Many photographers here have switched from DSR's to mirrorless systems. Seems many have done so because of the physical weight of the DSR system being to heavy for them either from a disability or from aging. Of course there are other reasons too and all are encouraged to comment.

The question is: if you could, no mater the reason you switched initially, would you go back to the DSLR. If you are happy with the change, let us know why; also please comment if the change has improved your images, or not, and why. If you would like to go back to the DSLR, tell us why. If you did go back we'd like to know why too. Basically, all reasons and experiences are welcome to be presented and discussed.

Also, let us know (for those of us that know little to nothing about the mirrorless world, including me. I am one of those pathetic Nikon users.) what you feel are the good systems and then the better cameras and lenses in those systems too. What would be the dream mirrorless camera and lenses to go with it. And what is your dream DSLR camera and lenses too.

Many photographers here have switched from DSR's to mirrorless systems. Seems many have done so because of the physical weight of the DSR system being to heavy for them either from a disability or from aging. Of course there are other reasons too and all are encouraged to comment.

The question is: if you could, no mater the reason you switched initially, would you go back to the DSLR. If you are happy with the change, let us know why; also please comment if the change has improved your images, or not, and why. If you would like to go back to the DSLR, tell us why. If you did go back we'd like to know why too. Basically, all reasons and experiences are welcome to be presented and discussed.

Also, let us know (for those of us that know little to nothing about the mirrorless world, including me. I am one of those pathetic Nikon users.) what you feel are the good systems and then the better cameras and lenses in those systems too. What would be the dream mirrorless camera and lenses to go with it. And what is your dream DSLR camera and lenses too.

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.

About 3 months ago I did what you're asking about and have just returned from a 3-week trip where it proved to be a good move. I've been a Nikon user since 1968, but it had begun to be more weight than I wanted to tote. I was using a D800E, mostly with a Nikkor 28-300mm lens. The final straw was piled on last February when we were in Iceland and I asked my wife to mind my gear while I retrieved our luggage. When I got back, she had had to move and said flatly, "This gear is too heavy; you need to buy a mirrorless camera."

How could I refuse? So I bought a Sony A6000 and a couple of lenses, a 16-70 Sony/Zeiss and a 55-210 Sony. I continued to use my beloved Nikon for my commercial work--I photograph for a landscaping company--but gradually transitioned to my A6000 for my personal work. When we traveled to Italy for a 3-week stay last month, I reluctantly left the D800E at home. I have no regrets. My vacation photos are great, and I didn't hesitate for a second when it came to deciding if I'd put the camera on my neck to go out. If you'd like to see some images, let me know. Oh, one final thing: I never put the 55-210mm lens on the camera, shooting exclusively with the 16-70mm.

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

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

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.

About 3 months ago I did what you're asking about and have just returned from a 3-week trip where it proved to be a good move. I've been a Nikon user since 1968, but it had begun to be more weight than I wanted to tote. I was using a D800E, mostly with a Nikkor 28-300mm lens. The final straw was piled on last February when we were in Iceland and I asked my wife to mind my gear while I retrieved our luggage. When I got back, she had had to move and said flatly, "This gear is too heavy; you need to buy a mirrorless camera."

How could I refuse? So I bought a Sony A6000 and a couple of lenses, a 16-70 Sony/Zeiss and a 55-210 Sony. I continued to use my beloved Nikon for my commercial work--I photograph for a landscaping company--but gradually transitioned to my A6000 for my personal work. When we traveled to Italy for a 3-week stay last month, I reluctantly left the D800E at home. I have no regrets. My vacation photos are great, and I didn't hesitate for a second when it came to deciding if I'd put the camera on my neck to go out. If you'd like to see some images, let me know. Oh, one final thing: I never put the 55-210mm lens on the camera, shooting exclusively with the 16-70mm.