Mirrorless vs DSLR

[J-see]

Funny Don't you shoot with a D3XXX, the smallest of the Nikon DSLRs? Both my cams have full metal bodies, i don't think you would be able to crush them like a biscuit. Besides, the size of a cameras body is never relevant to what a photographer can produce.

The D3300 is just big enough. Any smaller and I wouldn't have bought it. I usually carry it with the lens. It doesn't need to be heavy but the size of the camera is relevant. If I have to hold it between two fingers, it ain't big enough. I neither like cellphones that dial 1452 when my finger hits the 1.

 

[traceyjj]

Can I ask a question about the battery life with the mirrorless cameras. I know the Oly series you could buy an electronic viewfinder, but again I assume these drained the battery. How long can you use your mirrorless cameras before they need a recharge... and roughly how many shots can/do you get out of a charge?

 

[AC016]

Can I ask a question about the battery life with the mirrorless cameras. I know the Oly series you could buy an electronic viewfinder, but again I assume these drained the battery. How long can you use your mirrorless cameras before they need a recharge... and roughly how many shots can/do you get out of a charge?

I have never been in a position where i was without power for either of my cameras. Just like many folks here who use their Nikons, i carry spare batteries. I am not one to shoot hundreds of photos in a day anyhow. Yes, of course the EVF takes up power, that is why i like my X-pro1 and it's hybrid viewfinder. With my 35 and 60, i can just use the OVF. With my 50-230, i use the EVF because the OVF can not correct parallax beyond 60mm. In the end, we all carry spare batteries, right?

 

[JH Foto]

I have had Panasonic mirror less camera with several lenses, I am now back to Nikon why ? Simple quality..

 

[Wolfeye]

The Fuji 18-135 weighs the same as the Nikon 18-140. Both lenses are for APS-C sensors. "Gigantic" and "weighs a ton" is a bit of an exageration.

Soitenly! But for anyone who expects to go "smaller and lighter" with an APS-C mirrorless system other than Canon's EOS-M, it's relevant. When you get your X-T1 and 18-135mm lens kit you'll go "wow, heavy sucker" because you heard how mirrorless was smaller and lighter.

 

[AC016]

Soitenly! But for anyone who expects to go "smaller and lighter" with an APS-C mirrorless system other than Canon's EOS-M, it's relevant. When you get your X-T1 and 18-135mm lens kit you'll go "wow, heavy sucker" because you heard how mirrorless was smaller and lighter.

A D3300 weighs 460g with battery and SD card, no lens. An X-T1 weighs 440g with battery and SD card, no lens. Go up in the ranks of Nikon DSLRs and the cameras get heavier. The X-T1 is still a lighter package overall. Look at the X-E2, which is more or less equal to the X-T1, and it is 350g with battery and SD card, no lens. So yes, the smaller and lighter still holds true.

 

[J-see]

The 3300 has roughly twice the depth as the X-T1 which is what makes the difference when you hold it. At least when you got my hands. The grams more or less are irrelevant.

 

[hrstrat57]

Michael I played with Sony Nex 6 for a few months. Decided to bail on Sony / Minolta completely to go full frame with strong AF speed and accuracy my dominant criteria. I opted for a combo D300 / D700 kit. If I was in your shoes ( love your stuff you have a great eye ) I would be saving for a D750 and Nikkor f4 glass. A combo of your current camera and the D750 will make you smile. I have had a chance to handle a D750, you will be in love.

As always IMHO !!!!

 

[AC016]

The 3300 has roughly twice the depth as the X-T1 which is what makes the difference when you hold it. At least when you got my hands. The grams more or less are irrelevant.

In my exchange with Wolfeye, the grams are very relevant to what we were speaking about The D3300 is "fatter" simply because it has a mirror box in it. You can buy grips for the Fuji cameras as well, as i did for my X-Pro1.

 

[Browncoat]

Trade-offs.

That's all this debate is about, really. What are you willing to give up for what you gain? I had a brand-spanking-new D800 for just a few months and gave it up for mirrorless. Gave up Nikon completely, and went with a Fuji X100S. Most of you reading this will be left scratching your heads and wondering if I'm nuts. Truth is, I couldn't be happier, and here's why: That little Fuji does every damn thing I want it to at a fraction of the cost. I recently gave up my studio strobes and rebooted my speedlight setup, and now my entire kit is efficient, inexpensive, and can literally go anywhere with 5 minutes setup time. That's huge.

