I’m with Thom Hogan

[jaomul]

I like Thom Hogans site but he did tell me my d5600 and 50mm f1.8 were crap so now I gotta look at all my photos taken with these items and delete them all

Seriously though these cams, mirrorless or not are only better or worse than each other based on requirements by the individual. If you don't need a smaller camera than a dslr then you don't necessarily need to buy a mirrorless (and really other than enthusiast interest should we really care if a cam has a mirror or not once the manufacturer has eliminated any mirror blur issues)

The 2 types are becoming closer and closer to spec, you can have a dslr that dos great live view and video (canon dual pixel models) and now we seem to be getting to a place where the non mirrored cams can do autofocus tracking (fuji xt3 and sony a9 and others)

As for real life difference in image quality between a d850 and z7, I'd imagine other than review sites and the like, one would want to be very pedantic to choose one over the other based on that alone, I'm sure 2 creative photographers one with each model could take photos with them that were almost impossible to say which cam by anyone unless the exif was shown

 

[JTPhotography]

D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.

BTW, do you own and shoot enough samples of each group to validate Tom's "findings?" Just asking...

Yes.

 

[JTPhotography]

This is, imo, a silly pixel-peeper discussion. discussion.
One uses the best one likes and wants to or can afford to make images.
Once past a certain point, and all modern cameras are past that point, it is much more the skill and artistic insight of the photographer that makes a difference rather than the mostly trivial difference between bodies.

Totally disagree.

 

[cgw]

D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.

BTW, do you own and shoot enough samples of each group to validate Tom's "findings?" Just asking...

Yes.

Like what you like but don’t pass it off as evidence-based, especially when you've shared none.

 

[Braineack]

I liked the form factor, and IQ out of my a6000, but I hated missing focus due to a focusing method that is inferior to SLR -- am I'm talking easy easy easy shots with the focus point on a static subject.

If manufacturers were smart, they'd combine the best of both worlds...

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

I liked the form factor, and IQ out of my a6000, but I hated missing focus due to a focusing method that is inferior to SLR -- am I'm talking easy easy easy shots with the focus point on a static subject.

If manufacturers were smart, they'd combine the best of both worlds...

I think that’s what @jaomul was getting at; they are getting closer to that best of both worlds camera.

 

[JTPhotography]

D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.

BTW, do you own and shoot enough samples of each group to validate Tom's "findings?" Just asking...

Yes.

Like what you like but don’t pass it off as evidence-based, especially when you've shared none.

It is evidence based, google search it. You will he busy for hours and hours reading about how right I am.

 

[waday]

D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.

BTW, do you own and shoot enough samples of each group to validate Tom's "findings?" Just asking...

Yes.

Like what you like but don’t pass it off as evidence-based, especially when you've shared none.

It is evidence based, google search it. You will he busy for hours and hours reading about how right I am.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not others...

 

[JTPhotography]

D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.

BTW, do you own and shoot enough samples of each group to validate Tom's "findings?" Just asking...

Yes.

Like what you like but don’t pass it off as evidence-based, especially when you've shared none.

It is evidence based, google search it. You will he busy for hours and hours reading about how right I am.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not others...

Do you doubt me? Or are you just trying to divert because you don't shoot Nikon?

 

[waday]

D850 andD500 are still king in the FX/DX world and the new batch of mirrorless bodies from any brand does nothing to change that.

BTW, do you own and shoot enough samples of each group to validate Tom's "findings?" Just asking...

Yes.

Like what you like but don’t pass it off as evidence-based, especially when you've shared none.

It is evidence based, google search it. You will he busy for hours and hours reading about how right I am.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not others...

Do you doubt me? Or are you just trying to divert because you don't shoot Nikon?

I’m trying to see what basis you have for you claim. As a person in science and engineering, I typically don’t accept personal statements and other anecdotes as fact.

 

[Derrel]

The mirror box is the smallest piece of the puzzle. The real difference is the distance from the sensor to the lens. Cannon went from 44mm to 20mm. Per the Sigma CEO, and many others this will offer a radically new capability in lenses. The largest change is they will be able to make faster and larger aperture lenses significantly easier, or previously impossible.

A secondary effect, is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) which lowers the technical skills required; therefore makes it easier for people who are more art centered to utilize the camera capabilities, and for the generally less talented (e.g. me) better able to see what we have composed and depend less on our fragile memories/imagination.

Tim

Yeah..the ONE thing I am interested in seeing is the way the NEW Nikon lens mount affects lens design and lens performance.

