Is it time to ditch my DSLR and go mirrorless?

[goodguy]

So after thinking about this for a while now, I think selling my DSLR would be a terrible idea. I just know that I'll miss it. So I think the best bet is to buy another camera that's compact to complement my dslr. Whether it be a Ricoh GR, Fuji XE-2, Sony A6000 or a Olympus OMD. My heart kind of wants the XE-2...love the x-trans sensor. Wish I had the money right now because I saw an XE-2 with a 18-55 2.8-4 for $650 on eBay. But the Olympus OMD-EM10 is $450 body only and the lenses are really affordable, so thats totally an awesome.

Its true that I could sell my 105 2.8G macro and get a really nice mirrorless system. But that is just such a superb piece of glass and took me a while to save up for. I won't lie though, I don't use it as often as my other lenses but it's there when I need it.

Did you think of a good bridge camera ?
Sony is coming out now with the Sony RX10 II, 1" sensor, Zeiss lens constant f2.8, not as powerful as APS-C cameras and not tiny in size or in price but its one lens that does it all and does it very well and its pretty light weight.
Worth considering.

 

[nerwin]

So after thinking about this for a while now, I think selling my DSLR would be a terrible idea. I just know that I'll miss it. So I think the best bet is to buy another camera that's compact to complement my dslr. Whether it be a Ricoh GR, Fuji XE-2, Sony A6000 or a Olympus OMD. My heart kind of wants the XE-2...love the x-trans sensor. Wish I had the money right now because I saw an XE-2 with a 18-55 2.8-4 for $650 on eBay. But the Olympus OMD-EM10 is $450 body only and the lenses are really affordable, so thats totally an awesome.

Its true that I could sell my 105 2.8G macro and get a really nice mirrorless system. But that is just such a superb piece of glass and took me a while to save up for. I won't lie though, I don't use it as often as my other lenses but it's there when I need it.

Did you think of a good bridge camera ?
Sony is coming out now with the Sony RX10 II, 1" sensor, Zeiss lens constant f2.8, not as powerful as APS-C cameras and not tiny in size or in price but its one lens that does it all and does it very well and its pretty light weight.
Worth considering.

Yeah not really interesting in that type of camera, but thanks.

 

[nerwin]

So I tested with my E-PL1 and I can set it to 3:2 and still shoot raw. I would guess that the E-M5 and the E-M10 function the same way. If you decide to pick either one up you should be able to set it on 3:2 and not have to worry.

I think you are making the right choice by not selling your DSLR. I like my E-PL1 and despite how old it is, its still a very capable little camera. There are times however that I wish I would have gotten a DSLR though and will probably end up picking one up in the future.

That's good to hear. Seriously thinking about this..really like how small the camera is and I guess the battery life is pretty good for a mirrorless and I have to be honest..the little lenses are just cute. lol

 

[Usul]

I have D7100 and recently I bought E-M10. Though it's a good little camera and deliver good IQ especialy at low ISO I don't use it as much I tought. Mostly I use it for work (i'm not a photographer) when I don't want to use P&S but DSLR is to bulky to carry it. Maybe it's just my habbits and attitude to photography but DSLR is better in every aspect I'm not talking about weight and size because even here less doesn't mean better. I like to look through the lens but not monitor (wich is EVF is in fact) and I like how big camera lies in hands. Ergonomicaly these cameras just arn't even comparable. I'm going on vacations soon and I'll pick DSLR though it will add couple kilos to my luggage because in many situations m4/3 is not even close to my D7100 or even D90 wich I had before. I read a lot posts from people who made a switch and happy with mirrorless but we are all different and one can't say for sure before try.
So my point is don't sell DSLR before test mirrorless in every situation you can shoot in.

 

[nerwin]

I have D7100 and recently I bought E-M10. Though it's a good little camera and deliver good IQ especialy at low ISO I don't use it as much I tought. Mostly I use it for work (i'm not a photographer) when I don't want to use P&S but DSLR is to bulky to carry it. Maybe it's just my habbits and attitude to photography but DSLR is better in every aspect I'm not talking about weight and size because even here less doesn't mean better. I like to look through the lens but not monitor (wich is EVF is in fact) and I like how big camera lies in hands. Ergonomicaly these cameras just arn't even comparable. I'm going on vacations soon and I'll pick DSLR though it will add couple kilos to my luggage because in many situations m4/3 is not even close to my D7100 or even D90 wich I had before. I read a lot posts from people who made a switch and happy with mirrorless but we are all different and one can't say for sure before try.
So my point is don't sell DSLR before test mirrorless in every situation you can shoot in.

Well you can't compare a DSLR and a m4/3, they are two very different cameras. I don't intend to sell my DSLR at this moment, but still looking for a lightweight travel camera. But hey if you want to carry a heavy DSLR with large and heavy lens around for 8+ hours a day when travelling..by all means go ahead. Its just isn't for me. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. For a few years I used a D7000 + MB-D11 and Tokina 12-24 f/4 for travel and I tell you..after a while I got sick of it and ended up bringing my camera less and less each time. But this might be fine for some but not everybody. Everyone is different.

