taxman Loc: Cleveland, Ohio

I'll echo most of the above. I have a Canon 7D and an Olympus OM-D EM10 mkII.

I love the size & weight of the Oly, as well as the ability to see a live preview of the image in the viewfinder before I trip the shutter. I love the fact that I can adapt my Tamron 75-300 (Pentax Mount) to the Oly and have a very functional 150-600 zoom. I am equally comfortable with the operation of both cameras. What I don't like is the low-light capability as compared to the Canon.

Another interesting point is that, with the Canon, I find myself shooting in Manual mode ~80% of the time, while, with the Oly, I almost never shoot in Manual mode; I've been shooting primarily in Aperture preferred mode.

I love both cameras and I can't say that the Oly can completely replace the Canon for me.

Howard

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I switched to Panasonic GH4 from Canon 50D and 7D systems. I also used older Nikon and Canon film gear, and Nikon digital gear.

I would NOT go back to dSLRs. The reasons I switched had a lot to do with the excellent blend of still camera and video camera features in one body. I do training videos and training documentation. I can now do both with one camera, one set of lenses, and carry about 1/8 the "stuff" I used to carry when I had the 50D and a Canon GL2. The results are far better, far more consistent, and achieved in about half the time behind the camera.

I don't make a lot of very large prints that have to be pixel-peeped. Over 90% of my work is viewed on computers, smart phones, and tablets. Much of the same work is also produced in PDF format, and some of those PDF files are printed on letter-size paper. So 16MP is plenty for me! 4K video is great for editing, to simulate a "two camera job", but is overkill for many applications.

I still work (at the camera) as I did when using Ektachrome as an AV producer in the '80s, meaning I try to NAIL my exposures at the camera. While I save both raw and JPEG images most of the time, my goal is to be able to use an unaltered JPEG if I need to, or if the budget doesn't include time for raw image editing and manipulation. I've spent years perfecting that technique, and it works extremely well under controlled, consistent lighting.

Micro Four Thirds has improved my close-up work because the focal lengths are shorter. I get more depth of field, a VERY desirable thing when the subject is a circuit board, small part, small machine, or a close up of hand work. It has definitely improved my video work by an order of magnitude or two. The Canon GL2 I used to use was a good SD camera, that cost $3500 new. But the GH4 is a good 4K camera and a GREAT HD camera that cost $2700 with a couple of pro zooms (12-35 and 35-100mm f/2.8). Having video and stills capability IN THE SAME SYSTEM and in a case that fits under an airline seat (two lenses, body, two flashes, two LCD lights, two wireless mic systems...) is huge.

My personal work is nature, travel, family portraiture, and the like. I have no complaints there, either.

As far as systems go, there are four manufacturers to look at first, each with a very different approach and market niche. All the following are near the top of the heap, have electronic viewfinders, and are detailed on http://www.dpreview.com:

Sony makes both full frame and APS-C sensor mirrorless cameras. The A7r II and A7s II are full frame. The a6500 and a6300 are APS-C. The A7s II is known as the low light champ. They have a comparatively few lenses, but what they have are mostly excellent.

Fujifilm makes the X-series The X-Pro 2 is a rangefinder style mirrorless camera, and the XT-2 is a dSLR-like mirrorless camera. They have a comparatively few lenses, but what they have are mostly excellent. When I think of Fujifilm, I think of their excellent film simulations.

Olympus makes the OM-D EM-1 Mark II, a dSLR-like body, and the Pen-F, a stylish rangefinder-style body. They are Micro-Four Thirds cameras, which share the same lenses with Panasonic Lumix cameras. The OM-D EM-1 Mark II is a very advanced still camera with decent video features. It makes GREAT out-of-the-camera JPEGs. Its speed, responsiveness, and resolution are top notch. Clint will probably chime in here and plug it in more detail. He's loving its high resolution still mode, which blends several images into one HUGE image.

Panasonic makes the GH4, will release a GH5 in March, and also makes the G85, all of which are dSLR-like form factors. They are known for their great balance of still and video features. The GH2, GH3, GH4 (and soon the GH5), are favorites of independent filmmakers and hybrid stills+video photographers. Many of us need both a video and a still camera. The GH series gives us both. The GH5 will be the best video camera available for $2000 (body only). It is a stills camera on par with the OM-D EM-1 Mark II, in most respects, except for the high resolution mode of the OM-D. The indy filmmakers are buzzing about it all over YouTube now.

