DSLR vs Mirror-Less ???

[usayit]

What really worries me personally about the question of Mirrorless vs DSLR is the money I invest in glass.

This is not a Mirrorless vs DSLR issue.... this can happen even in a decision between DSLR vs DSLR of different brands.

 

[usayit]

The issue with the weight and lugging around a DSLR... that's never bothered me..

Since weight and size is the primary value proposition. I see no reason to consider otherwise.

 

[Gavjenks]

Which just makes my case stronger, right now for DSLR hobyist its not the time to upgrade for very expensive pro lenses.
Best sit this one out wait for the tide of change take its course and once the camera market has stabalized then it will be time to make the move for the best body+lens.
Its silly to stick to old tech lenses (as good as they are) if new lenses will make better use of new technology.
You simply dont know, I am in a waiting mode right now and will see if DSLR will continuing to rain supreme or will it be overthrown by the Mirrorless.

Long lenses (above about 50-70 lowest focal length) are not any better on mirrorless cameras.

So there would be no reason to repurchase those lenses versus just using an adapter. Unless of course the new lenses have other ancillary features you want like some sort of futuristic image stabilization. But the raw underlying optics only improve for lesd than about 50mm lenses for mirrorless.

 

[goodguy]

What really worries me personally about the question of Mirrorless vs DSLR is the money I invest in glass.

This is not a Mirrorless vs DSLR issue.... this can happen even in a decision between DSLR vs DSLR of different brands.

I respectfully disagree, I think today all camera makers wether its Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax...etc they all make good cameras, you truly cant go wrong with any of them but Mirrorless or DSLR is like VHS vs Beta, in time it could lead to either one take the place of the other or somehow they coexist together side by side each finding its nische and slice of the market.
I dont want to be on the loosing side and thats why for me right now best is to save my money enjoy what I have and make a big move on lenses in the future when I am comfortable and confident I got the winning format.

 

[Gavjenks]

What really worries me personally about the question of Mirrorless vs DSLR is the money I invest in glass.

This is not a Mirrorless vs DSLR issue.... this can happen even in a decision between DSLR vs DSLR of different brands.

I respectfully disagree, I think today all camera makers wether its Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax...etc they all make good cameras, you truly cant go wrong with any of them but Mirrorless or DSLR is like VHS vs Beta, in time it could lead to either one take the place of the other or somehow they coexist together side by side each finding its nische and slice of the market.
I dont want to be on the loosing side and thats why for me right now best is to save my money enjoy what I have and make a big move on lenses in the future when I am comfortable and confident I got the winning format.

This is not really correct.

There is an optical reason why EVERY DSLR lens can be successfully adapted to use on EVERY mirrorless camera, without any additional performance-degrading glass in between.

This is because mirrorless cameras always have a smaller "flange to focal distance" than DSLRs do (the distance from the sensor to the lens mount), by quite a lot. So there's a ton of space in between to put an empty tube that fills in the difference in distance and has adapters on both ends for mounts. These already exist for pretty much every mirrorless camera made:

Canon M to EOS adapter: Canon EF-EOS M Mount Adapter Adapts the Canon EOS M camera to Canon EF/EF-S lenses at Crutchfield.com
Only $200 for the name brand manufacturer model. 3rd party ones that would work just as well (Canon air is not any better than anybody else's air) sell for less than $100: Lens Mount Adapter, Mount Adapter Ring for Canon EF Lens to EF-M EOS M Digital Camera | Meritline.com

There are even adapters between brands, like this canon lens to micro 4/3 body adapter for $17: Amazon.com: RAINBOWIMAGING Canon EOS EF Lens to Micro 4/3 Four Thirds System Camera Mount Adapter, Olympus PEN E-P1 E-P2, Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1, GH1, G1, MSRP USD27.99: Camera & Photo

Whenever the lens and body are different brands, you will only be able to use manual mode, but adapters that change between the same brand will allow full electronic control, usually. Meaning that you CAN use ALL of your DSLR canon lenses, for example, on a canon mirrorless camera. With full autofocus, IS, and aperture.

There is no such thing as "making the mirrorless switchover entirely for all my equipment." Once the mirrorless cameras are as good or better (soon-ish), you just buy a new body and an adapter, that's it. Then over time, you may or may not choose to take advantage of higher optical quality mirrorless-only wide angle lenses, but you wouldn't HAVE to. You could still use your DSLR wide angle lenses too.





A better analogy is CD and DVD. Almost all DVD players can also play CDs. So there was no reason to avoid purchasing a DVD drive when it came out, because it was backwards compatible and therefore better in every way than a CD drive only.

 

[Gavjenks]

The issue with the weight and lugging around a DSLR... that's never bothered me.
Hell, my wife and I did a big hike in Maui with all of our stuff. At the time I had a gripped D300 with 17-55 f2.8, and the 80-200 f2.8 in my sling. She would even carry it for long stretches, and she's just over 100 pounds.
We didn't complain. And she hiked up Diamond Head carrying our then 20 pound toddler.
Come on guys.....

