Why I stick with DSLR

[gsgary]

Well, I am not so sure that Mirrorless is "the future". As already mentioned by the OP, there are certain drawbacks of mirrorless.

Top Autofocus in any light and under hardest conditions is still the domain of DSLRs. This problem is still unsolved. And focus is nothing to sneeze at. Missed focus cannot be fixed in post and means in most cases the shot is simply unuseable.

The second advantage is of course a real, optical viewfinder. Not a television with all kinds of oddities, such as lag in bad light, flimmering under artificial light, lack of resolution, etc. I wouldnt really count this unless its at least a full frame DSLR, though; smaller cameras have horrible, dark viewfinders that will for example not allow you to really check focus.

The third advantage is simply sensor size and sophistication. Ignoring the special case Leica M - no autofocus, optical viewfinder limited to about 28-70mm for good performance, and extreme price - there is simply nothing out there to compete with DSLRs right now. Sony FE will allow you to use the same lenses as Leica M with an adapter, and might give you pretty good autofocus performance in good light. Thats the closest we get right now. Well, at least the next generation will have sensor based stabilization - thats a plus.

Right now, a Canon 6D or Nikon D750 ist a workhorse that has no equivalent in the mirrorless camera section.

What is without question is that mirrorless cameras will stay. They definitely have their uses. But I'm not so sure DSLRs will actually go.

None of your points are a problem for me, for me a Leica M beats any dslr for how I shoot I will probably never buy a digital M because I prefer film m's

 

[pixmedic]

Full frame...pfffffft.
35mm was the discount format. Everyone knows REAL photographers shoot medium format.

 

[sashbar]

Well, I am not so sure that Mirrorless is "the future". As already mentioned by the OP, there are certain drawbacks of mirrorless.

Top Autofocus in any light and under hardest conditions is still the domain of DSLRs. This problem is still unsolved. And focus is nothing to sneeze at. Missed focus cannot be fixed in post and means in most cases the shot is simply unuseable.

The second advantage is of course a real, optical viewfinder. Not a television with all kinds of oddities, such as lag in bad light, flimmering under artificial light, lack of resolution, etc. I wouldnt really count this unless its at least a full frame DSLR, though; smaller cameras have horrible, dark viewfinders that will for example not allow you to really check focus.

The third advantage is simply sensor size and sophistication. Ignoring the special case Leica M - no autofocus, optical viewfinder limited to about 28-70mm for good performance, and extreme price - there is simply nothing out there to compete with DSLRs right now. Sony FE will allow you to use the same lenses as Leica M with an adapter, and might give you pretty good autofocus performance in good light. Thats the closest we get right now. Well, at least the next generation will have sensor based stabilization - thats a plus.

Right now, a Canon 6D or Nikon D750 ist a workhorse that has no equivalent in the mirrorless camera section.

What is without question is that mirrorless cameras will stay. They definitely have their uses. But I'm not so sure DSLRs will actually go.

Solarflair - just look where mirrorless technology was just 6-7 years ago, where it is now, and you will see what will happen in another 6-7 years. The writing is on the wall, but you can not see, because it is dark and you are looking at it through your DSLR optical finder

 

[gsgary]

Full frame...pfffffft.
35mm was the discount format. Everyone knows REAL photographers shoot medium format.

Yes we do[emoji6]

 

[goodguy]

You need to actually look at mirrorless systems because there is a good amount of misinformation in your post. Have you actually owned and shot with mirrorless cameras before or is this just what you've gathered from reading about them?

You mean there are other mirrorless full frame cameras I am not aware of ?
Because thats the only sensor today I am interested in!

Some of the m43 sensors have better ISO performance than larger DSLR sensors. Lens availability isn't just limited to 1st party lenses. Metabones makes an adapter to use Canon lenses with full AF on the Sony A7 cameras. It's probably possible with Nikon as well, but you can use a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS or any other Canon lens and AF with it. There's more. Those are two glaring misconceptions you have about poor quality and lack of lenses. In fact, the A7 has become a 2nd camera for a lot of Canon shooters.

I read it will indeed take Canon lenses but will AF very slow with it, still interesting info.
Didnt find any info about Nikon Glass though
As for MFT good ISO performance, lots of conflicting info there but the bottom line is a sensor is a sensr and the bigger the sensor the more light it will take, if some sensors currently are more efficient then others then the competing sensor makers will catch up or like in Nikon cases they will simply use third party sensors. Samsung has a very good crop sensor in its new NX1, a review I read said that it is indeed getting close to FF sensors (maybe) but next FF generation of FF cameras will probably use same technology to increase efficiency thuse the size advantage will still be there.
Bigger sensor=more light and more light is always better.

 

[Village Idiot]

The second advantage is of course a real, optical viewfinder. Not a television with all kinds of oddities, such as lag in bad light, flimmering under artificial light, lack of resolution, etc. I wouldnt really count this unless its at least a full frame DSLR, though; smaller cameras have horrible, dark viewfinders that will for example not allow you to really check focus.

Except that the optical viewfinder is just viewing the scene and not the exposure. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's different. The advantage of the viewfinder in something like the Olympus cameras (and probably others) is that you see what the exposure is going to look like. If you're in a darker room and slow down the shutter speed and increase the ISO, you'll see a properly exposed image (as long as your settings are for proper exposure) in the viewfinder. It's WYSIWIG all the way. This is an advantage when you're shooting in low light or with ND filters.

The third advantage is simply sensor size and sophistication. Ignoring the special case Leica M - no autofocus, optical viewfinder limited to about 28-70mm for good performance, and extreme price - there is simply nothing out there to compete with DSLRs right now. Sony FE will allow you to use the same lenses as Leica M with an adapter, and might give you pretty good autofocus performance in good light. Thats the closest we get right now. Well, at least the next generation will have sensor based stabilization - thats a plus.

Just an opinion there, but the Sony A7 cameras have FF sensors on them that easily rival some DSLR sensors. The Nex had APS-C sensors.

Right now, a Canon 6D or Nikon D750 ist a workhorse that has no equivalent in the mirrorless camera section.

What is without question is that mirrorless cameras will stay. They definitely have their uses. But I'm not so sure DSLRs will actually go.

There are photographers that have given up their DSLR equipment to go with a mirrorless camera. Obviously they're good enough to be a workhorse for some people.

 

[Forkie]

I'm sticking with DSLRs if only for the sound of the shutter

 

[sashbar]

I'm sticking with DSLRs if only for the sound of the shutter

At last we have a serious argument!

 

[Forkie]

I'm sticking with DSLRs if only for the sound of the shutter

At last we have a serious argument!

 

[jaomul]

To much concern is put on the inner workings of cameras sometimes (my opinion only). If a camera does your type photography with the lenses you have well that's a win win.

I have a d7100 and an Em5. I am very impressed with this set up. I had considered getting another Nikon when I bought the em5, it seemed non- sensical to run 2 systems, but it turned out to be a good set up for me. A bigger system with a very tidy second system. A lot would baulk at that set up but it works for me.

Each to their own

 

[goodguy]

To much concern is put on the inner workings of cameras sometimes (my opinion only). If a camera does your type photography with the lenses you have well that's a win win.

I have a d7100 and an Em5. I am very impressed with this set up. I had considered getting another Nikon when I bought the em5, it seemed non- sensical to run 2 systems, but it turned out to be a good set up for me. A bigger system with a very tidy second system. A lot would baulk at that set up but it works for me.

Each to their own

I wish more people will understand these few but so important words " Each To Their Own"

My D750 does everything I need and more but my only concern is the glass, I really don't want to loose my shirt in few year finding my glass is past technology and is worth 50% or less because Nikon came out with new lenses for new mirrorless camera.

 

[Village Idiot]

To much concern is put on the inner workings of cameras sometimes (my opinion only). If a camera does your type photography with the lenses you have well that's a win win.

I have a d7100 and an Em5. I am very impressed with this set up. I had considered getting another Nikon when I bought the em5, it seemed non- sensical to run 2 systems, but it turned out to be a good set up for me. A bigger system with a very tidy second system. A lot would baulk at that set up but it works for me.

Each to their own

I wish more people will understand these few but so important words " Each To Their Own"

My D750 does everything I need and more but my only concern is the glass, I really don't want to loose my shirt in few year finding my glass is past technology and is worth 50% or less because Nikon came out with new lenses for new mirrorless camera.

That's going to happen regardless. The 70-200 f/2.0 VR comes out and your f/2.8 VR II is now worth $500 less. Who care? Enjoy the fact that you can afford good glass and go shoot.

 

[gsgary]

To much concern is put on the inner workings of cameras sometimes (my opinion only). If a camera does your type photography with the lenses you have well that's a win win.

I have a d7100 and an Em5. I am very impressed with this set up. I had considered getting another Nikon when I bought the em5, it seemed non- sensical to run 2 systems, but it turned out to be a good set up for me. A bigger system with a very tidy second system. A lot would baulk at that set up but it works for me.

Each to their own

I wish more people will understand these few but so important words " Each To Their Own"

My D750 does everything I need and more but my only concern is the glass, I really don't want to loose my shirt in few year finding my glass is past technology and is worth 50% or less because Nikon came out with new lenses for new mirrorless camera.

Thats pointless everything looses money except my limited edition Leica [emoji3]

 

[sashbar]

, I really don't want to loose my shirt in few year finding my glass is past technology and is worth 50% or less because Nikon came out with new lenses for new mirrorless camera.

Why will you loose your shirt??? Even if your glass will become past technology, that I do not really foresee, first of all it will not get any worse than it is now. Not a iota. It will stay as excellent as it is now. You will still enjoy an excellent system.
And, second, you will be able to add more top DSLR glass, if it starts to sell at a heavy discount on eBay. A win - win situation. Unless you are not looking at what you really need, but just chasing the latest and the bestest.
No one knows what will happen in 10 years, mirrorless may become just as obsolete as DSLRs. What if there will be those graphene sensors with 500 MP or a 1,000 MP and electronic zooms that will emulate a 200 mm optical zoom with no visible loss in IQ? All lenses will become obsolete. Do we need to start worrying about it now?

 

[gsgary]

, I really don't want to loose my shirt in few year finding my glass is past technology and is worth 50% or less because Nikon came out with new lenses for new mirrorless camera.

Why will you loose your shirt??? Even if your glass will become past technology, that I do not really foresee, first of all it will not get any worse than it is now. Not a iota. It will stay as excellent as it is now. You will still enjoy an excellent system.
And, second, you will be able to add more top DSLR glass, if it starts to sell at a heavy discount on eBay. A win - win situation. Unless you are not looking at what you really need, but just chasing the latest and the bestest.
No one knows what will happen in 10 years, mirrorless may become just as obsolete as DSLRs. What if there will be those graphene sensors with 500 MP or a 1,000 MP and electronic zooms that will emulate a 200 mm optical zoom with no visible loss in IQ? All lenses will become obsolete. Do we need to start worrying about it now?

Yes but we need to worry about it now [emoji6]