I've said it before on this forum, and I'll say it again: 95% of the shooters here could get away with using a mirrorless camera. Most of you have more camera than you actually need and/or use. Nothing wrong with that of course. No one really needs a Corvette. No one really needs a 7 BR/4 bathroom house with a Jacuzzi. We buy things we want and like because we're a consumer-driven society. We like bells and whistles and shiny things.

Personally, the trade-off was worth it for me. YMMV. I now have a utilitarian kit that I can pack away in a shoulder bag that is no larger than a 6-pack. I can wear my camera around my neck all day and not even realize it's there. I would also argue that my photography has gotten better because I can't rely on zoom lenses any longer.

 

[Marcel]

There is simply no perfect camera and I don't think we even should debate which one is best or even better. The whole concept of better and best is, as Anthony wrote, consumer driven. We all want more for our money and we shop like never before (thanks to web browsing and shopping).

But, let's not forget what the tools are for: photography. There are as many best camera as there are persons participating in this forum, and, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. What I find interesting is that some of you have been reducing the number of lenses and zooms and find that you are getting more creative and get better results... I wonder why... Could it be that some of us (me included) sometimes enjoy the tools more than the craft?

I very much like the discussion and will continue to read and think about this as long as it doesn't become a "pi**ing" contest.

For me, the mirror less camera strong points are: less weight, less noise and less intimidating for people staring at the lens. But for me, I still like looking through the viewfinder when doing macro or landscape or portraits. But for street photography, the little Fuji X-10 is just perfect. I just look like an uncle taking souvenir pictures and it's fine by me.

Enjoy your Nikons and your other cameras, take pictures and share them here with all of us.

 

[Browncoat]

Amen, Marcel. :applause:

I wrote about this topic on my personal blog when I made the switch. I won't offer a shameless plug by linking, but here's a quote:

Being a minimalist is countercultural. From a very early age, we are indoctrinated to be consumers and are often judged by others on the basis of how much “stuff” we own. How big is your house? What kind of car do you drive? How many pairs of shoes are in your closet?

We've got all these big name guys like Joe McNally telling us "It's not about the gear"...meanwhile, he's trotting around the globe with six D4's, a Hasselblad, Profoto lights, and an army of assistants. Wait a minute, what? On top of that, you can't find an honest review anywhere, on anything. Everyone is attempting to sell links or clicks, so they don't want to upset the fruit basket by offering up a real opinion on any piece of equipment for risk of pissing off a sponsor.

In other words, we've all become armchair photographers and gear gurus. We don't need to form our own opinion, because everyone (at least anyone who's anyone) online has already formed it for us. To the guys knocking mirrorless, I would ask: have you ever actually put one in your hands for a day? Not to anyone here in particular, but just in general across the internet. I would bet most of them haven't. They think mirrorless sucks because they read it on a blog once. But they have no real-world experience with one. We all allow our perceptions to shape our opinions. Hell, I used to feel the same way about mirrorless. They were crappy, slow, tinker-toy cameras with substandard image quality. That's the general, misinformed consensus anyway, so that's what I thought. Until one landed in my lap.

Truth is, you have to take the tech out of the equation. Mirrorless is not quite there yet. There are definitely trade-offs. But at this point, that's not really what mirrorless is about. As much as I hate to say it, the best comparison I can make is this: Mirrorless vs DSLR is a lot like Apple vs PC.

DSLR is like PC. It's IBM. It's big money and mainstream. DSLR has history, commonality. It has roots. It's comfortable.

Mirrorless is like Apple. It's a lifestyle that's more form over function. It's outside the box. It's sleek and sexy, bordering on taboo. It's new and innovative. It breaks the mold.

 

[AC016]

"95% of the shooters here could get away with using a mirrorless camera"

Read more: http://nikonites.com/photography-q-and-a/26365-mirrorless-vs-dslr-3.html#ixzz3H02kOoiE

So very true.

