What's the point of mirrorless cameras?

D

DrDerrick

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6
Edit My Images
No
When great DSLRs like the Nikon D850 are widely available at a fraction of the price of the newer mirrorless cameras, I don't understand why people are paying so much for these newer cameras. Yes the new lenses seem to be somewhat better than their older equivalents, and you need the new camera to use them, but other than that, really what's the point of them? Has anybody taken a picture with one that they couldn't have taken with a DSLR? So the question is why spend thousands on this new kit? A bit lighter, better IBIS, 20+ frames a second, shorter battery life ;)? Why? I just don't get it.
 
Last edited:
A lot depends on what and how you shoot. If you are a landscape tog whose camera sits permanently on top of a tripod then you're not going to see much difference per se (I'm excluding any technical improvements to sensor quality from this argument)

For wildlife photography they've brought improved autofocus, fast frame rates, pre capture and silent shooting - I'd imagine the latter is also of benefit to wedding photography. For me having the histogram available in the viewfinder is a big plus.
 
Size, weight, IBIS, framerate, better lenses isn't enough? Throw lack of mirror slap and WYSIWYG on the pile too - and thanks to the WYSIWYG thing, you also get many more processing options on-camera, like adjusting the tone curve etc, meaning that a lot of amateur/enthusiasts can take solid shots without a bunch of studying and expensive software.

Battery life used to suck, but it's at a pretty respectable level now. Yes DSLRs are better, but it's like having a phone that stays charged for several weeks - cool, but not really needed.
 
exactly what taxboy says. I see what you mean by the D850 being the top-dog DSLR-wise and mine is still going to be used even though I have the Z8. But as one of my favourite genres is birds in flight, they 3D tracking AF of the mirrorless means more keepers.

Taking the discussion the other way, why have digital when you can enjoy a beautifully exposed Fujichrome Velvia 50 120 transparency on a light box? Not to mention that lovely aroma when the film package is opened for the first time. Mind you that lovely sensation is cancelled out by the scary prices for film and development..
 
I use both - Olympus mirrorless M43 and DSLR Nikon D850/D500. All are superb, but I couldn't say I preferred one over another in terms of MILC or DSLR. I don't have a ned for pro-level facilities so can happily continue with superseded technology and take advantage of lower new and used prices for any additional lenses.
Edited to add after seeing Peter's post: I have a Nikon F5 film body - that's a heck of a camera on which I can use modern lenses, but it weighs a ton.
 
Last edited:
Mirrorless offer several advantages over DSLR.
AF points are on sensor (rather than a separate AF modules) allowing AF points to cover a much greater area of the scene. This removes the need for 'focus and recompose', and allows AF tracking to follow the subject point freely. It also removes the possibility of front/back focussing due to misalignment of the AF sensors.
The EVF allows you to see the changes in exposure as you adjust settings 'live' (previously possible using 'live view' on the rear screen).
No Mirror removes an expensive mechanical part - less items to fail (I have had the mirror fail in one of my DSLR), and also allows for increased FPS - so even 'entry level' cameras can do 10fps, previously high end camera territory (and high end can do a staggering 120fps).
True Silent shooting, 100% blackout free shooting.
Smaller and lighter if wanted (depending on manufacturer).
Improvements in sensor technology with greater dynamic range and high ISO capabilities (not specific to mirrorless, except for the fact that manufacturers are only bringing out are cameras, with new sensors, as mirrorless),

You have always been able to buy an older camera more cheaply, when the D850 was released there were plenty of cheaper 2nd hand DSLR available that could take great pictures - so why did people buy the D850?
 
welshwizard645 said:
exactly what taxboy says. I see what you mean by the D850 being the top-dog DSLR-wise and mine is still going to be used even though I have the Z8. But as one of my favourite genres is birds in flight, they 3D tracking AF of the mirrorless means more keepers.

Taking the discussion the other way, why have digital when you can enjoy a beautifully exposed Fujichrome Velvia 50 120 transparency on a light box? Not to mention that lovely aroma when the film package is opened for the first time. Mind you that lovely sensation is cancelled out by the scary prices for film and development..
Click to expand...
Good point. For birds in flight, and for sport , the faster frame rate and better focus tracking are clear advantages.

Why digital at all? I'd say the biggest advantages are the variable ISO and lower cost per image. I only retired my favourite of all time Nikon FA in the early 2000s because of the increasing difficulty of finding film and good developers, so you can see I'm not in the "early adopter" gang!
 
Last edited:
DrDerrick said:
When great DSLRs like the Nikon D850 are widely available at a fraction of the price of the newer mirrorless cameras, I don't understand why people are paying so much for these newer cameras. Yes the new lenses seem to be somewhat better than their older equivalents, and you need the new camera to use them, but other than that, really what's the point of them? Has anybody taken a picture with one that they couldn't have taken with a DSLR? So the question is why spend thousands on this new kit? A bit lighter, better IBIS, 20+ frames a second, shorter battery life ;)? Why? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
I guess this almost needs a list that people can add to.

  1. No mirror means no mechanical click ie almost silent. better for when silence is needed such as in a church for weddings or other solemn events / sports events when noise is a distraction to the players - golf.
 
A lot of it relates to obsessive consumerism, which is what seems to drive much of the world economies. Manufacturers strive to produce what consumers will come to want - and I say want, not need. There's also an implicit short-termism involved, which may be counter to the long-term existence of organic life on earth. We are all in a political and environmental cleft stick. Nobody needs 'better lenses'. It's a false lure.

But we all have to make a living somehow - there's no pure path.
 
Last edited:
I big part of it for me to swtich from D610m to mirrorless was the weight saving. Hiking around mountains and hunting wildlife (with camera, spot and stalk) having the extra weight of the DSLR and the bigger lens makes a big different over time and distance.
 
DrDerrick said:
When great DSLRs like the Nikon D850 are widely available at a fraction of the price of the newer mirrorless cameras, I don't understand why people are paying so much for these newer cameras. Yes the new lenses seem to be somewhat better than their older equivalents, and you need the new camera to use them, but other than that, really what's the point of them? Has anybody taken a picture with one that they couldn't have taken with a DSLR? So the question is why spend thousands on this new kit? A bit lighter, better IBIS, 20+ frames a second, shorter battery life ;)? Why? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
Many thanks for all the very interesting and helpful replies - lots to think about!
 
Maybe try the following and report back:

4k video with at least moderate action, in high contrast environment
Split second action with no reruns
F1.4 or wider portraits. You have 5min, no going back
 
I wonder why people buy Nikon D850's when a 10 year old mirrorless camera costs so much less? Also I saw an ancient compact for next to nothing the other day so I can't understand why people are still using those massive expensive Nikon DSLR bricks.

Other than all that all that mirrorless gets you is better iq in a smaller package with more consisant and reliabe AF with eye detect and the ability to focus anywhere within the frame whilst you look on with wysiwyg and shoot silently. Oh, and you can use just about any lens too.
 
Last edited:
DrDerrick said:
Has anybody taken a picture with one that they couldn't have taken with a DSLR?
Click to expand...
TLDR - Yes!
Or more accurately, with greater reliability and far less chance in live events and sports situations. In particular, blackout-free EVF, pre-shooting buffer, real-time exposure preview, and AI-based subject tracking across the full frame. Things DSLRs simply can’t match. You’re not just able to get the shot, you’re going to nail it. As above, not really needed for landscape or other genres where these features aren't needed.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Some people just have to possess the latest gadgets...

...others just concentrate on taking pictures. That's life.
Click to expand...
woof woof said:
Oh, and you can use just about any lens too.
Click to expand...

This

I bought into Sony FE mirrorless in 2013 so I could use my favourite Canon FD, Olympus and Contax manual focus lenses on 35mm full frame digital. I was not getting on with autofocus Canon EF DSLRs and wanted to go back to manual focus (yes, I had avoided autofocus on film for 20 years).

Far from being just the 'latest gadget', mirrorless provided a new lease of life for gear that I had been using since the early 1980s. It still does.

Advances in Sony's AF have finally tempted me to buy some native FE lenses in recent years and I am enjoying them too.
 
I agree in terms of people moving from one model variant to the next - it's the law of diminishing returns.

imo DSLR to Mirrorless is a big jump - but lots of people don't need to make that jump or need the extra features. The jump also includes complexity, in terms of menu and feature configuration.. when maybe you don't want to learn all the features of your camera and you just want to make pictures.
 
The Sony A9 was a real game changer for me offering silent shooting with no compromises and blackout free high speed burst modes. I can take as many photos as I want without worrying about the shutter noise in quiet environments, I can track moving subjects easily since there's no blackout, the AF tracking is incredible and the high FPS allows me to get the exact timing I want. I've moved onto a Nikon Z8 now and it still amazes me how easy it is to get the shots I want, I have some great action shots of my first dog with my old 4/3 DSLRs but the low fps and limited AF meant it took a good number of shots to get the ones I was happy with.

There's still plenty of good uses for DSLRs though and some very good equipment can be had remarkably cheap, I still use an old D750 for flash work (since it works with the AF illuminator on the flash whereas the mirrorless cameras don't) and even still an old Sony RX1R which is quite basic now but still has great IQ for the size.
 
DrDerrick said:
When great DSLRs like the Nikon D850 are widely available at a fraction of the price of the newer mirrorless cameras, I don't understand why people are paying so much for these newer cameras. Yes the new lenses seem to be somewhat better than their older equivalents, and you need the new camera to use them, but other than that, really what's the point of them? Has anybody taken a picture with one that they couldn't have taken with a DSLR? So the question is why spend thousands on this new kit? A bit lighter, better IBIS, 20+ frames a second, shorter battery life ;)? Why? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
I have an excellent DSLR but it is too heavy to carry around more than a few metres. I thus use a modern Mirrorless for 90% of my photography. If I could not have used a high quality ML, I would have had to give up photography. The image quality is little different between them but the weight difference is 3 to 1.

Dave
 
Musicman said:
This

I bought into Sony FE mirrorless in 2013 so I could use my favourite Canon FD, Olympus and Contax manual focus lenses on 35mm full frame digital. I was not getting on with autofocus Canon EF DSLRs and wanted to go back to manual focus (yes, I had avoided autofocus on film for 20 years).

Far from being just the 'latest gadget', mirrorless provided a new lease of life for gear that I had been using since the early 1980s. It still does.

Advances in Sony's AF have finally tempted me to buy some native FE lenses in recent years and I am enjoying them too.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the exact route I took into mirrorless with the A7 over the 5D2. I think Alan might have done the same.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Some people just have to possess the latest gadgets...

...others just concentrate on taking pictures. That's life.
Click to expand...
Same with cars, even though the wife has a new 4x4, I'm happy driving round in my old Mercedes diesel, but some people prefer to have a new car, it doesn't bother me but I don't see a problem with other people wanting to do that.

I'll be the first to admit that I love new tech, and I tend to keep a haul of it, currently sitting on Canon R1, R3 and R5, Fuji GFX100 RF medium format, Hasselblad X2D II medium format and a plethora of lenses that would make an average accountant squirm :ROFLMAO: but I'd rather spend my money on something I enjoy. Do I need them, absolutely not, well the Canon kit yes as I shoot sports so the R1 and R3 are definitely needed, the company I freelance with for most sports won't take people with DSLRs anymore.

I don't need the Fuji or the Hasselblad though, but I certainly enjoy owning them and using them. I'm getting itchy trigger finger syndrome with the Hasselblad 35-100 :ROFLMAO:

I rarely drink and don't smoke, but have friends who love to go out every weekend and spend a fortune. That's what they choose to spend their hard earned on and good for them.

We're all different. :)
 
Let me give you an example of what mirrorless can do that DSLRs can't...last season I was shooting for a Premiere League football player at Liverpool, using my R1 I would take a picture of him when they come out of the tunnel to warm up, then go into the menu and set his face as 'priority'.

For the rest of the match, whenever there are multiple players in the shot, the AF will automatically lock on to him, so in a split second I am getting shots that the 5DV or 1DX wouldn't have allowed me to get.

Could I have shot this job with a DSLR, 100% yes, would it have been as easy, no.
So sometimes it's about making your life easier, especially for pro / paid jobs.
 
Depends what you want. The separate focus unit on DSLRs means the focus points are more in the middle (unless you go APSC) but the size of DSLR focus points is not limited by the size of the pixels. Bigger phase detection points work better in low light. So for fast moving people in the dark, the later pro DSLRs work better. Face detection and lots of processing through an EVF are all very nice but they take time. EVFs lag to. I tried several brands last year at a show and the only one which was not too laggy was a Nikon D6iii.

For slow things, where you can wait for the camera to collect a lot of light the mirrorless cameras have advantages.
 
Erty said:
Depends what you want. The separate focus unit on DSLRs means the focus points are more in the middle (unless you go APSC) but the size of DSLR focus points is not limited by the size of the pixels. Bigger phase detection points work better in low light. So for fast moving people in the dark, the later pro DSLRs work better. Face detection and lots of processing through an EVF are all very nice but they take time. EVFs lag to. I tried several brands last year at a show and the only one which was not too laggy was a Nikon D6iii.

For slow things, where you can wait for the camera to collect a lot of light the mirrorless cameras have advantages.
Click to expand...
You've never used an R1 then
 
Erty said:
Bigger phase detection points work better in low light. So for fast moving people in the dark, the later pro DSLRs work better.

For slow things, where you can wait for the camera to collect a lot of light the mirrorless cameras have advantages.
Click to expand...
I was thinking about this comment last night and I've got to admit, in my opinion this is completely wrong.

Let's take the best DSLR available right now, which is the Nikon D850, it has AF sensitivity down to -4EV. It has 153 focus points, of which only 99 are cross type for increased accuracy.

The Canon R1 has AF sensitivity down to -7.5EV, this isn't 'close', it's almost twice as good, and it has 4,897 manually selectable focus points.
Even the Canon R3 which can be picked up for a decent price now has AF sensitivity down to -7.5EV, with 4,779 auto focus points.
My original R5 which I bought in 2019 has AF sensitivity down to -6EV, with 5,940 auto focus points.

So I'm really struggling to accept that any DSLR is better in low light conditions, even fast moving conditions.

"Mirrorless cameras use hybrid systems (phase and contrast detection) across the entire sensor, making them much faster at tracking subjects, including eye-detection, in low light compared to the limited, center-focused points of a DSLR"

I'm not saying DSLRs are no good, they're extremely capable cameras and I'm sure a lot of people use them with no issues, but you can't state the newer advanced tech in mirrorless bodies (and the AI available to manufacturers now gives them an insane advantage) is not better.

And on your final sentence, there is nothing slow about mirrorless bodies. So I'm not sure what or how you were testing. :)
 
The AF is a game changer.

I’m not an early adopter either, my first AF SLR was replaced with digital within a couple of years.

But from the moment I borrowed an R6 I knew I could never go back, it made the focus on my DSLR feel like an idea that hadn’t quite worked. It’s like it reads my mind, it knows I want to keep focus on the nearest eye and tries its damnedest to help me do that. No matter where in the frame.

But most of what I shoot moves, and I appreciate that’s not the same for everyone.
 
Auto focus is so much better on a mirrorless....if you never used one....you know in all those Sci Fi movies where they watch surveillance videos and when people walk in a corridor, there is a box that hovers over their faces?

This happens in am mirrorless and where it focuses, and the box follows the person as they move in the frame. You can even sweep your camera around and it tracks.

It's like the future! but has been here for like a decade!
 
rd6743 said:
I big part of it for me to swtich from D610m to mirrorless was the weight saving. Hiking around mountains and hunting wildlife (with camera, spot and stalk) having the extra weight of the DSLR and the bigger lens makes a big different over time and distance.
Click to expand...
it all depends on the type of shooting you do. there are many features available in the mirrorless era like subject detection, being able to power the camera from external power sources power banks via USBc etc that have shifted the balance of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top