I have no dispute at all with the positives about mirrorless that Paul (Chg_Canon) and others have responded.

You might also want to consider some of the negatives aspects of mirrorless...

- Generally speaking, less shots per battery charge. This is largely due to the heavy power requirements of electronic viewfinders. The optical viewfinder in a DSLR is usable any time, even when the camera is powered down. Those OVFs also use relatively little power when active. This is not the case with mirrorless that rely upon an EVF (as most do). It's completely dark when the power is off and drawing power constantly when in use. All those cool, gee-whiz features in the EVF also need power. Now, most people get a lot more shots than CIPA tests would suggest, but the same is true of DSLRs. Just be sure to check the rating of any camera you consider and compare.

- Also related to the viewfinder, some mirrorless have an issue with blackout when shooting bursts. Most manufacturers have worked to address this with some success, at least in their more advanced (and more expensive) models.

- Most mirrorless top frame rates are only possible with electronic shutter (which is also the "silent" shutter). A possible problem with electronic shutter is "rolling shutter effect". This is where moving subjects are noticeably distorted in the image. The faster the movement, the stronger the distortion. It happens regardless of shutter speed and can be caused too if the camera is moving (such as panning or shooting from a moving vehicle). It also can cause "banding" issues under some types of lighting. Some manufacturers have produced cameras using backlit sensors that give a much faster readout of the data being captured, to minimize rolling shutter effect. But this type of sensor is generally only found in more advanced (and more expensive) models. Of course an alternative is to use the camera's mechanical shutter instead... but then you won't get the super fast frame rates. Still, the mechanical shutter is an option on most mirrorless, though since the upcoming top-of-the-line Nikon Z9 will be electronic shutter only, we may start seeing mechanical shutters going away.

- Not all electronic shutters are compatible with flash. Some recent (and more expensive) cameras have addressed this problem.

- Cost might be a consideration. In some cases the camera or lens might be cheaper than a comparable DSLR and it's lens. But in many cases the mirrorless gear is more expensive.

- Availability of native lenses and accessories may be limited. At their peak, the Nikon and Canon universe for their DSLRs included roughly 100 lenses. They've also been selling them for 30 or more years, so there is a crap load of used lenses. It's similar with some accessories. While it may be possible to adapt DSLR lenses for use on a mirrorless camera, in some cases autofocus performance takes a hit... plus the combination of the lens, adapter and camera may end up weighing roughly the same as a DSLR with the lens and no adapter. There also may not be much savings in size. Currently Sony, Fuji and the Olympus/Panasonic (micro 4/3 format) systems each offer between 35 and 45 lenses to choose among. What's lacking are mostly specialized lenses, such as macro and tilt/shift (aka perspective control). Since the Canon RF-mount and Nikon Z-mount mirrorless systems are relatively new... approx. 3 years old... they have less native lenses so far, although they're rapidly adding them. Each currently have approx. 24 lenses. The Nikon Z-series lenses, in particular, don't cover a lot of range yet. So depending upon what you need and the system you choose, maybe they'll have what you need... or maybe they won't. There are almost no used lenses available yet for some of these systems, too.

- There are very limited third party lens selection for many of these manufacturers, too. Almost none for Canon and Nikon. Not many for Fuji or Oly/Panasonic either. Sony sees pretty good support from 3rd party manufacturers for their E-mount system, but it's nowhere near as many options as there are for the Canon and Nikon DSLR systems.

- Pentax, Canon and Nikon DSLR systems all offer option of full frame or APS-C crop sensor format (note: Pentax has committed to DSLR only, no mirrorless). Each manufacturers have multiple models in each format and, without going into detail here, each format has its strengths and weaknesses. Right now among mirrorless, only Sony offers a reasonably good choice of full frame and APS-C models (though one of their new APS-C models has been indefinitely delayed due to chip shortages). Nikon offers both full frame and ASPS-C, but really only one example of the latter (there are two models in different styles, but functionally the same). Fuji is APS-C only (although they also make medium format mirrorless). Olympus/Panasonic are micro 4/3 only. The "L-mount alliance" of Sigma, Panasonic and Leica is so far full frame only. So is Canon's R-series (although they have a separate, largely non-interchangeable APS-C EOS-M system that they treat like an ugly step-child).

- Mirrorless camera tech is advancing rapidly. Manufacturers are sinking a lot into R&D for mirrorless (sometimes to the neglect of their other systems), some of which is in an effort to solve some of the problems noted above. This is good... But it also may mean that some (many?) models have or will become obsolete quickly, rapidly losing value while encouraging frequent upgrades. This is a bit like when the whole digital revolution hit hard 20 or 25 years ago to rapidly replace film. Significant tech breakthroughs were coming fast and furious, sometimes making cameras obsolete shortly after they arrived in stores! That was finally slowing down the last five or ten years... only to see the upswing of mirrorless replacing DSLRs. Over the course of 10 or 11 years (1998 to 2009), I went from 1.5MP to 6MP to 8MP to 15MP (plus 21MP in another format) to 18MP cameras.... And have since bought two more generations, each with a little more MP! Heck, I even skipped several generations along the way! (3MP, 10MP, 12MP, etc.) We're seeing something similar now in mirrorless!

