Dslr or mirrorless?

moojii

moojii

Suspended / Banned
Messages
763
Edit My Images
Yes
There's only 1 way to find out.

Fiiiiight!

Seriously though, I'm getting back into photography as I'm too old and tired to drum anymore.

Really confused as to get a dslr or mirrorless.

Be taking portraits, pics of the nipper and dog, street photography and maybe band photography.

Any ideas? Opinions?
 
Glasses really don't matter all that much - that said I don't use mine and instead adjust the diopiter.

It really depends on what you want - ISO/depth of field/battery life/autofocus speed for moving subjects will on the whole be better on DSLR, but mirrorless is lighter, smaller, have more reach (the M43 is a x2 crop) and as the viewfinders are electronic can do some clever things like focus peaking.

My history went Canon DSLR (up as far as the 5D3), I then wanted something lighter so moved to the Olympus E-M1\E-M10, the E-M1 being really good, well actually they both are, then I missed the full frame pop so am currently selling that lot off (shameless link) and have now just bought back into DSLR, Nikon this time.

Working from my olympus mirroress and Canon DSLR experience as an enthusiast and to break it down for me:

Portraits - either, a mirrorless with a 75mm 1.8 will work great, as will DSLR
Nipper and dog - The E-M1 (firmware v3) can handle this in continuous as long as they're not pelting along at full speed toward the camera, the E-M10 is okay in single shot, this is where DSLRs on teh whole are better.
Street photography - M43 is great for this, slow subject and a really long reach from the x2 crop move you further from the target.
Band photography - not something I've ever done but I would imagine you'd need high ISO so DSLR full frame.

Here are a few links to some searches I did for you on the O-MD range

Portrait - link
Nipper and dog - link1 - link2
Street - link
Band - link

In short though, DSLR will do everything you want, but the O-MDs will get you closer more discretely and with lighter, smaller kit.
 
Last edited:
This purely comes down to preference, there's no right or wrong answer. If you want small and light then go mirrorless, if you want OVF or want/need the best AF-C and tracking go DSLR. The latter is the only real advantage of DSLR ( unless we're talking full systems eg lens selection, advanced lighting and pro support etc) but are important enough for some (myself included) to warrant DSLR.
 
moojii said:
Thanks for your input.

I am a glasses wearer, if that makes a difference.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to be facetious in any way, but these type of debates can go on for a while. I nearly said " I'll get my popcorn", but that would have been unhelpful.

I have both, a 7D and an EOS-M and for a a short period after I bought the M, I did think I would ditch the 7D, but I now find I am using the 7D more. For what it's worth, I too wear specs, but find it makes very little difference to me personally. If i were to offer one bit of advice if going mirrorless, it would be to get a camera with a view finder.
 
killwilly said:
I wasn't trying to be facetious in any way, but these type of debates can go on for a while. I nearly said " I'll get my popcorn", but that would have been unhelpful.

I have both, a 7D and an EOS-M and for a a short period after I bought the M, I did think I would ditch the 7D, but I now find I am using the 7D more. For what it's worth, I too wear specs, but find it makes very little difference to me personally. If i were to offer one bit of advice if going mirrorless, it would be to get a camera with a view finder.
Click to expand...
Viewfinder is essential IMO ;)
 
snerkler said:
Viewfinder is essential IMO ;)
Click to expand...

I agree with one caveat, if you're taking action snaps then the poke the screen method works well (unless its a very new mirrorless where continuos focus is actually useful) , howver for absolutly everything else 100% viewfinder.

Oh yes and the 0-MDs have a much wider focus point area than DSLR, being as its the full screen, I presume other mirrorless are the same.
 
Last edited:
I have both, full frame DSLR with L lenses and Fuji X mirrorless system. In theory, the full frame should produce better shots. But the Fuji mirrorless is able to produce similar if not better (sharper, better colours) shots, while costing less and weighing much less.

Because I've no need for DLSR's tracking AF abilities, I'm selling most of my DSLR gear because the Fuji X mirrorless system is able to replace the DSLR for me.

So in my view, Fuji X mirrorless system is better than a full frame DSLR in every way apart from 1.
 
I looked but the systems just not mature enough, very few fast lenses (which is mad on a full frame system) - yep there are a couple but not many (yet). No long range lenses as well.

It looks good if you want a 35mm or 50mm but otherwise...

Also the size of them (with lenses) isn't that much smaller and its expensive - for my money I'd skip those for now, but well worth watching if they mature.

