Beenthere

I doesn't matter what kind of camera it is. It's more important as to how well the camera is built. Obviously this varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. It has nothing to with the bayonet lens, and lens mount, as one commenter mentioned, they all use some kind of similar mount these days. Gone are the days when a lens was laboriously screwed to the camera body. Any possible damage from impact surely rests with the quality of internal construction, plus quality of the lens, and lens mount. The point of impact will determine damage, if any, to lens and body. Highly suggest using camera strap, or wrist tether at all times so you won't have to go through this. BTW, tripods can be easily knocked over

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

No camera is indestructible! Mirrorless and DSLR are about the same.

bwa

gwilliams6

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It has sustained as much or more abuse as my F3 did.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Correct. Drop a mirrorless, DSLR, and an Olympus Tough TG-6 twenty or more feet. The results will not be pretty. Drop the TG-6 from 6' and it should survive while the mirrorless and DSLR will probably have problems. Drop the mirrorless and DSLR from from 3' and there could be still be problems with both, but my guess is there would be less with the mirrorless than the DSLR. There are more mechanical features in the DSLR than the mirrorless cameras that can be messed up by external physical forces.

So you are correct that at some point (vertical distance) every camera will fail in a drop.

KindaSpikey Loc: English living in San Diego

👌👍👍

KindaSpikey Loc: English living in San Diego

I guess I'm one of the very few here who have not even handled one of these new fangled "cameras without mirrors", so I suppose I am not even qualified to answer the original question. However, I would guess that without an articulated mirror flopping about, it would be somewhat sturdier? But obviously I could as usual be completely wrong. On the other hand, from what I've observed, most of these new cameras appear to be a little bit "plastically", (is that even a word)? I'm sure you know what I mean, and perhaps not as resilient as they could be. "just be careful and don't drop it", is probably the best solution to that, but again, I don't know anything about these new systems and could be wrong, all I know for sure is that, I'd love to get one for myself, but just can't afford it! All the best,
Ray.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Modern thermoplastics are a far cry from the cheap plastic toys of our youth which is what many UHH members seem to base their opinion of "plastics" on. In many ways thermoplastics and composites are tougher then metal. Canon's first full frame mirrorless, the R and RP, are primarily thermoplastic and composite construction. The R that I had, aside from a slight difference in weight and bulk, looked and felt no different then the 5DIV it replaced. I have never dropped the R, or any other camera for that matter, so I can't say how it would have fared, but I doubt it would have been any worse off then any of my previous DSLR's. My current Canon R5, as well as the R3 and R6 all have full frames of magnesium alloy. Same as any high end DSLR. Their look and feel is no different than the DSLR's they replace. Todays full frame and upcoming APS-C mirrorless are not some cheap novelty. They are designed and built to replace and improve upon, in every aspect, the DSLR's that are now being phased out of production.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

My d500 with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 FL came loose from my spyder holster and feel 3 ft. to the board walk. Hit directly on the lens hood, lens hood cracked, no issues with lens or camera.
BOTTOM LINE: A lens hood can take a lot of the impact and protect the lens and camera from damage.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

We will forgive you cause like you said, "I am not even qualified". My Sony a9 is METAL, my Nikon's are a composite.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Over a period of about 60 years, I've had two cameras that needed repair and one more that I refurbished.

The refurbish was a D300 received in a box of trade items that had been broken by an idiot photographer who had force-mounted an incompatible lens and physically broken an interface linkage.

The first true repair was a Mamiya 645 which had been dented on the side in a manner that caused the exposure counter not to work.

The second was a D500 which was knocked off a gymnasium bleacher by an unruly child (not mine) and fell 18 or 20 inches to the footbord below. It still worked fine at the time, but eventually the flash system quit working. No flash through the hot shoe, the PC connector, or the 10 pin connector. What's interesting is that when NikonUSA repaired it, there was no problem with any of the mechanical parts in the camera. And there was not a mark on the outside. But they had to replace two circuit boards (the main board and the flash control board) and several elements of the interconnecting wiring.

So by this experience, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that a mirrorless camera would be less subject to disabling damage than my D500. On the other hand, the mechanical shutter (in cameras that still have one) would be subject to the same damage as the mechsnical shutters in any other camera. The IBIS motors and sensor mounts are more delicate than anything in a DSLR. And a sensor floating on those mounts is more subject to damage, even from routine cleaning) than the securely mounted sensor of a DSLR.

Bottom line...there is no case to be made that mirrorless cameras are more rugged and less susceptible to damage than DSLRs. The possible exception may be cameras without IBIS systems.

Canisdirus

When I go camping and I need to nail in my tent pins...I use a DSLR.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Arubalou

Titanium body?? Who told you that?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Well, there's no mirror to break. : )

Naturally, it depends on how it was made. A more expensive camera will probably be tougher. Dropping a camera causes many of the casualties, but how far, onto what surface, and what part of the camera hits first determines how much damage the camera sustains.