Mirrorless vs DSLR -- Debunking The Mirrorless Hype

[DSolZ]

I use my camera for street shooting and for travel photos.
Before mirrorless, I lugged dslr body with multiple lens and tripod for trips.
Sometime the weight Takes the fun of photography from me. And by end of day I feel dead tired.

As I grew older carry heavy weigh is even more of an issue for me.

So I switch to mirrorless. I find that the image and focusing speed is what I can live with. The selection of lens is quite healthy. I tend to use primes more nowadays making the setup even smaller. The most important is the weight reduction. I can also carry smaller tripod due to the smaller and lighter setup. Shooting becomes fun again

 

[UncleFai]

Is it that much smaller? Panasonic GX8... m43...

 

[brapodam]

Is it that much smaller? Panasonic GX8... m43...

If you look at equivalent setup, actually m43 is a lot smaller already. Personally I prefer the larger mirrorless bodies because they have better grips and more external controls. Some of them have the same (or even higher) level of external controls as DSLRs.

 

[edutilos-]

The article writer is just missing the point. The people who buy into mirrorless can live with the shortcomings. If they can't, they will switch back. They also value size and weight savings so the behavior isn't going to be that of replicating their full frame set up but to select lenses which fit into their needs. Of course, there are those that won't mind getting all the heavier mirrorless lenses. Whatever makes them happy, just like DSLR makes him happy. Point is, they have an option. With DSLR they don't. I certainly hope he didn't think he was writing an article with great revelations especially since he selected 9 lenses with overlaps, even identical focal lengths for his comparison.

 

[kandinsky]

Is it that much smaller? Panasonic GX8... m43...

It's not But I'm not going to complain about having more choices, compared to the old days... It's nice to have options, no? There are smaller bodies for those who prioritize compactness and happy to trade features for that, and there are larger bodies for those who prioritize handling/features and happy to trade compactness for that.

 

[daredevil123]

You cant compare the size savings of a mirrorless compared to a dslr just by the mere physical numbers. It's how it all feels in the hands of someone who felt the cumbersome-ness of a dslr.

While the a7 series arent that small or light, they are much easier to lug around compared to equivalent FF DSLRs (because one should not compare them to crop dslrs or smaller). A few grams off the total weight, coupled with a few millimeters off each of the 3 spatial dimensions, is ALOT of size savings. And that's if you do not want to compromise image quality.

Mirrorless is not just about the Sony A7 series. There's the apsc and m43 standards to consider if image quality is not of utmost importance, and those are really much smaller and more handbag-able than even the smallest dslrs.

With the mirror out of the way, also comes (theoretical) advances that DSLRs cannot provide e.g. Fps. 12 or 14 fps is about as fast as the mirror can ever flip, due to intrinsic spring properties. But it will not be a problem for mirrorless. Of course, now ppl will say mirrorless af/tracking cannot keep up, but it is only a matter of time.

From tech standpoint, DSLR will be obsolete. It's only surviving because of the number of dslr lenses already out in the market.

AF tracking ability aside, Actually even with fast FPS, mirrorless still pales in comparison to optical viewfinders when tracking fast moving subjects, like birds. Just because of the black out (or freeze) from the EVF when shots are firing off, makes it extremely difficult to track fast erratic movements. Even with the mirror flipping up and down, visibility is still very much better. Just try it, and you will understand what I am talking about.

As for DSLR being cumbersome, it really depends. If shooting intensively for a whole day, any DSLR will be much more comfortable than a mirrorless, simply because the grip is much better. If traveling where one needs to walk a lot with equipment, and shooting here and there, mirrorless may have the upper hand.

And I say this coming from someone who has both DSLRs and mirror systems.

In the end, choose the right tool for the right job. There is no clear winner. In the end it all depends on your needs and what parameters you deem more important.

 

[flitstoned]

I also use both mirrorless and DSLR. DareDevil is right. If you remove weight from the equation, mirrorless is still not there yet.

 

[silvermoon1407]

AF tracking ability aside, Actually even with fast FPS, mirrorless still pales in comparison to optical viewfinders when tracking fast moving subjects, like birds. Just because of the black out (or freeze) from the EVF when shots are firing off, makes it extremely difficult to track fast erratic movements. Even with the mirror flipping up and down, visibility is still very much better. Just try it, and you will understand what I am talking about.

As for DSLR being cumbersome, it really depends. If shooting intensively for a whole day, any DSLR will be much more comfortable than a mirrorless, simply because the grip is much better. If traveling where one needs to walk a lot with equipment, and shooting here and there, mirrorless may have the upper hand.

And I say this coming from someone who has both DSLRs and mirror systems.

In the end, choose the right tool for the right job. There is no clear winner. In the end it all depends on your needs and what parameters you deem more important.

Yup. Totally agree. I'm just pointing out that IN THEORY, features that currently fall short in mirrorless can be overcome. EVF refresh and sensor readout will be faster than u and i can imagine right now with technology, as well as on-sensor pdaf or whatever af technology brings us. If manufacturers wants to add grip and ergonomics (which is pretty much subjective) without adding much weight, it also can be done.

