PhotosBySteve wrote:
I personally own 2 DSLR'S and 2 mirroless.
To begin with, mirrorless offers virtually no weight savings whatsoever over their DSLR counterpart. That's all marketing hype!!! One or two ounces does not amount to much percentage wise.
The two mirrorless cameras I have are the Sony A7RII and the Canon EOS R. The Canon runs circles around the Sony in ease of use, auto focus capabilities, menu design, compatible lenses and image quality. Just to mention a few. The lens choice and AF are the most major benefits, bar none.
I personally own 2 DSLR'S and 2 mirroless. br To b... (
show quote)
No surprises there. Sony and Olympus menus are confusing to many, and Canon's and Panasonic's are among the best. If you cover sports, the Canon AF is excellent, and they have a lot of EF and EF-S glass from which to choose. Sony is still building their lens collection.
If you're comparing full frame to full frame, or APS-C to APS-C, no, there is no significant savings in KIT weight. But Micro 4/3 kits are about 1/2 to 1/3 the weight of equivalent field of view coverage full frame kits. There is a corresponding decrease in cost, as well. A 12-35mm f/2.8 lens is half the cost of a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L full frame lens. If you never buy full frame lenses, and build a kit for an APS-C camera, you save a marginal amount of weight over full frame. But IMHO, it's not dramatic enough.
Photography and life are full of little trade-offs. Compared with full frame gear, the quality cost of Micro 4/3 is two f/stops of noise in low light. The quality cost of APS-C is about one f/stop of noise in low light. A full frame 16 to 24MP camera is likely usable at ISO 12,800. The same noise characteristics are usually present at ISO 6400 on a 16-24MP APS-C body, and the same noise characteristics are usually present at ISO 3200 on a 20MP Micro 4/3. There are corresponding similarities in dynamic range and color depth at those speeds.
What you gain with Micro 4/3 is better image stabilization, portability, air-worthiness (my kit fits under an airline seat on most major carriers), and all-around video and audio performance.
If I were looking at full frame mirrorless, I would wait for Canon's and Nikon's and Panasonic's next generation full frame bodies. By then, they should have more native lenses available, and should have addressed all the shortcomings reviewers and users have noted thus far. On the other hand, as crappy as Sony menus can be, their performance is excellent. We can't forget that they have several years' head start on the other full frame mirrorless brands.
For >95% of what I photograph or cover with video, Micro 4/3 is enough. For the other 5%, which I haven't encountered in five years, there's LensRentals.com or BorrowLenses.com.