Slr v Mirrorless

JJ! said:
That really makes the title of the thread pretty irrelevant if you already know you don't want a DSLR?

But glad you made a purchase! Thoughts on your new kit once arrived!
Click to expand...
I just wanted the thoughts of others as I may have swayed back to a Dslr
But hey I am well impressed with the performance of the Sony a6000 already and the kit lens isn't actually that bad in low light so this camera is going to be pretty good with a prime on it.
I'm happy.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
What Canon lens/es are you thinking of using?

If they're rather ordinary Canon lenses then there'd be no point using them as there'll be better options (but these may blow the budget) and of course they'll add to weight, bulk and expenses as you'll need the adapter.

If they're very good Canon lenses they'll still add to weight, bulk and expense.

Overall the idea of using something like a Canon zoom on a mirrorless camera just doesn't appeal to me one bit.
Click to expand...
This.

You have to be realistic, there's no fantastic solution that'll give the same IQ as a FF DSLR, with awesome AF, a fantastic range of lenses that's £400 and fits in your pocket.

The AF on small mirrorless cameras isn't awesome but is perfectly usable. My XE1 is old and slow but I have no problem taking it on holiday, a newer model should be more than adequate.

I see more OoF shots due to user error than AF failure.
 
Phil V said:
The AF on small mirrorless cameras isn't awesome but is perfectly usable. My XE1 is old and slow but I have no problem taking it on holiday, a newer model should be more than adequate.

I see more OoF shots due to user error than AF failure.
Click to expand...

I'm going to be a pedant again and say that it depends what's meant by focus. If we're talking focus tracking then I don't know as I never use it but the consensus seems to be that DSLR's are generally better but if we're talking non tracking focus then there are mirrorless cameras that are simply blisteringly quick. I have several Panasonic MFT cameras and the focus is pretty much instantaneous and I believe that there are Olympus and Sony mirrorless cameras that are in the same ball park and for sure one could be bought within budget with one or maybe two lenses.
 
woof woof said:
I'm going to be a pedant again and say that it depends what's meant by focus. If we're talking focus tracking then I don't know as I never use it but the consensus seems to be that DSLR's are generally better but if we're talking non tracking focus then there are mirrorless cameras that are simply blisteringly quick. I have several Panasonic MFT cameras and the focus is pretty much instantaneous and I believe that there are Olympus and Sony mirrorless cameras that are in the same ball park and for sure one could be bought within budget with one or maybe two lenses.
Click to expand...

Before I answer this, I want yo point out that I'd already said that AF on mirrorless is already good enough.


Now to answer your pedantry:

Blisteringly quick AF for a static subject is a marketers and designers wet dream. It's not a photographers requirement, because whether a camera takes 1/1000 sec or 1/1000,000,000 sec to achieve AF on a static subject won't make a measurable difference to the life of a photographer.

However, the difference between tracking AF speed on a £500 mirrorless camera and a £500 DSLR is a very noticeable real world difference to photographers who need to shoot moving subjects. Let's not pretend otherwise. :)

However, I still think that the OP will be fine with the mirrorless and some decent AF lenses.
 
I don't think good enough tells the whole story Phil, you have to try one of these fast camera to appreciate how fast they are and then you can judge if it's a marketing wet dream or any use in the real world. Stick one of these better performing camera in continuous focus and burst mode or even the dreaded tracking mode and see how good or bad the results are and if they're up to the job.

Have you tried one or at least watched one of the reviews? Actually I'm not interested in your answer as neither your results nor mine matter all that much and what matters is what camera is up to the job the OP will put it to.

My point in replying is not to constantly challenge your sweeping generalities but to try and get the point across that some of the better performing mirrorless cameras are entering the OP's price range and at least deserve a look.
 
He's already bought one of the better performing mirrorless bodies(A6000) and is probably out enjoying it now. I've just used mine to shoot my daughters' 7th birthday party in a low light pamper party and the AF tracking was more than good enough. Most posts on here taking about poor AF can be put down to the photographer either using the wrong settings or just expecting too much in general. It's not just mirrorless bodies that people have posted about not delivering the results. It always amazes me how many people buy high end DSLR kit then blame it when they don't have a clue how to use it outside auto.
 
Yup. Most of my recent pictures have been taken indoor under low natural or low and artificial light.
 
timetraveller said:
That's the problem I simply won't use a dslr as it's just too big and inconvenient to carry around, I have a d750 before and I hardly used it so sold it.
Click to expand...
Entry level DSLRs (which will be more than good enough to AF on fast moving children) really aren't big. I just spent 5 days in NY walking everywhere with my FF 6d, 24-105, 14mm, 35mm and 85mm all in a small Lowepro Messenger 150. One day I walked 18km and it wasn't an issue! The size / weight thing re DSLRs is blown out of all proportion IMO. And as soon as you stick a decent lens on a CSC / mirrorless etc you're in the size / weight area of DSLRs. If size / weight is an issue, you should be considering a high end compact, realistically that's the only area you see a significant benefit in size and weight.

