Went Back To DSLR, Anyone Else?

[ecwannabe]

I'm new here and this is my first post after introducing myself so please don't think I'm trying to start an equipment war, I hate forum trolling and that's not my intent. I'm just curious if any others have switched back to a regular DSLR, full frame or crop, after trying smaller format equipment? I tried several brands and various formats, took some wonderful photos but just couldn't get used to the smaller size. I know this is supposed to be one of the main advantages but to me it was a definite disadvantage. Perhaps it's because I'm a geezer and started with larger equipment back in the 70's but I actually enjoy working with cameras and lenses that have some size and heft to them and have dials vs. buttons. As I said, not trying to stir anything up, just wondering if I'm alone in this.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

I enjoy using large cameras. Shooting with my RZ67 is awkward but I love it

 

[goodguy]

Mirrorless is very close in many ways to DSLR but the size factor is starting to loose its appeal when you are getting good fast zoom glass.
Look at the A7 family, camera I love and respect, put a 70-200mm 2.8 lens on it and it just looks weird and unbalanced, on my D750 it looks great, its well balanced and just feels right in the hand.
Nothing wrong with mirrorless its just not the right tool for everybody, for people who love prime lenses mirrorless is a very good choice.
For casual shooters who use small kit lenses its also a good tool, for those who want to use big fast glass like me this might not be the tool of choice, this is one reason I dont see myself going to mirrorless any time soon.

 

[Derrel]

Who was it who posted about wanting to come back to Nikon, after having gone mirrorless? He posted like a day and a half ago. Surely there are others who have tried a mirrorless camera, and not been 100% satisfied with it, for whatever reasons, and have gone back to a more traditional d-slr setup. The there are the Jason Lanier's of the world, who preach the mirrorless gospel as Sony Explorers of Light (or whatever they are called...Sony Light-seeking Evangelists, Sony Seers of All That Is Holy and Lighted, whatever). Guys like Zack Arias who wrote a huuuuge blog post about why he dropped tens of thousands of dollars on a medium format system with a PhaseOne digital back, but then not that long after, proclaimed the small,light,fixed lens Fuji 100 series to be The Holy Grail...you know, even though it was not a medium format digital camera...Lanier's videos on YouTube are almost comical. Suuuuch a Sony mirrorless fanboy! Astoundingly so.

The internet, and the real world, are full of people who keep looking for that perfect camera setup. Plenty of people on-line, telling you whatever you want to hear, about gear. Smaller! Lighter! No lenses, but you can "adapt" old, sketchy lenses from pawn shops! Focus peaking! Oh...you wanted to shoot soccer games....sorry! yes, the bodies are small, but the lenses are HEAVY! Yes! The bodies are small-ish, but not really smaller than an entry level d-slr, and well, yeah, the "good lenses" are big-ass lenses, but hey-no mirror! Oh...you want TOP-level AF on things that are actually moving, annnnnd you want sequences of things in focus, shot after shot? Oh,well, hey...we didn't really say that in our ads, did we! We said it, "Focuses rapidly! We never aid anything about hit rate, or tough focusing situations...did we!"

I dunno...every camera, and I mean every,single camera, has strengths, and weaknesses. The iPhone 6 camera is pretty good, as long as semi-wide-angle is okay. The m4/3 sensor cameras are okay, but I see their weaknesses at really high ISO settings. Nikon D4s is a nice camera, but its sensor is now low-rezz AND the thing's a flippin monster, size-wise, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Canon Rebels are small and light. Nikon D3xxx and D5xxx bodies are inexpensive. Fuji X-series cameras are sleek and sexy, but the lenses are surprisingly very heavy! Leica M-series digi's are fantastic, but I cannot afford a $7999 body, and then a $4,999 50mm lens and a $4,999 35mm lens...

No, you are not alone in switching camera setups.

 

[pixmedic]

I never left.
started with Nikon DSLR's back when the D100 came out and never switched.
It just never seemed practical to switch systems when one is as good as the other for most applications.
for a smaller setup I got a Nikon 1 J3 and its two kit lenses.

 

[JacaRanda]

I dunno...every camera, and I mean every,single camera, has strengths, and weaknesses. The iPhone 6 camera is pretty good, as long as semi-wide-angle is okay. The m4/3 sensor cameras are okay, but I see their weaknesses at really high ISO settings. Nikon D4s is a nice camera, but its sensor is now low-rezz AND the thing's a flippin monster, size-wise, and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Canon Rebels are small and light. Nikon D3xxx and D5xxx bodies are inexpensive. Fuji X-series cameras are sleek and sexy, but the lenses are surprisingly very heavy! Leica M-series digi's are fantastic, but I cannot afford a $7999 body, and then a $4,999 50mm lens and a $4,999 35mm lens...

No, you are not alone in switching camera setups.

See. We need a birth control free camera orgy to eventually get every thing we want.

Side note - I wonder why I can get into a tennis tournament stadium with a DSLR and a 150-600 lens stuck on it, but not at a Laker game or concert.

 

[beagle100]

no reason why you can't have it all ... DSLR - mirrorless, small and large format

 

[bratkinson]

I started 35mm photography in the early 70s. After a photography hiatus in the 90s, I decided to 'dip my toes' into digital photography in 2003 with a compact digital that I could shoot fully automatic, fully manual, and everywhere in between...a Canon G3. That gave way to a G5 which ultimately got replaced by a crop sensor 30D, then 60D, and now, full frame 5Diii. I also have a G15 as a 'pocket camera' when I want to travel really light or as emergency backup, if necessary.

 

[Solarflare]

I started somewhen in the mid-2000s. So far I had five main cameras - some Panasonic compact that I bought because the lens said "Leica", a Canon G11 that I bought because reviews claimed it would be good in low light (it really wasnt), a Nikon D5100 that I bought because I had read Ken Rockwell (and I really wanted the flipscreen of the G11 again), only nine months later a D600 because full frame is irresistable, and this year a D750 because my D600 fell to pieces (yay, flipscreen again ... well tiltscreen. But - better than nothing).

My next system will probably be mirrorless with nothing but primes. The sensor will be at very least full frame, but I'm hoping somebody will bring out an affordable (for me, anyway) medium format system based on the Sony 44x33mm sensor. Rumor mill claims Fuji is working on that, skipping full frame because for some reason they dont feel confident enough to challenge Nikon and Canon (I think they easily could).

So yeah, I never went down in sensor size, and I am trying to get bright primes, too, while still staying small in size. I still want to be able to take pictures even if there is hardly any light left.