gwilliams6

Wrong Ken. One great and smart thing Canon, Nikon, Fuji and Sony are doing is making and releasing new excellent mirrorless bodies in all price ranges now, so anyone can afford them on any budget.

Camera companies make more profit per unit partly due to lower manufacturing costs per unit for mirrorless gear.

Yes you can spend big on the top flagship mirrorless bodies and top OEM lenses, but it isn't necessary to get the great features of mirrorless. And you need to know that my DSLR Canon EOS 1DX and my DSLR Nikon D4 were $6500 and $6000 USD bodies years ago, with the top Nikon and Canon DSLR-designed lenses priced as much and even more than current mirrorless-designed lenses of the same focal lengths. Look it up for yourself and compare prices.

My top mirrorless cameras cost no more than my top DSLRs of old cost and my mirrorless outperform them and offer advantages that NO DSLR will EVER have at any cost. The mass consumer camera market is much bigger than the pro market and makers know they have to have gear that folks can afford to buy, or go out of business.

And with Sigma, Tamron, Samyang/Rokinon, Viltrox, Meike, Tokina and others making and releasing a steady stream of excellent image quality third-party mirrorless-designed lenses in native mounts for many brands, you can get excellent image quality without the costs of all OEM top lenses.

I currently have 13 native E-mount lenses from 10mm to 600mm from Sony, Sigma and Tamron, for use with my A1, A7RIV, A7SIII, and my best Sigma and Tamron mirrorless-designed lenses cost less than many of their Sony equivalents and still have excellent image quality.

FYI, I kept one of my Canon lenses, the superb (and expensive) special use DSLR-designed 17mm f4 TS Tilt-Shift lens which I use with the excellent Sigma MC-11 lens mount adapter. The Canon TS, an all manual focus lens is still priced at over $2000 USD. So the best DSLR-designed lenses are no system-wide bargain over the best mirrorless-designed lenses. Just a fact.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606803-USA/Canon_3553B002_Wide_Tilt_Shift_TS_E_17mm.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwlqOXBhBqEiwA-hhitFqubXP6b5SIOLebPfQmj89OOi1VXdxl4phuvTk-uYqFUnDpGEJmKhoCLKQQAvD_BwE

Please folks do your research before making false claims here.

Cheers and best to you all.

(Download)

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

“Mirrorless is nothing more than an improved DSLR”???? Blasphemy! You better watch it, talk like that will get you crucified, or at least tarred and feathered.

Actually wise words. Have a good day!

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

You do realize that you’re making the point that mirrorless cameras are better because their technology is newer and superior. Yes the original Wright Brothers plane has that cachet and historical significance but if I’m flying somewhere put me on that jet. Yes those DSLR’s are good cameras, great when they were top of the heap. They’re not top of the heap any longer.
How is this not a true and fair comparison?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

“Improved” being the key word.

gwilliams6

Lol, LOL. As usual, stubborn UHHers are going to defend whatever they own, whatever they have used for years and have grown comfortable with.

Loyalty is admirable, but blind loyalty doesn't change the reality of the facts in the photo world today and going forward.

DSLR dominance is done, and it isn't coming back . I thank my trusty ole DSLRs for the good service they gave me for decades, but for me as a pro it was time to move on with no regrets.

DSLRs will hang on as long as present and older models can still be sold in any numbers to justify their manufacturing, and as long as there are parts to fix them ,which is dwindling already.

Some DSLR models have already been discontinued and more will be discontinued as more and more buyers move to mirrorless . At some point, it just wont make any further economic sense for camera makers to continue to make any new ones. I do not know, nor does anyone know when that time will come, but it will surely come with maybe one or two present DSLR models hanging around like Nikon and Canon did with their 35mm film cameras for awhile.

FYI, I still have a film camera, a used 35mm SLR Canon F1 with a few SLR lenses for when I teach my 35mm B&W film class to my state university students. I made a lot of great and award-winning photos with that camera around the world on both dangerous and fun assignments alike. I will never get rid of it. Being nearly all mechanical, that 35mm film SLR will likely outlast in working order the one Nikon DSLR I kept.

Loyal DSLR fans, enjoy your DSLRs while you have them and they are still working for you. Relax, no one is going to come take them out of your hands. I will still appreciate your good photos you take with them.

Once you put aside your prejudices and examine it all objectively, for an ever increasing number of first-time and longtime photographers at all skill levels around the world, the move to mirrorless is a no-brainer and will be embraced by those at all budget levels.

Cheers and best to you all.
https://www.facebook.com/GSWilliamsPhotography

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I have never said that DSLRs are superior to TODAYS mirrorless cameras. The newest most modern mirrorless are superior to brand new DSLRs because the latter is using 3 year old technology whereas the former is using today’s technology. Because of the time-technology difference, the mirrorless damn well better show up a DSLR of equal mp and intended use.