(Am I glad I took my 6d and lenses rather than my smaller format cameras? Hell yes! Did it restrict me in any way whatsoever / turn my holiday into a photoshoot / annoy my non photographer girlfriend? No, not at all!)
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
This.

You have to be realistic, there's no fantastic solution that'll give the same IQ as a FF DSLR, with awesome AF, a fantastic range of lenses that's £400 and fits in your pocket.

The AF on small mirrorless cameras isn't awesome but is perfectly usable. My XE1 is old and slow but I have no problem taking it on holiday, a newer model should be more than adequate.

I see more OoF shots due to user error than AF failure.
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by small mirrorless cameras as there are now some that will rival all but the best sports DSLRs (1Dx-II and D5) apparently?
 
snerkler said:
Depends what you mean by small mirrorless cameras as there are now some that will rival all but the best sports DSLRs (1Dx-II and D5) apparently?
Click to expand...
Not for less than £500. ;)

That's what winds me up about these threads, I'm not slagging off mirrorless, but just because one or two at the top end mirrorless cameras have decent AF, or a fantastic viewfinder, or whatever else is being discussed, people think it's ok to use shorthand 'some are as good'.

Just read the post in context and stop looking for a point scoring argument.

I'll write it again slowly (as it seems some people can't read very fast)

I'd recommend a mirrorless camera to the OP, the AF will be plenty good enough for his needs.
 
woof woof said:
I don't think good enough tells the whole story Phil, you have to try one of these fast camera to appreciate how fast they are and then you can judge if it's a marketing wet dream or any use in the real world. Stick one of these better performing camera in continuous focus and burst mode or even the dreaded tracking mode and see how good or bad the results are and if they're up to the job.

Have you tried one or at least watched one of the reviews? Actually I'm not interested in your answer as neither your results nor mine matter all that much and what matters is what camera is up to the job the OP will put it to.

My point in replying is not to constantly challenge your sweeping generalities but to try and get the point across that some of the better performing mirrorless cameras are entering the OP's price range and at least deserve a look.
Click to expand...
Did you read the context of my post or are you still just banging a pointless drum?

The guy bought a camera, it'll be great for him.
 
Phil V said:
Not for less than £500. ;)

That's what winds me up about these threads, I'm not slagging off mirrorless, but just because one or two at the top end mirrorless cameras have decent AF, or a fantastic viewfinder, or whatever else is being discussed, people think it's ok to use shorthand 'some are as good'.

Just read the post in context and stop looking for a point scoring argument.

I'll write it again slowly (as it seems some people can't read very fast)

I'd recommend a mirrorless camera to the OP, the AF will be plenty good enough for his needs.
Click to expand...
Lol, I read the post in context and can actually read surprisingly fast ;) I think you've mis-judged my comment as I was purely asking for clarification of what you meant as your post was a bit too general,.... IMO of course ;) In your post I quoted you did not mention a price, just that with "small mirrorless" AF isn't "awesome", which is not the case, depending on your definition of small.

And no this isn't, and neither was my first reply, a points scoring contest. It was purely asking for clarification of what you meant as it could be misleading (y)
 
Last edited:
Like some others you appear to have read the post title as some sort of p***ing contest, rather than the narrative it holds.
snerkler said:
Lol, I read the post in context and can actually read surprisingly fast ;) I think you've mis-judged my comment as I was purely asking for clarification of what you meant as your post was a bit too general,.... IMO of course ;) In your post I quoted you did not mention a price, just that with "small mirrorless" AF isn't "awesome", which is not the case, depending on your definition of small.

And no this isn't, and neither was my first reply, a points scoring contest. It was purely asking for clarification of what you meant as it could be misleading (y)
Click to expand...
My response (though too late and I wish I hadn't bothered) was relevant based on the OPs budget.
See below
JJ! said:
What's your budget?
Click to expand...

timetraveller said:
£550
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If you never took out the slr I doubt you will take out a mirrorless either. They are smaller but it's still going to be around your neck. why Not get something like a rx100.
 
Phil V said:
Like some others you appear to have read the post title as some sort of p***ing contest, rather than the narrative it holds.