See Ming Thein's comments on how well the new 24-70mm f/4 Z-mount lens performed on the Nikon Z7. Full review: The 2018 Nikon Z7 and Z 24-70/4

"We have a new, wide-diameter, ultra short flange mount to enable much faster lenses, easy adaptation and higher image quality: a wider throat means a larger exit pupil and better telecentricity, and more compact lens designs since a rear correction group isn’t required. There’s also a sealed FTZ adaptor that delivers full functionality with existing lenses – and a tripod mount, for better balance. It works as advertised, but perhaps there was a missed opportunity to include additional controls or filters like Canon (probably patented)."

And NOW, here is the part that has me interested in what the NEW Z-mount might offer!

"
I have the Z 24-70/4 (being the only one available and of interest to me so far); construction is sturdy but mostly plastic (with some sticktion to the action), but the same applies to my trusty [24-120/4] and that hasn’t let me down yet. There are two remarkable things about this lens: firstly, the collapsed size is tiny: it’s the same size as the primes, or say an 85/1.8. The second thing is it’s neutrality: it isn’t crazy sharp like an Otus, but it isn’t soft, either; microcontrast is middling; macrocontrast is middle to high, and it’s slightly better stopped down (peaking somewhere between f5.6 and f8). It definitely matches the resolution of the sensor. But what’s amazing is its consistency across the focal range, most focal distances and across the frame, even into the extreme corners. Remember: this isn’t a prime; it’s a collapsing compact wide-to-portrait zoom, with very short back flange distance.

This is the first time I’ve seen this kind of behaviour in a zoom: normally there’s an obvious resolution peak in the middle, with the edges only catching up a couple of stops down. Furthermore, chromatic aberration (both longitudinal and lateral) and flare are almost zero. You really have to get something very bright in the frame at wide to see even slight ghosts. This is solid evidence of the performance improvements that come from a larger mount, larger exit pupil (32mm!) and higher telecentricity. On top of that, focus is completely silent and nearly instant, and you have the benefit of a very short 30cm minimum distance from the focal plane at all focal lengths. There is some degredation in resolution close up, but it was never designed to be a macro. Bokeh is smooth and highlights are circular, with little evidence of onion rings, hot edges or corner cat-eyeing."
**************

So, there's that...an all-new lens mount that offers more telecentricity; something Olympus understood when they got into the m4/3 camera biz, and made some of the finest-performing zooms that were designed-especially-for-digitial-camera-use. The new 24-70mm lens offers very good performance, all the way across the frame, and all the way across the focal length range, even into the extreme corners. As Ming writes, "his is the first time I’ve seen this kind of behaviour in a zoom," and he notes that this zoom matches the 47-MP sensor's capability. Also, no flare, and no CA. All this, from a compact, collapsible, affordable zoom lens!

 

[JTPhotography]

BTW, do you own and shoot enough samples of each group to validate Tom's "findings?" Just asking...

Yes.

Like what you like but don’t pass it off as evidence-based, especially when you've shared none.

It is evidence based, google search it. You will he busy for hours and hours reading about how right I am.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not others...

Do you doubt me? Or are you just trying to divert because you don't shoot Nikon?

I’m trying to see what basis you have for you claim. As a person in science and engineering, I typically don’t accept personal statements and other anecdotes as fact.

If I told you the earth revolves around the sun, would I have to provide documentation?

 

[waday]

Yes.

Like what you like but don’t pass it off as evidence-based, especially when you've shared none.

It is evidence based, google search it. You will he busy for hours and hours reading about how right I am.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not others...

Do you doubt me? Or are you just trying to divert because you don't shoot Nikon?

I’m trying to see what basis you have for you claim. As a person in science and engineering, I typically don’t accept personal statements and other anecdotes as fact.

If I told you the earth revolves around the sun, would I have to provide documentation?

So you have none (basis for your claim)? Cool.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Ah put yer purses down and take it to PM.

 

[JTPhotography]

Like what you like but don’t pass it off as evidence-based, especially when you've shared none.

It is evidence based, google search it. You will he busy for hours and hours reading about how right I am.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, not others...

Do you doubt me? Or are you just trying to divert because you don't shoot Nikon?

I’m trying to see what basis you have for you claim. As a person in science and engineering, I typically don’t accept personal statements and other anecdotes as fact.

If I told you the earth revolves around the sun, would I have to provide documentation?

So you have none (basis for your claim)? Cool.

Sorry that you don’t own a Nikon D850.

https://petapixel.com/2017/09/13/nikon-d850s-dynamic-range-stacks-rival-cameras/

The Nikon D850 has the best sensor ever, according to DxOMark

Are DSLRs Still The Best Choice? | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan