Why hasn't mirroless taken over?

[Phil V]

Well you've blown me away and exposed my complete ignorance. I never imagined an experienced photographer would use one of those.

The problem for us novices is the lack of understanding, when I watch You Tube reviews of cameras like that, there's always negatives about them, and you feel you have to look higher, but perhaps the nit picking in the reviews masks the fact that they still take great photos. It's a minefield when you're starting out.

Well you’re a newbie; I need to tell you that cameras don’t take photos. Photographers do.

And a five year old mirrorless camera could be a better picture taking machine than anything available in the last century.

Now if you think of all of the great photos of the 20th century, you’ll realise how irrelevant those YouTubers are.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I was comparing Mirrorless

I think that needs qualification.

How many dSLRs have been produced to date? How many non-dSLRs have been produced to date? Without such numbers I don't think that claim can stand up.

I was comparing Mirrorless to DSLR, I was not adding in Compacts, which are like stars in the sky, but also falling in numbers.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

FWIW I normally leave the camera off until I see a shot I want to take.

As do I.
I do not turn on or lift the camera to my Eye, until I have identified a potential picture and chosen and moved to a suitable viewpoint.
I then might have to wait for the light or for things to start to come together.
Some where in all of that, will be the right time to turn on the camera check the settings and frame the image.
I worked the same way before cameras had batteries.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I was comparing Mirrorless

But as the old saw puts it: "if you don't say what you mean you can't mean what you say"!

 

[sphexx]

As do I.
I do not turn on or lift the camera to my Eye, until I have identified a potential picture and chosen and moved to a suitable viewpoint.
I then might have to wait for the light or for things to start to come together.
Some where in all of that, will be the right time to turn on the camera check the settings and frame the image.
I worked the same way before cameras had batteries.

Before Andrew jumps in … How did you “turn on” those cameras without batteries?

Possibly wind on or cock the shutter or both but not turn on.

 

[THIRTYFIVEMILL]

Well you’re a newbie; I need to tell you that cameras don’t take photos. Photographers do.

And a five year old mirrorless camera could be a better picture taking machine than anything available in the last century.

Now if you think of all of the great photos of the 20th century, you’ll realise how irrelevant those YouTubers are.

Agreed. I remember being stunned by some of the work a friend of mine, Bjorn Rorslett, produced with a Nikon D1 when it came out and I'm still in awe of them. That's also why I recently purchased another D700.

 

[steveb]

Even though Mirrorless are such great light weight cameras, some folk still love using their DSLR as the image quality is still great. Mirrorless are great in the IQ to but a lot lighter to carry about.

I use 2 D750's, and they currently almost do everything I require. If one failed I would buy another used. If I came into the money then I would go for the Sony A7S III and a second body with a bigger sensor. The 12mp sensor in the A7S III is good in low light, and I can live with it as I often resize images to 3000 or 4000 pixels on the longest side. It would have to be a large amount I'd come into, as with lenses they would never pay for themselves.

​

 

[Crotal Bell]

I wouldn't describe myself as an experienced photographer Keith, I'm very much a happy snapper and definitely nothing more.

PS.
When I had the Canon 5D I thought I'd never want a better camera but image quality and higher ISO ability has moved on and these days I believe that the Micro Four Thirds cameras I have, GX80, GX9 and GM5, give better image quality than my old 5D and even the 5DII that someone shot my wedding with. MFT isn't for everyone and my Sony A7 gives better image quality but I wouldn't write off the likes of the GX80 as kit like that will be easily good enough for lots of people a lot of the time and indeed there used to be a lady on this site who shot professionally (weddings, maybe more) with MFT. I don't know if she's still here today.

Here she is talking about kit...

Is Micro Four Thirds still a Popular Professional System in 2022? — West Sussex Portrait Photographer

When I changed from Canon DSLRs to Micro Four Thirds several years ago the relief of the small size and weight was life changing. But as the years have rolled on we’ve seen the emergence of mirrorless systems from a raft of manufacturers - so, have I given up on Micro Four Thirds?

www.lindsaydobsonphotography.com

That was very interesting. My favourite photography is wildlife, and there lies the problem. She uses a GX for wildlife but the lens choice is Lieca 100-400 and from a quick look it's £800.oo second hand The GX80 looks very impressive, as does the GX8. I would would that the GX80 is a bit small and fiddly for me.