There are over 85 lenses available for Micro Four Thirds cameras. About half are relatively inexpensive "hobbyist" or "travel" lenses and about half are serious tools for pros and advanced amateurs. Here is a mostly up-to-date list: http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html

Among my favorite lenses are the 12-35mm f/2.8, and 35-100mm f/2.8 Panasonic. The 12-40mm and 40-150mm f/2.8 Olympus zooms are great, too. In the primes category, all of the Leica-designed Panasonic lenses are great. Olympus 12mm, 45mm, 75mm, 150mm are standouts, particularly the 75 and 150. Panasonic 20, 25, 30 macro, 42.5mm are all good. The Leica-designed 100mm to 400mm f/4-f/6.3 zoom is a REAL standout. Remember, the 2x crop factor makes these cover a field of view like full frame lenses at twice the focal length.

I don't know what you want to photograph, so I won't be able to recommend one of these systems, but if you go to DPReview and read the reviews and previews, I think you can get a sense of what you should rent to try before you buy.

Oh, Nikon does make the "1" system, which is okay for what it is, but it uses a 1" sensor. A few birders like it. I am not impressed with the camera for my needs.

Canon makes the M5 and just a few native lenses. They sell an adapter for EF lenses. I am not impressed by what Canon has done in the mirrorless space.

Canon EF lenses can be adapted quite well to Sony and Micro 4/3 cameras. With the right "smart adapter," the lenses retain full, or nearly full automation.

Most Nikon lenses can be adapted to Sony and Micro 4/3 cameras, but without full automation (usually with NO automation).

I found it best for my needs to buy native lenses...

Good luck and let us know what you do.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

The thing most don't seem to be thinking about is that a dslr body is actually very light. It's the lens, with all its glass, that's so heavy. I have a mirrorless camera from Fuji that I bought several years ago. It looks and acts just like a dslr without a mirror... which makes it a point and shoot. It's an excellent camera with lots of features. But I prefer my Canon t3i.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

I'm going to add comments throughout the original question...

I moved from crop mode Canon cameras to full frame Sony A7's in late 2013 when the A7R was released. I was looking for a low light camera for nightscape/astrophotography and the A7R met my requirements. Although the A7R's shutter was noisy and caused some shutter shock if not locked down, I came to love both full frame and mirrorless. I was first nervous about electronic viewfinders (EVF) but quickly fell in love with them to the point I'd never go back to an archaic optical viewfinder. The EVF essentially opened up my view on the world with live camera info as well as super low light performance and an almost instant preview of the image shot.

Moving from the Canon menu system to Sony's menu system was a challenge, not necessarily because Sony's was bad but primarily because it was significantly different and took a bit of learning to come up to speed.

I still have a Canon 60D and 7D II but would NEVER go back to a DSLR. In fact I can't even remember the last time I used either of my Canon cameras. I now have the Sony A7S, A7 II and A7R II and am a definite Sony convert! The switch to Sony didn't involve scrapping all my Canon or Pentax equipment. All my Canon FD & EF, Pentax, Minolta, Sigma, Tamron, M42 and T2 lenses work just fine with adapters on the Sony bodies. I have added two Sony lenses but find Canon glass to be superior in image quality.

As far as image quality goes, Canon and Sony bodies perform similarly in this aspect BUT mirrorless has allowed me to go beyond what I could accomplish with my Canon DSLR's.

WRT to weight. By the time you add an adapter and full frame lens to a mirrorless body, at least the Sony A7's, you haven't gained much in weight loss. This wasn't one of my initial concerns.


Nikon is not a pathetic camera system. I took a serious look at the D800 and, recently, the D810; both DSLR's but great cameras, in particular the D810.

Personally I've found my "dream camera system" in Sony's full frame A7 line. I still prefer Canon "L" lenses but I do find Sony's 24-240mm zoom resides on the A7R II most of the time and Sony's 28-70mm kit lens can normally be found on the A7S. Canon's 24-105mm is at home on the A7 II.

Just my thoughts...

bwa

RobertW Loc: Breezy Point, New York

I had no choice but to reduce weight and bulk from my extensive Nikon Kit------Experimented with Pen/Oly's, evolved to EM5 and now EM1------the MZuiko pro lenses are, to me, a match for anything I ever was able to do with DSLR lenses
My favorite setup is the EM1 with the Leica 25mm/f1.4 (= "nifty-fifty") GREAT lens.
I have other gear, but almost exclusively using that for everyday

wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN

I am 76 years old and kind of fat, not in great shape. So I bought the best Fugi mirrorless to make life easier. It took excellent photos, but my wife and I did not like it. Focus was too slow, and too different from our DSLR (Canons) So sold it; It did not do as well for use as the DSLR.. It is good exercise to carry the bigger cameras
Bill

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Glad to. I am a 40+ year Nikon user, but have also owned Mamiyaflex, Linhof, Canon, Pentax and Fuji. My last five cameras before going MILC were two Nikons. I had been looking at the MILC development for a few years, not only because of the weight, but also removing mechanical elements increases reliability and allows for faster recovery after each exposure. But the weight was one factor.

I would have quickly gone to Nikon or Canon. However, both missed the boat. Both used the "1-inch" sensor, which is actually about 1/3 inch. Small sensors limit quality. Neither had an integral viewfinder, electronic or optical, unless you purchased an add-on accessory EVF which was also another point of failure.

I looked at Fuji, as they had the aps-c sensor, which for me is the sweet-spot. I looked at Sony also. The A7 was just coming out and I liked the features. It was almost as large as a Nikon, but lighter. It was also 35mm sensor (FF). Their NEX series was as lame as the NiCan offerings. But then they brought out the a6000 and I purchased one in a kit with two lenses.

I spent about six months learning to use it, during which time I dumped both of the lenses. Changing lenses in the middle of shooting a gathering or large party means losing some shots, or saying, "Oh. Excuse me while I change lenses." How lame is that? My friend was visiting her family in Japan and brought me back an 18-200. This is the same range that I found I liked on my Nikons.

That camera had some focus problems. Even though I took it to the Mediterranean and got some awesome photographs, the focus-hunting was problematic. I went back to Nikon. In March of last year, I made a trip to Death Valley to shoot the "super-bloom" of wildflowers. I discovered that Sony had made a firmware update that corrected the focus problem so I ordered an a6300. Since no one had them in stock and I needed a camera, I bought another a6000 for this trip. (Sold it when my a6300 arrived. I got my full cost back.) Again, excellent photographs.

The only strong negative about the a6000 only applies if you also want to shoot video. There is no way to use a good shotgun microphone. (Sony will sell you their crap microphone, but--well, it is crap. But then I'm spoiled. I have used good audio equipment. It is ironic that Sony, which made its rep on audio, is now pretty much the bottom of the pile.)

I also bought a used Fuji Xe1, just to see what Fuji was all about. Great camera. I could easily be happy with a Fuji, especially their more recent offerings.

Meanwhile, I love my a6300. It, like most other cameras, has a couple of weaknesses: 1. I would like to have two card slots so that I could always be making a backup card. I have twice had cards fail, though not for years. 2. They put the sdcard in positioned backward which makes removing it a PITA.

The aps-c sensor gives me images I can print to 20x30 inches for the wall. I regularly print 16x20s--after moderate cropping. The 11 fps isn't used much but I have done some sports work and it made the difference between ordinary and spectacular shots. To get a runner with both feet in the air, crossing a finish line is amazing. The eye-autofocus works extremely well as does the regular follow-focus. I like the focus helps. All these are better than on my Nikons.

Also, you can shoot silently. Without the mechanical shutter and mirror noise, the camera can be totally silenced. I do shoot video sometimes and no camera has a good built-in microphone. Even if it did, they all pick up the mechanical noise of the camera itself. Good video demands at least moderately good audio. A decent shock-mounted shotgun mic is a minimum. I have three, two Rodes: The good one (about $200) is amazing and picks up a whisper in front of the camera while ignoring a runaway train behind. (Sorry, a touch of hyperbole.) The cheap one (<$100) is as bad as or worse than the Sonys. (A Sennheiser or AKG would be nice, but who has an extra $500-700?)

For my money, the Fuji and the Sonys are the top. Anything with a smaller sensor won't let me print large. But for use on a website or Smugmug, I'm sure they could be good too.

Sorry I got so long-winded, folks.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

I switched about a year ago from Nikon D800 and D750 to Micro 4/3 Panasonic GX7 then 8 and Olympus EM-1. My main reason for switching was the difficulty of getting my camera bodies and the lenses I wanted into an acceptable carry-on for air travel. I am primarily a nature and wildlife shooter and I was concerned about the alleged slow AF and shutter lag of non-DSLR cameras. I tested the GX8 with 100-400mm lens on a trip to the Galapagos Islands last April and I know now that I will never go back to DSLRs - sold all my Nikon gear last summer.
I used to shoot a D800E with Nikon 300mm f2.8 lens with excellent results - some of the sharpest images I ever made. The difficulty was with portability. I could not sneak up on a comatose beached whale with that outfit. I sounded like an elephant crashing through the bush. I now have an Olympus E-M1 with a 40-150mm f2.8 lens; so the same field of view as the Nikon. Do I get better pictures with the Olympus? Overall - yes; the sharpness and other technical details may not be quite as good (I need to pixel peep to really see a difference) but my pictures are better because I have more choice of shooting locations and distance from the subject. So comments like "mirrorless can never measure up to pro DSLRs" have little impact on me. I think the overall quality of my pictures has improved since I switched.

magpix Loc: St. Michaels, MD

I have shot professionally with Nikon for many years, but as I wind down my pro career and shoot mostly for my own enjoyment, I have switched completely to the Fuji mirrorless system. While the results from my Nikon gear was always first rate, it just became too heavy and big to take on casual walks and hikes. I began with the simple Fuji XE-1 and then moved up to the DSLR-like XT-1 and finally to the XT-2. The quality of Fuji lenses and ergonomics of their bodies are very impressive, and I began to rely on my Fuji even for some of my pro assignments. Some photographers don't like the EVF of mirrorless cameras, but I find the new XT-2 EVF to be extraordinary . What you see is what you get. And the new auto focus system is as fast as my Nikon D750. Resolution is allowing me to print 17 x 25" for fine art exhibitions. Best of all, I now have a camera with me almost all the time, so I'm getting shots i would have missed with my Nikon kit. Would I ever go back to my full frame DSLR? At this point, I see no reason to.

Jerry Coupe

Due to a severe shoulder injury managing my full frame Canon body and 2.8 lenses is getting to be difficult and tiring. If I don't use a tripod, image quality suffers. My 5D MK II is showing a lot of signs that it needs to be replaced, so I am researching now.

I am awaiting the Fed Ex delivery today from LensRental of an Olympus OMD-EM1 MK II and the 12-100mm F4 and 300 mm F4. I will test these over the next 7 days to see if the reduced weight works with the smaller body and what the IQ is like. Then I may also take a look at Fuji and Sony mirrorless options before making a final change

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

I played with Fuji mirrorless a few times and liked it. I took many shots with it, compared with my Nikon dslr. Some were better some were not as good. It’s fun experience, good cameras and I completely understand that some people prefer it over DSLRs for whatever reasons.
But one reason for switching from DSLR to mirrorless i don’t understand, and it is the most popular one: Weight and size.
If tired of carrying around heavy d700 or d800 why not buy d5500, it weights a little over 400grams, 420g-exactly. Fuji xt-1 for example – 440g. You can use your lenses, flashes, you know the camera, you didn’t switch the system which could be expensive, also it takes time to learn and … .

Just mount 35mm 1.8DX on d5500 and you have small, weightless combination that will give you an excellent IQ. Just a thought.

CaptainBobBrown

I used Canon (5dMII) and Nikon (D7100, now D500 & D810) for landscape and wildlife, particularly birds. About 2 years or so ago I decided to try the Olympus flagship micro 4/3rds model, EM1 and bought or tried several lenses. Biggest problems with this camera for birds though was that the OLED electronic viewfinder got "green splotch" disease which Olympus tech support claimed to be unusual but which there were many complaints about on photo blog web sites. Sent the camera in and got the EVF replaced but green splotch showed up again after only a few weeks of use. Gave up on it for bird and wildlife photography. Now I only use if for live view macro work. Other problem with the EVF for action/wildlife/birds is that it is way too slow.

Pluses are that the EM1 has high (10 fps) frame rate, is very quiet, small with small lightweight lenses and the best Oly lenses are reasonable quality but a bit overpriced. THere are no good super telephoto lenses for M4/3. So I went all out on my Nikon collection and feel very much better about field work. I can get 3 bodies, a 300mm f2.8 prime, a 16-35 wide angle, and a 70-200 f2.8 lens in my camera backpack so while it's, of course, heavier than any mirrorless equivalent collection I can get high frame rates (10FPS) with the D500, 36 mp full frame sensor with the D810, and the D7100 is good for general goto shooting. www.flickr.com/photos/captainrbrown for examples of EM1 and Nikon uses.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

I will never go back to a DSLR because I never went there in the first place. For me, micro four thirds is the perfect size that a camera should be. Anything larger than that is a "large picture taking apparatus" and not a camera, as far as I'm concerned.

Battery life is not a problem, and I do everything wrong when it comes to battery management when I'm out shooting.

mffox Loc: Avon, CT

I switched to mirrorless 2 years ago following an exhausting trip through Italy. My bag was simply too cumbersome and too heavy, and my age (78) was beginning to show.

Upon my return, one visit to my local camera shop, where the owner put the Olympus OMD eM10 into my hands,I was sold. I have the 14-42mm and 40-150mm Zuiko lenses, and use a Minolta 50mm (film) lens with adapter for close up. My favorite is the 40-150.

I never once regretted the decision.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Thanks for the information on the 300mm/E-M1mrII combination. In the store it was very impressive, but it is nice to hear how it is in the field.