switching from DSLR to mirrorless cameras (Page 2): superior, no...much better, yes. I've also been shooting in frigid weather, so that will play a role as well. It's still not dslr...

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

tdekany wrote:

Are you not getting superior results with the larger battery in the EM1 mark 2? People are making outrages claims left and right.

superior, no...much better, yes. I've also been shooting in frigid weather, so that will play a role as well. It's still not dslr good like what I had in my old E5, but it's also not quite enough to get me through a full day of shooting. It does better when I'm indoors and not doing high res shots. High res seems to be a little bit of battery drain. I just need to pick up a spare battery and I'll be good for a full day (I only have the one right now).

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Cdouthitt wrote:

superior, no...much better, yes. I've also been shooting in frigid weather, so that will play a role as well. It's still not dslr good like what I had in my old E5, but it's also not quite enough to get me through a full day of shooting. It does better when I'm indoors and not doing high res shots. High res seems to be a little bit of battery drain. I just need to pick up a spare battery and I'll be good for a full day (I only have the one right now).

Very interesting - on the FB page the claims are unreal. Like close to 2000 shots etc...

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

tdekany wrote:

Very interesting - on the FB page the claims are unreal. Like close to 2000 shots etc...

Shooting at 60fps x 33.33 seconds gets you to 2000 in a hurry. I kid...but it depends on how you shoot. This camera is so fast, it's easy to rattle of multiples if using burst mode or pro capture.

I'm not saying it's terrible, but it's still not dslr like. Close but not quite there...and frankly I'm quite happy that I only need to manage 2 batteries, instead of 4 from the original em1.

jederick Loc: Northern Utah

Consider myself a hobbyist/travel type photographer mainly collecting "snap shots". My cameras, when out chasing wildlife and enjoying nature, are a Nikon D7200 and Nikon 200-500 for fauna and a Sony A6000 with the Zeiss 16-70 lens for landscapes et al. When running errands I carry a little Sony RX100M2. For longer trips I use other lenses for specific purposes...Nikon 16-80 for landscapes or a macro lens for flora when the mood strikes. These kits give me great joy and a lot of fun. If/when I had to downsize I would probably get rid of the Nikon equipment as I feel for most situations the Sony A6000 system would cover most of my needs very well...it is a marvelous camera.

Think many of us are blessed with an embarrassment of riches when it comes to photography equipment. The real fun for me is being above ground and out enjoying life one photo at a time!

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

whitewolfowner wrote:

Many photographers here have switched from DSR's t... (show quote)

It probably depends on what type of photography you do. I like to shoot birds, mostly shorebirds. I tried the Olympus OM-D E-M1 and found the AF to be slow and too much shutter lag, I also didn't care for the EVF. I did eventually did buy the Olympus PEN-F as a utility camera for when I need/want something small and light, but prefer using a DSLR. If your main interest is shooting stationary subjects (landscapes, etc) a mirrorless camera would be fine. For shooting things that move (wildlife, pets, kids, etc) I think a DSLR is a better option.

I do not have a dream mirrorless system. I am very happy with my Nikon Df full frame camera. I love shoot with my Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G lens. I also use my Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR lens with it. When I am out specifically for birds I use my Nikon D7200 camera with my Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

tdekany wrote:

Are you not getting superior results with the larger battery in the EM1 mark 2? People are making outrages claims left and right.

We E-M1mrII users are getting better battery results than with previous models. It is a bigger battery but not nearly as big as full frames while doing basically the same amount of electronic work. It comes down to energy density per volume and a larger size translates to more energy. It is just easier for the manufacture and we 4/3rds shooters to just carry an extra battery or two rather than increase the size and weight. For me, and I think others, it's a small price to pay for what we want.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

wdross wrote:

For me, and I think others, it's a small price to pay for what we want.

Agree 110%.

whitewolfowner

wdross wrote:

First, Nikon users are not "pathetic" an... (show quote)

I agree with you completely and for your situation I think they you have made a wise choice. And yes, I am a pathetic Nikon user because I have too much invested into the system to change, even if I wanted too. And from past experiences with Nikon USA, I would have switched many times if I could have afforded to have done so; thus I am a pathetic Nikon user who has wished many times I could have switched to Canon.

whitewolfowner

jerryc41 wrote:

I tried switching, and I went back to my DSLR. First, I tried the Sony NEX 5 and 7. That was after reading a lengthy article by Trey Ratcliff. I didn't like the EVF, the small controls that were so close together, and the image quality. I later tried a couple of the Sony RX100 - sold them. Now I have a Sony A6000 that I use when I want a compact, but I still prefer a DSLR.

I have a pair of D750s with 28-300mm, 35-70mm, 80-200mm, a few others. I'm set for life!

I am very satisfied with the D750 too. Some of the lenses get big (my 80-200 f2.8 for example or the 300 f4.0) but I would not trade them for the world. Would I want to cart them around all day; of course not, but we all know the sacrifices we make to get the shot. When I was a kid I slid down the gorge in Letchworth State park to get a shot of the Genesee River at the river's edge. It was long way down and even longer back up, especially when I slipped three times climbing back up. Once I was about 30 feet from the top and slid all the back down to near the bottom. My reply was heard for miles, and I'm sure many young-ins had their ears blocked by their parents. All the while I kept my camera safe. clean and unharmed.

whitewolfowner

fotografz wrote:

There are pros and cons with either choice. I work with both.

The viewing experience of a mirrorless camera is electronic. The camera can be set to show you a simulation of existing ambient light, or can be set to show exactly what you get (overexposure camera and lens settings = overexposed viewfinder image, same with underexposure, etc.). As the ambient light gets lower, the viewfinder exhibits the effects of "gain" and can cause distracting video smear when the camera is moved from subject to subject (which will eventually be overcome when the resolution and re-fresh speeds are improved).

One advantage/disadvantage of mirrorless is that when the camera is set to automatically replay the last shot, it also appears in the viewfinder. This can be good if you want to see your last shot immediately without taking your eye from the viewfinder, or good when shooting in very bright conditions that makes review on the LCD more difficult. It also can be terribly distracting if you are shooting multiple images in a row. To eliminate that potential distraction, you have to turn off the automatic review altogether, and press a button to access the review on the LCD and in the viewfinder.

Obviously, the mirrorless cameras are smaller because they do not require a mirror box. However, in the case of comparing apples-to-apples (such as full frame sensor cameras), comparable lenses are generally the same size because they all have to cover the FF sensor. So, if you like f/1.4 lenses, the weight/bulk saving may not be as great as one would expect. I personally found that some of the smaller mirrorless cameras become unbalanced with the larger lenses.

What is really nice about mirrorless is the ability to mount almost any brand lens on the camera via a wide array of adapters. A Nikon owner can buy a mirrorless Sony and mount many, if not all, of their existing lenses on it ... and retain AF, etc.

Despite the hype and internet chatter, what I have found is that after a good amount of use with Sony mirrorless cameras to shoot weddings and events in widely varying conditions, the midrange DSLRs (even from 5 or 6 years ago), are faster, more intuitive, and easier to operate under pressure ... and in no way is mirrorless in the same universe as the Pro DSLRS.

However, in most everyday situations the mirrorless cameras with the smaller, less fast aperture lenses are great all around tools ... easy to carry and fun to use.

My ideal mirrorless is the one I have ... a Sony A7R-II with a TechArt AF adapter that allows me to use my manual focus Leica M lenses with AF! If I were to get a DSLR, it would be the latest Canon or Nikon Pro model with an array of their best fast aperture lenses. My current ideal DSLR is a Leica S(006), (although I'm not happy with the AF motor issue with this system right now).

- Marc

There are pros and cons with either choice. I work... (show quote)

Great information Mark; didn't know any of that. Sounds the mirrorless have a long way to go to compete with the DSLR. I suspected this, but didn't know many details on it.

whitewolfowner

Thanks to all who have responded so far. Hopefully we will hear from more. Seems the advantage of the mirrorless is the weight and size difference when smaller and lighter is either preferred or a necessity. Comes with a price though, especially in times when speed and response time is important, and secondly there is a compromise on quality of the photos. May be only when sensor size is smaller, if I am hearing people correctly.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

Well, I have both DSLR, canon & Nikon. I also have the X-Pro1, and an XE-2s. I use all of them, as required. If I wish to be unobtrusive, I use the Fujis. If I am shooting wildlife, or action, then Yes DSLR, most assuredly. Again, you can't beat a dslr for macro work- Iv'e tried them all. beleive me. There are occasions when I have humped a big lens/dslr for 10 miles or more, but if I got what I went for, well, It was worth ! Try getting into a very small plane to do aerial photography; for one thing you won't be allowed to take a DSLR/ lens combo- too damn big. Fuji? no problem, but only one lens, no bag, no nothing just the camera/ wideangle lens.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

jeryh wrote:

Well, I have both DSLR, canon & Nikon. I also ... (show quote)

Can you comment on using a DSLR for macro work being better? Thanks.

Linda Ewing Loc: Lincolnshire,UK

A very varied subject, I am a 70 years young and hope to keep going for many years doing my photography.

I own the Nikon D810 with various F2.8 lenses and a couple of cheaper ones, I also own the new Fuji XT-2. I absolutely am in love with both cameras, BUT it is very tempting just to pick up the lighter Fuji with the 3 lenses I own 18-55 F2.8 35mm F2.8 and the 50-230mm 3.5-5.6.

We have just returned from a boat cruise up the Nile and I only took the Fuji kit because I knew we would be out a lot of hours photographing the history of Egypt in that area, the weight is a BIG factor as you get older, but I do love my D810 and will continue to use it for when I do not have to walk too far carrying tripods and long lenses etc, using the two is a huge learning curve though when using the Fuji, the basics are fine but it can get complicated for more extensive camera work, it is just perserverance I suppose and reading that darn manual.

jsenear Loc: Hopkins, MN.

whitewolfowner wrote:

Many photographers here have switched from DSR's t... (show quote)

I switched to a Nikon 1 system a year ago and have never looked back. That does not mean I stopped using my DSLR any longer. It does mean I shoot over 90% of my pictures with the Nikon V1 body however. I think my photos have improved but I might be wrong.