 

[woof woof]

That was very interesting. My favourite photography is wildlife, and there lies the problem. She uses a GX for wildlife but the lens choice is Lieca 100-400 and from a quick look it's £800.oo second hand The GX80 looks very impressive, as does the GX8. I would would that the GX80 is a bit small and fiddly for me.

I like the GX80 but the GX9 may be a better camera as it has a different sensor, more physical controls and auto ISO with the ability to dial in exposure compensation in manual exposure mode and it also has a tilting EVF. I tend to use the GX80 more in a sort of act of inverse snobbery as I like the under dog

I have a Panasonic 100-400mm and it's a good lens but the aperture range could be limiting (because it can give rougher looking bokeh and the ISO may need to rise) but giving it a wider aperture would have made it bigger and heavier and more expensive. I've used it on both my GX9 and GX80 and found the handling acceptable.

Personally I wouldn't touch the GX8 without a lot of thought as sadly it can be affected by the dreaded shutter shock issue which can manifest when using the mechanical shutter with susceptible lenses in the affected shutter speed range. I've had two Panasonic cameras which displayed this issue and I just will not consider another and I wouldn't recommend these cameras unless the buyer knows about the issue and is convinced it wont be a problem for them.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Before Andrew jumps in … How did you “turn on” those cameras without batteries?

Possibly wind on or cock the shutter or both but not turn on.

absolutely. But they certainly turned me on.

 

[Sangoma]

That was very interesting. My favourite photography is wildlife, and there lies the problem. She uses a GX for wildlife but the lens choice is Lieca 100-400 and from a quick look it's £800.oo second hand The GX80 looks very impressive, as does the GX8. I would would that the GX80 is a bit small and fiddly for me.

Doing a quick comparison, you could substitute the G80 for the GX80, and the G9 for the GX8, and you would have a larger body that could well feel more comfortable for you.

You can get a 100-300 lens for much less, and many people are happy with that.

If you can get a 100-400 for £800, you are very lucky, or it is it is not a good example.

The 100-300 is also much easier to use than the 100-400 for some one starting out. Beautifully light, and things don't run/fly out of the frame quite so quickly.

The G80 is very nice to use, and often the difference between the G80 MP and the G9 MP is not noticeable.

If you buy online, always ask for the shutter count, and if you don't get an answer, avoid it. Also be realistic about what count you think is acceptable though. I wouldn't suggest anything over 50% of the expected life, though I am not reasonable in that respect and would not buy anything over 5% of expected life.

On Panasonics, also ask for the power cycle count (it is displayed on the same screen as the shutter count) as they are very good for video, and may have been used heavily for video but have a low shutter count, as the electronic shutter or video does not increment the shutter count.

I found dpreview.com to be useful when making comparisons and looking at reasonably objective reviews.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I like the GX80 but the GX9 may be a better camera as it has a different sensor, more physical controls and auto ISO with the ability to dial in exposure compensation in manual exposure mode and it also has a tilting EVF. I tend to use the GX80 more in a sort of act of inverse snobbery as I like the under dog

I have a Panasonic 100-400mm and it's a good lens but the aperture range could be limiting (because it can give rougher looking bokeh and the ISO may need to rise) but giving it a wider aperture would have made it bigger and heavier and more expensive. I've used it on both my GX9 and GX80 and found the handling acceptable.

Personally I wouldn't touch the GX8 without a lot of thought as sadly it can be affected by the dreaded shutter shock issue which can manifest when using the mechanical shutter with susceptible lenses in the affected shutter speed range. I've had two Panasonic cameras which displayed this issue and I just will not consider another and I wouldn't recommend these cameras unless the buyer knows about the issue and is convinced it wont be a problem for them.

That's the thing here though isn't it, with every camera there's another one to consider, and another price rise to consider, it can go on and on. That's why I chose a budget bridge camera to be realistic about what I can afford, and I think for zoom work I will have to put up with that. DSLR and Mirrorless zoom lenses are just too expensive for me.

But at some point it would be nice to add a capable DSLR or mirrorless for general photos. The GX80 does look nice, if a bit small for my liking.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Doing a quick comparison, you could substitute the G80 for the GX80, and the G9 for the GX8, and you would have a larger body that could well feel more comfortable for you.

You can get a 100-300 lens for much less, and many people are happy with that.

If you can get a 100-400 for £800, you are very lucky, or it is it is not a good example.

The 100-300 is also much easier to use than the 100-400 for some one starting out. Beautifully light, and things don't run/fly out of the frame quite so quickly.