Edit: Heres a quick size comparison - I tried to keep the focal lengths roughly the same, although matching up the comparative apertures is more of a challenge (link)
 
Last edited:
Go mirrorless if...
You want a small system, just like in the days of film.
You want very fast and accurate focus with no need to micro adjust.
You want real time WYSIWYG in the VF (say goodbye to chimping.)
Dust bunnies and view finder crap drive you nuts.
You want a very high keeper rate with few instances of blown highlights (no more DSLR chimping, use an in view histogram and get it right 99% of the time.)
You want to use old or new manual lenses (great manual focus aids.)
You want lenses that are (pretty/very) sharp wide open.
You want the ability to move your focus point to just about anywhere on the sensor.
You want an EVF to see in the dark with.
You want the best video.
The system offers something DSLR's don't...

Go DSLR if...
You like big fat cameras and lenses (seriously, some people seem to...)
You want the very best focus tracking (but I think it's probably ok to say that only the very best DSLR's do better than the very best mirrorless.)
You really must have an OVF.
You want to use a lens or gadget that will only work with your DSLR of choice.

The OP's needs...
Portraits, you could take with with just about any camera from MFT and up.
Kids and dogs, it depends how fast they are moving. You might be able to shoot them with a second hand £50 CSC and a £30 lens or you may need £4,000 of DSLR kit.
Bands, I used to shoot a lot of bands with a Nikon 35mm SLR, ISO 1600 film and a standard f3.5-5.6 zoom lens. These days I think you could do it with just about any camera from MFT and up.
Street, I suppose it depends... some people prefer a smallish camera, a quiet shutter and a moderately wide lens set to zone focus and if that's the case you could do it with a very cheap CSC.

Well, that was fun :D Good luck choosing :D
 
lol, good list Alan.

Tag in though

Go DSLR if...
You want a single battery to last several days

Go mirrorless if...
You want to wear an re-purposed ammo belt for batteries

Seriously though a very nice round up but worth considering you will be buying more batteries - I think I've four (or maybe three) or mine..
 
Then just get a Nikon or Canon, its for purpose (I bet the AF suffers) and is probably cheaper.
 
JohnN said:
I looked but the systems just not mature enough, very few fast lenses (which is mad on a full frame system) - yep there are a couple but not many (yet). No long range lenses as well.

It looks good if you want a 35mm or 50mm but otherwise...
Click to expand...
You buy the Sony 28mm f2 or the Batis 25mm f2 or for a zoom the 16-25mm.

It's a new system and lenses are coming along nicely but of course if you want to use a lens that isn't available in native mount your options are to use an adapter or a DSLR.

JohnN said:
Also the size of them (with lenses) isn't that much smaller and its expensive - for my money I'd skip those for now, but well worth watching if they mature.

Edit: Heres a quick size comparison - I tried to keep the focal lengths roughly the same, although matching up the comparative apertures is more of a challenge (link)
Click to expand...

I think that you really have to hold them in your hand and compare A7 and DSLR in the plastic and metal. With a prime an A7 will offer a significant bulk and weight saving over similar spec/quality DSLR and it's only when you go to the 24-70 or 70-200mm zooms that the lenses bulk up but even if the A7 and DSLR lens are of the same quality, weight and bulk there's always going to be the saving that the body offers.

On the cost, I'm not so sure that the A7 is an expensive system if you look at the quality. For example the Sony 55mm f1.8 can look expensive next to a Canikon 50mm f1.8 but to be fair they're not in the same class. If you compare as much as possible like for like, quality for quality I don't think that Sony lenses look too bad especially when you consider the quality. Some of these lenses are (arguably) the best AF mass market lenses you can buy and there's no real point comparing them to ho-hum stuff.

Personally for me as a 99.9% of the time prime user the A7 offers very significant bulk and weight savings over a DSLR. I've had both at the same time and it's a straight forward no brainer. A7 wins. I can see how the savings (bulk and weight) diminish with increasing focal length and I can see how the lack of lenses may drive some away but it is IMVHO a developing quality system that's well worth looking at especially for prime shooters and lovers of old manual lenses :D
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:
Then just get a Nikon or Canon, its for purpose (I bet the AF suffers) and is probably cheaper.
Click to expand...
Yup. DSLR's are the cheaper option but with the cheapness you may start dropping features and abilities. An entry level DSLR + kit lens is very cheap...
 
JohnN said:
lol, good list Alan.

Tag in though

Go DSLR if...
You want a single battery to last several days

Go mirrorless if...
You want to wear an re-purposed ammo belt for batteries

Seriously though a very nice round up but worth considering you will be buying more batteries - I think I've four (or maybe three) or mine..
Click to expand...

Actually, I've found X100 and X-E2 batteries to last one full day most of the time, I've never needed more than 2 per day. So if you bring 2 fully charged spare each day, it'll cover all needs.

That includes using on-camera flash to overpower the sun on the X100.

DSLR..... battery usually lasts 2-3 days for me. But the batteries are also a lot bigger and heavier.
 
I know what you mean about holding the kit - the O-MD Pro stuff, E-M1, 12-40 Pro, 75 1.8 etc are absoluty light years ahead in feel and quality over anything I've tried DSLR wise.
 
wuyanxu said:
Actually, I've found X100 and X-E2 batteries to last one full day most of the time, I've never needed more than 2 per day. So if you bring 2 fully charged spare each day, it'll cover all needs.

That includes using on-camera flash to overpower the sun on the X100.

DSLR..... battery usually lasts 2-3 days for me. But the batteries are also a lot bigger and heavier.
Click to expand...

I know I was being flippant, and straining a point, but by their very nature the smaller batteries hold less charge so don;t last as long, couple that with an EVF or liveview and it gets worse, of course there are was round this but in general use they do burn though them. Something worth knowing before buying, not to really weigh any decision, but instead to make sure you;re got battery two bought, charged and with you.

Hell, I'm trying to flog mine, the last thing I want to do is put someone off ;)
 
Last edited:
It's worth just getting some cameras in your hands and seeing what feels best - all other things being equal, you'll take the best pictures with the camera that suits you best.

I have a Sony SLT and like the EVF, lower weight, flip-out rear screen and handling. Battery life is 600-700 frames, and AF speed isn't an issue for me because I don't do action photography.
 
Actually very good point and usually the fist thing said - perhaps blinded by the mirrorless vs DSLR angle, but yes I completely second Toni, get them in your hand - some hate the small size, some love it, personally I'm cool either way but certainly had no problems with the smaller size and also look at different models as you would wit a DSLR, the E-M1 or quite different form the E-M10.
 
Mirrorless is great, but you need to know what you are going to shoot before making a decision. I had loads of Fuji gear, XT1 - 14 23 56 & 18-135. But I got very frustrated trying to even focus on my kids moving around. I would say that if you want to shoot thing that move briskly then dslr is still miles ahead. Apart from that there are lots of great options on both sides out there.
 
JohnN said:
I know what you mean about holding the kit - the O-MD Pro stuff, E-M1, 12-40 Pro, 75 1.8 etc are absoluty light years ahead in feel and quality over anything I've tried DSLR wise.
Click to expand...
I have some of the Olly pro gear you mention but still find my Nikon pro gear superior tbh. The Nikon 24-70mm is built like a tank compared to the 12-40mm f2.8 (not that the 12-40 isn't great, it really is) and for me has better IQ, likewise the 70-200mm f2.8 is superior in quality, feel and IQ IMO.
 
Last edited:
Mattyd said:
With you on everything apart from Iso and Dof.....Buy a Sony A7 :)
Click to expand...
Agreed, it's FF and so DOF no different to FF DSLR, and obviously shallower than APS, and ISO/noise is seriously impressive.
 
wuyanxu said:
I have both, full frame DSLR with L lenses and Fuji X mirrorless system. In theory, the full frame should produce better shots. But the Fuji mirrorless is able to produce similar if not better (sharper, better colours) shots, while costing less and weighing much less.

Because I've no need for DLSR's tracking AF abilities, I'm selling most of my DSLR gear because the Fuji X mirrorless system is able to replace the DSLR for me.

So in my view, Fuji X mirrorless system is better than a full frame DSLR in every way apart from 1.
Click to expand...

Just a quick question, what Full Frame camera and Fuji's are you using?
 
There is not a chance that the XT1 has image quality even approaching the D750 I now own. As much as I enjoyed the Fuji, IQ of FF is much better. But that is stating the obvious surely?
 
JohnN said:
Go mirrorless if...
You want to wear an re-purposed ammo belt for batteries
Click to expand...
;) I'll be making custom molded leather versions for batteries soon ... I don't like them lying loose in the spare-lens-bag and fancy something cool-looking.

As far as camera costs and uses go my single vote (if forced) would be an Olympus E-M10 with kit zoom, 40-150 zoom and 45mm portrait lens.
 
hobodan said:
There is not a chance that the XT1 has image quality even approaching the D750 I now own. As much as I enjoyed the Fuji, IQ of FF is much better. But that is stating the obvious surely?
Click to expand...