My response (though too late and I wish I hadn't bothered) was relevant based on the OPs budget.
See below
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
I agree with Phil.
Ive got an a6000 and 3 DSLR's. IMO the a6000 is not in the same league as my 5DMKIII and 80D, and is close to my old 650D but still not as reliable. This is all AF wise, not IQ.
Ive got a few Sony lenses and none are anywhere near as fast to AF, or as good at tracking as my Canon lenses. They do work for a lot of things but not as good as on a DSLR (IME of course)
I have an adapter for my Canon lenses so i can use them on my a6000, but that makes things more awkward as AF is too slow and, well, i wouldn't actually buy a Canon lens to use on a mirrorless camera.

Focus tracking is very fast on the a6000, but unless the lens can keep up its no good having all that speed.

I would suggest MF is not going to be the solution for chasing a toddler around, although MF is very easy on the a6000.

A cheap low end Canon body, maybe even secondhand, and a cheap prime will be under budget, and could well work out cheerer in the long run than going the Sony route. Even the Canon kit lenses are good nought these days.

The best camera is the camera you have that does the job. Any old camera will get a shot, but not all will get it as you want it to look. Its situations arise like running around in low light etc that really shows what a camera and lens can do.
 
rjbell said:
If you never took out the slr I doubt you will take out a mirrorless either. They are smaller but it's still going to be around your neck. why Not get something like a rx100.
Click to expand...
Nothing could be further from the truth in my case matey.
The Canon was simply what I call a big ass camera which is why I never carried it around but I did always carry around my Fuji x100 at the time to the extent that I used it on over ten model photo shoots with one image being a print in the daily mirror paper a few years back.
Funnily enough everyone moaned about the autofocus but I just used it on manual focus all the time because I loved the lens, the inability to change the lens irritated me after a while though ironically as I had to keep cropping in post.
I'm happy with my new Sony A6000 and already carry it with me all the time, I just need a 22mm prime and a longer prime and jobs a gooden
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Before I answer this, I want yo point out that I'd already said that AF on mirrorless is already good enough.


Now to answer your pedantry:

Blisteringly quick AF for a static subject is a marketers and designers wet dream. It's not a photographers requirement, because whether a camera takes 1/1000 sec or 1/1000,000,000 sec to achieve AF on a static subject won't make a measurable difference to the life of a photographer.

However, the difference between tracking AF speed on a £500 mirrorless camera and a £500 DSLR is a very noticeable real world difference to photographers who need to shoot moving subjects. Let's not pretend otherwise. :)

However, I still think that the OP will be fine with the mirrorless and some decent AF lenses.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, I use to shoot a lot of street photography face on while walking into crowds on manual focus with a lovely slow Fuji x100 set at 5 foot wide open it was better than any rapid speed auto focus monster, using a dslr in that environment in Manchester City centre would have got me knocked out lol.
 
odd jim said:
Entry level DSLRs (which will be more than good enough to AF on fast moving children) really aren't big. I just spent 5 days in NY walking everywhere with my FF 6d, 24-105, 14mm, 35mm and 85mm all in a small Lowepro Messenger 150. One day I walked 18km and it wasn't an issue! The size / weight thing re DSLRs is blown out of all proportion IMO. And as soon as you stick a decent lens on a CSC / mirrorless etc you're in the size / weight area of DSLRs. If size / weight is an issue, you should be considering a high end compact, realistically that's the only area you see a significant benefit in size and weight.

(Am I glad I took my 6d and lenses rather than my smaller format cameras? Hell yes! Did it restrict me in any way whatsoever / turn my holiday into a photoshoot / annoy my non photographer girlfriend? No, not at all!)
Click to expand...
Having owned a Canon dslr and now owning an A6000 I would have to say I dont agree my friend it's like night and day size wise, but if you are happy using what you have and I am happy then everyone's a winner, thanks for you thoughts anyway
 
Phil V said:
Not for less than £500. ;)

That's what winds me up about these threads, I'm not slagging off mirrorless, but just because one or two at the top end mirrorless cameras have decent AF, or a fantastic viewfinder, or whatever else is being discussed, people think it's ok to use shorthand 'some are as good'.

Just read the post in context and stop looking for a point scoring argument.

I'll write it again slowly (as it seems some people can't read very fast)

I'd recommend a mirrorless camera to the OP, the AF will be plenty good enough for his needs.
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Phil, I'm happy enough
 
dave_bass5 said:
I agree with Phil.
Ive got an a6000 and 3 DSLR's. IMO the a6000 is not in the same league as my 5DMKIII and 80D, and is close to my old 650D but still not as reliable.....
Click to expand...

Which is the point Phil was making (I think) - you need to have something of a 'like for like' comparison. The 5DIII is £2k, the 80D is £800, the A6000 is £369 - it hardly surprising the more expensive bodies have advantages.

Of course, if you've only got £500, then a whole A6000 is going to work a lot better then 1/4 of a 5DIII :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top