The G80 is very nice to use, and often the difference between the G80 MP and the G9 MP is not noticeable.

If you buy online, always ask for the shutter count, and if you don't get an answer, avoid it. Also be realistic about what count you think is acceptable though. I wouldn't suggest anything over 50% of the expected life, though I am not reasonable in that respect and would not buy anything over 5% of expected life.

On Panasonics, also ask for the power cycle count (it is displayed on the same screen as the shutter count) as they are very good for video, and may have been used heavily for video but have a low shutter count, as the electronic shutter or video does not increment the shutter count.

I found dpreview.com to be useful when making comparisons and looking at reasonably objective reviews.

That's great advice, thanks mate.

 

[woof woof]

That's the thing here though isn't it, with every camera there's another one to consider, and another price rise to consider, it can go on and on. That's why I chose a budget bridge camera to be realistic about what I can afford, and I think for zoom work I will have to put up with that. DSLR and Mirrorless zoom lenses are just too expensive for me.

But at some point it would be nice to add a capable DSLR or mirrorless for general photos. The GX80 does look nice, if a bit small for my liking.

Unfortunately if you want to do something that pushes the envelope the costs go up. For example long lenses and the very best focus systems, they put the costs up as does shallow DoF and good high ISO performance. If you only take shots of static or slow moving things life gets a lot easier and cheaper.

 

[the black fox]

Funnily enough I have just returned from shooting a jubilee street party ( family heavily involved ) so not a paid job ..
At one point there was a stack of tin cans set up to have small cushions thrown at them . I used the wife’s Panasonic fz1000mkii and got a sequence of shots with the cushion in flight ,then hitting ,then cans falling .. hopefully publish later but stunning performance from a bridge camera

 

[A_S]

Going back to the original question as we seem to have diviated a bit...

Why hasn't mirrorless taken off? in what context? what are your expectations?

To put it simply mirrorless is new within the last 5 years and really comparible with DSLRs for maybe 3 or so in terms of some of the major manufactors in whose systems most people are invested.

I'd hazard a guess that most people with any sense don't upgrade their expensive equipment every 3/5 years, so it won't "take off" until people get to the point they need to replace their current camera.

For example my "history" with digital SLRs/Mirrorless is:

2004: EOS 20D
2012: EOS 7D
2021: EOS R5

The only reason I upgraded to the R5 was because the 7D had run its course and was due an upgrade as I now take more landscapes and low light long exposure photos for which full frame and sensor technology has moved on conciderably since the 7d (and it wasn't really suitable for that back in 2012). I wouldn't be expecting to upgrade the R5 for another 5-10 years at least and all my lenses (with the exception of a Laowa manual lens bought last year) are 10-15 years old and I see no point replacing them either unless I have a specific need. I certainly won't be replacing them for a newer equivelent.

 

[Dale.]

Going back to the original question as we seem to have diviated a bit...

We certainly have deviated.

To remind those that have gone off track, the title says "Why hasn't mirroless taken over?"


Hopefully, that's all from me here.

 

[stuartm1]

For me the main reason mirrorless hasn't completely taken over is mainly due to Canon and Nikon not taking it seriously until 2-3 years ago.

Both these manufacturers dominated the DSLR market share for the past 15 years and staunchly ignored the idea that mirrorless could be the future. Perhaps it was Sony's growing market share or a realisation of the technological advantages with mirrorless that gave Canon/Nikon their "Eureka" moment. Either way, both have been playing catch up ever since and I'd say it's only in the last 6-12 months they've caught up with mirrorless tech and established a completely new wide range of lenses.

Now that Canon and Nikon are throwing all their resources into mirrorless, not offering the consumer any new DSLR's and are gradually discontinuing their DSLR products, anyone after a new camera will have very little option but to buy mirrorless.

Personally I love mirrorless, mainly for the EVF and no longer having front/back focus issues, but I wouldn't say it produces better IQ than a DSLR.

 

[Phil V]

The answer is that it has.

Using photographers on this site as your sample is an invalid method of research. New camera sales stats are the only question that matters. And my guess is that mirrorless sales are double DSLR sales at least.

We’re simply in a changeover period, most photographers are still shooting with DSLR’s because as above, lifecycles are quite long.

