Mirror vs Mirrorless (Page 2): Paul pretty well covered it, but to reiterate: silence is golden, no need to fine tune lenses, shutter speeds to 30 fps, and (for fast moving subjects)...

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Paul pretty well covered it, but to reiterate: silence is golden, no need to fine tune lenses, shutter speeds to 30 fps, and (for fast moving subjects) the af system absolutely phenomenal.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

RGreenway wrote:

Some do not like the EVF and prefer an optical view. And mirrorless cameras are more prone to sensors getting dirty from changing lenses frequently. For me I have been using mirrorless for a long time and would never go back! The advantages of the EVF and smaller size camera bodies make up for and disadvantages.

Mirrorless cameras are FAR less prone to getting dirty sensors. Most dSLR dirt is metal shavings, oils, and bits of foam from the mirror vibration dampening system. If you change lenses properly (camera facing down, back to wind, or indoors or in a calm-air environment) then you’ll have less dust in the mirrorless body. It took four years for visible dust to land on my Lumix sensor. My old dSLRs only had lenses removed to clean the sensor — about every 2-4 MONTHS. The Canon 50D was the dirtiest. The mirror mechanism was over-lubed.

LCD

Digital cameras were not a good replacement for film cameras at first. Then digital improved and surpassed film in many but a few areas. Mirrorless cameras will do the same, but will not take as long to do so.

LCD

Digital cameras were not a good replacement for film cameras at first. Then digital improved and surpassed film in many but a few areas. Mirrorless cameras will do the same, but will not take as long to do so.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Canisdirus wrote:

Mirrorless is better...incredibly better.

There are those who cannot afford to switch...and that's fine...absolutely fine.

Then there are those who are simply...luddites.

Seems as if those luddites have been taking prize winning spectacular photos for centuries now. Surely those pesky old mirror cameras cannot be that bad.

Dennis

Canisdirus

dennis2146 wrote:

Seems as if those luddites have been taking prize winning spectacular photos for centuries now. Surely those pesky old mirror cameras cannot be that bad.

Dennis

They took them with the best tools available at the time.

Just like today.

Mirrorless is better...not even close anymore.

Caveat: I'm not saying you can't get a great image with the old tech and optics...you can.
But you have to work a LOT harder...and you will get a LOT less.

Now if you just walk around shooting for no particular reason...and IQ isn't what you are after...no need to change.

For everyone else...benefits await switching to the better tech...it's better.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

I have used many cameras over time, starting out with my father's Roleiflex and my own Cosina Hi-Lite. I have been shooting mirrorless exclusively for four years now (Sony A7 III and A7R III), and I have never looked back. Mirrorless cameras are superior in every regard. There is one exception: more dust on sensors.

But that does not mean that DSLRs have become incompetent overnight. My brother still uses a Nikon D810, and he takes great images. He sees no need to change to mirrorless, and I could not agree more.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

BebuLamar wrote:

I do not like the EVF. What don't you understand?

BebuLamar

Canisdirus wrote:

They took them with the best tools available at th... (show quote)

And it's the same guy who said it's not the camera it's the guy behind it. For me the camera matter a lot and for me it's the SLR digital or film. Not the rangefinder nor mirrorless.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Canisdirus wrote:

They took them with the best tools available at th... (show quote)

If that is what is important to one.

I wonder if those who have real expensive cameras, spend hours editing in the latest expensive editor, waiting for the perfect light timing, cringe when someone simply says "Nice Picture.".

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

BebuLamar wrote:

The one single down side of mirrorless is the EVF. Period.

I have been a Canon DSLR shooter for over 15 years and have been using my 7D Mark II as my main camera since 2015. I recently acquired the Nikon Z fc and love the EVF. I understand that earlier EVF's were more problematic, but the current ones seem to have worked out most of the kinks. I sometimes find going back to my Canon's optical viewfinder difficult and miss the EVF features..

BebuLamar

mwsilvers wrote:

I have been a Canon DSLR shooter for over 15 years and have been using my 7D Mark II as my main camera since 2015. I recently acquired the Nikon Z fc and love the EVF. I understand that earlier EVF's were more problematic, but the current ones seem to have worked out most of the kinks.

I can easily manual focus on any part of the frame with an SLR or DSLR and using no focusing aid just the pure ground glass. I can't do that with the EVF without either using peaking or magnified. I want to manual focus without any focusing aid. I never use the split image in an SLR. I didn't like rangefinder not because the inaccurate framing because I don't compose that tight any way but because I had to use the split image to focus.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

BebuLamar wrote:

I can easily manual focus on any part of the frame with an SLR or DSLR and using no focusing aid just the pure ground glass. I can't do that with the EVF without either using peaking or magnified. I want to manual focus without any focusing aid. I never use the split image in an SLR. I didn't like rangefinder not because the inaccurate framing because I don't compose that tight any way but because I had to use the split image to focus.

You want to work harder for inferior results as in manual focus with no modern EVF focus aids? My manual focus lenses are way, way better on mirrorless than ever once achieved at 20-years on film bodies.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

BebuLamar wrote:

The one single down side of mirrorless is the EVF. Period.

Actually that is biggest advantage. Indeed, the new camera’s should be called EVF vs mirrorless. We don’t call today’s autos crankless.

Suspect people who make EVF anti rants haven’t learned newest ones.

IDguy Loc: Idaho

BebuLamar wrote:

I can easily manual focus on any part of the frame with an SLR or DSLR and using no focusing aid just the pure ground glass. I can't do that with the EVF without either using peaking or magnified. I want to manual focus without any focusing aid. I never use the split image in an SLR. I didn't like rangefinder not because the inaccurate framing because I don't compose that tight any way but because I had to use the split image to focus.

Guess that’s what “luddite” means.