rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The point of the earlier comments is that a rather sophisticated adapter would be needed to work with lots of different lenses.

therwol Loc: USA

No. I have a D810 and plenty of lenses and no complaints other than the weight of lugging all of it around. I've dragged it all to England and Germany twice but took a compact Canon G7X Mark II on my last trip. I do use it closer to home as my primary camera.

I'm not going to upgrade, not even to the D850. I don't need the added speed or the 4K video. I don't think I'd see a difference with the lenses I own. Focus peaking would be nice, but not worth spending the money on the new camera.

There has been some discussion here about not upgrading until Nikon's mirrorless cameras are released. There has been some discussion about lens compatibility. I was just trying to address the lens issue with what I know. I'm not waiting for anything. I'll evaluate what comes along when it comes along, but I'm not holding my breath over it and may never buy another camera. I'm retiring soon and will be living on a pension and savings and don't see spending much more money on photography equipment for a long time, if ever.

That's my answer to your question.

Good morning, by the way. Time to go to sleep in California.

TSHDGTL

Because I could start using Canon glass on my a-mount type camera.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Thank You for your eloquent reply, a mirrorless full frame is just a camera (which at times produces strange motion artefacts) has to continually poll the sensor interpolate the rgb pixel sites to create an image of what you can see directly.

It does the opposite of what excited me so much as a kid about an SLR "you can see exactly what your lens can see!!" I loved that. At the time I had a basic point & shoot and the disappointment of parallax error. A friend of mine (Ian Watson ... the envy burnt deep I remember that name) had a Pentax ME Super which I was so envious of and had no chance of buying. I'd regularly look through the window of the 2nd hand shop of the high street which had a few Zeniths and the Practica MTL3 (my first SLR in the end and got stolen) leaving me SLR less till a car boot sale brought me my first Pentax the K1000...

It was really the disappointing quality of the Kodak Photo CD which moved me away from the SLR and towards the DSLR. I honestly wanted a digital back for my K1000 and found it in a Pentax K200D (body only). I love my optical viewfinder and adjusting the focus ring and bringing the scene into focus the digital read out underneath the frame lets me know where i am with the exposure triangle.
Thats all I need and want: even Autofocus lenses rob me of the pleasure of bringing the scene into focus.

I have an m43 panasonic and I have no love for it beyond its ability to adapt vintage lenses. That sterile mini monitor and its white noise as it tries to pull light out of near darkness is like Margarine to Butter an inferior substitute.

I take photos because I love to do so, mirrorless is a hollow prospect, like sex with a prostitute instead of being with the woman you love...

I'll stick with the dslr's and my vintage lenses.

BebuLamar

I agree! The SLR allows you to see what the lens see. The Mirrorless allows you to see what the sensor captures. I do prefer the first option.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Post processing is about bringing the digital image closer to what you saw of the scene, with mirrorless what did you see of the scene? nothing really, too busy looking at the digital capture :)

I guess mirrorless can save a lot of post processing work.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

I think I will prefer a camera with a mirror too. Somehow it just feels nicer. I can see some of the advantages of a good evf of course. Nikon famously has poor af in live view, and it would be so nice to have functional af with the screen active.