I’m somewhere between the gear addicts and the slower adopters, bought my first DSLR in 2003, then 2004, 2007,2010, then 2014 for the 6d. (Bought more than that but they were the significant changes)

I bought an M5 a few years ago to use alongside DSLRs, but that kits for sale now, as will be some of the cameras listed above. The reason I am moving across to the R is down to a massive downsizing of kit as I stopped shooting weddings a couple of years ago.

 

[Sangoma]

Going back to the original question as we seem to have diviated a bit...

Why hasn't mirrorless taken off? in what context? what are your expectations?

To put it simply mirrorless is new within the last 5 years and really comparible with DSLRs for maybe 3 or so in terms of some of the major manufactors in whose systems most people are invested.

I'd hazard a guess that most people with any sense don't upgrade their expensive equipment every 3/5 years, so it won't "take off" until people get to the point they need to replace their current camera.

For example my "history" with digital SLRs/Mirrorless is:

2004: EOS 20D
2012: EOS 7D
2021: EOS R5

The only reason I upgraded to the R5 was because the 7D had run its course and was due an upgrade as I now take more landscapes and low light long exposure photos for which full frame and sensor technology has moved on conciderably since the 7d (and it wasn't really suitable for that back in 2012). I wouldn't be expecting to upgrade the R5 for another 5-10 years at least and all my lenses (with the exception of a Laowa manual lens bought last year) are 10-15 years old and I see no point replacing them either unless I have a specific need. I certainly won't be replacing them for a newer equivelent.

I agree that the thread has deviated from the original question, apologies for contributing to the drift, I read the context of the original question as the OP trying to decide what to get, which seemed to prevail with his later comments.


However, back to the original

I'm a bit puzzled by "To put it simply mirrorless is new within the last 5 years" as the G1 was released about 14 years ago, and the G2 with a touch screen about 10 years ago, the Sony NEX about the same and the Olympus PEN about a year later. The G2 introduced many of the features now taken for granted on mirrorless, refined by the small body with EVF of the G3 around the same time but with the 16MB sensor. The G5 brought in a new sensor and electronic shutter, still in a small body, and the G80 in body stabilisation in 2016.

Please correct my history and times if they are miles out, however it seems to be far longer than 5 years, and all the manufacturers mentioned have had a line of development for 10 years or more.

I think the lack of mirrorless not taking of is more down to the sensor format and the lack of acceptance that 4/3rds could give good results, I had an e510 in 2008, and looking back at photos I see that it generally gave as good results as the "better" Pentax cameras I replaced it with, a move which was motivated by the common comment that the format just couldn't give as good results.
In the last few years, as more people actually try the format, and discover that in most instances it is as good as what they want, plus find the features of mirrorless are the way to go, that now manufacturers are looking at mirrorless in other formats.
Add the economic advantages, and the advances in EVF quality, it is reasonable to expect it is the way most will go in future

 

[bovey9]

I switch from Canon 1dx and 5d MK4 to Sony A9 and A7iv and one of the main reason was weight. If i'm honest I think I failed as I now carry more lenses than ever before. The ability to track a brides eye walking down the aisle at f1.4 is amazing so I carry a couple of very fast primes. With my DSLR F2.8 was wide enough so my excellent zooms did the trick.

 

[delb0y]

I doubt we're going to get a definitive answer, but it's an interesting discussion.

My gut feeling is that for the average Jane or Joe, smartphones are all that they need - or want - these days. In fact many of the images that (non photographer) people I know take on their phones are so good I frequently call into question why I need a small carry-round camera at all (answer - I don't like screen glare and I prefer the handling of a camera).

The next group of people are those who have a "proper" camera but who still aren't enthusiasts (i.e. don't come on sites like this). All of those that I know - my brother in law, my father in law, many tech-savvy but non-photo-savvy friends - have low end, few years old, DSLRs. They think they have all they need (and, indeed they do) and they probably haven't even ever considered mirrorless, or even know what mirrorless is. There are an awful lot of these people and their cameras will probably out last them.

Then there are folks like me, hobbyists without much money. My cameras all tend to be pretty good cameras from those available about six to ten years ago. I confess I prefer mirrorless, but my most recent camera purchase was a D700 because I wanted to finally experience full frame, and that was the only affordable way of doing so. The D700 is great, and weight aside is probably all I'll ever need, That said, I tend to use a Lumix G80 as my main camera, and though bits keep falling off it, it still keeps going. Those like me won't be buying the latest mirrorless for many years to come until today's essential kit becomes tomorrows no-longer-good-enough and thus becomes affordable; or our existing kit slowly breaks down (and most camera gear seems pretty resilient). So the full mirrorless takeover will have to wait.