None of the above are "deal breakers". Each "problem" noted may have no importance to you and/or is being worked on and dealt with by the manufacturers. And certainly, as we've seen in other responses mirrorless has a lot of pluses. In fact, recent mirrorless systems are fully capable of meeting most people's needs. But there are some things you may need to consider... Things that may affect your choices whether or not now is the time to go mirrorless. Or, if you do make the switch now, which mirrorless system would be best for you.

Thanks Irwin... good points. I do have studio lighting, which is adequate although it's not very powerful. I also have several options for macro flash that's more portable for field work. So I rarely need to push ISO very high when shooting macro. I did as you suggested and looked at some of my macro shots. Most were ISO 200 and with some random spot checking I didn't find any where I'd used higher than ISO 400, although I can't entirely rule out the possibility that I used higher at times.

Again, thanks for the info!

1) It is not in the cloud. Only the installers for the software are in the cloud. And only the images YOU DECIDE to put in the cloud are there. The rest are local, on your hard drives or SSDs. But ALL the software runs locally, except for a few Photoshop neural filters.

2) There are TWO Lightrooms. The "cloudy" one, Lightroom, which used to be Lightroom Mobile, does rely on the Adobe Cloud service to move your images among all your computers, smartphones, and tablets. I don't use it, so I won't mention it again. But Lightroom CLASSIC, the one developed for professionals and now at version 11.0.1, runs mostly on your local computer. It can USE the Adobe Cloud, but most of us don't bother doing that.

3) Lightroom Classic and Photoshop are designed to work together.

Lightroom Classic is a "hub" of your workflow:

> It is an IMAGE DATABASE (Adobe calls it a catalog-based image library).
> It is a CULL EDITOR (It uses a light table motif to allow you to locate images quickly. Then you can view them individually, or compare a couple side by side.)
> It is a RATING TOOL (Use 0-5 stars to rate your images)
> It is a METADATA tool (Add details about your images individually or in bulk, to aid in searching the catalog for them later.)

> It has a NON-DESTRUCTIVE, PARAMETRIC editor. (You see proxies of your images. Raw files are developed in LrC using Adobe Camera Raw, the same as they would be in Adobe Bridge ACR or Photoshop ACR. The same ACR serves all three, with different interfaces in each of them. The proxies change dynamically as you make changes on screen. ORIGINAL FILES ARE NEVER ALTERED. They remain in place, as LrC stores instructions for use during Export, Print, Post to Web, or Edit in Photoshop — or another external editor — operations.)

When you need more tools than Lightroom Classic has, hitting Command+E starts Photoshop, hands it a TIFF or PSD of your image (created right then, based on instructions stored in Lightroom). You make changes in Photoshop. When you save the file, it is stored on disk, BUT it shows up in Lightroom Classic, next to the original in the catalog! The same can happen with your other imaging application. You can configure LrC to use as many external editors as you wish.

In short, there is no argument: It's not "Lightroom Classic vs. Photoshop," but rather, "Lightroom Classic AND Photoshop." They are completely different toolsets with different purposes.

LrC was designed to do most of what professionals do to manage their images' basic development and editing after a session. Photoshop is meant as a FINISHING tool for retouching, color separations for offset printing, adding text, applying layer effects and filters, and more.

Photoshop is a "black hole time sucker." You can fall into an image and spend hours on it, before you realize you need to get real work done. Lightroom was aimed at keeping working pros on schedule by just doing the essential tasks as efficiently as possible.

Most of the currently made DSLR cameras that I have recently do not suffer from excessive mirror slaps. I do not have experience with every camera on the market but most of the digital Nikon and Canan models I have used over the past 18 or 20 years did not exhibit this issue to an alarming extent. I am no camera engineer or repair expert, but it seems the engineers have provided sufficient buffering of internal vibration.

I do recall, that my old and beaten-up Nikon F began to sound like a Model T Forn that needed a tuneup and slapped like a defective fan belt toward the end of its existence.

Even in the olden days, many of the better medium format SLR operated smoothly enough. Hasselblads, considering the size of the mirror and the complexity of the mechanism, were pretty good. Someof the less costly Japanese and Russian models would practically jump off the table when the shutters were released.

The new camera is not nearly as problematic in that respect, but old habits die hard and especially at slower shutter speeds, I use a sturdy tripod whenever it is practical and reflexively lock up the mirror before making the exposure. I still pref a cable or remote real for slower shutter speeds and remember the basic concept of not POKING at the shutter release on handheld shots.

It is something kinda ironic that some folks will go out and purchase the sharpest possible lenses and bodies with enormous megapixel counts and yet ignore or for some of the basics of supporting the camera, releasing the shutter, and managing the mirror issue. Sometimes it is no wonder- some shooters are so preoccupied with the back-button operation and all the control dials and sliders that they can't concentrate on someof the basics. To me, someof the cameras look like the instrument panel on the flight deck of a jet aircraft- too much stuff to mess with folks forget to "get a grip"!

Abstract

A study of the effect of mirror slap on the sharpness of images shows that (not a surprise) the use of a solid foundation for a camera is an important element in the generation of sharp images. The study was performed in order to quantify the effect. A series of tests were performed to see what the effect of the internal motions of elements in a camera would have on the sharpness of edges in the resulting image. The results indicate that the sharpness can be decreased by a factor of around two if the camera is not solidly constrained.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=3089