Why I stick with DSLR

[goodguy]

You need to actually look at mirrorless systems because there is a good amount of misinformation in your post. Have you actually owned and shot with mirrorless cameras before or is this just what you've gathered from reading about them?

You mean there are other mirrorless full frame cameras I am not aware of ?
Because thats the only sensor today I am interested in!

 

[goodguy]

OK, I'm with you all the way till you hit on Primes. Don't mess with my Primes.....
Generally you make good arguments. I'm not going MFT either and I'm also happy with full frame.
But I do like my damn Primes so there!

Completely personal thing, have one issue with primes, the need to switch all the time, don't like switching lenses, on a full day of travel I might switch once or twice tops between my 24-70mm and the 70-200mm, just love the ease of use zoom lenses give but again completely personal

Don't you mean lazy, for me there are no drawbacks with the A7 low light shooting is great, I love manual focus and my Leica fit primes on the A7 are perfect shooting wide open you get a 3D effect, shooting all day with the 50mm or 35mm or 28mm is no problem

Lazy ?
Dont think you know me well enough to say I am lazy, actually thinking about it you dont know me at all so I would appreciate if you keep such remarks to yourself.
Many times I tend to shoot stuff that will need very fast changing focal range like a dog running toward me in a park, zoom lens lets me keep the composition I want and not compromise if I had a fixed focal range lens. Another example in a concert when I want to shoot big part of stage or the leading singer on a moment notice when interesting events happening.
Not against primes, they work well for some, I like zooms, helps me with my style of shooting, good for me, works for me, I like it that way.

 

[gsgary]

OK, I'm with you all the way till you hit on Primes. Don't mess with my Primes.....
Generally you make good arguments. I'm not going MFT either and I'm also happy with full frame.
But I do like my damn Primes so there!

Completely personal thing, have one issue with primes, the need to switch all the time, don't like switching lenses, on a full day of travel I might switch once or twice tops between my 24-70mm and the 70-200mm, just love the ease of use zoom lenses give but again completely personal

Don't you mean lazy, for me there are no drawbacks with the A7 low light shooting is great, I love manual focus and my Leica fit primes on the A7 are perfect shooting wide open you get a 3D effect, shooting all day with the 50mm or 35mm or 28mm is no problem

Lazy ?
Dont think you know me well enough to say I am lazy, actually thinking about it you dont know me at all so I would appreciate if you keep such remarks to yourself.
Many times I tend to shoot stuff that will need very fast changing focal range like a dog running toward me in a park, zoom lens lets me keep the composition I want and not compromise if I had a fixed focal range lens. Another example in a concert when I want to shoot big part of stage or the leading singer on a moment notice when interesting events happening.
Not against primes, they work well for some, I like zooms, helps me with my style of shooting, good for me, works for me, I like it that way.

You don't know me very well I have shot dog and horse shows for years and only used prime lenses mostly 300 f2.8L zooms make for lazy shooting

 

[goodguy]

OK, I'm with you all the way till you hit on Primes. Don't mess with my Primes.....
Generally you make good arguments. I'm not going MFT either and I'm also happy with full frame.
But I do like my damn Primes so there!

Completely personal thing, have one issue with primes, the need to switch all the time, don't like switching lenses, on a full day of travel I might switch once or twice tops between my 24-70mm and the 70-200mm, just love the ease of use zoom lenses give but again completely personal

Don't you mean lazy, for me there are no drawbacks with the A7 low light shooting is great, I love manual focus and my Leica fit primes on the A7 are perfect shooting wide open you get a 3D effect, shooting all day with the 50mm or 35mm or 28mm is no problem

Lazy ?
Dont think you know me well enough to say I am lazy, actually thinking about it you dont know me at all so I would appreciate if you keep such remarks to yourself.
Many times I tend to shoot stuff that will need very fast changing focal range like a dog running toward me in a park, zoom lens lets me keep the composition I want and not compromise if I had a fixed focal range lens. Another example in a concert when I want to shoot big part of stage or the leading singer on a moment notice when interesting events happening.
Not against primes, they work well for some, I like zooms, helps me with my style of shooting, good for me, works for me, I like it that way.