 

[AC016]

Alot of people do not like Kai, but him and the team over at digital rev TV have done a great series, called "Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera". Essentially, it shows you what a pro photographer can do with a really cheap camera by using their skill and knowledge of photography to come up with some very good results. I am posting this because many folks seem to think that a DSLR is the be all and end all of photography, that you can only take a good photo with a DSLR. What takes a good photo, it the idiot behind the camera.

 

[TedG954]

Does MUP or Delay Mode equate to "mirrorless" while taking photos?

 

[AC016]

Does MUP or Delay Mode equate to "mirrorless" while taking photos?

No. The mirror is still there

 

[TedG954]

No. The mirror is still there

Yes, I understand that.

But, with MUP or Delay, I understand that there is no mirror slap.

I'm not concerned in the least about size or weight, but I am concerned about image quality.

Elimination of mirror slap is the biggest attraction to mirrorless for me. But, if I eliminate mirror slap via MUP or Delay, the problem is solved.

 

[AC016]

Yes, I understand that.

But, with MUP or Delay, I understand that there is no mirror slap.

I'm not concerned in the least about size or weight, but I am concerned about image quality.

Elimination of mirror slap is the biggest attraction to mirrorless for me. But, if I eliminate mirror slap via MUP or Delay, the problem is solved.

Well, if you want to get rid of mirror slap by using MUP, then all the more reason to go to a mirrorless system. After all, why have a mirror box if you are not going to use it? In regards to IQ, i can only speak to the Fuji system. For me, it is pretty outstanding with the X trans sensor and the Fuji glass. Noise at high ISO is very well controlled. I can only suggest you read some reviews. DPR does a good job at comparing a reviewed cameras noise capabilities with many other cameras. I guess to sum it up, the IQ isn't any worse then what you would get with your DSLR,, perhaps slightly better? You be the judge.

 

[TedG954]

Well, if you want to get rid of mirror slap by using MUP, then all the more reason to go to a mirrorless system. After all, why have a mirror box if you are not going to use it? In regards to IQ, i can only speak to the Fuji system. For me, it is pretty outstanding with the X trans sensor and the Fuji glass. Noise at high ISO is very well controlled. I can only suggest you read some reviews. DPR does a good job at comparing a reviewed cameras noise capabilities with many other cameras. I guess to sum it up, the IQ isn't any worse then what you would get with your DSLR,, perhaps slightly better? You be the judge.

Other than the Sony's A7 series, there's no mirrorless system that's in the same ballpark as Nikon's D800 series. I'll take quality over lack-of-quantity. Smaller sensors provide more noise at every ISO mark. Not even apples to apples. Until a mirrorless system can match the Nikon FX sensors, I'll stay with my huge, loud, and bulky cameras.

My question was academic. Does MUP or Delay provide the same lack of mirror slap offered by mirrorless cameras?

 

[AC016]

Other than the Sony's A7 series, there's no mirrorless system that's in the same ballpark as Nikon's D800 series. I'll take quality over lack-of-quantity. Smaller sensors provide more noise at every ISO mark. Not even apples to apples. Until a mirrorless system can match the Nikon FX sensors, I'll stay with my huge, loud, and bulky cameras.

My question was academic. Does MUP or Delay provide the same lack of mirror slap offered by mirrorless cameras?

"Elimination of mirror slap is the biggest attraction to mirrorless for me. But, if I eliminate mirror slap via MUP or Delay, the problem is solved."

You answered your own question Ted. No mirror movement is the same as having no mirror. But, you then have to look at the flange focal distance, which opens up a new technical dialog. Here is a good article: http://www.leica-boss.com/2012/03/flange-distance/

In regards to your statement about the D800; well, you said it yourself, the A7, A7R, A7S is equal. Though, to say that no mirrorless system (aside from the A7 i asumme you mean) can not touch any FX Nikon is a bit silly, since no DX Nikon can either. Therefore, it has nothing to do with a camera being mirrorless. Though, if you look at the noise tests done by DPR on the X-Pro1 and compare them to some full frame cameras, i think you will be surprised: Fujifilm X-Pro1 in-depth review: Digital Photography Review . Be sure to look at JPEG results and have NR off.