then what is the deference between them ?
DSLRs have the same TTL optical viewfinder design as old SLRs do. That isn't really necessary in the digital age, while it was the only way to see TTL in the film era.
By taking the mirror box and all associated components out, the camera can be smaller and lighter, as well as cheaper and easier to manufacture. The lens mount can be closer to the sensor, allowing for smaller lenses to be designed.
Because there is no optical viewfinder, the camera is always in Live View mode. With a DSLR, you can only use LV with the LCD on the back - holding the camera away from your eye is unstable. So with mirrorless cameras that have electronic viewfinders (such as the Olympus OM-D series; Panasonic GH- and G-series, as well as the GX7; Fujifilm X-T1, X-E-series and X-Pro1; Sony a6000 and a7-series, etc.), you get the advantages of LV - namely live histogram and clipping warnings, exposure preview, manual focus assists that help nail tack sharp focus easily, and very precise contrast-detection autofocus - with an eye-level viewfinder.
Because the lens mount is so close to the sensor, there are many adapters available that compensate for that distance and let you use lenses from other systems. There are adapters for rangefinder systems like the Leica M (which has small lenses, because they're pretty close to the sensor, too, and they're no-frills manual lenses), as well as adapters for current DSLR systems (some even retain autofocus and optical image stabilization, and there are also ones that compensate for the crop factor and even improve the maximum aperture, like the Metabones Speedbooster adapters). If you're willing to focus manually (very easy to do so with cameras that have focus peaking and magnification), mirrorless systems actually have more lenses to choose from than DSLR systems.
Tracking autofocus is perhaps the only real drawback. Entry-level DSLRs, like the D5300, do a better job at that than high-end mirrorless cameras. But for your shooting, you don't need tracking autofocus at all! And the mirrorless cameras are improving in that respect.
There's also the EVF vs. OVF argument. I've laid out most of the EVF's advantages earlier (eye-level LV), but haven't mentioned yet that shooting in pitch darkness is easier with a mirrorless camera. By pitch darkness, I mean such a dark environment that you can't see with your own to eyes. With an EVF, I also find it easy to compose a scene with the sun in the frame, as I don't feel like I'm hutring my eye. That brings up an opposing argument, though...
With an optical viewfinder, you can see great dynamic range - as wide as your eye's, because, well, it is your eye. With an EVF, you can only see the dynamic range that the sensor is capable of. It has never bothered me, though.
In low-light, there's some lag in the EVF, when the image in a DSLR's OVF is obviously lag-free. That lag is minimized in recent models, and hasn't bothered me at all.
Mirrorless cameras have many different sensor size formats. Some use 35mm full frame, some APS-C, and some use smaller formats. My camera has a Four Thirds sensor, which is smaller than APS-C, but when you put things in perspective, it's really not so small:
The dynamic range is great, I'm able to recover a lot of detail from shadows. And I personally print photos shot at up to ISO 800 without any noise reduction, and up to ISO 3200 with noise reduction. I also shoot at up to ISO 6400 when I know I won't make a print. For sharing online, it's really great (with noise reduction).
Before you buy anything, go to a store and try some mirrorless cameras within your budget. The Olympus OM-D E-M10 and Sony a6000 are two models that come to mind - they cost roughly $800 with kit lens.
- not for sports ) ..
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31050-824a861ee359cd274a794fc7b9ff8f7b.jpg?1734159158)
