mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

you can also get a 40mp with an Olympus OM-D E Mark 5 II -- the subject must be static and camera on a tripod. How big do you want to go on a day to day basis? How much do you crop?

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

Sony is great but I would like to see at least one or two other players in the FF ML market - competition breeds better/ alternative designs and provides choices...3rd party lens makers would have more incentive to make more mounts available.

Right now it seems Sony has a monopoly in that niche (FF 35mm ML).

Fuji - APSC or Medium Format (they claim that there wasn't a significant difference APSC to FF)
Olympus/Panasonic/Lumix - M43 (Olympus - I think they have the best shot at a FF ML line)
Nikon 1 (Yuk!)
Canon - APSC
Pentax - mirrorless?
others?

Am I right?

manpho789

I support the view that, in principle, and all other things being equal, a mirrorless camera will potentially produce sharper images. The mirror and its mechanism is an additional complication of the optical path and also may induce vibration. The technology is still developing and mirrorless and even shutterless are still changing.

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

That's a crock. They are as good and getting better and better. BTW, most of the R&D money is going into mirrorless!

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

It's the quality of the lens you put in front of that full frame mirrorless camera. Some Sony FE lenses can rank in quality with Nikon's Gold Ring Lenses and Canon's "L" Lenses. Such as the Zeiss and GM lenses. I can't speak for the other brands of mirrorless cameras, because I am not familiar with them. Panasonic, Fujifilm, and Olympus. The newest Sony a7r3 with its 42 megapixels sensor, is a competitor, to the best DSLR in its class.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"So how is it that having a mirror and pentaprism in a camera makes its images superior to those taken with a mirrorless camera?
Greg"

They are not superior. I cannot speak on behalf of others but images taken with my Olympus bodies exhibit excellent clarity and sharpness that give me awesome 13x19 inches prints. I seldom go any larger than that regardless of camera in use. I am sure those using Sony and Fuji share my experience.
My Olympus bodies sport 17 Mp. My D7000 also has 17 Mp. actually 16.2 Mp. and I am sure Olympus is around there too. With good glass both enlargements look great to my eyes.
One of the greatest advantages of my mirrorless bodies is that they have IBIS (in body image stabilization). IBIS is a great contributor to sharpness. Olympus glass is of excellent quality. Another advantage is that shutter vibration while shooting is minimal compared to a camera like a dSLR. It is necessary to lock the mirror up during shooting with a dSLR for better sharpness especially at low shutter speeds. Modern dSLR bodies have better shutter anti shock function when the mirror flips thanks to modern technologies.

gwilliams6

Nikon and Canon will most likely (if you believe the leaks) introduce high-end full-frame mirrorless camera systems of their own THIS YEAR to try and compete with Sony and other mirrorless brands. DLSR sales (while good in December 2017-due in part to great D850 orders) were down around 14% for the year 2017, while mirrorless sales were up almost 24% for year 2017.

The handwriting is on the wall. DSLRs won't disappear completely ever, but the photo world is marching toward mirrorless for a host of advantages. Competition among camera makers is all good for the consumer. Photographers hold onto you seats as you watch the greatest parade of new gear ever, in the run to the 2020 Tokyo Olympics were all these Japanese camera makers want the world to see their dominance.

Dale40203 Loc: Louisville, KY

Google "hybrid viewfinder" and follow some links for early suggestions that OVF and EVF might someday be available in the same camera.
Before the Nikon D850 was released there were rumors that that model would have those features together.
This Youtube "review" is pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JZ2lenfSaQ

gwilliams6

EVF users, like myself, see no need for an OVF ever again. So a hybrid viewfinder might interest some, but not me. Cheers !

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Lack of a mirror is not necessarily a disadvantage. Having a mirror can be!

Mirrors: always add vibration, can cause focus errors, add mechanical complexity that can lead to break-downs, require a thicker body to accommodate the mirror box, and black out the viewfinder at the moment of exposure. They also obscure the viewfinder when recording video. If you record a blend of stills and video, as I do, that’s a show-stopper.

The dSLR still has two very important slight advantages in certain situations: autofocus speed and a zero latency viewfinder. If you record sports, fast wildlife action, or birds in flight, the dSLR may be a better choice.

Mirrorless camera manufacturers are closing the speed gaps rapidly, though. Faster processors are reducing latency — the time between real time action and the electronic image of it that you see in an electronic viewfinder. And electronic shutter processing has enabled some cameras to continuously “pre-buffer” the last half-second or so of images. When you press the shutter button, you have already captured 12 to 15 images at a high frame rate. They are then saved, along with those you get by holding the button down.

A side effect of electronic shutters is the “rolling shutter effect.” But faster processors and new processing schemes are about to make that insignificant for most imaging purposes. In most situations, rolling shutter isn’t a factor.

There are plenty of reasons to keep using dSLRs, if they work for you. But if you study what’s available from the various “big four” mirrorless manufacturers (Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony), you may find yourself in a new world of possibilities. I did, after 44 years of using various Canons, Nikons, and more.

However, it’s worth remembering that the most significant factors in imaging are not in the camera technology, but about six inches BEHIND it.

As an editor once told me, “I don’t care about the pen you use, or the camera gear you use. I care about the stories you tell with them.”

juanbalv Loc: Los Angeles / Hawthorne

Thank you. Either you take the time to set your shot, or you don't. And if you don't, all the technology in the world will be for naught.

fetzler Loc: North West PA

I am sure this mirrorless camera will take fine pictures. (About $15,000 - 30,000 will give you a fine setup) . I

Think the expression that it takes a DSLR to make good pictures goes back to the day when DSLR's represented many fine 35mm cameras. If using film, Large and medium format cameras produce better images than 35mm cameras. Indeed, I had a Leica M-4 rangefinder that was optically better than Nikons. Mirroless cameras can be fine. Pixel size, pixel number and lens quality determine (largely) the potential image quality. The most important factor in producing a quality photo is a good photographer. I have made some fine images with a pinhole camera.

Bob Boner

Thanks for the answer

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Wow! Looks like I started a bit of a storm here. In going over my original post and the replies, I got to thinking that perhaps I misstated my case here. On reconsidering things, it would appear that what I should have said, (lest I be accused of vascillating) is that there have been statements made that DSLR’s are simply better cameras than mirrorless. I still take issue with that statement, maintaining that that is not necessarily true. At least not in all cases. Sony’s A7RIII is a good example. I maintain that if one makes such a statement (about anything) then they ought to be posting some proof, evidence if you will, to support that statement.

FZ200 Loc: New York

Thanx for a thoughtful and educational answer. But, what is the meaning of front and back in "front or back focus problems"? As an "ambitious amateur" i am often lost in professional jargon.