Newbie in need of a big hand!

[Microbois]

The notion of mirrorless vs. a DSLR (which contains a reflex mirror) is a religious debate. I prefer cameras with physically large sensors

I'm sorry, but this is not true. At this very moment, DSLR and mirrorless cameras have their strenght and weaknesses, but depending on the type of photography you are interested in, one type may be better suited to your needs. I have no dog in this fight, as I owe a DSLR and I would like to add one mirrorless camera to my collection eventually, but it's safe to say that the future belongs to mirrorless cameras. While many mirrorless cameras features a small sensor, many of them also use an APS-C size sensor, and some are even full frame, so it's a moot point to compare them to DSLR. You just have to be careful and select the right model.

It turns out, the true DSLR cameras (cameras with a mirror) tend to win in this department.

Once again, not true.

 

[TCampbell]

See what I mean about "religious debate"?

So let's review the list of "full frame" mirrorless cameras... we've got the Sony a7 (a couple of variants) and then we've got the Leica (but those are in the $5-7k price range.) Anyway, when you consider the prices, the whole category is outside the OP's budget.

There are a few APS-C mirrorless cameras (Samsung, Sony, Fuji) -- for non-action shots, some of these can compete with what you can get from a DSLR. But the gear selection is limited because mirrorless still isn't mainstream.

And then there are lots of micro 4/3rd sensor cameras (considerably smaller).

With mirrorless cameras you trade-off focus performance (especially for action photography) and battery life. Canon has a nice technology to do phase-detect AF on the sensor surface. The technology is young and not quite as fast as true phase-detect AF, but still it's pretty good and I can see it getting better (so it has promise). But it's exclusive to Canon (and their mirrorless camera offering isn't sold in North America because buyers here tend kept buying their DSLRs over the mirrorless cameras.)

I've seen the "size" debate crop up in many product segments. For cameras it boils down to one of two categories... (1) it fits in your pocket, or (2) it doesn't. There are no mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (milc) that fit in your pocket -- so I give a skeptical look to anyone attempting to run with this argument. f/2.8 glass on a large sensor body is still big and heavy regardless of whether there's a mirror in the light path.

I think that "someday" the mirrorless camera may surpass the performance of DSLRs. Mirrorless cameras have made some great progress. I just don't think it's fair to represent mirrorless cameras as "the future" because the OP isn't asking which camera we think they should buy in 5 years... they're asking which camera they should buy today. Today, the DSLR is still ahead.

 

[Microbois]

See what I mean about "religious debate"?

Well, I don't see anything "religious" in the debate of DSLR vs mirrorless. The way I see it, they both have their pros and cons, and depending on what are your needs, one may be better. What's religious about this? I think it's worth mentionning mirrorless cameras as a valid option to someone who's about to get deeper into photography.

I have personally recommended the Sony a6000 which is within the OP's budget, has an APS-C sensor, and has interchangeable lens too. Even better, he can buy an extra lens within his budget. In term of size, the a6000 is much smaller than the D5300, and its form factor makes it much easier to fit in a pocket. I think the mistake you make is assuming that mirrorless cameras have tiny sensors.

There are no mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (milc) that fit in your pocket

Once again, it's not true. See above.

As far as talking about full frame mirrorless camera, of course they exist, but they are not within the OP's budget, nor do FF DSLR are either.

The reasons why I suggest to the OP to give a hard look into mirrorless cameras, it's because they pack a lot more technology and useful features than DSLR. For instance, any adjustments to the shutter speed, aperture, and ISO are automatically reflected in the EVF, so it's much easier to learn photography if you can see the final picture in the viewfinder rather than on the rear LCD once the shot is taken. Who knows how old the OP is, but if he's of the younger generation, he may appreciate knowing that mirrorless cameras can sync with his phone so he can post pictures on Facebook easily. It's not so easy to do it with a conventional DSLR. There are so many other cool features they may be interested in getting.

What's wrong about this?

 

[TCampbell]

Find an image of the Sony alpha (pictured left in your post) -- except from the side. That lens sticks out rather far (the image makes it look rather flat -- but it isn't.) It's not fitting into pocket on a pair of jeans. It's not even going to fit into most jacket pockets.

I'm not sure where you're going with the "mirrorless cameras can sync with his phone"... there's nothing instrinsic about a "milc" camera that makes it sync with a phone. That's just a feature of the camera (which would be model-specific, nothing to do with wither a camera does or does not have a reflex mirror) and any camera can have that feature (and lots of DSLR cameras also have that feature.)

Removing the reflex mirror from the camera doesn't automatically make it a better camera.

Image quality is primarily about:

1) Photographer skill (so that would be equal regardless of which camera they have)

2) Lighting (so now you probably need a camera that can deal with off-camera lighting and the smaller milc cameras don't do that, but many mid-range do and the higher-end models do. The camera needs a hot-shoe.)

3) Lenses (the lens selection for a DSLR are massive... both Canon and Nikon offer around 75 choices each... and then there's the third party lens choices from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. etc.)

4) Camera body (and mostly it's the sensor -- size and ISO performance, etc. Other features are situationally important depending on type of photography such as focus system, shooting speed, etc.)

Nobody else has the OEM and 3rd part support for compatible products that Canon & Nikon have. That's a big reason why it's unusual to find serious photographers shooting with anything else.

