4 ms·

They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. There’s no shortage of extremely high qu

They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. There’s no shortage of extremely high quality lenses there too. I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs.

auxym 6y ago
Sony's A7 lineup seems to even be starting to take a large bite out of the high end DSLR market. I wouldn't be surprised to see them overtake Nikon soon.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  In terms of new units sold as far as high end cameras, I'm fairly sure Sony has passed Nikon since a good while.
geerlingguy 6y ago
> I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs. In volume, yes. In profit, it's still close, but mirrorless has been closing the gap for a long time. And Sony used to be king of the hill with mirrorless, but Canon and Nikon have quickly caught up and the playing field is a bit more level (even as Sony holds the crown for most of the technical features). The thing is, ecosystems matter a lot past the hobbyist stage and there are still a zillion more Canon and Nikon lenses floating around that people love and use. That said, I now use both Sony (APS-C mirrorless) and Nikon (full frame DSLR), and like both for different things. But I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise), and wish Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds.
- Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
  Why not go all Sony ? You can share the lenses between your apsc and your full frame.
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
    The problem you still run into with Sony (especially if you're on a budget) is that if you go Nikon or Canon there's decades of used lenses you can pop right on your body and go to town (to at least some level). This impacts both what choices you have, as well as what you can expect to pay for a given set/quality of glass. To Wit: A Canon 10-18 is ONE THIRD the cost of the Sony E-mount 10-18. Yes, the Sony has a constant F4 aperture and the Canon doesn't. And yeah, on the other end Canon has the 11-24 f4 L, and yeah it's at least double the price of the Sony. tl;dr - Sony's issue is you usually just have midrange options for everything, even if you really want a lower end lens that just hits the right range.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      If you want a low-end Sony lens you have the option of third party glass. If you want a high end lens you can go with the GM line up that is generally even better than Canon L. Also, you can just adapt lenses from Canon to Sony.
    - Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
      True, but if you want to have both full frame and apsc you only need to have 1 set of lenses that natively fits both of your cameras and in the last couple of years Sigma and Tamron has put out so many budget lenses with pretty impressive performance of price is a concern.
- slantyyz 6y ago
  > I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise) I don't follow that stuff, but does Metabones make a Nikon F -> Sony E speed booster? > Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds. They did make smaller lenses, but for the Nikon 1 system, which was an underrated system. I became a 4/3rds shooter when Nikon cancelled the Nikon 1 line, but I still use my J5 (which is what the first gen Nikon 1s should have been like). IIRC, adapted Nikon F mount lenses on Nikon 1 focus fairly quickly because of the on-sensor PDAF, but you're limited to center AF only.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Metabones doesn't, but Viltrox does. Autofocus is not always very good, though.
Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
It's all moving to mirrorless and in this space no one can beat Sony when it comes to lens selection, autofocus and price. Nikon, Sigma, Panasonic and Cannon have switched to new mounts for their mirrorless lines so obviously there isn't allot of native lenses yet.
ptero 6y ago
> They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. Agreed, but mirrorless is not a full replacement for DSLR, at least not yet. For static scenes in good light my phone camera is already all I need. For static scenes (or slow motion) in lower light mirrorless seems now just as good as DSLR (so they eat some of DSLR market). But for fast motion or long ranges DSLRs still excel. I tried mirrorless but did not like it -- if I am carrying something that does not fit in my pocket I might as well take a bigger DSLR (and enjoy better autofocus and optical viewfinder that does not kill my night vision). But that's just me.
- bobsil1 6y ago
  I can jog while holding mirrorless in my hand. Exercise + wildlife. Obviously not great for fast motion or shade.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Have you seen videos of the Sony a9 Ii? It can autofocus moving subjects and take a picture in a twentieth of a second (!) So no, I don't think DSLRs have better autofocus than mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras can also do things like eye AF, video tracking AF, and so on.
  - PostThisTooFast 6y ago
    Canon film cameras had eye tracking in the ‘90s.

auxym 6y ago

Sony's A7 lineup seems to even be starting to take a large bite out of the high end DSLR market. I wouldn't be surprised to see them overtake Nikon soon.

sudosysgen 6y ago
In terms of new units sold as far as high end cameras, I'm fairly sure Sony has passed Nikon since a good while.

geerlingguy 6y ago

> I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs. In volume, yes. In profit, it's still close, but mirrorless has been closing the gap for a long time. And Sony used to be king of the hill with mirrorless, but Canon and Nikon have quickly caught up and the playing field is a bit more level (even as Sony holds the crown for most of the technical features). The thing is, ecosystems matter a lot past the hobbyist stage and there are still a zillion more Canon and Nikon lenses floating around that people love and use. That said, I now use both Sony (APS-C mirrorless) and Nikon (full frame DSLR), and like both for different things. But I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise), and wish Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds.

Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
Why not go all Sony ? You can share the lenses between your apsc and your full frame.
- csharptwdec19 6y ago
  The problem you still run into with Sony (especially if you're on a budget) is that if you go Nikon or Canon there's decades of used lenses you can pop right on your body and go to town (to at least some level). This impacts both what choices you have, as well as what you can expect to pay for a given set/quality of glass. To Wit: A Canon 10-18 is ONE THIRD the cost of the Sony E-mount 10-18. Yes, the Sony has a constant F4 aperture and the Canon doesn't. And yeah, on the other end Canon has the 11-24 f4 L, and yeah it's at least double the price of the Sony. tl;dr - Sony's issue is you usually just have midrange options for everything, even if you really want a lower end lens that just hits the right range.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    If you want a low-end Sony lens you have the option of third party glass. If you want a high end lens you can go with the GM line up that is generally even better than Canon L. Also, you can just adapt lenses from Canon to Sony.
  - Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
    True, but if you want to have both full frame and apsc you only need to have 1 set of lenses that natively fits both of your cameras and in the last couple of years Sigma and Tamron has put out so many budget lenses with pretty impressive performance of price is a concern.
slantyyz 6y ago
> I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise) I don't follow that stuff, but does Metabones make a Nikon F -> Sony E speed booster? > Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds. They did make smaller lenses, but for the Nikon 1 system, which was an underrated system. I became a 4/3rds shooter when Nikon cancelled the Nikon 1 line, but I still use my J5 (which is what the first gen Nikon 1s should have been like). IIRC, adapted Nikon F mount lenses on Nikon 1 focus fairly quickly because of the on-sensor PDAF, but you're limited to center AF only.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Metabones doesn't, but Viltrox does. Autofocus is not always very good, though.

Galaxeblaffer 6y ago

It's all moving to mirrorless and in this space no one can beat Sony when it comes to lens selection, autofocus and price. Nikon, Sigma, Panasonic and Cannon have switched to new mounts for their mirrorless lines so obviously there isn't allot of native lenses yet.

ptero 6y ago

> They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. Agreed, but mirrorless is not a full replacement for DSLR, at least not yet. For static scenes in good light my phone camera is already all I need. For static scenes (or slow motion) in lower light mirrorless seems now just as good as DSLR (so they eat some of DSLR market). But for fast motion or long ranges DSLRs still excel. I tried mirrorless but did not like it -- if I am carrying something that does not fit in my pocket I might as well take a bigger DSLR (and enjoy better autofocus and optical viewfinder that does not kill my night vision). But that's just me.

bobsil1 6y ago
I can jog while holding mirrorless in my hand. Exercise + wildlife. Obviously not great for fast motion or shade.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Have you seen videos of the Sony a9 Ii? It can autofocus moving subjects and take a picture in a twentieth of a second (!) So no, I don't think DSLRs have better autofocus than mirrorless cameras. Mirrorless cameras can also do things like eye AF, video tracking AF, and so on.
- PostThisTooFast 6y ago
  Canon film cameras had eye tracking in the ‘90s.