I feel that if I had a lightweight mirrorless system that I would probably shoot a lot more often and to me thats worth it. Its just another tool in the arsonal.

 

[astroNikon]

my lightweight setup is:
d7000 & Kit lens - I take off the grip, and keep the big lenses off of it.
also, the d600 (no grip) & 24-85/2.8-4 or 18-35/3.5-4.6 which are both relatively light but good lenses.

when you go to another smaller system they don't have the grip, so why keep the grip on your dslr as a comparison?

 

[nerwin]

my lightweight setup is:
d7000 & Kit lens - I take off the grip, and keep the big lenses off of it.
also, the d600 (no grip) & 24-85/2.8-4 or 18-35/3.5-4.6 which are both relatively light but good lenses.

when you go to another smaller system they don't have the grip, so why keep the grip on your dslr as a comparison?

It's just what I used at the time, didn't know any better. I don't use a battery grip anymore, didn't find I needed one on the D610.

I don't mind the smaller grips on the mirrorless cameras because they are a lot more lighter than DSLRs. At least most of them anyways.

I mean come on..which one would be better for travel? lol

 

[goodguy]

my lightweight setup is:
d7000 & Kit lens - I take off the grip, and keep the big lenses off of it.
also, the d600 (no grip) & 24-85/2.8-4 or 18-35/3.5-4.6 which are both relatively light but good lenses.

when you go to another smaller system they don't have the grip, so why keep the grip on your dslr as a comparison?

My lightweight setup is D5100 with either 50mm 1.8G or 55-200mm

 

[astroNikon]

Of course,
using a 70-200/2.8 is going to be big. Isn't the 70-300 smaller ? or the 24-85?

what lens is on the mirrorless?
have you compared it to the Canon SL1 for compactness? or even a d3300?

I just find that when I pull all the BIG stuff of my dslr, it's alot smaller and lighter. most ppl don't want to do that but they make the big jump to a different system for something smaller.

 

[astroNikon]

my lightweight setup is:
d7000 & Kit lens - I take off the grip, and keep the big lenses off of it.
also, the d600 (no grip) & 24-85/2.8-4 or 18-35/3.5-4.6 which are both relatively light but good lenses.

when you go to another smaller system they don't have the grip, so why keep the grip on your dslr as a comparison?

My lightweight setup is D5100 with either 50mm 1.8G or 55-200mm

When I use my 50 AF-D lens on the d7000 body it's really light at that point. and much smaller than the 50G lens.

 

[Dao]

oh come on .. to be fair ... you are comparing telephoto zoom lens and standard zoom lens.

But I hear you. I used to have a grip for my Canon 40D, and before it had issue, I'd already stop using the grip mainly for the added weight I do not want. When I got the 7D, I do not even want to get a grip at all.

I don't like to carry heavy photo gears anymore. So if I need to go shoot, I may just carry one body with 2 lenses. (And maybe a flash) If I can make the camera body lighter, I may go that route as well.

 

[nerwin]

I already have a DSLR, why would I want another one? lol

Why can't I be happy and have both systems?

 

[astroNikon]

I already have a DSLR, why would I want another one? lol

Why can't I be happy and have both systems?

Then you're all set !!

I'm happy with my systems for me, lightweight options and heavy options.

 

[Dao]

I am thinking about getting a Sony A7 with a standard zoom lens that comes with it. And add an adapter for Canon mount. So for general photography, the standard zoom lens is fine. I may not need a fast standard zoom lens since I can bump the iso. And pair that with my fast 50mm or 85mm prime, I can use it for out of focus blur type photos. And for telephoto zoom, I just use the 70-200mm f/4 instead of the f/2.8 for lighter weight.

The only thing I am not sure is how good the AF is. And I am currently doing some research on it.

So for general photos, A7+standard zoom+85mm prime is not going to be too heavy to carry around.

 

[petrochemist]

there arent that much smaller when you mount typical DLSR sized lenses to them.

If your mounting DSLR lenses on them, then certainly the size gain is fairly minimal as you need an adapter that makes up the extra rear flange distance, but using native equivalent lenses it can be quite substantial. I regularly use an APSC DSLR & a couple of micro 4/3 cameras, to get a 400mm EFL the micro4/3 kit weighs about half the DSLR.
Even without the crop factor my rarely used 50-200 DSLR lens is bigger & significantly heavier than my mirrorless 45-200 (both the same maximum aperture). With one of my smaller lenses fitted either of the µ4/3 cameras would be substantially smaller than the DSLR body without any lens - I could probably manage the body & 4 or more lenses for the weight of just the DSLR body. The size gain can be significant.