Mirror camera vs. Mirrorless

[gcgraphs]

Have you seen the rumour of the Z7s and Z6s? Small but useful tweaks over the Z6 and Z7 but should make for a couple of excellent bodies.

Yep, seen that, thanks. Certainly a step in the right direction and will be watching the reviews with interest.

GC

 

[AZ6]

Well, I have both. Bought a Nikon D600 DSLR about 7 years ago, and a Nikon Z6 mirrorless cam a year ago. The Z6 is better, mainly because there's 6 years of technological advancement over the D600. But then it also has all the advantages already mentioned, such as IBIS, Eye AF etc. It's lovely. As to which I prefer using, then that's a bit more complicated. The D600 has better ergonomics when used with the control grip, and bigger, heavier lenses. I think I do prefer the ergonomics of that cam tbh. But the Z6's technological superiority means I can push my photography that bit further (mainly due to the improved IQ in low light). And the new lenses for the Z mount are proving to be optically superior to their F mount (DSLR) equivalents. So, it appears to be a step change in camera technology. If I were starting from scratch right now, then I'd choose a (full frame) mirrorless system.

 

[Bobsyeruncle]

Because if you ask 200 people for their favourite... you’ll get 200 useless answers.

my conclusion is that the Op knows this, you’re entitled to conclude differently.

Agreed, but she didn't ask anyone what their favourites were.

 

[Ed Sutton]

- The camera and lens combination is generally a bit smaller and lighter, if that's your aim. For example my FF Sony A7 plus the Sony 35mm f2.8 or even my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 is tiny. You can stick a small prime on a DSLR and have a small outfit.
- No Micro Adjust faff on, just generally accurate and consistent focus. Never been an issue for me with DSLRs.
- Being able for focus accurately anywhere in the frame. That can be handy, but isn't essential.
- Eye/Face detect. I initially ignored this but I now see it as a revelation as all you need to do is compose the shot and take it. You don't have to worry about moving the focus point and your subjects eye/face can be anywhere in the frame and the focus will follow it. That can be handy, but isn't essential.
- I love the in view things, level, histogram, being able to see the exposure and the DoF. All this means that the hit rate should be very high with little if any chimping and retaking the shot as some do with DSLR's. None of that works for me, the visual info actuially gets in my way. Evne the change of brightness with exposure can be a problem. EVF's can als ostrobe under artificial light..
- I love that you can use old manual lenses or even new ones and focus extremely accurately, this is arguably the most accurate way to focus if you have the time. Absolutely no interest in using manual focus lenses.

The only advantage I can see for me for a traditional DSLR now is that some DSLR's and lens packages are amazingly cheap. If you already have a load of DSLR lenses they might as well be used on a DSLR - and there are thousands available for cheap on teh used market..

All that said, if I was starting from scratch I'd buy a mirrorless camera!

Provided it was a user experience with which I gelled. So far Panasonic and Fuji haven't been for me.

 

[Brazo]

Have you seen the rumour of the Z7s and Z6s? Small but useful tweaks over the Z6 and Z7 but should make for a couple of excellent bodies.

Agreed, if these ‘realise’ then they are the bodies we’ve been searching for!

 

[woof woof]

All that said, if I was starting from scratch I'd buy a mirrorless camera!

Provided it was a user experience with which I gelled. So far Panasonic and Fuji haven't been for me.

My Gosh ed you've worked hard there but if I can ask you to work a little harder?

Can you find an APS-C DSLR and lens that's the size of a Sony A6000 and 20mm f2.8 or a full frame camera the size of a Sony A7 and 35mm f2.8?

While you're at it can you find that piece on AF on the Canon website that says that if you take three pictures with one of their DSLR's you can expect to see differences between them and that this is completely normal? Actually although that was there (I read it) it may not be there now as admitting it is all rather embarrassing really and they may have taken that down.