You don't know me very well I have shot dog and horse shows for years and only used prime lenses mostly 300 f2.8L zooms make for lazy shooting

No I dont know you at all and thus I am very careful when I make any kind of negative remark on you or anyone else on this forum, I am that kind of a guy, you know respectful ?
Treat others the way I wish others will treat me, but what ever I was called worst in my time, much worst.

I am actually glad you enjoy your 300mm lens, sounds like a great lens and if you like it then I am happy (really!) but for me I like zooms, its a personal choice and I would rather leave it at that instead of getting into a tedious debate of prime vs zoom.
To each his/her own is my motto, I have learned in life there is not a single right way but multiple ways and each chooses what is good and right for him/her.

 

[gsgary]

Here's a teaser for you
A7 iso16,000

iso12,800, F1.4 and close focus fully out

 

[D-B-J]

I have a complete FF system. I have a complete APS-C system. I have a complete MFT system.

I only shoot with my Fuji APS-C system. My XT1's are pretty much equal in size and weight to my Oly EM1, the differences between the XT1 and EM1 aren't significant. For what I shoot and how I shoot, my XT1's and 1D's are pretty much equal. The differences in IQ between my FF and APS-C isn't significant.

I shoot everything from sports to events to street to landscapes to et al ... with my Fuji's. I haven't shot above ISO 6400 with Fuji, but the 6400 was pretty clean. If extreme low light is your primary consideration, I think the new Sony A7S is your camera.

Wrong. The FOV and focal length is different. A 50mil on APS-C looks and "is" different than a 50mil on FX. The kind of separation and "look" I can get with an 85 1.8 on FX could not be achieved on an APS-C.

 

[goodguy]

Here's a teaser for you
A7 iso16,000

iso12,800, F1.4 and close focus fully out

Doesnt change my mind but I do like!
Nice clean shots at high ISO, just the way I like to see it

 

[Village Idiot]

You need to actually look at mirrorless systems because there is a good amount of misinformation in your post. Have you actually owned and shot with mirrorless cameras before or is this just what you've gathered from reading about them?

You mean there are other mirrorless full frame cameras I am not aware of ?
Because thats the only sensor today I am interested in!

Some of the m43 sensors have better ISO performance than larger DSLR sensors. Lens availability isn't just limited to 1st party lenses. Metabones makes an adapter to use Canon lenses with full AF on the Sony A7 cameras. It's probably possible with Nikon as well, but you can use a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS or any other Canon lens and AF with it. There's more. Those are two glaring misconceptions you have about poor quality and lack of lenses. In fact, the A7 has become a 2nd camera for a lot of Canon shooters.

 

[sashbar]

In fact, the A7 has become a 2nd camera for a lot of Canon shooters.

Well, FUJI X-T1 has become a 1st camera for a lot of Canon shooters

 

[Village Idiot]

In fact, the A7 has become a 2nd camera for a lot of Canon shooters.

Well, FUJI X-T1 has become a 1st camera for a lot of Canon shooters

Is that the one with the built in ND filter? Zack Arias loves it.

 

[Ysarex]

I have a complete FF system. I have a complete APS-C system. I have a complete MFT system.

I only shoot with my Fuji APS-C system. My XT1's are pretty much equal in size and weight to my Oly EM1, the differences between the XT1 and EM1 aren't significant. For what I shoot and how I shoot, my XT1's and 1D's are pretty much equal. The differences in IQ between my FF and APS-C isn't significant.

I shoot everything from sports to events to street to landscapes to et al ... with my Fuji's. I haven't shot above ISO 6400 with Fuji, but the 6400 was pretty clean. If extreme low light is your primary consideration, I think the new Sony A7S is your camera.

Wrong. The FOV and focal length is different. A 50mil on APS-C looks and "is" different than a 50mil on FX. The kind of separation and "look" I can get with an 85 1.8 on FX could not be achieved on an APS-C.

Wrong. The kind of separation you get with an 85mm f/1.8 on your FX can be exactly matched with Gary's APS Fuji XT-1 and Fuji's 56mm f/1.2 lens.

Gary said the differences in IQ weren't significant -- not that there were no differences. Interesting that in saying he's wrong you picked an example saying it couldn't be done when in fact there is no difference at all. The 56mm lens on Gary's X-T1 has the exact same FOV as your 85mm on FX and wide open will produce the same DOF as your 85mm will produce wide open.

Yes, there are differences between a FF and APS sensor cameras. And there are differences between mirrorless and SLR cameras. It's not however a case of one is always better than the other. There are things a mirrorless camera can do that your SLR can't. You value the lower noise you get from your larger sensor when you underexpose it. That's about how you work and what your specific needs are. I traded in my FF gear 1 year and 2 months ago and moved to an APS sensor camera. I don't consider what I did a downgrade. The base ISO on my APS camera is 200; twice, maybe three times, in the past 14 months I may have raised to ISO to 400 but never beyond that. That's about how I work and my specific needs. So a feature of your FF camera that's critical to you means nothing to me. While at the same time I'm delighted with my mirrorless camera and it's ability to use uncompromising wide angle lenses that your SLR can't do.

But Gary is pretty much correct in that the differences aren't really very significant.

Joe

 

[sashbar]

In fact, the A7 has become a 2nd camera for a lot of Canon shooters.

Well, FUJI X-T1 has become a 1st camera for a lot of Canon shooters

Is that the one with the built in ND filter? Zack Arias loves it.

Yes. I love it too.

 

[D-B-J]

I have a complete FF system. I have a complete APS-C system. I have a complete MFT system.

I only shoot with my Fuji APS-C system. My XT1's are pretty much equal in size and weight to my Oly EM1, the differences between the XT1 and EM1 aren't significant. For what I shoot and how I shoot, my XT1's and 1D's are pretty much equal. The differences in IQ between my FF and APS-C isn't significant.

I shoot everything from sports to events to street to landscapes to et al ... with my Fuji's. I haven't shot above ISO 6400 with Fuji, but the 6400 was pretty clean. If extreme low light is your primary consideration, I think the new Sony A7S is your camera.

Wrong. The FOV and focal length is different. A 50mil on APS-C looks and "is" different than a 50mil on FX. The kind of separation and "look" I can get with an 85 1.8 on FX could not be achieved on an APS-C.

Wrong. The kind of separation you get with an 85mm f/1.8 on your FX can be exactly matched with Gary's APS Fuji XT-1 and Fuji's 56mm f/1.2 lens.

Gary said the differences in IQ weren't significant -- not that there were no differences. Interesting that in saying he's wrong you picked an example saying it couldn't be done when in fact there is no difference at all. The 56mm lens on Gary's X-T1 has the exact same FOV as your 85mm on FX and wide open will produce the same DOF as your 85mm will produce wide open.

Yes, there are differences between a FF and APS sensor cameras. And there are differences between mirrorless and SLR cameras. It's not however a case of one is always better than the other. There are things a mirrorless camera can do that your SLR can't. You value the lower noise you get from your larger sensor when you underexpose it. That's about how you work and what your specific needs are. I traded in my FF gear 1 year and 2 months ago and moved to an APS sensor camera. I don't consider what I did a downgrade. The base ISO on my APS camera is 200; twice, maybe three times, in the past 14 months I may have raised to ISO to 400 but never beyond that. That's about how I work and my specific needs. So a feature of your FF camera that's critical to you means nothing to me. While at the same time I'm delighted with my mirrorless camera and it's ability to use uncompromising wide angle lenses that your SLR can't do.

But Gary is pretty much correct in that the differences aren't really very significant.

Joe

The 56 may have the same FOV (angle wise) but will have a different level of compression and perspective as it's not the same focal length. Sure, I can make an 85mil look like a 200mil with cropping, but why would I? That's what I meant.

 

[Ysarex]

I have a complete FF system. I have a complete APS-C system. I have a complete MFT system.

I only shoot with my Fuji APS-C system. My XT1's are pretty much equal in size and weight to my Oly EM1, the differences between the XT1 and EM1 aren't significant. For what I shoot and how I shoot, my XT1's and 1D's are pretty much equal. The differences in IQ between my FF and APS-C isn't significant.

I shoot everything from sports to events to street to landscapes to et al ... with my Fuji's. I haven't shot above ISO 6400 with Fuji, but the 6400 was pretty clean. If extreme low light is your primary consideration, I think the new Sony A7S is your camera.

Wrong. The FOV and focal length is different. A 50mil on APS-C looks and "is" different than a 50mil on FX. The kind of separation and "look" I can get with an 85 1.8 on FX could not be achieved on an APS-C.

Wrong. The kind of separation you get with an 85mm f/1.8 on your FX can be exactly matched with Gary's APS Fuji XT-1 and Fuji's 56mm f/1.2 lens.

Gary said the differences in IQ weren't significant -- not that there were no differences. Interesting that in saying he's wrong you picked an example saying it couldn't be done when in fact there is no difference at all. The 56mm lens on Gary's X-T1 has the exact same FOV as your 85mm on FX and wide open will produce the same DOF as your 85mm will produce wide open.

Yes, there are differences between a FF and APS sensor cameras. And there are differences between mirrorless and SLR cameras. It's not however a case of one is always better than the other. There are things a mirrorless camera can do that your SLR can't. You value the lower noise you get from your larger sensor when you underexpose it. That's about how you work and what your specific needs are. I traded in my FF gear 1 year and 2 months ago and moved to an APS sensor camera. I don't consider what I did a downgrade. The base ISO on my APS camera is 200; twice, maybe three times, in the past 14 months I may have raised to ISO to 400 but never beyond that. That's about how I work and my specific needs. So a feature of your FF camera that's critical to you means nothing to me. While at the same time I'm delighted with my mirrorless camera and it's ability to use uncompromising wide angle lenses that your SLR can't do.

But Gary is pretty much correct in that the differences aren't really very significant.

Joe

The 56 may have the same FOV (angle wise) but will have a different level of compression and perspective as it's not the same focal length. Sure, I can make an 85mil look like a 200mil with cropping, but why would I? That's what I meant.

No it will not have a different level of compression and perspective. Lens focal lengths don't have compression or perspective. Perspective is determined only by camera placement. The point of the 56mm on the APS camera as an appropriate match to the 85mm on the FF is that they will produce the exact same image from the identical camera position. Place a FF camera and APS camera in the same place. Mount an 85mm f/1.8 on the FF camera and a 56mm f/1.2 on the APS camera and you get the same photo from both cameras. Same content and same DOF with both lenses shot wide open.

Joe

 

[Solarflare]

Well, I am not so sure that Mirrorless is "the future". As already mentioned by the OP, there are certain drawbacks of mirrorless.

Top Autofocus in any light and under hardest conditions is still the domain of DSLRs. This problem is still unsolved. And focus is nothing to sneeze at. Missed focus cannot be fixed in post and means in most cases the shot is simply unuseable.

The second advantage is of course a real, optical viewfinder. Not a television with all kinds of oddities, such as lag in bad light, flimmering under artificial light, lack of resolution, etc. I wouldnt really count this unless its at least a full frame DSLR, though; smaller cameras have horrible, dark viewfinders that will for example not allow you to really check focus.

The third advantage is simply sensor size and sophistication. Ignoring the special case Leica M - no autofocus, optical viewfinder limited to about 28-70mm for good performance, and extreme price - there is simply nothing out there to compete with DSLRs right now. Sony FE will allow you to use the same lenses as Leica M with an adapter, and might give you pretty good autofocus performance in good light. Thats the closest we get right now. Well, at least the next generation will have sensor based stabilization - thats a plus.

Right now, a Canon 6D or Nikon D750 ist a workhorse that has no equivalent in the mirrorless camera section.

What is without question is that mirrorless cameras will stay. They definitely have their uses. But I'm not so sure DSLRs will actually go.