FF DSLR vs Mirrorless FF camera - has the weight and size advantage disappeared? With the increasing popularity of FF ML (mirrorless) and accompanying increase in size, it seems that...

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

With the increasing popularity of FF ML (mirrorless) and accompanying increase in size, it seems that the weight advantage of the ML vs the traditional DSLR is rapidly disappearing. Without less weight and compact size advantages, what are the compelling reasons to switch from DSLR to ML?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

FF lenses for mirrorless were never smaller or lighter. The weight saving was coming from the camera bodies, but it isn’t significant and never was.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

DaveyDitzer wrote:

With the increasing popularity of FF ML (mirrorless) and accompanying increase in size, it seems that the weight advantage of the ML vs the traditional DSLR is rapidly disappearing. Without less weight and compact size advantages, what are the compelling reasons to switch from DSLR to ML?

Less mechanical complexity?
Size never was a real factor except in fantasy land. Lenses are the same size regardless of the body so the small difference in actual bodies is laughable.
So as technology advances the mirrorless will likely win out once it reaches quality and durability of professional DSLRs and the EVF gets good enough to replace the OVF which looks like it is getting there slowly.
Or so it looks.

BB4A

DaveyDitzer wrote:

With the increasing popularity of FF ML (mirrorless) and accompanying increase in size, it seems that the weight advantage of the ML vs the traditional DSLR is rapidly disappearing. Without less weight and compact size advantages, what are the compelling reasons to switch from DSLR to ML?

Just my opinion, but balance of the camera body and lens, is for me much more important than weight. Until such time as a manufacturer finds a way to make a professional, weather-sealed, and optically effective 400mm, 600mm, and 800mm lens weighing less than 1 Kg (2.2 lbs), then the weight of the camera body isn't the biggest factor for me in achieving balance when moving the entire unit around in action.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

If you don’t know the advantages of mirrorless vs DSLR, other than weight, you need to continue doing your research.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

PS: I can speak for only the cameras that I use, but if there was one reason to use mirrorless, it is the electronic view finder. At least for me. I understand that there are many who feel the opposite, but coming from an evf, to not be able to see what the exposer is going to look like is going backwards.

Otherwise, a silent shutter is a huge difference maker. In my cameras, I have focus stacking, focus bracketing, live composite, live time, live bulb, there is also “pro capture” hi res mode, auto hdr (raw) 3/5/7 exposers just to name a few features.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

BB4A wrote:

Just my opinion, but balance of the camera body and lens, is for me much more important than weight. Until such time as a manufacturer finds a way to make a professional, weather-sealed, and optically effective 400mm, 600mm, and 800mm lens weighing less than 1 Kg (2.2 lbs), then the weight of the camera body isn't the biggest factor for me in achieving balance when moving the entire unit around in action.

The Olympus 300mm f4 (600mm) weighs 2.8lbs with weather proofing and image stabilization.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

tdekany wrote:

The Olympus 300mm f4 (600mm) weighs 2.8lbs with weather proofing and image stabilization.

M4/3 is hardly FF. No comparison for the discussion.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Architect1776 wrote:

M4/3 is hardly FF. No comparison for the discussion.

I gave it as an example to show, that even m4/3 is heavier than the desired weight limit. Right on target.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Architect1776 wrote:

Less mechanical complexity?
Size never was a real factor except in fantasy land. Lenses are the same size regardless of the body so the small difference in actual bodies is laughable.
So as technology advances the mirrorless will likely win out once it reaches quality and durability of professional DSLRs and the EVF gets good enough to replace the OVF which looks like it is getting there slowly.
Or so it looks.

Here’s my “fantasy land”...

(Download)

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

But are they both full frame?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

Here’s my “fantasy land”...

Let's see, small sensor vs FF sensor.
Duhhhh.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

TriX wrote:

But are they both full frame?

With an 18-55 lens on the right, it doesn't look like it ...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Architect1776 wrote:

Let's see, small sensor vs FF sensor.
Duhhhh.

As I remember it, a pound of lead weighs about as much as a pound of feathers ...

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

DaveyDitzer wrote:

With the increasing popularity of FF ML (mirrorless) and accompanying increase in size, it seems that the weight advantage of the ML vs the traditional DSLR is rapidly disappearing. Without less weight and compact size advantages, what are the compelling reasons to switch from DSLR to ML?

Most of the weight is in the glass.