If a person is starting to get serious about photography then they want a camera that can support off-camera lighting (it needs a hot-shoe) and they want a camera with a viewfinder (EVF of optical) -- not just the LCD. You can get both of those features in milc cameras (mostly in mid-range and up).

 

[Microbois]

TCampbell, I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. It looks like you have an axe to grind against mirrorless cameras, and YOU work hard to turn this into a religious war. I never implied mirrorless cameras were better than DSLR. As a matter of fact, I have a Nikon D610 myself, and no mirrorless camera yet, so I have no dog in this fight. I'm just open to both technologies for their own merits. Really.

My whole point was to tell the OP to look into mirrorless cameras too as he may find a model that fits his needs better than with a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras are smaller, sometimes not by much compared to DSLR, but it's an INDISPUTABLE FACT that they are smaller. I don't see the point of arguing over this. As far as mirrorless cameras being more or less capable than DSLR, well, there are professional photographers switching to mirrorless everyday, so I'm guessing mirrorless have something DSLR don't. Huh?

In today's world of entitlement and instant gratifications, learning the basics of photography (shutter speed, aperture, and ISO) is sometimes way too complicated and too much work for the iGeneration. On that end, a mirrorless camera with an EVF can be more pleasant to learn on in manual mode than a DSLR with an OVF.

An extensive lens selection is another moot point if all the OP is interested in is some kind of standard zoom telephoto and wide angle lens. I can understand if someone wants to become a pro, or get into some very special photography, but the OP is upgrading from a... phone to do landscape and nature photos. It seems that you have completely lost sight of this, but where does my suggestion of considering a Sony a6000 mirrorless camera is rubbish and must be trashed? He has 700€ to spend. By the way, the Sony a6000 has a hot shoe, so no issue for off-camera lighting...

Gheez, let him make his decision himself once he has chance to play and read more on all the cameras suggested here. It's his money, not ours. I gave him a suggestion, he will do whatever he wants with it, regardless what you or I think...

 

[Gary A.]

@ TCampbell- Non of your new arguments/statements support the deficiencies of your original post. You have said nothing regarding DOF and high ISO IQ in your follow-up posts. I agree with Microbois that it seems you are changing your points in order to continue to argue.


"Removing the reflex mirror from the camera doesn't automatically make it a better camera."

Very true. But nobody in this thread claimed removing a mirror made a better camera.


"Image quality is primarily about:

1) Photographer skill (so that would be equal regardless of which camera they have)"

No argument from me on that point.


"2) Lighting (so now you probably need a camera that can deal with off-camera lighting and the smaller milc cameras don't do that, but many mid-range do and the higher-end models do. The camera needs a hot-shoe.)"

The OP never mention an off-camera lighting requirement. So far, I've purchased 11 mirrorless cameras, Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji. Each and every camera had a hot-shoe. Mirrorless cameras in the OP's price range have hot-shoes.

Have you ever owned or even operated a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) for a significant number of images?


"3) Lenses (the lens selection for a DSLR are massive... both Canon and Nikon offer around 75 choices each... and then there's the third party lens choices from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. etc.)"

Yes, there are more native lens options for dSLR's than any other system. But:

A) How many lenses does one actually need? The OP mentioned that for starters all he was looking for was a stock lens (which probably means a kit lens).

B) Quite a few third parties are now making lenses for MFT, Fuji and Sony mirrorless. Including Sigma, Zeiss, Rokinon et al. I recently tested a HandelVision 40mm f/.95 for B&H which was designed with a Fuji mount. and

C) Most MILC (MFT, Sony, Fuji) have adapters available. These adapters allow owners of MILC camera to shoot lenses with Nikon mounts, Canon mounts, Leica mounts, Contax mounts, Sony Mounts, Pentax mounts, et cetera. So in actually, most MILC's have far more lens choices available than dSLRs.

Have you ever owned or even operated a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) for a significant number of images?


"4) Camera body (and mostly it's the sensor -- size and ISO performance, etc. Other features are situationally important depending on type of photography such as focus system, shooting speed, etc.)"

Wellll ... and again ... that isn't necessarily true. In modern digital cameras, size of enlargement may be more significant than sensor size. The size of the final image is what typically dictates sensor size requirements.

"Nobody else has the OEM and 3rd part support for compatible products that Canon & Nikon have. That's a big reason why it's unusual to find serious photographers shooting with anything else. "

I agree that Canon and Nikon have more 3rd part support for compatible products. But the OP didn't request information regard 3rd party hardware. The Op is looking to purchase a camera and w stock/kit lens.

How do you know that 3rd party compatible hardware is why serious photographers buy Canon and Nikon? Cite your sources. Having been a professional, I say that 3rd party support is one of the last things that will drive me to choose a particular camera. But, once again, the OP is not asking about 3rd party camera hardware information for a serious photographer. Personally, I think that a big reason most serious photographers are shooting Canon and Nikon is because they are already locked into their existing camera systems and find it a financial hardship to switch to a different system which doesn't significantly improve their existing image IQ.

"If a person is starting to get serious about photography then they want a camera that can support off-camera lighting (it needs a hot-shoe) and they want a camera with a viewfinder (EVF of optical) -- not just the LCD. You can get both of those features in milc cameras (mostly in mid-range and up)."

I believe that most MILC's support off camera flash. I believe most MILC within the OP's price range have/support EVF's. In fact my Fuji's have, built-in, both an EVF and an OVF.

Have you ever owned or even operated a Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera (MILC) for a significant number of images?