Lastly, there are those who for whatever reason are early adopters - maybe professionals who need the latest and greatest - and I suspect for them the change to mirrorless has probably happened. But in overall numbers, I imagine they make up a tiny percentage of the photograph-taking population.

Derek

 

[Craikeybaby]

I think that DSLR's have still got the mindshare amongst non-photographers. The new DSLR models coming out all seem to be at the lower end, as a "DSLR" is what people think that they need to take "pro" looking photos. Whereas I think at the enthusiast and above levels mirrorless is taking over, as people buy new kit.

 

[A_S]

I agree that the thread has deviated from the original question, apologies for contributing to the drift, I read the context of the original question as the OP trying to decide what to get, which seemed to prevail with his later comments.


However, back to the original

I'm a bit puzzled by "To put it simply mirrorless is new within the last 5 years" as the G1 was released about 14 years ago, and the G2 with a touch screen about 10 years ago, the Sony NEX about the same and the Olympus PEN about a year later. The G2 introduced many of the features now taken for granted on mirrorless, refined by the small body with EVF of the G3 around the same time but with the 16MB sensor. The G5 brought in a new sensor and electronic shutter, still in a small body, and the G80 in body stabilisation in 2016.

Please correct my history and times if they are miles out, however it seems to be far longer than 5 years, and all the manufacturers mentioned have had a line of development for 10 years or more.

I think the lack of mirrorless not taking of is more down to the sensor format and the lack of acceptance that 4/3rds could give good results, I had an e510 in 2008, and looking back at photos I see that it generally gave as good results as the "better" Pentax cameras I replaced it with, a move which was motivated by the common comment that the format just couldn't give as good results.
In the last few years, as more people actually try the format, and discover that in most instances it is as good as what they want, plus find the features of mirrorless are the way to go, that now manufacturers are looking at mirrorless in other formats.
Add the economic advantages, and the advances in EVF quality, it is reasonable to expect it is the way most will go in future

It was more of a generalisation really. I felt mirrorless came into its own around the time that Sony, fuji and Olympus releases their slr equivalent systems around 5 years ago, it could be more it could be less I’m no expert on the timelines it was a gut feel that it was around 5 years ago.

 

[Phil V]

I think that DSLR's have still got the mindshare amongst non-photographers. The new DSLR models coming out all seem to be at the lower end, as a "DSLR" is what people think that they need to take "pro" looking photos. Whereas I think at the enthusiast and above levels mirrorless is taking over, as people buy new kit.

Right at the end of the move to digital, it was only entry level film SLRs being released.

I suppose all this is obvious to us old folks who’ve lived through it before.

 

[Deleted member 95736]

Whereas I think at the enthusiast and above levels mirrorless is taking over, as people buy new kit.

There isn't a choice now. Who is still releasing DSLR's besides Pentax's excellent K3 iii. There's still some in production but more and more are going end of life and nothing new is going to come through after them.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Been doing some research, pros and cons. It seems the pros outweigh the cons these days?

Exactly because of that. There are cons, big cons and to top it off there exorbitant price all in exchange for finally usable 4k+ video.
The really good one costs like £5k. That's Sony A1 and it needs all new lenses. That's tens of thousands of pounds. Let me think why I still haven't switched. Hmmmm

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Why would you buy a Nikon D3500 when Canon M50 MkII mirroless costs just a smidge more?

I would not buy either. I couldn't see a reason to buy anything like that at all

 

[LongLensPhotography]

It was more of a generalisation really. I felt mirrorless came into its own around the time that Sony, fuji and Olympus releases their slr equivalent systems around 5 years ago, it could be more it could be less I’m no expert on the timelines it was a gut feel that it was around 5 years ago.

They are barely getting adequate today. A1 maybe, z9 still on crappy very low Res evf despite having great other spec. Canon don't even get me started with that plastic fantastic joke ... I mean the RF lenses specifically

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I'm a bit puzzled by "To put it simply mirrorless is new within the last 5 years" as the G1 was released about 14 years ago, and the G2 with a touch screen about 10 years ago, the Sony NEX about the same and the Olympus PEN about a year later.

Me too.

It's easy for anyone to look up the facts and figures before posting on a forum, so I wonder why so few people seem to do so.

