Mirrorless sales closing the gap on DSLR.

[fmw]

Fast super-teles, high-end, fast mid-range zooms, fast portrait primes, good UWAs, and PC lenses.

You can adapt any of these to a mirrorless body with inexpensive adapters. The mirrorless cameras, so far, are designed for serious amateurs who don't use these kinds of lenses, not for pros. If I really need a PC lens, I can rent it and adapt it to my mirrorless bodies. Or I can even buy one and adapt it. I already have a Nikon to Fuji adapter that works just fine. No need to worry about extreme wide angles. Fuji already has them in the regular lineup. I assume the other manufacturers do also.

I moved to mirrorless to have a smaller, lighter system, not to use with fast super teles. It gets down to what you need. My guess is you don't need a mirrorless. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[tirediron]

...I moved to mirrorless to have a smaller, lighter system, not to use with fast super teles. It gets down to what you need. My guess is you don't need a mirrorless. Nothing wrong with that.

I just need cameras. To be honest, I don't care a whit what type it is ('though I really, really REALLY dislike the whole EVF thing) as long as it does the job. Adapters are all well and good, but they're one more piece to complicate the puzzle and source of potential problems. I think if say Fuji and Nikon got together and produced a series of bodies with all of the mirrorless features, and a full line of lenses with all of the Nikon (or Canon) quality and features, every other maker would be dead in the water in short order.

 

[astroNikon]

And even with adapters, most people want AutoFocus. I know for some manual focus allows the most flexibility but I think in general most of the market prefers autofocus.

Mirrorless has certainly caught up in a lot of capabilities. The latest Sony is proof of that.

 

[Gary A.]

Fast super-teles, high-end, fast mid-range zooms, fast portrait primes, good UWAs, and PC lenses.

In zooms:
10-24 F/4
16-55 F/2.8
50-140 F/2.8
100-400 F/4.5-5.6

You're well covered with fast primes from ultra wide to medium telephoto. It's the longer stuff where they are a bit deficient. No PC's either, but just get an adaptor for your PC.

 

[fmw]

...I moved to mirrorless to have a smaller, lighter system, not to use with fast super teles. It gets down to what you need. My guess is you don't need a mirrorless. Nothing wrong with that.

I just need cameras. To be honest, I don't care a whit what type it is ('though I really, really REALLY dislike the whole EVF thing) as long as it does the job. Adapters are all well and good, but they're one more piece to complicate the puzzle and source of potential problems. I think if say Fuji and Nikon got together and produced a series of bodies with all of the mirrorless features, and a full line of lenses with all of the Nikon (or Canon) quality and features, every other maker would be dead in the water in short order.

To me, viewing an EVF is no different than looking through a DSLR. A couple of the Fuji models have both optical and electronic finders. Yes, most people want AF. It appears most people need AF. Perhaps someone will develop an adapter to connect AF. There are adapters that provide all the metering modes. I'm not aware of one that do AF. In my experience the Fuji lenses are better than the Nikon lenses but in a narrower line of products as you said. I'm not sure they can do anything Fuji can't do for itself.

Sony has full frame mirrorless cameras now and seems to be releasing new lenses regularly. Personally I think it defeats the purpose of mirrorless but it may be just the ticket for some DSLR users.

 

[astroNikon]

The speed of an EVF comes into play depending upon what you are photographing.
A faster moving object? and a slow EVF can be a detriment.
I briefly looked at the costs, etc of moving to a Sony a9 with the lenses. yikes.

fyi, SONY has had FF mirrorless for a few years now, since October 2013.

Before I bought my D7000 years ago I looked at Fuji as they were my actual favorite. But the tech back then was very deficient. So I bought the D7000.

Now Sony with their latest FF a9 camera seems pretty awesome. Also their lenses are expensive as they keep the quality high. Nikon/Canon, has provide different level of quality of lenses from DX to different levels of FX lenses so their packages are less price sensitive.

But to me Sony with their hot pixel removal / long exposure software makes it a non-purchase for me right now. So Fuji is my only option that I'm looking at for some point.

 

[Gary A.]

My Fujinon XF lenses, at a minimum are equal to my Canon 'L' lenses, in sharpness and build.

