Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

This may have already been discussed here before, but I have a question. There are some very good mirrorless cameras on the market nowadays, such as the Sony A6000, A7 and its various iterations, as well as offerings from Canon, etc. So, my question is, aside from a greater selection of lenses, what advantage(s) does a DSLR have over a mirrorless camera? Just curious. In my quest for a new camera, I want to leave no leaf unturned.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Canon doesn't really have any viable options. Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus on the other hand do.

Dslr advantages:
Better battery life, mostly due to the optical viewfinder.
Generally longer and faster lenses

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

How about performance? I had an A6000 and was pretty happy with it. Any shortcomings there?

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I've been 100% mirrorless since November 2013...so for me, no. Love my em1.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I do not think there is a good answer to your question at this point in time. In part it is personal preference and both technologies have advantages and disadvantages, and it depends on individual needs.

If you want an optical viewfinder and are happy with the form factor, a DSLR is probably superior.

If you want lightweight, are OK with a rear screen and/or an EVF mirror less may be the best way to go.

There are more dedicated lenses available for DSLRs simply as a result of time in the market and market share, but most mirror less cameras have adapters that can use other lenses, including obsolete manual lenses.

Some mirror less models still have noticeable shutter lag. Few if any DSLRs yet have EVF capability. This is a period of transition and will keep changing. Canon is getting more serious about mirror less, the M3 and M10 are definitely improvements, but I don't think Canon has an EVF available yet.

On the other hand mirror less cameras have all sorts of things like focus peaking and so on that are often not available as standard in DSLR models. With some Canon models those capabilities are available to some degree with 'hacks' such as Magic Lantern.

Personally I expect to see a lot of changes in the next 1, 5, to 10 years in this space before things settle down a little.

"You pays your money and you takes your choice" as the old saying goes. I would recommend that you make the best choice for yourself at a point in time and then use it until you feel the need to change again. The options are likely to be very different year by year.

"Leaving no leaf unturned" is a good approach, while others may advocate "Leaving no tern unstoned!"

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Thanks. I guess there are always compromises to be made whichever direction one chooses to go. One negative that I see with mirrorless is the cost of accessory lenses. In looking at Sony's lineup, for example, dedicated E-mount lenses are pretty expensive. Of course there are plenty of speedy DSLR lenses out there, to be sure, but at least Sony's offerings are pretty slim by comparison. I guess it must be more expensive to manufacture smaller lenses with the same features of the larger sized DSLR lenses. Yup, keep looking. I've got time.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Actually manufacturing cost is only one criterion. The cost is probably more related to the sensor form factor. A lens that can produce quality results on a full frame sensor will cost more than an APS-C, four thirds or smaller sensor. That is entirely related to sensor form factor, not mirror less or DSLR form factor.

Then there is the TAM (Total Available Market) consideration. A high end Canon EF L lens has a relatively small available market, so all of the manufacturing and design and product life-cycle costs and revenue need to be covered by the pricing. The costs and required profit need to spread across the number of customers. Big difference between 1,000, 10,000, 1,000,000, and 10,000,000 customers when the NRE (Non-Recurring Engineering) costs are the same.

Making things smaller can certainly be more expensive, but it is more likely the market opportunity that controls pricing.

That is one of the advantages of mirror less cameras with adapters. They can utilize lenses where all of those other financial considerations have already been priced in, but a 600mm f/4 lens is still going to cost big bucks. Not too many users out there that will spend the real spondulix!

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

There is really no easy answer to your question and there really is no debate. Both cameras have their own plus and minuses. For sports shooting, a DSLR might be your best bet. If you like to travel light, get a mirrorless. You really can't go wrong with either one. I really love those throw-back rangefinder designs from Olympus and Fujifilm, they are fantastic looking cameras.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Some of the DSLR manufactures make very complete systems and it may be more than just lenses..

From personal experience a good DSLR (Canon 70D) and a good lens will run rings around and Olympus E-M5Mark II in autofocus tracking when shooting high speed action.

I shoot with DSLRs and mirrorless systems.

BebuLamar

The viewfinder. That's the main advantage. If you don't find that is the advantage then go for the mirrorless although not having a lot of lenses the situation will improve in time.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Check out this link and it will turn all your leaves.

:D

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5170314750/what-s-missing-ming-thein-on-the-state-of-mirrorless

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

:thumbup: :thumbup:

However, I have not yet met a mirrorless system that would make me move away from a DSLR, and not yet one that would make me want to add one to the rest of my equipment. Maybe five years from now....

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Which ones have you tried.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Absolutely none for any significant period of time. I haven't yet seen one that moves the needle for me from a personal perspective. I have accomplished friends that use them, and am in some way expressing their comments, but I have handled their systems and decided that at this time that they are not for me personally.

I'm trying to take a balanced view, and trying to express that I think that mirror-less cameras have much to offer, especially for some, but not for all, at this time.

Having spent the majority of my life in hi-tech. and advising companies large and small, I have an appreciation of markets in transition. This is such a market.

I am not in any way against mirror-less cameras, but my suspicion is that they represent an intermediate transitional product design rather than the more stable end result of the transition.

As such, some degree of circumspection may be considered advisable.

I hope that you take my comments as supportive with reservations, rather than reactionary.

Cheers

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

I, for one, appreciate all the comments. I also realize that there are those who are firmly cemented in the DSLR category of cameras, just as there are those who swear by upper end P&S cameras. And then there are those who are very happy with mirrorless systems. I had a Sony A6000 for awhile and was very happy with it. I couldn't fault it in any particular area, and I appreciated the compactness and light weight.

However, I tend to agree that a good DSLR, i.e., 70D, D7200, etc., should outperform a mirrorless in most areas, IMO. The single downside to a DSLR is the size and weight. But for me and what I want to do with a camera, deciding between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera isn't a simple task. I just have to continue researching and checking different cameras out, however I am leaning most heavily toward a D7200.

Ultimately, there really isn't any one camera or system or style that is wrong or better than any other. I think it simply comes down to personal preference, based on what one want out a camera. So, which is better? Who knows. They're all good.