jim quist Loc: Missouri

I have 3 canon 1d series bodies and a great selection of lenses. And I am getting ready to buy the 1dx mk2. I have photographed documentaries for the Army, collegiate sports, weddings, senior portraits, high school sports pics, been published more times than I can count in newspapers, and in magazines. I don't baby my equipment, it takes a beating. Dings, rain, snow, heat, dirt, etc, It's just unavoidable. There is nothing I feel limited by with my current set up.
Can anyone tell me just why mirrorless is so much better? Can you tell me in simple terms why I would be head over heals in love with a mirrorless camera?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Because it is technology matching forward.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Exactly my thoughts. I can see a potential use for silent shooting in a church or wedding, but that’s about all I have come up with Jim. Since I can’t afford a 1DX2, my next body (if I live that long) will be a 5D4.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

That is part or it but there is more than that. The ability to see the exposure and color before you snap is another part. This saves time for pros and helps the rest of us learn. And the lower cost of production because of the elimination of the flipping mirrors stuff, and the need to calibrate phase detection elements is another part. And lower cost because of that is another part. And smaller and lighter is another part. And lower maintenance expense because Mirrorless sensors stay clean is another part.

Just saying....

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

"Can anyone tell me just why mirrorless is so much better?"

It is not. Why did you spend so much time writing the question?

"Can you tell me in simple terms why I would be head over heals (heels) in love with a mirrorless camera?"

That said, I have four cameras that I think shoot quality images. They have no flapping, flipping mirrors and their sensors are pretty small.

You shouldn't be "in love" with any camera. People are better candidates for "love".

JD750 Loc: SoCal

If it is not as you say, then why did Canikon just invest mucho dollars into a mirrorless product line?

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

I don't think it is a matter of better but different, there are pluses and minuses. I have mirrorless, because I went from a film Canon with FD lenses that wouldn't work with any DSLR, to digital and so mirroless was my only choice. The pluses in my opinion are, well 1st the endless lenses sources via an adapter, and for stuff like macro, I don't want auto focus and don't miss it on wide angle. Two is the EVF, what you see is what you get and for manual focus I love the focus aids. To some degree the size, when mated with the right lens. My a7ii makes a small, almost pocketable camera with the 35 2.8 Ziess on it. The one minus is the auto focus speed but that is changing with Sony's latest offerings, my a6500 with 70-300 on it if very fast focus. If I had a DSLR system, I don't think there is enough pluses that I would switch to a mirroless system. But I'm cheap and hate to re buy glass.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Because GW says so!!! LoL
SS

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Because Sony was having too much fun???
They also have NEVER hinted they will stop making DSLR's!!
SS

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Well, according to Canon their new EOS R's autofocus is the fastest in any camera. There are 5600+ AF points that cover almost the entire image area and it's able to focus down to -6EV (compared to 61-points, -3EV in 1DXII). It's also 30MP (versus 20MP in a 1DXII). The electronic viewfinder gives you immediate exposure preview and make possible to see in low light conditions, too. If you have any manual focus lenses, you'll like it's Focus Peaking, too. The articulated, 2 million dot rear screen might come in handy sometimes, too. It also can shoot silently, since there's no shutter or mirror slapping around in there. Plus the EOS R costs more than $3000 less than the 1DXII, leaving money to buy that RF 28-70mm f/2 lens! The EOS R is a bit smaller and lighter too, even with the BG-E22 battery grip.

Of course, nothing is perfect. The down side is that the EOS R will only get around 400 to 600 shots per battery charge. It's EVF acquires its image from the sensor and both the screen and the sensor remain active continuously while using the viewfinder, which puts a heavy load on the battery(ies). The 1DXII probably gets at least 4X more shots with a charge, though to do so it uses a much larger battery. There's a battery grip available for the EOS R, doubling it's battery capacity. And it uses smaller LP-E6N batteries, which cost about $65 each. That's $100 cheaper than the large LP-E19 pack the 1DXII uses... though of course you'll need more of the small batteries. The EOS R only has a single SD memory card slot and doesn't have anywhere near the frame rate of the 1DXII... only about 8 frames per second (versus 14 with the 1DXII).