I don't think you're quite understanding the concept here. Once they can get autofocus in mirrorless cameras to be as good as autofocus in DSLRs, there will no longer be any advantage to having a DSLR, at all. Or at least I've never heard of one. The mirrorless will be better in every single way.

If you still want your camera to be big and hefty even though it doesn't need to be, then I'm sure at least one company will still make a mirrorless camera that is just as big and hefty as old DSLRs, to satisfy people like yourself. But it would simply be full of air and weights, because the mirror and prism will be obsolete.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that mirrorless means "lighter weight, but with compromises in image quality." That may be true NOW, but it won't be true soon. Soon, it will be "lighter weight, AND BETTER in image quality than DSLRs."




Unless there's something I'm missing. If autofocus is no longer an issue, what advantage would DSLRs have over mirrorless at all? Feel free to let me know what I'm leaving out if there is anything.

 

[shadowlands]

The issue with the weight and lugging around a DSLR... that's never bothered me.
Hell, my wife and I did a big hike in Maui with all of our stuff. At the time I had a gripped D300 with 17-55 f2.8, and the 80-200 f2.8 in my sling. She would even carry it for long stretches, and she's just over 100 pounds.
We didn't complain. And she hiked up Diamond Head carrying our then 20 pound toddler.
Come on guys.....

I don't think you're quite understanding the concept here. Once they can get autofocus in mirrorless cameras to be as good as autofocus in DSLRs, there will no longer be any advantage to having a DSLR, at all. Or at least I've never heard of one. The mirrorless will be better in every single way.

If you still want your camera to be big and hefty even though it doesn't need to be, then I'm sure at least one company will still make a mirrorless camera that is just as big and hefty as old DSLRs, to satisfy people like yourself. But it would simply be full of air and weights, because the mirror and prism will be obsolete.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that mirrorless means "lighter weight, but with compromises in image quality." That may be true NOW, but it won't be true soon. Soon, it will be "lighter weight, AND BETTER in image quality than DSLRs."




Unless there's something I'm missing. If autofocus is no longer an issue, what advantage would DSLRs have over mirrorless at all? Feel free to let me know what I'm leaving out if there is anything.

Nope, I'm saying I like the feel/grip/hand hold of a full sized SLR. When I owned smaller cameras like my former D5000, I hated how it felt compared to a D90.
The D90 wasn't as nice as my former D300, etc.... I like the fat grip, etc... that's just me.
I don't find my current set-up (D700, grip and 28-70) to be hard to carry around or heavy. Others think it is. To each his own.
Personally, I just feel like most of the mirror-less cameras look like a large point and shoot with a lens attached.
A mirror-less DLSR? I could live with that.

 

[Gavjenks]

Nope, I'm saying I like the feel/grip/hand hold of a full sized SLR. When I owned smaller cameras like my former D5000, I hated how it felt compared to a D90.
The D90 wasn't as nice as my former D300, etc.... I like the fat grip, etc... that's just me.
I don't find my current set-up (D700, grip and 28-70) to be hard to carry around or heavy. Others think it is. To each his own.
Personally, I just feel like most of the mirror-less cameras look like a large point and shoot with a lens attached.
A mirror-less DLSR? I could live with that.

There is no such thing as a mirrorless DSLR.
DSLR = "digital single lens reflex" camera. The reflex refers to the fact that there is a mirror in it.

DSLR does NOT = "large camera."
nor does mirrorless = "small camera."

You could theoretically make a DSLR that is like an inch in size, or a mirrorless camera that is the size of a warehouse (in fact, the largest photograph ever taken in history was with a mirrorless camera the size of a warehouse). Size and weight have nothing to do with the distinction by definition.

Mirrorless cameras TEND to be smaller, because since they don't have a mirror or a pentaprism, there is no need to take up as much space. But if some customers like you wanted the size just for something to hold onto, I'm guessing at least one company would continue to make mirrorless cameras that were just large even though they didn't need to be, for the occasional person like yourself. But they would still be mirrorless probably, because it is optically superior.

 

[Derrel]

One one side stood the Nikon user with a full kit from 20mm to 400mm....on the other side stood the Mirrorless Messiah...

 

[Gavjenks]

My kit is also a DSLR from about 20mm to 400mm in all DSLR lenses. I do not own a mirrorless camera.

The issues haven't been completely solved yet. It is sort of like the period of time after the lightbulb had been invented and demonstrated to be cheap, effective and safe, but before there was a reliable national energy grid everywhere to plug it into. The writing was on the wall, and the advantages were obvious, but not all of the kinks had been sorted out yet for it to be entirely reasonable yet for everybody to go out and buy lightbulbs.