And you're right, being able to focus accurately isn't essential, it's just that some of use like to be able to. With a DSLR you can focus and recompose and find out later that your focus isn't quite where you wanted it to be or you can focus on your subject and crop the picture to get the composition you want later, if you want. These are I suppose valid options but it isn't 1973 any more and the more modern kit whilst allowing you to do it like you did in 1973 also allows you to do it more efficiently.

You can even turn all of those distracting in view aids off too. It is admittedly a complicated procedure as you have to press the "Disp" button but in time most of us can work out how to do it.

Yes, DSLR kit can be cheap and as the years pass it may become even cheaper on the used market but as those ribbon cables start to perish and the electronics deteriorate there's going to come a point at which it really isn't worth the hassle any more. The same will happen with mirrorless kit but at least that's still being developed and released to the public whereas DSLR's and their lenses may well be on borrowed time now. Arguably. Possibly.

 

[BettyAki]

She is too new to this photo forum malarkey to know that.
Anyone could look up sales statistics and settle for that as the best.
However few of us actually match the average when it comes to our own choices..

If you chose the highest selling, camera, lens, flashgun tripod head and tripod and camera bag, and accessories. It is almost certain that nothing would match or fit, or be suitable for any single branch of photography. You would get a similar mixed result if you chose the technical best of everything.

The diversity of need and of supply ensure that there is no single answer to almost any question that you can formulate.

However this lack of definitive answers does not mean that useful information can not be gained by asking open ended questions. On the contrary they are the ones best able to ascertain the most reliable answers in interview and investigative situations. Such answers do need interpretation but they tend to reveal far more information than direct questions.


For instance, the direct question, what is better a Leica or a Rolleiflex? Would be a useless question.
However the question, discuss the advantages and disadvantages that you have found when using medium format and 35mm cameras and give examples to illustrate these? would throw up a massive amount of information, that could lead to further more pertinent questions.

The OP's addition of "and why?" Turned her question into an open ended one.
And has elicited much useful information.

Thank you!

 

[Ed Sutton]

My Gosh ed you've worked hard there but if I can ask you to work a little harder?

Can you find an APS-C DSLR and lens that's the size of a Sony A6000 and 20mm f2.8 or a full frame camera the size of a Sony A7 and 35mm f2.8?

While you're at it can you find that piece on AF on the Canon website that says that if you take three pictures with one of their DSLR's you can expect to see differences between them and that this is completely normal? Actually although that was there (I read it) it may not be there now as admitting it is all rather embarrassing really and they may have taken that down.

And you're right, being able to focus accurately isn't essential, it's just that some of use like to be able to. With a DSLR you can focus and recompose and find out later that your focus isn't quite where you wanted it to be or you can focus on your subject and crop the picture to get the composition you want later, if you want. These are I suppose valid options but it isn't 1973 any more and the more modern kit whilst allowing you to do it like you did in 1973 also allows you to do it more efficiently.

You can even turn all of those distracting in view aids off too. It is admittedly a complicated procedure as you have to press the "Disp" button but in time most of us can work out how to do it.

Yes, DSLR kit can be cheap and as the years pass it may become even cheaper on the used market but as those ribbon cables start to perish and the electronics deteriorate there's going to come a point at which it really isn't worth the hassle any more. The same will happen with mirrorless kit but at least that's still being developed and released to the public whereas DSLR's and their lenses may well be on borrowed time now. Arguably. Possibly.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Ok things I really like about my ML (A6000 and X-T2 and 3 cameras) is being able to see at night and see whats going on through a stopped down manual macro lens @ Up to 5x magnification or pinpoint Focus on a magnified image shooting manual Focus lenses incl said macros. The A6000 is just tiny. The X-T's operate just like my old FE2 and FM cameras and the shutter sound is nice too. They are good enough to Work every time and limited enough to challenge me.

 

[the black fox]

you see to have got the response you wanted Betty , and it obviously points to mirrorless , now to dispel even more pointless posts tell us about yourself , i.e what’s your camera experience , do you have a decent computer ,and the skill set to process the results. What type of subject do you envisage shooting . What is your personal view smaller and lighter or heavier with better results , and finally what’s your budget .
every single one of those questions is probably relevant to your choice