Is mirrorless "better" than DSLRs these days? I'm especially comparing them to entry level DSLRs. I'm reading statements like this of late. Some, like the recent NEX line state the...

BobT Loc: southern Minnesota

I'm especially comparing them to entry level DSLRs. I'm reading statements like this of late. Some, like the recent NEX line state the Nex's have noticeably better IQ than DSLRs. So has the mirrorless surpassed it's main original benefit of just being smaller and lighter? Will pros or semi-pros be looking at these "smaller" cameras as their "main" cameras? All this has me thinking about replacing my DSLR gear with mirrorless.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

I don't know about "better"...but they are gaining ground very fast. A friend of mine put his D4s away for a Fugi...tiny leaf shutter you cant even hear and very nice IQ. If and when Nikon comes out with a FF mirrorless...I'll consider it for sure.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

BobT wrote:

I'm especially comparing them to entry level DSLRs. I'm reading statements like this of late. Some, like the recent NEX line state the Nex's have noticeably better IQ than DSLRs. So has the mirrorless surpassed it's main original benefit of just being smaller and lighter? Will pros or semi-pros be looking at these "smaller" cameras as their "main" cameras? All this has me thinking about replacing my DSLR gear with mirrorless.

That's an interesting question. I know my brother-in-law loves his Sony a6000, but I too would be interested in what others have to say.
I wouldn't make a major equipment switch just now though.

SueMac Loc: Box Elder, SD

I had a Sony 6000 and didn't really like it. The distortion on the smaller lens was awful, but the longer telephoto lens was quite good. (I don't remember the lens sizes) The contrast outside on a sunny day was great, but inside pix with that tiny flash was awful. It had it's merits, nice and light and one would think I would have loved it with my small hands, but the quality couldn't compare to my D800. So I went back to my heavy gear. I think some day I'd like to try again, we'll see.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Bret wrote:

I don't know about "better"...but they are gaining ground very fast. A friend of mine put his D4s away for a Fugi...tiny leaf shutter you cant even hear and very nice IQ. If and when Nikon comes out with a FF mirrorless...I'll consider it for sure.

I agree Bret.
I have too much money invested Nikon lenses to switch right now, but if Nikon comes out with a quality FF mirrorless F-Mount that would be a whole other story.

bkblaw

I have a Sony NEX 3 N - software is updated yearly, it is light, fast and [I'm a hobbyist] suits my objective. I will be buying an upgraded lens [ has a 16-50] in the near future.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

BobT wrote:

I'm especially comparing them to entry level DSLRs. I'm reading statements like this of late. Some, like the recent NEX line state the Nex's have noticeably better IQ than DSLRs. So has the mirrorless surpassed it's main original benefit of just being smaller and lighter? Will pros or semi-pros be looking at these "smaller" cameras as their "main" cameras? All this has me thinking about replacing my DSLR gear with mirrorless.

Mirrorless, like DSLRs, stretches from entry level to advanced/pro type models, with prices according to features. If you're interested in a smaller kit, there are plenty of models to pick from, with great image quality. Be sure to consider lens availability too. Mirrorless is still young and some companies don't have full lens arrays yet. Also, for some models the lenses are as big as DSLR lenses, negating the reasons some of us have for choosing mirrorless in the first place. I shoot Olympus, the OMD cameras, and my choice was all about the lenses- the variety, the size and the relative price/quality.

WAL

I dont see an inherent reason why mirroless cameras would have better image quality than current slrs the same lens and same sensor should yield the same result. The only possible difference would be vibration from the mirror.

There is an area with wide angle lenses. It is easier to design a wide angle for a mirroless camera. That is a separate issue.

Eventually the quality of the view in mirroless cameras will equal or exceed the sl r. They should also cost less. The SLR could go the way of the range finder.

The lower noise level alone could be a compelling reason the SLR as we know it.

I think changes are happening faster than some older photographers can easily accept. I think I am one of them.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

It's more about egonomics for me. It's smaller and lighter, therefore it goes with me a lot more than a clunky dslr and bulky lenses. Image quality wise it's equal to a dslr. Fun factor wise, it far surpasses a dslr, especially with wifi, focus peaking, live bulb, and live composite.

Click on my user name and you'll find my website. Everything after November 2013 was shot with mirror less. I do not miss my dslr one bit.

pith Loc: CA

BobT wrote:

I'm especially comparing them to entry level DSLRs. I'm reading statements like this of late. Some, like the recent NEX line state the Nex's have noticeably better IQ than DSLRs. So has the mirrorless surpassed it's main original benefit of just being smaller and lighter? Will pros or semi-pros be looking at these "smaller" cameras as their "main" cameras? All this has me thinking about replacing my DSLR gear with mirrorless.

They don't seem quite ready for prime time to me, but I'm sure eventually they will take a sizable chunk out of dslr sales.
;) pith

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Mac wrote:

I agree Bret.
I have too much money invested Nikon lenses to switch right now, but if Nikon comes out with a quality FF mirrorless F-Mount that would be a whole other story.

Don't rush! They said this new Nikon will be NO EVF or may needs an add-on finder! I don't like the way they bring out the new product with out considering what people really need. If it has no view finder even it has the add-on one, I will not even look at it!

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

wingclui44 wrote:

Don't rush! They said this new Nikon will be NO EVF or may needs an add-on finder! I don't like the way they bring out the new product with out considering what people really need. If it has no view finder even it has the add-on one, I will not even look at it!

I agree even when they first come out I would hold back for a few months to see how they are really working out.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

Mac wrote:

I agree even when they first come out I would hold back for a few months to see how they are really working out.

They just bring out this for testing the market, if it goes fine, they will make some change and get another follow-up!

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

pith wrote:

They don't seem quite ready for prime time to me, but I'm sure eventually they will take a sizable chunk out of dslr sales.
;) pith

I can't speak for other manufacuters, but the em1 is ready...and this fall when the 300 f4 comes out there will be even more converts to mirrorless.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

The original mirrorless bunch is further ahead in development of full systems and the cameras themselves - Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji.

I would not recommend one without an EVF, and a good one, which many of them have now. The EVF is one of the main reasons to covet a mirrorless. I whined and complained about them when I first handled one of the early versions in a camera shop, swore I'd never own one. But once I tried a really good one (the original EM5), I was sold. It is a major benefit, contrary to what I first thought.