 

[woof woof]

They are barely getting adequate today. A1 maybe, z9 still on crappy very low Res evf despite having great other spec. Canon don't even get me started with that plastic fantastic joke ... I mean the RF lenses specifically

I find this comment nothing short of amazing unless you're commenting on EVF's alone but even if that's the case most people don't/didn't have DSLR's with top end OVF's. Most people had APS-C DSLR's with their less good OVF's probably used with f3.5-5.6 kit lenses and even the very best OVF's and lenses are still unaided optical systems.

The ovf v evf will trundle on for some and we'll all have our own views my view being that even the lowliest mirrorless camera I have today has a useable evf which in some circumstances will allow things to be seen which no unaided ovf ever could allow to be seen.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I find this comment nothing short of amazing unless you're commenting on EVF's alone but even if that's the case most people don't/didn't have DSLR's with top end OVF's. Most people had APS-C DSLR's with their less good OVF's probably used with f3.5-5.6 kit lenses and even the very best OVF's and lenses are still unaided optical systems

1. Evf. All mid level FF cameras had amazing ovfs. Entry level apsc is no concern of mine, as you put it they really sucked.
2. Body size. Only recently z9 and r3 surfaced. All the rest are toys.
3. Af. Now everyone says how bad Eos r was... So they are good now then. Except anything Panasonic r something

 

[LongLensPhotography]

even the lowliest mirrorless camera I have today has a useable evf which in some circumstances will allow things to be seen which no unaided ovf ever could allow to be seen.

Well that's a nonsense unless you count digital chroma noise as signal.

 

[A_S]

Me too.

It's easy for anyone to look up the facts and figures before posting on a forum, so I wonder why so few people seem to do so.

Talk about splitting hairs… it was an opinion - based on gut feel - if I got it wrong so what? We can’t all be perfect like yourselves - plus I’d been working for 12 hours, in the gym for 2 and had just sat down, very late in the day to relax and an Internet forum - I was writing a casual opinion orientated post not an indexed, referenced PhD thesis.

You might have all the time in the world to fully research your posts and fact check every comma but I do not - again drifting off topic on a mute point!!!!!!

 

[Dale.]

I'd hoped I was done with this one. We are back on track topic wise although, whilst opinions are fine, when they get egotistical and the bickering starts, threads tend to dive to the depths.

Play nice............ and lets have an adult debate.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You might have all the time in the world to fully research your posts and fact check every comma but I do not - again drifting off topic on a mute point!!!!!!

Play nice............ and lets have an adult debate.

So: pointing out that the word "mute" was probably intended to be "moot" is a no-no?

 

[ancient_mariner]

So: pointing out that the word "mute" was probably intended to be "moot" is a no-no?

Better keep that coat on and don't stop walking.

 

[Stepheninkent]

Why hasn’t mirrorless ‘taken over’? Perhaps because many of us cannot afford to change system when we can still make excellent images with our DSLRs. I am no luddite. I accept that the DSLR is a transitional technology that is on its way out. I accept that mirrorless cameras have the potential to offer facilities that no DSLR could. I also accept that the best mirrorless cameras do a better job than DSLRs. I would have no problem with replacing my D850 with a Z9 if I could afford it. But i would rather spend my photographic budget on travelling and training than on a camera body that won’t make me a better photographer. In five years I may have a Z9 or its successor. But i am in no itching hurry to change at moment.

 

[Stepheninkent]

Even though Mirrorless are such great light weight cameras, some folk still love using their DSLR as the image quality is still great. Mirrorless are great in the IQ to but a lot lighter to carry about.

The bodies may lighter but what about the lenses? As a bird photographer, the super telephotos i use are still heavy in their mirrorless incarnations

 

[myotis]

Been doing some research, pros and cons. It seems the pros outweigh the cons these days?

Nevertheless, I know many of you love/prefer DSLR. Why would you buy a Nikon D3500 when Canon M50 MkII mirroless costs just a smidge more?

There must be more to this than meets my eye, so why are DSLR holding their own and why isn't morrorless taking over? (or is it?)

This is a video from Grays of Westminster (specialist Nikon dealer) talking about DSLRs and mirrorless.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjKE0RRiOW8


It's discussing the cameras used by the winners of the World Press Photo awards 2022.

2022 Contest global winners | World Press Photo

www.worldpressphoto.org

There are 24 winners, and there is camera info for 22 of them. Thirteen were taken with DSLRs and eight with mirrorless (including a Drone camera and a camera phone). One of the DSLRs was a Nikon D3200, and the missing camera (13+8 =21), a Leica M10, was put into it's own category.

They make the point that the vast majority of professional photographers are neither making YouTube videos, nor watching them, to help decide on their camera choice but are out making photographs with whatever camera that works for them.

I think the majority of professional photographers (and serious amateurs) are generally reluctant to change their camera gear, because they are used to how their existing cameras and lenses handle and perform, they often have a lot of money invested in their current kit, and they feel the need to make a business case to change it.

It's reluctance to change that probably explains why looking at this sort of break down of camera types over the last 5 -10 years, for wildlife and sports photography awards as well, there have been very few (if any) mirrorless cameras being used. but with a steady increase in these numbers during recent years.

Of course this is a sample of "one" but it reflects the general impression (coupled with Nikon and Canon obviously reducing their commitment to manufacturing DSLRs) that MILCs are in the ascendancy. But DSLRs are still clinging on, at least for now while existing DSLRs wear out, and the capabilities of the Sony A1, Canon R3 and Nikon Z9 trickle down to lower cost bodies. Until this current generation of MILCs, nothing had convinced me to seriously plan a future change from my current main camera kit (Nikon D600, D750 and D500), even though I have owned and used various MILC cameras over the last 20 years.

Nikon (and Canon) have been slow to fully embrace MILCs saying the technology wasn't yet available to build MILCs that could seriously compete with DSLRs. I've read/watched several comparisons over the years by professional wildlife/sports photographers comparing the Sony A9 (MILC) with Nikon D5 and/or Nikon D6 DSLRs or Canon EOS1, and with a few exceptions, the conclusion was always that in terms of overall reliability of performance the Nikons were the preferred option, until now. However, ...

"Ricci" who works as a trainer for Nikon in their Photography School and runs an independent (often Nikon critical) Youtube channel about Nikon equipment reflected that in his view, for speed of AF, and low noise capability the Nikon D6 (DSLR) still had an edge over the Z9 (MILC), and for image quality, the Nikon D850 still had a slight edge over the Z9.

But overall, the other benefits of a mirrorless Z9 (A1 or R3) probably offset these small differences.

As has been said by others, although all of this is "interesting" and may help you feel comfortable with your camera choice, the MILC/DSLR argument it's largely irrelevant for most photographs.

I have perfectly fine photographs produced from a whole range of older mirrorless cameras (back to Lumix GF1 and Nikon 1 cameras) as well as older DSLRs (back to a Nikon D70), which happily live alongside those from my D750. The D750/D600 files are obviously better than the older files, but that isn't a crucial element when looking at the photographs.

Most cameras, in most situations, for most people, are probably more than "good enough", even if there are occasions when having the "right" camera can make a difference. But whether a camera is a DSLR or an MILC may well play only a small part in deciding what the "right" camera might be.

The Nikon D3200 used for one of the award winning pictures above was released 10 years ago, and another wasn't even from a "proper" camera (Huawei mobile phone). In an interview with a long standing and famous National Geographic photographer (whose name I've forgotten) it was revealed that his pictures now being published in the magazine are regularly a mix of "proper" camera pictures and iPhone pictures.

Ashley Gilbertson (currently photographing the war in Ukraine) did a 40 page photo story special for the New York times on the impacts of the pandemic using proper cameras (I can't remember what, but it's probably Fuji) and an iPhone.

A City Strapped: Photographing a New York in Need (Published 2021)

The pandemic shattered the city’s economy, affecting people’s homes, livelihoods and wallets. One photojournalist documented the hardships, as both a lament and a tribute.

www.nytimes.com

Some of the best images (his opinion and the NYT editors) were from the iPhone taken during his morning jog from his home in New York.

So, technically, good photographs can be taken with anything from a phone camera upwards, including 10 year old, or even 20 year old DSLRs, and while MILCs offer some attractive and useful features, I don't think they have any 'must have" features that should rush people, with some exceptions, into changing their existing DSLR system.

None the less to go back to your original question, yes MILCs are taking over from DSLRs, just not as fast as some YouTubers and some people in some forums might suggest.

If you are buying your first "good camera" then a s/h older DSLR camera can offer a great bargain. I would be more wary of older mirrorless cameras as the technology has improved so rapidly in recent years, but there are still good buys around (my old Fuji XE-1 is still a very capable camera). But if you have the money and buying new, then an MILC would seem the obvious buy. Which would also allow you to contribute to the ongoing march of mirrorless dominance.