kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Seals. The 100-300 panasonic has no seal. I got the 100-300 ii has a seal.
Now I need to check my other lenses for seals.

gmontjr2350 Loc: Southern NJ

Go check the beach...

George

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I could not say that my Z9 provides a "suboptimial (sic)" experience. I'm not sure what you expect with this post since the quote you posted is referring to the "past." Todays' mirrorless cameras are top of the line in most cases and provide a very good experience for most photographers who use them. As with any equipment, sometimes the user is not up to the level that the equipment can provide and that could be the case with the new mirrorless cameras as they generally provide a lot of user options. My Z9 is extremely fast, has very accurate tracking focus most of the time, and I can take a shot at 10,000 ISO or even 14,400 ISO and turn out an acceptable image. If you don't want to buy a mirrorless no one really cares, it is personal choice and up to us to buy what works for us and what we like. Not sure why it would even be a debate as on one is forced to buy either type of camera.

elliott937 Loc: St. Louis

I simply wanted you to know what Outdoor Photography had to say about Mirrorless in the June/July publication.

I am neither opposed to mirrorless or in favor of mirrorless.

Bill

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The article refers to early mirrorless cameras. Today there are only one or two areas where dslrs compete well against mirrorless bodies. Of course, there will be some who will always prefer an OVF to an EVF. Mirrorless cameras are smaller, the lenses are physically smaller, the lenses are potentially sharper than DSLR counterparts, and on mirrorless cameras the need for lens micro adjustment is not needed. Mirrorless cameras provide focus directly on the sensors, while dslrs have a separate focus sensor for that purpose.

I gave up using my Canon DSLR equipment a year ago, changing to a Z mount Nikon. I have never regretted the decision for a moment.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Keep in mind, Outdoor Photography has to keep the advertisers happy, which includes camera and lens manufacturers. Right now, several of the camera manufacturers are aggressively promoting their mirrorless camera models and trying to get customers to abandon perfectly working DSLR cameras in favor of buying a new camera system.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

True. The advert and write-ups are basically saying DSLR's are now useless. Even worse are the snobs riding the trend, who flaunt the new gear and infer that those still using DSLR's are idiots.

IMHO, manufacturers would even sabotage the next generation to force buyers to like their preferred model, as what happened to the D7200.

The D7200 is viable business camera, the replacement D7500 was meant for personal use. The value of the model line went down instead of up.
IMHO, they sabotage the upgrade so that the D7500 will not compete with the D500 which they were pushing forth then.

User ID

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

User ID

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Posting deviously edited ancient remarks from a "respectable" source concerning a recent acrimonious topic, is just blatant trolling. Youll get at least ten pages, cuz Hogsters are sooooooo reliable for that.

But it wont even be entertaining cuz your material is exceedingly stale and likewise the ten pages will be just stale worn out "discussion".

(Download)


(Download)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Indeed the statement from Outdoors Photography is an early one. Mirrorless cameras of today are very good cameras with excellent EVF and excellent focus and tracking capabilities. Useless to say they pack more technologies than a dSLR.
I am not into wildlife photography, which I practice perhaps one or twice a year when I visit the Everglades National Park. I would not dare to focus on the eye of a deer moving around at a distance, something I do not believe I could do even if using a dSLR. What I use are OM system cameras with Panasonic and Olympus lenses and I could not be happier. Incidentally, if there is a better sensor cleaning machine than the one built into Olympus cameras I surely want to know. My EP-5 is over 5 years old and I NEVER experienced dust on the sensor.

I also keep on using my Nikon dSLR bodies and I see nothing wrong with those who keep on using their dSLR cameras in preference to mirrorless. It is a fact that a majority of professional photographers are using mirrorless cameras and they are not looking back. Well known nature photographer Joe MacDonald switched from Canon to Olympus during a trip to Africa and he came back from that trip so happy with the little camera and lenses that today that is what he uses in his photography.

I agree that the future is now and it is mirrorless.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Not true.
I have a Sony A7C and it locks 100% of the time on what *I set it to*.
On the rare occasions it did focus another subject * as intended*, I always could trace the fault to operator error.
Modern mirrorless cameras have phase focus points - many hundreds on some models - so there is no technical reason to focus worse than a DSLR... on the contrary, they perform much better.

tcthome Loc: NJ

How about tomorrow?

mindzye Loc: WV

Aw c'mon now. Tomorrow is SO yesterday, and in just the near future!

BebuLamar

I think you missed something. I understood that while the mirrorless had great potential early ones had limitations that took them years to resolve. But the problems have been resolved by now.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Right!

I went mirrorless in 2003 when I had to emergency-buy (on a short trip to Italy) a Canon digital compact camera (mirrorless by any meaning) after the horrible and violent death of my AE-1.

And yes, it was a lackluster, many problems... but nowadays, current MILC's * perform better * than DSLRs. They often have more focusing points, can use the actual content of the image to perform auto focus (think of eye-AF), the viewfinders are of stellar quality and do not get affected by the lens speed(*), EVF's show exactly what the sensor sees, etc.

Note *: This is a very important function for me, because I like to use ND filters, and on SLR's (film or digital), the OVF gets too dark... EVF's, on the other hand, are immune to this effect (to a degree of course... think astro)