Yes, regardless of times, the more important thing is to use the right tool for the right job. But my point still stands. DSLRs with the mirror mechanism will be obsolete. It's just a matter of when.

 

[DSolZ]

Weight aside，Mirrorless can't really compared to DSLR. But I think it does get close. Those who can live with mirroless are people who do not need the feature that mirroless don't do as well.

I settle for mirrorless because I use my camera mostly for street or travel. And perhaps I also like to work with limitations. (I do like the mirrorless system from Olympus and Fuji .. Fuji being a good compromise between weight and quality. Don't generally like Sony full frame mirrorless due to the bulk)

I don't really need the fastest AF or very accurate tracking or the highest image quality.

Also .. Personally I think the current generation of mirrorless is comparable to the performance of at least the previous generation of DSLR. Agree?

 

[DSolZ]

Yup. Totally agree. I'm just pointing out that IN THEORY, features that currently fall short in mirrorless can be overcome. EVF refresh and sensor readout will be faster than u and i can imagine right now with technology, as well as on-sensor pdaf or whatever af technology brings us. If manufacturers wants to add grip and ergonomics (which is pretty much subjective) without adding much weight, it also can be done.

Yes, regardless of times, the more important thing is to use the right tool for the right job. But my point still stands. DSLRs with the mirror mechanism will be obsolete. It's just a matter of when.

Yeap. A matter of time.

 

[Stephen Chung]

I use my camera for street shooting and for travel photos.
Before mirrorless, I lugged dslr body with multiple lens and tripod for trips.
Sometime the weight Takes the fun of photography from me. And by end of day I feel dead tired.

As I grew older carry heavy weigh is even more of an issue for me.

So I switch to mirrorless. I find that the image and focusing speed is what I can live with. The selection of lens is quite healthy. I tend to use primes more nowadays making the setup even smaller. The most important is the weight reduction. I can also carry smaller tripod due to the smaller and lighter setup. Shooting becomes fun again

30yrs ago when I was still studying in the US I went to universal studio for hoilday. I was carry 2 camera systems 1 nikon F4 and a canon A1 tripot n loads of films...I almost throw the whole set there...its just too heavy and I was 18 20 back than...I try to switch to mirrorless but i feel there is something missing in the mirrorless system..i find it to be laggy..and the EVF is really making me headache..

 

[DSolZ]

...I try to switch to mirrorless but i feel there is something missing in the mirrorless system..i find it to be laggy..and the EVF is really making me headache..

Which system evf did u tried and when was it? I know what is missing in mirrorless system BTW ... It is the weight!! Haha kidding.

 

[Stephen Chung]

Sony a7r n a6000

Sent from my GT-N8020 using Tapatalk

 

[DSolZ]

Maybe try olympus or Fuji as well if u have chance. I used to only want to buy mirrorless with ovf. So my first mirrorless is Fuji x100s. The evf on x100s is OK for me. It lags when I try to pan fast moving objects. Slowly got used to evf and hence using Fuji xt1 now.

 

[tplongsg]

Sony a7r n a6000 Sent from my GT-N8020 using Tapatalk

What do you shoot? Sports? If you are using for landscape and posed shots, A7R EVF should be fine. Try using the LCD to frame and EVF for fine focus.

 

[Nikonzen]

Used M9 Leicas are a pretty good deal nowadays!

 

[alfie]

Used M9 Leicas are a pretty good deal nowadays!

I got friends who will have you know, the Leica M-system Mirrorless have the fastest Focusing ! (to infinity.. lol)

 

[Nikonzen]

I got friends who will have you know, the Leica M-system Mirrorless have the fastest Focusing ! (to infinity.. lol)

Pretty difficult to get any faster than zone focus...haha.

 

[davidc34]

I find the argument about how much easier it is to carry a mirrorless camera around in a bag vs a DSLR very disingenuous. You could be carrying a brick around in the bag, it doesn't matter.

What matters is how it feels to shoot with and it's here the trend to go super small on the mirrorless side works against ergonomics and why sony are slowly making the A7 series bigger. They are basically the same size as a canon 6d and 100g lighter. Add in glass - worse glass in the case of the Sony - and the differences are negligible.

As was said earlier, choose the right tool for the job but a lot people taken in by mirrorless are armchair photographers spending way more time talking about their camera specs than they are shooting/sharing any photos

Eventually the two product types will merge into something new, until then choose what is right for you and spend more time shooting

 

[sammy888]

I find the argument about how much easier it is to carry a mirrorless camera around in a bag vs a DSLR very disingenuous. You could be carrying a brick around in the bag, it doesn't matter.

What matters is how it feels to shoot with and it's here the trend to go super small on the mirrorless side works against ergonomics and why sony are slowly making the A7 series bigger. They are basically the same size as a canon 6d and 100g lighter. Add in glass - worse glass in the case of the Sony - and the differences are negligible.

As was said earlier, choose the right tool for the job but a lot people taken in by mirrorless are armchair photographers spending way more time talking about their camera specs than they are shooting/sharing any photos

Eventually the two product types will merge into something new, until then choose what is right for you and spend more time shooting

Smartest answer yet....:thumbsup: