What's the point of mirrorless cameras?

[Phil V]

You've never used an R1 then

And even if we’re not talking ‘high end’ the same is true, the 6d had terrible AF by most measures, but the single cross type centre focus point was highly regarded for being able to see in the dark.

But the R6 mk1, is just as good in low light, but add to the low light focus accuracy, its now all over the sensor, and it’s intelligent so can face detect etc.

Honestly I can’t think how @Erty could possibly think DSLR’s beat mirrorless at focussing in low light.

 

[Erty]

You've never used an R1 then

A R1 costs seven times as much as the used D5 I bought recently.

Most people haven't tried shooting people doing this sort of thing:

View: https://youtu.be/UfWA4ClPnxk?si=3gtqJ5YwxmvG93iS


This is a well lit competition. The social dance version is done on a dark dance floor full of people. It is mostly a bit slower but it depends upon the music. It is often lit by fairy lights strung on the walls (I hate fairy lights) or random spot lights.

 

[jamesev]

A R1 costs seven times as much as the used D5 I bought recently.

Most people haven't tried shooting people doing this sort of thing:


This is a well lit competition. The social dance version is done on a dark dance floor full of people. It is mostly a bit slower but it depends upon the music. It is often lit by fairy lights strung on the walls (I hate fairy lights) or random spot lights.

Not really comparing apples if you compare new to used. Plus DSLRs will be cheaper as they are the outgoing technology so there will be more being "offloaded"

 

[Erty]

Not really comparing apples if you compare new to used. Plus DSLRs will be cheaper as they are the outgoing technology so there will be more being "offloaded"

The only used R1s available look like almost new, ex-demo models on MPB at over five times the price.

 

[A_S]

The only used R1s available look like almost new, ex-demo models on MPB at over five times the price.

I am not a nikon user but a quick google:

D5 price new: 5,199.99
released in: 2016
Inflated to today's prices: 7,226.69

Wex currently retail the R1 for around £6,800...

SO when the D5 was a current camera it was more expensive than the R1. So your logic that its "7 times" more expensive is rubbish when you compare on a L4L basis.

Added to the fact that looking on MPB there are 10x more D5s than R1s so scarcity or lack of it in the case of the D5 will impact the price they can charge...

 

[LCPete]

Interesting thread and as already said it depends on what you shoot but for anything that moves mirrorless is on another level
Yes you can track moving animals and birds with a DLSR but with eye detect on mirrorless it makes composition much easier

 

[Hanley]

A R1 costs seven times as much as the used D5 I bought recently.

Most people haven't tried shooting people doing this sort of thing:

View: https://youtu.be/UfWA4ClPnxk?si=3gtqJ5YwxmvG93iS


This is a well lit competition. The social dance version is done on a dark dance floor full of people. It is mostly a bit slower but it depends upon the music. It is often lit by fairy lights strung on the walls (I hate fairy lights) or random spot lights.

If low light and action is required then the R1 is what you need, I posted a picture on here in the last few weeks, a Hyrox event I was shooting, they'd turned down the lights on the Friday evening and my ISO was pushed to 51,200 and the image was very well useable, incredible really

 

[Ed Sutton]

I thought the main point of mirrorless cameras is that they are cheaper to produce than DSLRs but can be sold for the same money.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Taken with my twenty year old mirrorless camera - a Nikon S10...

 

[Faldrax]

I thought the main point of mirrorless cameras is that they are cheaper to produce than DSLRs but can be sold for the same more money.

Corrected it for you

 

[TimHughes]

A R1 costs seven times as much as the used D5 I bought recently.

Most people haven't tried shooting people doing this sort of thing:

View: https://youtu.be/UfWA4ClPnxk?si=3gtqJ5YwxmvG93iS


This is a well lit competition. The social dance version is done on a dark dance floor full of people. It is mostly a bit slower but it depends upon the music. It is often lit by fairy lights strung on the walls (I hate fairy lights) or random spot lights.

The AF on the R1 is so good you could have a camera shooting on remote for something like this, and R5 is not too bad either, opening up new possibilities.

 

[woof woof]

Interesting thread and as already said it depends on what you shoot but for anything that moves mirrorless is on another level
Yes you can track moving animals and birds with a DLSR but with eye detect on mirrorless it makes composition much easier

I think mirrorless moves the game on for more than moving subjects. I rarely take pictures of moving things but mirrorless still have the following advantages for me - wysiwyg and the ability for focus anywhere in the frame with eye detect. This gives great compositional freedom which you really can't match with a DSLR. With a DSLR you can focus and recompose but do that at your plane of focus is where? It's something you may get away with at smaller apertures and if not looking too closely I suppose. I'd only go back to a DSLR with a gun to my head and even then I'd ask for a moment to think about it but really there's no need to when you can get a Panasonic G1 body for £60 or less.

 

[thedistrictline]

Currently lusting after a grey market d850 and this thread is keeping my head in check. The Z8 is only £500 more even and I don't need either

 

[rd6743]

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.