But then within a few years, the last remaining and well-defined/known problems holding lightbulbs back were solved by GE and Westinghouse, and everybody did go out and buy lightbulbs. This was not a very surprising outcome.

it's the same with mirrorless. The basic technology is all here already. It simply needs to be optimized somewhat / the last few well known and well defined engineering kinks ironed out, and then it will be the superior choice in every way. Even MORE so than the lightbulb in fact, because you can still use your old lenses (it's as if you could have run your new lightbulbs on your old remaining stocks of kerosene as a bonus, until they ran out!)

 

[sashbar]

Strangey the qoute in post 33 does not belong to me even though the system thinks so. I never wrote that.
Anyway. Mirrorles has one huge advantage that was not mentioned here yet: lower production costs and higher profit margins. For this only reason it is unstoppable.

 

[shadowlands]

Nope, I'm saying I like the feel/grip/hand hold of a full sized SLR. When I owned smaller cameras like my former D5000, I hated how it felt compared to a D90.
The D90 wasn't as nice as my former D300, etc.... I like the fat grip, etc... that's just me.
I don't find my current set-up (D700, grip and 28-70) to be hard to carry around or heavy. Others think it is. To each his own.
Personally, I just feel like most of the mirror-less cameras look like a large point and shoot with a lens attached.
A mirror-less DLSR? I could live with that.

There is no such thing as a mirrorless DSLR.
DSLR = "digital single lens reflex" camera. The reflex refers to the fact that there is a mirror in it.

DSLR does NOT = "large camera."
nor does mirrorless = "small camera."

You could theoretically make a DSLR that is like an inch in size, or a mirrorless camera that is the size of a warehouse (in fact, the largest photograph ever taken in history was with a mirrorless camera the size of a warehouse). Size and weight have nothing to do with the distinction by definition.

Mirrorless cameras TEND to be smaller, because since they don't have a mirror or a pentaprism, there is no need to take up as much space. But if some customers like you wanted the size just for something to hold onto, I'm guessing at least one company would continue to make mirrorless cameras that were just large even though they didn't need to be, for the occasional person like yourself. But they would still be mirrorless probably, because it is optically superior.

Well, hey.. works for me... when everyone buys up the little mirror-less, point and shoot looking cameras, and DSLR's fall away... I'll grab a D4 for peanuts!!!

 

[usayit]

I respectfully disagree, I think today all camera makers wether its Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Pentax... etc they all make good cameras, you truly cant go wrong with any of them but Mirrorless or DSLR is like VHS vs Beta

Tell that to

Leica R-system users..
Canon FD users..
Contax G users...

etc...

Any mount can become a dead mount....

Any mount can potentially be used on a mirror-less design...

Any mount can potentially be adapted to a mirror-less design...

Its not about mirrorless vs DSLR... If you are concerned about continued future support of your lenses then you main concern should be the mount NOT the DESIGN. Your concern about lens and optic "investment" has absolutely NOTHING to do with mirrorless vs DSLR because its the mount that can go "dead" not the design.


The root of the confusion here is that you haven't made a distinction between a design (mirrorbox, TLR, rangefinder, etc) vs implementation (Canon EOS, Canon FD, M-mount etc).

Your analogy of VHS vs Beta is way in left field since there is so much behind the story that is unrelated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war. VHS and Beta are both magnetic tape design but of different implementations. Saying VHS or Beta support is dead is closer to saying that the Canon FD mount is dead because frankly there is still a multi-billion dollar business around Magnetic tape for both data and audio/video storage.

If you were to state instead "I am concerned about investing in Olympus micro 4/3rds because it may become a dead end.", then you have a valid concern. It is a concern with ANY brand/mount but in some cases the "risk" is less than others.

 

[Gavjenks]

Well, hey.. works for me... when everyone buys up the little mirror-less, point and shoot looking cameras, and DSLR's fall away... I'll grab a D4 for peanuts!!!

But why would you want to get an old D4, when you could buy the mirrorless future equivalent of a D4, that works with all of the newly produced mirrorless high quality lenses, etc., also for peanuts?

5-10 years from now, the stats of a D4 will not be impressive anymore at all. Those stats will represent probably a low entry level to midrange quality camera at that point in time. PLUS the cost savings of mirrorless means you could just buy a new camera that does just as well as the old dinosaur D4, and you'd get a warranty and everything to go with it, as well as being able to use it with the future new mirrorless-only lenses.

 

[shadowlands]

Well, hey.. works for me... when everyone buys up the little mirror-less, point and shoot looking cameras, and DSLR's fall away... I'll grab a D4 for peanuts!!!

But why would you want to get an old D4, when you could buy the mirrorless future equivalent of a D4, that works with all of the newly produced mirrorless high quality lenses, etc., also for peanuts?

5-10 years from now, the stats of a D4 will not be impressive anymore at all. Those stats will represent probably a low entry level to midrange quality camera at that point in time. PLUS the cost savings of mirrorless means you could just buy a new camera that does just as well as the old dinosaur D4, and you'd get a warranty and everything to go with it, as well as being able to use it with the future new mirrorless-only lenses.

Personal preference... period.... if that's the case, I'll drool over a D5, if & when.