I have an old Fuji (about 20 years old, 4mp) that is mirrorless. My 18 year old 6.1 mp bottom of the line DSLR has images far superior, far better low light performance and has faster startup and focusing. I guess that means that 18 years ago all DSLRs were far superior to mirrorless.

Is that a fair and equitable comparison? No, the DSLR was 2 years newer, 50% more pixels on a much larger sensor and cost 3 times the price. With all that it had better have increased performance.

That’s what I mean by fair comparison. Compare the bottom line consumer models against each other using the newest DSLR, which still won’t be 100% equitable because of technology age. Do the same with the top of the line models.

That’s why tractor pulls have weight classes to equalize the competition. In the 7,000# class you can have a lower horsepower tractor weighted down or a high hp stripped of much of its weight. One has a traction advantage the other has a power advantage. The winner is the one that pulls the farthest. Sometimes power wins, sometimes traction wins and sometimes it’s the driver skill that wins.

Notice any comparison to cameras? Sometimes processing power wins, sometimes the lenses win and sometimes it’s the photographer that wins. Whether or not the camera has a mirror is irrelevant. And don’t compare the newest digital Leica to a 620 film Brownie.

gwilliams6

"That’s what I mean by fair comparison. Compare the bottom line consumer models against each other using the newest DSLR, which still won’t be 100% equitable because of technology age. Do the same with the top of the line models."

Taking your quote bikinkawboy, proves exactly what most of us have been saying. If you compare present price categories and present intro to advanced models of DSLRs to their mirrorless competitors, it isn't even a fair fight anymore, the mirrorless will win hands down in many areas.

And you are mistaken about one thing you said. The reality is having or not having the mirror IS extremely relevant and paramount to the technological advancement, innovation and performance that separates modern mirrorless from present DSLRs. If you dont know or realize that then you are missing a lot here.

No DSLR stalwart will ever give up the ship here publicly in UHH ,LOL.

But if they had the chance to use the best of today's mirrorless without any hassles, costs or extra effort on their part alongside the best of present DSLRS, they might at least come to understand like top Wildlife Pro Mark Smith did, why the move can have game-changing benefits for many shooters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ruQVtSqnYo&t=1401s

Cheers and best to you all.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

But you don’t “equalize the competition” when comparing things. That makes the comparison pointless.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Innovation distinguishes the MILC from the DSLR.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

The problem is that too many of the posters imply that not having the mirror is what makes their cameras superior. The lack of a mirror does allow differences in design and construction, which can allow improved performance. But other than frames per second, removing the mirror is not what gives mirrorless the advantage.

Removing the mirror does not suddenly give the sensor improved low light performance. The lens being closer to the sensor does. Removing the mirror does not make the auto focus mechanism work better or the processor work better. Removing the mirror does not make the shutter better, it allows it to operate at a faster speed.

I’ve done electrical, hydraulic and mechanical repair for ages. Knowing how and why things work is vital. I’m sure that cannot be said of many folks here.

Have a good day!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You're right, and woefully wrong.

Removing the mirror changes how the camera focuses, with a better result for both new and old lenses based on improved technology.

Removing the mirror wouldn't make the sensors and processors better, but if companies only put their newest and improved technology into mirrorless cameras, removing the mirror certainly appears to be a first cause.

Removing the mirror unleashes a host of possible technology innovations. Removing the mirror is a first cause.

On top of all that, there's a vast difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless, one isn't even an acronym.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

Is that why in boxing you see welterweights fighting heavyweights? Oh wait, you don’t.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

That’s as strange a statement as saying you should “equalize” before comparing. Outside of sensor and processor pretty much everything else is due to the lack of a mirror. Any benefits of the lens being closer to the center are a direct result of losing the mirror. The ability to focus at f-stops greater than f/8 is due to losing the mirror.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

That’s only useful if you’re making a direct model vs model comparison. We’re talking about cameras in general, the common benefits. You want specifics? Ok, compare flagship models, a Nikon D6 at $6500 vs the Z9 at $5500. See which one comes out on top.

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

First off, never once have I said that DSLRs are better than modern mirrorless cameras.

That said, you guys have succeeded in convincing me that there are far more differences than simply losing the mirror. Basically two different systems that cannot be compared. I now understand. It’s like comparing apples to oranges. Both of those fruits can be turned into a breakfast drink but is one better than the other? No, it’s personal preference and what the person expects from it.

As are cameras, meaning one group does not need to keep telling the other that their system is better. Their system is different with inherent advantages under certain circumstances, but not necessarily better depending upon what the user expects from it.

I build furniture and use both walnut and cherry. Is one better than the other? The best one is determined by what I’m making, what tools will be used and it’s intended purpose. Sometimes it’s one, sometimes the other. Just like cameras.