It's the reason I asked the question above your post. I have had about 7 Fuji bodies and I loved my last XT1, but for me, my D750 is a far better camera in all ways, apart form size maybe......... but the D750 grip is so good it balances out for me.
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Just a quick question, what Full Frame camera and Fuji's are you using?
Click to expand...

5D mark 2 with (17-40 F4L, 24-105 F4 L, 70-200 F4 IS L and 85mm f1.8) and Fuji X-E2 (10-24 F4, 55-200, 60 macro), X100.

As I said, compared back to back, only continuous tracking focus DSLR has advantage. Everything else the Fuji is able to handle beautifully.
 
JohnN said:
Then just get a Nikon or Canon, its for purpose (I bet the AF suffers) and is probably cheaper.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's up to the tog how they want to do it...I mean....pick and choose the best lenses and not have to worry about being confined to canon or Nikon. As for AF....The new A7RII is surprisingly zippy on many lenses (not all admittedly, but still, give it another model or two and I suspect it will be a non issue). Anyway. Point being, whether you think its a good idea or not, mirrorless offers you options you simply dont have with SLRs.

You can buy a Sony A7 FF camera for about £800 now. I dont think theres a cheaper FF camera out there.
 
hobodan said:
There is not a chance that the XT1 has image quality even approaching the D750 I now own. As much as I enjoyed the Fuji, IQ of FF is much better. But that is stating the obvious surely?
Click to expand...

IQ of FF is more heavily impacted by corner softness and vignetting, and focussing through a mirror onto a separate AF sensor isn't helping its image quality either.
 
frod said:
IQ of FF is more heavily impacted by corner softness and vignetting, and focussing through a mirror onto a separate AF sensor isn't helping its image quality either.
Click to expand...
Since when did a camera record an image through a mirror?
 
frod said:
IQ of FF is more heavily impacted by corner softness and vignetting, and focussing through a mirror onto a separate AF sensor isn't helping its image quality either.
Click to expand...
That's only true if you are using FX lenses on DX and comparing. As for the autofocus not helping... How is getting shots in focus not helping image quality? AFC on mirrorless and dslr is world apart.
 
kendo1 said:
Since when did a camera record an image through a mirror?
Click to expand...
it focusses through the mirror. It's no coincidence that people are blown away by the sharpness of current mirrorless, they have superior focus accuracy due to fewer compromises in the focussing process.

edit: I mean, why otherwise would you need AF fine tune? Have you set up all your lenses? What about your zooms, do they focus correctly all the way through the range?

hobodan said:
That's only true if you are using FX lenses on DX and comparing.
Click to expand...

Well, that obviously helps, but there are other factors, size of the mount, distance from the rear lens to the sensor.
 
Last edited:
frod said:
it focusses through the mirror. It's no coincidence that people are blown away by the sharpness of current mirrorless, they have superior focus accuracy due to fewer compromises in the focussing process.

edit: I mean, why otherwise would you need AF fine tune? Have you set up all your lenses? What about your zooms, do they focus correctly all the way through the range?



Well, that obviously helps, but there are other factors, size of the mount, distance from the rear lens to the sensor.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who these blown away people are but I've owned the best of both, and the autofocus is the last thing to distinguish the image quality. Sensor size and lenses are usually a good bet. If dslr lenses are out of sync, then adjusting them is a small process to go through for the huge gains in afc focusing ability IMO. I've never had any issue with dslr lenses, but I have had issues with contrast detects ability to focus. As I've said before what you shoot and how you use your camera should depend on what system you settle for. Ultimately we have a great selection of dslr and mirrorless to choose from.
 
frod said:
it focusses through the mirror. It's no coincidence that people are blown away by the sharpness of current mirrorless, they have superior focus accuracy due to fewer compromises in the focussing process.
Click to expand...
Surely it focuses via light reflected off the mirror onto the AF module?
Also there is more to sharpness than the focussing, such as lenses, so for example the 70-200mm f2.8 on my D750 produces noticeably sharper images than the 12-40 f2.8 on my EM5-II. Ok so different FL but both are pro f2.8 lenses. But yes CD is 'considered' more accurate than PD, at least for static subjects.

edit: I mean, why otherwise would you need AF fine tune? Have you set up all your lenses? What about your zooms, do they focus correctly all the way through the range?
Click to expand...
AF fine tune is there for manufacturing tolerances rather than a camera's ability to attain perfect sharpness/focus per se. But yes mirrorless have the advantage of not needing to calibrate the lens to the body. Calibrate properly though and there's no reason DSLRs can't be just as accurate. All my lenses are extremely accurate on my Nikon. Granted this is difficult to attain at all FLs at all apertures, but then we are really getting into nit picking area ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top