in this article is comparison of camera/lens size..) https://www.wildernessshots.com/why-you-dont-need-full-frame-camera/ https://www.wildernessshots.com/why-you-dont-need-full-frame...
  - Stratoscope 7y ago
    No doubt it was just a typo, but you mean Olympus and Panasonic, not Canon.
- Glyptodon 7y ago
  I don't think micro 4/3ds gets enough credit for how convenient the smaller lenses are. I know full frame mirrorless is all the rage now, but even my dad's and brother's (respectively) APS-C gear is much larger and heavier when it comes to lenses.
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Yup. The "cheap" primes from Olympus and Panasonic are fantastic. I have the Oly 17mm f.18 and 25mm f1.8 and one or the other lives on my second body. Heck, even the "large" 12-40mm F2.8 Pro lens on my primary body is about the same size as a mediocre kit lens on a full-frame SLR.
    - baq 7y ago
      The 45mm 1.8 is absolutely fantastic, too.
    - rimliu 7y ago
      And the best thing: these lenses are sharp wide open. On other systems you get 2.8 lens, but need to stop it down to 4.0 be useful. On u4/3 you get 45/1.2 and you can use it at 1.2.
- 7y ago

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

My wife is a part-time pro photographer in her 40's. She's looking to go mirrorless because, on long shoots, the weight of traditional cameras takes a toll on her neck and shoulders.

ubermonkey 7y ago
The great news is that there are some awesome full-frame mirrorless bodies out there. Of course, because they're full-frame cameras, the glass is still big, so you don't get the hyper-compact size of a micro-4/3 body+lens, but it's still waaay smaller than, say, a 5D + a lens.
- lb1lf 7y ago
  Full-frame glass can get quite small, too. A 35mm f/2 for the Leica M system weighs in at 250g/0.55lbs. I believe the equivalent APS-C Fuji 23mm f/2 is around 200g/0.45lbs. Of course, with the Summicron you give up such new-fangled innovations as, say, autofocus.
  - ubermonkey 7y ago
    Yeah, that's a hard stop for some folks -- me included. I'm sure the AF material is a big contributor. The glass for my Sony A7ii is significantly larger than (most) lenses I had for my Olympus m4/3 body. The exception is the main prime on both systems -- I have the Sony 50mm/1.8, which is about the same size as the Panasonic/Leica 25mm/1.4 that filled the same role on my Olympus.
paggle 7y ago
Mirrorless is only a weight advantage in the APS-C size. At full frame there is almost no advantage.
- Green_man 7y ago
  Most of Sony's fe zooms are around the same weight (with some small benefits at wider angles) as an equivalent canikon lens, but it's the wide angle primes that you'll get a big size and weight benefit over full frame glass. The comparisons are complex, and lining up equivalent lenses only works sometimes, because many DSLR wide angle lenses are just zooms, since the primes are large anyways. Mirrorless lens designers have also doubled down on wide primes (like laowa's 15mm f2, or voigtlanders FE ultrawide primes) some of which don't exist for DSLR because they wouldn't be a good value/weight. But the mirrorbox in a DSLR means that the lens can't get super close to the sensor. So a 24mm DSLR lens will actually be a 40mm or so, with reducers put over the front. This means you get a larger lens overall, with more elements. So if you are going to go 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, then you won't see much size benefit. But if you shoot wider/standard primes, there are a lot of compact options for full frame mirrorless.

copperx 7y ago

The problem that I have with mirrorless is the inherent delay between what you see on the screen and the photo taken. I don't know if they have improved from the time I tried them. The advantage of a mirror is that capturing the right instant is much easier when you're photographing subjects that aren't posing, such as children. You want to get that facial expression just right! Not a few hundreths of a second later.

paggle 7y ago
That delay is much lower now than it was a few years ago. It’s now around 10-20ms for the best performing models.
rimliu 7y ago
Olympus has a feature they call Pro Capture. Camera takes a couple dozens of shots before you press the shutter, so you won't miss anything.

ghaff 7y ago

I still have a Canon 5D Miii and a lot of lenses for it. (I shot with EOS cameras pre-digital as well.) I do still use the 5D for certain types of shooting--mostly sports and anything that benefits from very wide or very long lenses. However, assuming I'm taking photos with anything besides my smartphone (which I probably use a greater and greater percentage of the time), it's going to be my Fujifilm mirrorless camera. I think if I were starting over, I'd just go with mirrorless and just forgo the specialized cases that the DSLR and its lenses are better for.