And all your EF lenses will work just as good on the EOS R as on any other EOS camera, via an adapter. While I'm not a fan of adapters (they sort of defeat the size/weight savings of mirrorless, which isn't all that much with full frame anyway).... have to admit that Canon made clever additions to theirs. They offer three different adapters... a plain one, another that has an additional control (similar to what the RF lenses have) and a third that's able to use drop in filters (choice of circ polarizer or variable ND initially.... hopefully they'll eventually offer a drawer for screw in or gel filters, too. I notice that several companies have begun introducing various adapters for vintage SLR and rangefinder lenses, too.... Bet there will be a lot more of those for the RF mount in the future.

You might find this interesting... https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R-vs-Canon-EOS-1D-X-Mark-II

You also might read the EOS R reviews. There's a lot of discussion of possible RF lenses on Canonrumors.com, too.

Personally I prefer using an APS-C camera for sports, and for now there's nothing in the Canon mirrorless line-up. I still might get an M5 soon for street photography, portraits and general fun... but it's not a "money camera", so lower priority for now.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Shoot what works for you. That is my advice.

I shoot film, SLR and Medium format, D-SLR and mirrorless digital formats. They all have advantages and disadvantages. I think that film records light beautifully, much better than digital. I also think that for digital, mirrorless has less disadvantages and more advantages than D-SLR. But that is just me.

Bipod

Can anyone please tell me why fried chicken is so much better than other fast food?

I am looking for a good place to eat and everyone says you have to right now to that great
restaurant with the finger lickin' good chicken.

Can you please explain why I would be head over heels in love with that great chicken?

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

There is little if any reason you need to change to MILC'S if you are happy with what you already have. I keep reading one of the advantages of a MILC is size, they are smaller. I personally find this a disadvantage. I like the EVF but I have no problem with OVF.
You just go ahead and continue using what you are happy with and simply ignore all the Doom and gloomers and MILC fanboys. You will know if and when you are ready to get an EOS R. Me personally, I'm waiting to see what Canon does with the EOS R mk II. For now my 5D mk IV suites me just fine.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

If you're not a big fan of fried chicken or fried anything then maybe the chicken joint ain't such a great place after all.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

For your purposes, mirrorless (personally I like the term EVIL - Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras may not be the bees' knees.

The weight savings consideration is somewhat mooted by the fact the lenses don't change dramatically - other than some wide angle lenses that don't need retrofocus design since the distance from the imaging chip to the lens flange is around 20MM less than in a DSLR.

The EVF itself has upsides and downsides. On the former, since you're always in "live view mode" (as there is no alternative) the viewfinder shows 100% of the image to be taken - few DSLRs do that. And the EVF can compensate for low light situations - I've used a 10 stop ND filter on my X-T2 and could frame the shot without removing and replacing the filter - something not possible with a DSLR. These could be good if you do landscapes, for instance.

The downside of EVFs is that they still have s light lag time between when something actually happens and you see it in the viewfinder. This is essentially impossible to avoid - after all, there is in essence a little TV studio working it's little heart out inside the camera. That is, the chip is registering the image, the raw file is sent to the in-camera computer which must convert it to an actual image which is then sent to the EVF. Go to a Best Buy and stand in front of a setup where a video camera is connected to a TV set and wave your hand - you will see a very obvious lag between the time you wave and the time it renders on the screen...and EVF is that writ small. So for your purposes of sports and events where a fraction of a second can mean the difference between the perfect facial expression or whatever and a mediocre one, the fact that photons bouncing off mirrored surfaces have zero time lag (since we cannot perceive in haptosecond time) means you will likely be better off.

It's for the latter reason I kept my DSLR - no longer into events but for macro, where I handhold with a 200MM Micro Nikkor lens and a flash setup that includes a Rayflash ring light having that instantaneous focus feedback is still important.