Am not sure on your meaning there.

My OM1 and 300mm F4 weighs a lot less than the D610 and the 150-600 sigma.

I've not felt the need for a power bank.

 

[droj]

Why? I just don't get it.

As said, much depends on what you want to do. For me, it centres around the particular legacy manual lenses that I want to use, and they can be physically adapted to a mirrorless body, but not generally to a DSLR one. I might not be using many of the up-to-date functions of mirrorless bodies like eye-tracking, but I am using other functions such as WYSIWYG exposure rendition in the EVF, IBIS, and more. And a modern 5760k-dot OLED EVF can at last rival an optical viewfinder in clarity - which makes everything pleasurable.

Yes, I can handle a DSLR, but the lens choice (see above) is curtailed, and crucially, exposure compensation is by guesswork (I could never be arsed with chimping after the event), even though my guesswork is pretty good ...

So there you have it - let the Luddites Luddite on ...

But in the end its about the images, not the gear, and the history of photography bears this out - there are visionary examples from all its eras.

Choose your own path, but don't agonise about stuff. We're here to participate in the world we're in, & hopefully make something positive out of it.

 

[droj]

the new lenses seem to be somewhat better than their older equivalents

I think that you should define your terms here as to what 'better' means. Because there's a technical approach and there's an emotional one, and in human terms the first can be sterile and the second fulfilling.

 

[ancient_mariner]

To be honest, this thread looks to have been started to cause an argument. To put it politely, there seems to be a lack of understanding and knowledge on the part of @DrDerrick.

Use the camera that works for you. If the pictures of a 20 year old compact please you then fine.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Use the camera that works for you. If the pictures of a 20 year old compact please you then fine.

Thank you.

That was exactly the point I wanted to make.

 

[stumac]

If you have to ask then you don't need one and for everyone that has one they can enjoy the benefits

 

[LeeRatters]

To be honest, this thread looks to have been started to cause an argument.

I'd rather shoot film than a DSLR

 

[droj]

If you have to ask then you don't need one and for everyone that has one they can enjoy the benefits

Quite! But sometimes you have to get one to find out. ;-)

 

[stumac]

Quite! But sometimes you have to get one to find out. ;-)

I think he's made up his mind that he won't be getting one to find out

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'd rather shoot film than a DSLR

I can do that too, but it's just less hassle to use digital and I don't find film brings anything special to my photography. In many ways the results I get with my 8YO Sony A7 are what I wanted when I shot medium format in the 80s.

 

[droj]

I'd rather shoot film than a DSLR

Room here for cranky old geezers like you, too ... ;-)

 

[LeeRatters]

I can do that too, but it's just less hassle to use digital and I don't find film brings anything special to my photography. In many ways the results I get with my 8YO Sony A7 are what I wanted when I shot medium format in the 80s.

Room here for cranky old geezers like you, too ... ;-)

My comment was actually fairly serious

The A7Riii (with the GM primes esp) does virtually everything I ask of it - heck, even the A7 isn't too bad aside from (mainly) the AF differences. Pop the Voigtlander 40/1.2 (or 35GM) on it & it is beautiful. But as I hinted at, I wouldn't go back to a DSLR now - no chance. Even the 135L for Canon wouldn't tempt me anymore..... I would find shooting film more enjoyable than a DSLR.

 

[DrDerrick]

To be honest, this thread looks to have been started to cause an argument. To put it politely, there seems to be a lack of understanding and knowledge on the part of @DrDerrick.

Use the camera that works for you. If the pictures of a 20 year old compact please you then fine.

To put it politely, that's a rather a disappointing take on my post! All I was trying to get at was for people to say why they think mirrorless cameras are worth the money when they have quite likely already invested a lot of money in DSLRs - what's the attraction? Quite why you think it was intended to cause an argument escapes me, unless you think comparing the relative merits of DSLRs and ML cameras is too provocative a topic. Anyway, I'm glad to see no argument was provoked and a very interesting discussion on the many merits of ML cameras was had, which I thought was one of the purposes of this group - to help those of us that "lack understanding and knowledge".

 

[Plain Nev]

I suppose, when it comes down to it, the benefits of mirrorless are economic as much as anything. From the manufacturers point of view they are probably cheaper to produce, and the real gains arguably come from the electronic side of things. And of course that translates as less bulk for us to haul around. Although, you can come unstuck on the lenses.

 

[ancient_mariner]

To put it politely, that's a rather a disappointing take on my post! All I was trying to get at was for people to say why they think mirrorless cameras are worth the money when they have quite likely already invested a lot of money in DSLRs - what's the attraction? Quite why you think it was intended to cause an argument escapes me, unless you think comparing the relative merits of DSLRs and ML cameras is too provocative a topic. Anyway, I'm glad to see no argument was provoked and a very interesting discussion on the many merits of ML cameras was had, which I thought was one of the purposes of this group - to help those of us that "lack understanding and knowledge".

I commented that way because the original post came over as provocative (why are you wasting money on mirrorless - what's the point of them?):

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.

My apologies if I misunderstood your intention.

 

[woof woof]

To put it politely, that's a rather a disappointing take on my post! All I was trying to get at was for people to say why they think mirrorless cameras are worth the money when they have quite likely already invested a lot of money in DSLRs - what's the attraction? Quite why you think it was intended to cause an argument escapes me, unless you think comparing the relative merits of DSLRs and ML cameras is too provocative a topic. Anyway, I'm glad to see no argument was provoked and a very interesting discussion on the many merits of ML cameras was had, which I thought was one of the purposes of this group - to help those of us that "lack understanding and knowledge".

OK. A more serious reply from me and just in case this hasn't been said already, sorry if it has but I haven't read the whole thread... Have you taken inflation into account? Today DSLR's may be cheap as they're dying out but look back in time and adjusting the prices back than for inflation might be interesting.

I would hate to go back to a DSLR as I hated the bulk and weight and if you chose carefully a mirrorless set up can be much smaller and lighter than a DSLR. I remember when I took my Panasonic G1 and kit lens out instead of my Canon 5D and the wight difference was so noticeable that I had to keep checking the bag to see if it was still in there. That Panasonic although primitive and limited by todays standards gave my 5D a real scare in some situations and proved to me that mirrorless was the way forward. When the FF Sony A7 was announced I ordered one and it just crushed anything I'd had before for image quality and it was smaller than those hated bloated DSLR's. I kept that A7 for a long time and it was eventually replaced by an A7III and more recently by an A7cII. These more recent cameras move IQ on but also move AF on too especially the A7cII.

Just the full frame focus coverage (and remember that the focus is much more consistent with mirrorless than with DSLR's and there's no micro adjust faff on) and the eye or even just face detect make mirrorless worth it for me. I really can not see any situation in which a DSLR would offer any advantage over a mirrorless camera for me.

 

[woof woof]

I suppose, when it comes down to it, the benefits of mirrorless are economic as much as anything. From the manufacturers point of view they are probably cheaper to produce, and the real gains arguably come from the electronic side of things. And of course that translates as less bulk for us to haul around. Although, you can come unstuck on the lenses.

I think if we remember that many of the larger lenses are so much better than DSLR lenses the size becomes understandable. I like compact kit and I'd like to see more compact lenses which are just good enough rather than SOTA but there are good compact mirrorless lenses out there. I have the Sony 35mm f2.8, G 24mm f2.8 and 40mm f2.5 and even the 28mm f2 and 35 and 55mm f1.8's are I suppose reasonably sized and all of these are optically much better than any lens I had in my DSLR days.

Once you get into the higher end AF f1.2's and even some AF f1.4 lenses the size goes up but so does the optical quality and I don't think you'd get all that sharpness and smooth bokeh out of a smaller lens as those extra and special glass elements have to be in there adding to the size and weight and the cost too.

 

[Phil V]

All I was trying to get at was for people to say why they think mirrorless cameras are worth the money when they have quite likely already invested a lot of money in DSLRs

But your post and viewpoint was based on a false narrative.

Why buy a mirrorless when you already have a DSLR?
People have been renewing or upgrading their cameras forever. If mirrorless didn’t exist, they’d have bought a new DSLR.

And mirrorless aren’t ’more expensive’ compared to older cameras. New cameras are more expensive than 2nd hand ones.

The comparison of the launch prices of the Nikon cameras you mentioned proves that mirrorless cameras are actually cheaper. But if you’re only in the market for a 5 yr old s/h bargain, you’re not likely to see that come to fruition yet for the flagship models.

 

[woof woof]

One last post from me, three pictures all of Mrs WW hopefully making a point.

This was taken with a 55mm lens at f1.8. f1.8 is I think a wide enough aperture at this distance to show any shift in the plane of focus caused by focusing and reframing but of course there is none of that here as the eye detect works just about anywhere in the frame and although you may not be able to see it here the focus has hit her eye and will do so pretty much every time... conditions allowing.



This was taken with the camera held low to the ground with me doing the framing by looking down at the screen which was out to the side and pointing up. The camera managed to recognise a squirrel and has placed focus on its eye.



This last picture is I suppose nothing special AF wise as it was taken with a cheap film era manual focus lens. I include it here as one advantage of mirrorless cameras over DSLR's is that you can fit almost anything to them and manually focus very accurately if you have to time to do so.



For these and other reasons I like mirrorless cameras much more than DSLR's... but the choice is for each of us to make.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

.... (why are you wasting money on mirrorless - what's the point of them?):

Similar discussions surfaced from time to time, in the letter columns of photographic magazines.

"Why would you carry a heavy single lens reflex when a lighter rangefinder camera is available?" was one that I remember from the mid 1960s. Personally, I used both...