 

[jcdeboever]

23mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 60mm 2.4, 56mm 1.2, 90mm f2, next year supposedl a 200mm. A lot of photogs are using the 50-140 2.8 for portrait stuff. My favorite lens is the 16mm 1.4 but the 50-140 is gaining ground the more I use it. The 10-20mm is popular with the landscape guys. Like Gary said they are like 1 or 2 slow coming. There is also a 80mm 1:1 2.8 macro coming soon. Rumor has it a 8-16 is coming too. Take a look at the x photograhers website and you can sort images by lens.

 

[fmw]

The speed of an EVF comes into play depending upon what you are photographing.
A faster moving object? and a slow EVF can be a detriment.
I briefly looked at the costs, etc of moving to a Sony a9 with the lenses. yikes.

fyi, SONY has had FF mirrorless for a few years now, since October 2013.

Before I bought my D7000 years ago I looked at Fuji as they were my actual favorite. But the tech back then was very deficient. So I bought the D7000.

Now Sony with their latest FF a9 camera seems pretty awesome. Also their lenses are expensive as they keep the quality high. Nikon/Canon, has provide different level of quality of lenses from DX to different levels of FX lenses so their packages are less price sensitive.

But to me Sony with their hot pixel removal / long exposure software makes it a non-purchase for me right now. So Fuji is my only option that I'm looking at for some point.

My opinion is that moving to mirrorless just for the heck of it makes no sense. Their advantage is small size and light weight. That is big deal for an old timer like me. They make great images but nothing you can't do with a DSLR. So for me a full frame sensor makes no sense in mirrorless. If you want a big mirrorless with heavy lenses you might as well stay with the DSLR.

I can go out with light, diminutive camera with a zoom lens on the camera and another one in my pocket and get 90% of the images I want to capture. Or I can carry a small bag with a couple more lenses if I want to get 95%. It isn't about the technology in my view. It is about the ergonomics.

 

[Gary A.]

For me it was all about looks. I purchased the XP1 based entirely on looks.

 

[jaomul]

I went through my honeymoon photos today from 3 yrs ago. All I brought was an olly Em5 and an underrated 12-50 f3.5-6.3 lens. I am very happy with these and even have a few taken by passers by, a lot of the time the shutter was quite slow, but the shots are still very good.

I sold this camera a while back, but boy I am sorry now. A grand small light and great imager. I wouldn't give up dslrs yet but the M4/3 cameras are a great small system. I'll likely be in the M4/3 stats soon enough again (recently purchased a second hand unit, but this 4k photo is intriguing)

 

[beagle100]

almost everyone has a mirrorless camera (cell phone)
soon most interchangeable lens cameras will be mirrorless
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[ac12]

My opinion is that moving to mirrorless just for the heck of it makes no sense. Their advantage is small size and light weight. That is big deal for an old timer like me. They make great images but nothing you can't do with a DSLR. So for me a full frame sensor makes no sense in mirrorless. If you want a big mirrorless with heavy lenses you might as well stay with the DSLR.

I can go out with light, diminutive camera with a zoom lens on the camera and another one in my pocket and get 90% of the images I want to capture. Or I can carry a small bag with a couple more lenses if I want to get 95%. It isn't about the technology in my view. It is about the ergonomics.

That is the reason (size and weight) that I got a m43 (Olympus OM-D E-M1) to use when I wanted something lighter than my D7200 to carry. The Nikon 1 system had limited lenses, and I did not like the add-on EVF of the V3, so I jumped ship to Olympus. The Olympus/Panasonic lenses are a GREAT line up to choose from.

I could have gotten even lighter with the E-M10 by about 90 grams, but I found a good deal on the E-M1 mk1 and went with the older top line camera.

My E-M1 + Panasonic 12-60 weighs about the same as a Nikon D3400 + 18-55 lens. So I get a better body and wider zoom range lens for the same weight. And that is 44% lighter than my D7200 + 18-40 lens. The Olympus is is coming on vacation with this old man.

 

[pixmedic]

the performance gap between mirrorless and DSLR's is getting smaller and smaller every year.

i know im usually a little bit of a Nikon fanboy (having shot nikon for so long) but if they dont step it up a notch and get with the mirrorless program (you know, more seriously than the nikon 1) they are going to be seriously behind the curve if DSLR sales continue waning. they are losing out on a growing segment of the camera buying populace.

 

[Fujidave]

I think that in maybe ten years time it will all be Mirrorless, glad I moved from Canon to Fuji but I did always know Fuji colours were and are great.