Can I sell my DSLR and swap to Mirrorless?

[srichards]

Fuji have just announced a Classic Chrome mode which replicates Kodachrome. Done deal. Get a fuji!

 

[TareqPhoto]

I will never give up DSLR to move completely to mirrorless, but that "never" can be changed if that mirrorless can have most features of DSLR, most important the AF speed, because now the most concern factor about mirrorless against DSLR is AF speed.

 

[Andysnap]

And also that 'never' can depend on changed circumstances... like getting on a bit. The sheer weight and bulk of a DSLR and lens is my problem, it is stopping me from enjoying both the walking and the photography. If moving to a smaller system can alleviate these problems and produce equally good images then mirrorless it is.

 

[Swanseajack]

Same for me, circumstances do change. Due to disabilities I had to reduce my kit from a DSLR, it was just too heavy to lug around. I have a heavy Tokina lens which I will only use at home for the birdies out the back garden. In general, I just carry the XT1 with the 35mm prime. Only take the heavy lens when I can park car and be plonked on a seat near by, whilst the wife walks the dog.

 

[woof woof]

I will never give up DSLR to move completely to mirrorless, but that "never" can be changed if that mirrorless can have most features of DSLR, most important the AF speed, because now the most concern factor about mirrorless against DSLR is AF speed.

AF speed shouldn't be an issue and indeed I think I'm right in saying that the fastest focusing thing there is is usually a CSC. The question mark is over focus tracking and I believe that even for this the very best CSC's are nearly as good as the very best DSLR'S. So, unless you have one of the best DSLR's focus tracking wise one of the best CSC's may be good enough or indeed even better than a less than the best DSLR.

 

[Riz_Guru]

I've shot and tracked fast moving planes with my A7 and 70-200mm setup. AF & Tracking is good enough for me.

 

[kenm]

While pondering over the Fuji X-T1 versus Sony A7 dilemma, something hit me (an idea that is). Given the amount of money that needs to be spent going down either of these roads, a Nikon DF looks rather affordable for somebody who already has a lot of Nikon optics. No less heavy and not much smaller, but what a cool camera...

 

[Andysnap]

It is a very cool camera but as you say still a bit of a beast and it is down to weight and size for me.

 

[Swanseajack]

AF speed shouldn't be an issue and indeed I think I'm right in saying that the fastest focusing thing there is is usually a CSC. The question mark is over focus tracking and I believe that even for this the very best CSC's are nearly as good as the very best DSLR'S. So, unless you have one of the best DSLR's focus tracking wise one of the best CSC's may be good enough or indeed even better than a less than the best DSLR.

And I think a lot has got to do with technique. I have taken photos of BIF, seagulls, I know not the fastest birds but I have managed when I had my Xpro1 and 55-200 lens, and that's with dodgy shoulders.. I feel the XT1 would be a lot better, but I sold the 55-200 lens so can't try. Its not going to be as good as the pro bodies, D4s etc.., but it's workable. I think my XT is on par with my old D7000 for AF.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

I've shot and tracked fast moving planes with my A7 and 70-200mm setup. AF & Tracking is good enough for me.

It is the distance and speed that matters. EG a lens has more difficulty in tracking a young child running towards you at 6 ft in erratic movements than tracking a jet moving steadily towards you at a much greater distance.

 

[Tobers]

I've got the good fortune to have a bunch of cameras from Canon 1D bodies and 400 2.8 etc etc to a Sony RX100 compact.

For my compact setup, I've just sold off my Olympus EM5 micro-four-thirds body and lenses in favour of my Sony A7R.

When I go off into the boonies landscaping, I have the A7R, 21mm Olympus OM f/3.5, Sony FE 55 and Konica M-Hexanon 90 2.8. The 21 and 90 are manual focus. Once the Sony 16-35 is out I'll use that instead of the Olympus. All that lot, plus some Lee RF75 filters, make a small and light, but extremely powerful package. Image quality is exceptional. I like what I've heard about the A7S as well.

But...bear in mind that, being full frame, bright lenses for the A7 series are quite large and contain a good bit of glass. Compare this with the far smaller, lighter bright lenses for the micro-four-thirds cameras and you can see big size/weight advantages going with the smaller sensor camera. OK you lose a bit of depth of field control for an equivalent focal length, but there is a much bigger selection of lenses including very fast primes. The Olympus 45 1.8 is stunning as is the 75 1.8, and the shorter primes are also excellent.

My advice therefore would be to go for an Olympus OMD-EM1. This is a faster, better focusing micro-four-thirds body than the EM5, but still very compact. It should handle moving subject tracking very well, plus you have a great selection of small, light and fast lenses. Image quality from my EM5 was brilliant - I shot many professional jobs with it (including at the World Cup in Brazil) and had many pictures printed from it. The in-body stabilisation is amazing. I stopped using all my DSLR gear for landscaping and just used my EM5, and if I hadn't bought the A7R I'd have picked up an EM1 instead.

So for what you want, I think it the EM1 will be the best choice.

95% of the images in this gallery were shot with the Olympus EM5.

 

[superpippo]

95% of the images in this gallery were shot with the Olympus EM5.

Lovely gallery - thanks for sharing

 

[Andysnap]

Thank you Tobers for a very helpful and interesting post. I shall certainly bare it in mind when I finally make my decision .

 

[kenm]

For the benefit of Andysnap, you can fondle most of the cameras mentioned in this thread in John Lewis in Cheadle without needing a salesperson's attention (unlike Oxford Street, where they keep the expensive stuff under lock and key as I found out last week). I did today. No idea what the situation is in Trafford Centre, hate the place.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

For the benefit of Andysnap, you can fondle most of the cameras mentioned in this thread in John Lewis in Cheadle without needing a salesperson's attention (unlike Oxford Street, where they keep the expensive stuff under lock and key as I found out last week). I did today. No idea what the situation is in Trafford Centre, hate the place.

Be careful, when i did that in Jessops it cost me quite a bit of money! Ended up with an OM-D EM-5, 4 primes and 3 zooms a few weeks later......

 

[kenm]

do you regret it? nice stuff and you can't take it with you

 

[bl0at3r]

Mirrorless systems certainly have a place and are perfectly acceptable for the majority of people and the majority of their photo taking - the DSLR still seems to be better at stuff that needs AF tracking and shots at high ISO/in lowlight.

 

[architectfadi]

Mirrorless systems certainly have a place and are perfectly acceptable for the majority of people and the majority of their photo taking - the DSLR still seems to be better at stuff that needs AF tracking and shots at high ISO/in lowlight.

Sorry but your point about high ISO is wrong. Lots of mirrorless cameras have the same exact sensors used in full frame and cropped frame DSLR/SLTs.

 

[woof woof]

Plus - Some CSC's will achieve a focus lock in near darkness long after a DSLR will not. It'll take a couple of seconds to do so but at least it'll do it.

 

[bl0at3r]

My personal experience with m43 is that high ISO still has a way to go.

 

[architectfadi]

My personal experience with m43 is that high ISO still has a way to go.

But m43 is only one type of cameras that fall under the mirrorless system. What about Sony and Canon, they share the same sensors found in their DSLR/SLT. Also Fuji uses the sensor made by Sony and used in some Nikon DSLR

 

[Deleted member 49549]

do you regret it? nice stuff and you can't take it with you

Not at all. Absolutely love my OMD. Handles beautifully, the lenses are great and ive got some great a1 prints. For me, m43 is the best balance of size and performance. I was using nikon dx, but was frustrated with Nikons apparent apathy towards dx users who wanted great lenses, especially primes.
I used an x100 alongside the nikon, and learned to appreciate the benefits an evf brings, and after having a play with the omd in jessops and seeing the quality of it delivers, decided to sell all my kit (nikon d7100 with a few lenses and the x100) and go all in with m43. also recently bought a gm1, which means i can have a 2 camera walkaround kit in a very small bag (a think thank retrospective 5).

Regarding high iso, whether a camera is mirrorless or not is irrelevant, it is just down to sensor size and age. What does help greatly with the omd is the sensor based stabilisation - around 4 stops difference, meaning i can shoot iso 200 vs iso 3200 for a camera without stabilisation, or shoot hand in almost pitch darkness at iso 3200 vs iso51200. The stabilisation in the omd is ridiculously good!

 

[kenm]

Andysnap still reading this? Having had a mess with the cameras I got a Sony A7. I couldn't find a Fuji X-T1 but while the aforementioned Olympus was very nice, the Sony was the one that made me produce the credit card. I don't need FF, but the prospect of not having to worry about crop factors and just knowing what a 24mm, 50mm etc would produce in terms of field of view makes it for me. Like Andysnap I still like film sometimes, and the A7 lets me potentially share lenses. I can't be bothered with all this crop vs full frame stuff and multiplying focal lengths. And the new Ziess lenses look rather good...

 

[Andysnap]

Yep, still here Ken.
I also looked at the A7 and it is very impressive but it is still, although light, quite large compared to the X-T1. I tried all the X cameras at Calumet and the X-T1 ticked all the boxes. Loving it already and I haven't bought it yet.

 

[bl0at3r]

For me, as with others, Mirrorless (and specifically m43 in my case) is about cost, size and weight as much as IQ.

That's why I have just sold my E-M1 / 12-40 and have bought a body only GX7 to try - the E-M1 with the 12-40 on the front was too big and too heavy.

My GX1 with one of the pancake lenses is the perfect size and weight for me - I prefer the rangefinder style to a faux DSLR - it's also one of the cheaper bodies now but still produces lovely shots even though it is the last gen sensor.

When the GM5 (just announced this week) comes down in price a little I'll probably get one of those to be truly pocketable as it's a similar size to the RX100 I had.

Clearly interest (and take up) in Mirrorless systems is increasing

 

[rjbell]

Yep, still here Ken.
I also looked at the A7 and it is very impressive but it is still, although light, quite large compared to the X-T1. I tried all the X cameras at Calumet and the X-T1 ticked all the boxes. Loving it already and I haven't bought it yet.

The lenses for the somy even the primes coming out are large.

 

[arad85]

The lenses for the somy even the primes coming out are large.

But that's the tradeoff... Full frame sensors need a big lens. APS-C sized sensors need a reasonable sized lens whilst micro 4/3rds can get away with a fairly small lens. The reason micro 4/3rds lenses are significantly smaller is due to the aspect ratio - FF and APS-C are 3:2, whilst micro 4/3 is 4:3 (der...). The disparity between APS-C and micro 4/3 is due to APS-C being more rectangular than micro 4/3 so whilst the maths works out on crop factor as a factor of 1.25, the lenses are often more than 25% larger due to the larger image circle needed for the wider ratio'd APS-C sensor.

 

[rjbell]

But that's the tradeoff... Full frame sensors need a big lens. APS-C sized sensors need a reasonable sized lens whilst micro 4/3rds can get away with a fairly small lens. The reason micro 4/3rds lenses are significantly smaller is due to the aspect ratio - FF and APS-C are 3:2, whilst micro 4/3 is 4:3 (der...). The disparity between APS-C and micro 4/3 is due to APS-C being more rectangular than micro 4/3 so whilst the maths works out on crop factor as a factor of 1.25, the lenses are often more than 25% larger due to the larger image circle needed for the wider ratio'd APS-C sensor.

Yes I know I agree. When the Sony ff cameras came out I was lusting after one, they are very clever cameras. Put in reality mft or aps-c make much more sense for csc's imo.

 

[Andysnap]

As I said at the start, this camera is for lugging up mountains. I need it to be small enough to fit in a belt pouch/bumbag but still have the IQ of my DSLR (or near enough). Having done extensive research and looked at hundreds of images from all the contenders, the X-T1 seems to me to be the best compromise between IQ/Size/Weight and lens choice for my needs, your mileage may vary. Also when I tried one out it felt right, sat nicely in my hand, all the buttons and dials where I wanted them.

 

[Spiritflier]

I think the old adage about 'horses for courses' applies...

I've had a foot in both camps for a while now. I own an APS-C Nikon (D7100) and a couple of Fuji X series bodies (X-T1 and X-Pro1). Personally, I don't think the Fuji system has matured enough yet for me to ditch the Nikon. There are a couple of areas where I find it wanting a little namely in the macro and super-telephoto areas although I believe these are being addressed.

I have no issues with the image quality from the Fuji and the X-T1 throws out some very impressive results at higher ISO numbers.

Shoot what makes you happy or it's all pointless.

 

[Andysnap]

I think the old adage about 'horses for courses' applies...

I've had a foot in both camps for a while now. I own an APS-C Nikon (D7100) and a couple of Fuji X series bodies (X-T1 and X-Pro1). Personally, I don't think the Fuji system has matured enough yet for me to ditch the Nikon. There are a couple of areas where I find it wanting a little namely in the macro and super-telephoto areas although I believe these are being addressed.

I have no issues with the image quality from the Fuji and the X-T1 throws out some very impressive results at higher ISO numbers.

Shoot what makes you happy or it's all pointless.

How very true.

 

[tijuana taxi]

I traded my FF Canon for the X-T1, do agree about macro and long telephoto, but not what I wanted the smaller camera for.

To be honest I could count on one hand the amount of times I used anything other than a 24-105mm so not missing out on much

Admittedly do still have my original 5D and a few lenses, but the little Fuji gets used nearly all the time

Real pleasure only having to carry a light rucksack for my gear, can see why it would appeal to Andy for hiking. Can even get away with a lighter tripod, just take a series one Gitzo and small ballhead thses days. Reckon my load has been lightened by at least half, makes a big difference when going up hill and down dale

My only gripe with the whole thing is I wish the aperture ring on the lenses needed more effort to adjust them. Can't be bad if that's all I can really complain about, oh yes one other thing a more accurate battery state display would be nice too

 

[arad85]

Put in reality mft or aps-c make much more sense for csc's imo.

Yes - agree totally (which is why I have micro 4/3 ). DSLR->FF CSC loses the mirror box and that's about it. The longer Sony lenses are huuuge...

 

[woof woof]

Yes - agree totally (which is why I have micro 4/3 ). DSLR->FF CSC loses the mirror box and that's about it. The longer Sony lenses are huuuge...

I think that's a bit harsh, just a bit

The only Sony FF lens I have is the kit lens and I can't say that it's massive... it's about the same length as my Panasonic 14-42mm when the latter is fully extended (The Sony doesn't extend or if it does at all it's by an insignificant amount) and although I can't be 100% sure I think it's probably comparable to the (quite disappointing) Canon 17-85mm I had years ago and that was APS-C and I'd be willing to believe that the Sony 28-70mm is a bit smaller than an equivalent Canon FF lens too or at least not humongous in comparison.

I keep looking at the Sony AF primes and they don't look overly massive either and although I know from previous posts that you and me don't agree on this I still do think that an A7 fitted with an adapter and an old manual prime or one of the new AF primes does still represent a bulk and weight saving over a traditional DSLR set up and there could still be an advantage when looking at comparable zooms too. Granted the savings are less for an A7 setup than with a MFT setup (my GX7 or G1+14, 25 and 45mm lenses make a tiny package) but for me the A7+ lenses is perfectly manageable and closer to MFT than to a Canon FF setup.

My days of lugging a 5D are over but I'm quite happy to lug the A7 about.

PS.
I just had a look at Wex and I can't see a FF Canon variable aperture lens, maybe they don't make one? So, I looked at the EF-S 17-85mm, a lens I was so disappointed in I gave away...

Canon APS-C - 17-85 - 78 x 92mm / 475g
Sony FF - 28-70 - 73 x 95 / 426g

That's not a huge difference IMVHO and the Sony is a FF lens too.

A Sony FE zoom is never going to be the size of MFT lens but IMVHO and to me the Sony kit, A7+lens, still represents enough bulk and weight saving over a 5D+lens to make it worthwhile on those grounds alone.

 

[arad85]

The only Sony FF lens I have is the kit lens and I can't say that it's massive...

Did you miss the word longer in my post? And you're not comparing what I was comparing in my mind - which was FF vs micro 4/3rds. Take the 35-100 f2.8 Panny and the 70-200 f2.8 Sony as an example of a longer lens where the Sony is HUUGE vs the micro 4/3rds equivalent.

And anyway, the APS-C vs FF you did wasn't fair - the Canon equivalent focal range is 27-136, the Sony only 28-70 and you'd probably be better doing it vs the 15-85 which is a pretty good lens and further extends the focal range... As I said:

Full frame sensors need a big lens. APS-C sized sensors need a reasonable sized lens

and you only really gain from the APS-C size sub 100mm (or so I'm told)

 

[rjbell]

I keep looking at the Sony AF primes and they don't look overly massive either and although I know from previous posts that you and me don't agree on this I still do think that an A7 fitted with an adapter and an old manual prime or one of the new AF primes does still represent a bulk and weight saving over a traditional DSLR set up and there could still be an advantage when looking at comparable zooms too. Granted the savings are less for an A7 setup than with a MFT setup (my GX7 or G1+14, 25 and 45mm lenses make a tiny package) but for me the A7+ lenses is perfectly manageable and closer to MFT than to a Canon FF setup.

My days of lugging a 5D are over but I'm quite happy to lug the A7 about.

PS.
I just had a look at Wex and I can't see a FF Canon variable aperture lens, maybe they don't make one? So, I looked at the EF-S 17-85mm, a lens I was so disappointed in I gave away...

Canon APS-C - 17-85 - 78 x 92mm / 475g
Sony FF - 28-70 - 73 x 95 / 426g

That's not a huge difference IMVHO and the Sony is a FF lens too.

A Sony FE zoom is never going to be the size of MFT lens but IMVHO and to me the Sony kit, A7+lens, still represents enough bulk and weight saving over a 5D+lens to make it worthwhile on those grounds alone.

I don't know the new 28mm f2 looks pretty long.

 

[rjbell]

• Samsungs 30mm f2
  

 

[freecom2]

• Samsungs 30mm f2
  

A pancake for APS-C with a 45mm equivalent FOV is a fun comparison, but not a fair comparison with an FF wide angle with a 28mm FOV. They are completely different types of lenses.

 

[rjbell]

Well compare it with the 20mm then or sigmas 20mm. This is the primes people want for csc's. Why are Sony releasing such large primes?

 

[arad85]

A pancake for APS-C with a 45mm equivalent FOV is a fun comparison, but not a fair comparison with an FF wide angle with a 28mm FOV. They are completely different types of lenses.

This one better (at x2 crop, this is 28mm EFL)?: