cdayton

I’ve never seen discussion of this issue so I thought it was worth raising. When I compose a scene with my D610, for example, I am looking directly at the scene albeit reflected off a mirror and reoriented by a pentaprism. When I compose a scene with my Sony a6000, for example, i am looking at a processed image of the scene. Yet, there seems to be a great rush to mirrorless with people selling D850s to get some latest, greatest mirrorless almost-equivalent. I understand the advantage of lightness, higher frame rates, etc. but are we losing something of the art of photography?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It would appear to simply be a different method of image acquisition to me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

No.

Did you lose something when AutoFocus replaced manual focus?
Did you lose something when digital replaced film?
Did you lose something when aperture priority replaced shutter priority?
Did you lose something when lenses were enabled with stabilization?

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I use both DSLR and Mirrorless, and I think not. My transitions from one to another are seamless, and I see no difference when it comes to processing.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

No.
Composition and everything else remains exactly the same.
Using your logic we lost the art of photography in the switch from looking at upside down and reversed images on a ground glass under a black cloth at shooting aperture. Then putting a wet plate in and exposing it, etc.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

I have been shooting with a Sony mirrorless camera for almost five years, and I have not lost anything in the transition from my Nikon DSLR.

I would look at the question of "looking directly at the scene" (DSLR) vs. "looking at a processed image of the scene" (mirrorless) in a different way. If I want to look at the scene I do not need a camera--I just look at the scene. Or a cut a peephole out out of a shoe box.

When I take a picture, I want to see how the camera processes the scene to understand how the picture will turn out. That is one of the big advantages of mirrorless: I can see how the camera will handle focus, exposure, white balance, etc. before I take the shot and can make adjustments accordingly.

dbrugger25 Loc: Raleigh, NC

One feature I really like about mirrorless is the viewfinder brightness is amplified. I can easily see and compose an image in very low light conditions.

I have a Canon 5DMk4. It is a fantastic camera but in low light it was very difficult to see the subject in the optical viewfinder. I could use the live view screen but that caused a shutter delay,

I have no such problem with the Canon R series cameras. Also, the mirrorless cameras autofocus better in low light.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Not just no, but hell, no!

I used SLRs, TLRs, dSLRs, rangefinders, view cameras, and long roll portrait cameras with three different types of viewing systems. I can say, unequivocally, that the technology is not responsible for the art of photography!

Technology simply enables you to do certain things more easily. Mirrorless gear enables LOTS of things to be done more easily, and makes a few things a little more difficult (for now). You have to study your choices and decide whether or not it will benefit you.

My choice was simple. I wanted a camera that was purpose built as BOTH a still camera AND a video camera, in equal measure. That's why I bought a Lumix GH series camera (GH4 at the time). The fact that it was mirrorless made the video features far better than they would have been on a dSLR. The still features were more than adequate for my purposes, and generally remain so, although I may add a GH6 later this year to improve everything.

I don't miss mirrors. I don't miss rangefinders. I don't miss ground glass. I don't miss any of it. I welcome the new versatility.

Believe it or not, I would rather have a Micro 4/3 camera than a D850 [or insert your example brand and model here] for what I do. That's because I don't need what the D850 can do! I don't do those kinds of photography. I did my research and bought a system that made the most sense for my applications.

Is it perfect? Of course not. There is no "perfect" camera. There is, however, a camera that fits your needs right now.

At most stages of my life since 1968, I have had a camera that met my needs quite well. It has gone from Canon, to Nikon, to Yashica, to Camerz, to Calumet, to Canon, to Nikon, to Canon, to Lumix, with Bronica, Polaroid, Pentax, Minolta, Petri, Fujifilm, and Rollei thrown in along the way, whether rented, borrowed, or assigned, at least momentarily. They all had a purpose. Some served the same purpose, while others were stand-ins or tests. Most of my work was with Canons and Nikons, at different times of my career, but in nearly equal measure.

All that said, I've never confused brands, or brand status, or brand market share, with the goals of my photography. I bought (or had my employer buy) what made sense for the variety of needs I had at the time. I still have two Nikons, a Canon, a Minolta, and a Bronica, all SLR film cameras I don't use. I look at them for laughs and flashbacks, now and then.

I like that you titled this thread, "Mirrorless and dSLR". The 'and' is important, because it recognizes that we all have reasons for what we use, and they may differ considerably.

wingclui44 Loc: CT USA

NOT at all! I don't care all of above!

JeffL Loc: New Jersey

There is one consideration that is rarely mentioned in these mirrorless vs. DSLR debates: investment. Some of us have thousands of dollars invested in our DSLR equipment: bodies, lenses, accessories. And, we have learned to work with the capabilities of our equipment to achieve the results we want. The real question is will the newer technology make us better photographers? There are a few benefits to the mirrorless technology, but are they worth dumping our investments if it is questionable whether the results will be better. My old Minolta SRT-101 produced some great photos, as did my film Nikons, but I migrated to digital because there was no longer a need to change cassettes or send out for processing. It just made it easier, not necessarily better. So, at almost 80 years old, I am still learning the capabilities of my D850, with no desire to change technologies. I’ve made my technology investment, and now my only investment is time.

pendennis

I resisted the urge to invest in mirrorless until a couple of months ago. I'd tried a friend's Z 7, but after shooting "live images" for over 55 years, the mirrorless image via EVF, was a bit off-putting. However...

In June, I finally sold off some medium format equipment, and bought a nice Z 5, with the 24-50mm "kit lens". I was determined to give it a fair shot, and I wasn't disappointed. After setting up the camera, and buying a used FTZ adapter, I used it to get some very nice macro shots of flowers, some scenics, and just general shooting. After uploading the images, I was convinced that the Z series was something I'd like to use more.

A regional camera store had a Z 7 advertised, which had @ 5K clicks on it, was nearly flawless in cosmetics, and came with the power grip, and 2 EN-EL15B batteries. The only thing lacking was a memory card, but that was the "shocker". The new CF Express B cards are quite a bit more expensive than I was used to buying, but a 125gb card wasn't all that expensive, and now I'm getting used to a higher-end Z camera. The perceived lag in the image in the EVF and the subject (I shoot with both eyes open), gets smaller all the time.

Now, will I dump my D610, D750, and D810? Well, the D610 with <300 clicks may go very soon, but the other two are quite capable and familiar to me, so they still get a good workout.

The Z "S" lenses are still quite expensive vis-á-vis my AF's, but they, too will get less expensive as sales volume goes up.

Mirrorless is the future.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

It's just a different tool with it's own quirks and characteristics. EVF has advantages and disadvantages. OVF has advantages and disadvantages. The idea is to take great photos, either tool will get you there and you will get there faster if you have a good understanding of how your tools work.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Does the same thing differently.
Might make it easier. Might not.
Not surprising that one can justify the move.
Some have to have the latest and greatest.
Some just want to be cool, getting on the band wagon.
Some welcome the change with open arms.
Some don't care.

Not exactly like going from film to digital though,
Just going from digital A to digital B.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

Understanding "Buy-ology" was an important part of our business because people buy things for their reasons, not ours. A few of the most common reasons people buy what they do is due to:

1. Safety
2. Adventure
3. Significance
4. Relationships
5. Health and wellness
6. Success/sense of purpose
7. Growth and education

"Significance" is what drives people to camp out at the door in front of the Apple Store to be one of the first in line to buy the newest iPhone to be released. It is the feeling of being a success and "keeping up with the Jones". It is a "feeling" that they seek to achieve more than the tangible item itself.

A successful salesperson knows that the products or services that they sell have three essentials which are:

1. Features (what the item is) in our case it's a camera.
2. Advantages (what it has) in our case, a touch screen, in-body stabilization, high frame rate, tracking, video, etc.
3. Benefits (which always equates to feelings) The joy of taking and sharing images that make one feel that they have made the best choice available and obtainable for them.

Getting a prospect to feel good...heck, to feel great, about what they are buying is the easiest sale of them all for they have already sold themselves as to why they want it, what it will do for them, and most importantly, how they will feel about owning it.

rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

I won’t be buying any more cameras, but for my edification, is this a proper summation of the difference between DSLR and mirrorless? (with respect to the question raised.)

With a DSLR, and shooting either in RAW or jpg, what you see before pressing the shutter is a direct image, without any processing. After taking the picture, you will see on the screen a jpg file processed in camera by preset modifications. If you don’t like what you see, you can change the camera settings, and shoot again. The RAW file will not have had any changes made to the scene as the camera sees it. Both subsequently can be changed to your liking in a computer (if the data is present).

With mirrorless, what you see in the viewfinder before taking the picture is an image which already has been processed in the camera according to preset modifications. Before shooting, camera settings can be changed as desired, thus saving one step in the process. Theoretically, it also could obviate the necessity of postprocessing for some shots. But - a question: have any changes been made in camera to the RAW file, or is it still just data, and have to be postprocessed?

Loren – in Beautiful Baguio City