SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

While it’s true that a good photographer will get better results with a mediocre camera than a newbie with a state-of-the-art camera, the point that these “a new camera won’t make you better” seem to miss is that it’s the accomplished photographers that benefit the most from the new technology. I agree that if you weren’t getting good results a new camera won’t help, but that new camera can make a good photographer more efficient and consistent.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

You just made my point clearer. YES, a great camera can make a great photographer more capable by enabling a wider range of control or techniques.

Really, what I'm saying is, don't upgrade until you've exhausted what you can do with current gear. READ the fricking manual. DEVOUR everything you can about photography. STUDY the works of top photographers as well as artists.

We were recently at Abbey of Montserrat in Spain. They have an incredible art museum there. It is filled with works of the old masters of European art. Seeing them affirmed everything I have ever learned about color, composition, light, moment, proportion, and more. We had about an hour in the museum... We could easily have spent full day in that part of the Abbey alone! It was awesome.

As Grace Slick so eloquently sang in White Rabbit, FEED YOUR HEAD. The more good imagery you can serve your subconscious mind, the better! (Mind altering drugs not required!)

... meanwhile somewhere in Norway Loc: none

Well said... A really good rock in the hands of a craftsman will perform better than a child with a chrome hammer...

According to some we are in a new universe of image gathering... perhaps all photos created before the removal of the mirror should be marked and identitied as inferior with a water mark or all of the data should be deleted. Film photographers should be ashamed of themselves for contributing such garbage... Hard to believe for some that the mirror removal can elevate a career, make them famous or increase the size of there wallet... lol

Refreshing to have steady wisdom chime in. Part of my career included restoring old multimillion Ferrari's... the old tools and the craftsmanship applied always had a better outcome over any fancy new tooling... Some of the finenest and most resolved images ever crafted were captured back during the civil war... Back then there were no mirrors, so perhaps I'm wrong to see value in bargain priced DLSR's....

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I agree with much of that but I’ll take issue with two things. I hadn’t exhausted what I could do with my old gear. There were things it could do that didn’t interest me. I’m not gonna spend time working on things I’m not interested in. I got new gear because it opened doors in areas that interest me. Also I DON’T read the fricking manual. Yes I occasionally use it as a reference, the thing it was created for, but I find you can learn a lot more about your camera from reading third party books or watching videos. The manuals tell you how to set a certain feature but I find that other sources give more in depth info on features, including nuances that might vary depending on the situation.

TonyBrown

I am a Nikon shooter and recently bought the Z9 with a view to selling my D850 and D6. However, whatever people say about mirrorless being the future I still love my D6 and D850. The image quality of the D6 still astounds me and I have decide to keep both my DSLR’s. I will predominantly shoot the Z9, but those saying that mirrorless is the only way to go are, in my view, misguided and it will be a sad day when Canon and Nikon only produce mirrorless cameras.

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

If they do, I'll win it. (unless I'm dead first)

... meanwhile somewhere in Norway Loc: none

... Can you show us an example of the door swinging wide open for you from the removal of the mirror? ... Perhaps include an old lifeless uninspired Dlsr image that you used to take... The side by side images may demonstrate the mirrorless miracle once and for all...

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Jim said, " I have a D 7100 and am happy with my results. Why should I change unless I have a GAS attack. Everyone does not need the latest and greatest"

I am 100% in agreement. I still use my old but trusty Nikon D7000 and like you I am very satisfied with the results. I have been using Olympus mirrorless cameras since around 2002. The first one I used was the Pen EP-L1, a really small camera that caught my attention for its size and the use of interchangeable lenses. I have now other Olympus cameras but I have not neglected my dSLR. As a matter of fact, my most recent post shows images I made at a local park using my D7000.

If you are satisfied with what you are using at present there is no reason, regardless of the age of the camera, to buy anything new.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Alas, you don't understand. Or, you're playing the sarcastic game on a wonderfully deep level.

The new technology is going into the new mirrorless equipment, only. So, advancements in processors, pixel resolution, noise reduction, AF capability, AF eye tracking, lens design, frames per second, lighter materials, video resolution, even the rear LCD display. These will appear only in mirrorless equipment. DSLRs have reached their apex, now back around 2018, never to advance higher. The average mirrorless is now well beyond all but the best and final DSLRs.

These are why mirrorless is better. Not because the new cameras have magic powers that warp the cameras and images of the past. The magic of mirrorless is their ability to create the future.

... meanwhile somewhere in Norway Loc: none

Actually the 1DX MK 3 is a hybrid transition camera with some of those features, and is a current model built after 2018... and yes it is fun to go deep state with humor...

The truth is... for a few more years the DLSR will remain viable and is able to perform on a pro level. There are some real bargains to be had if you look but In another five years perhaps a different story. I'm sure to go mirrorless when the time comes, but when I can get double the equipment and still surpass mirrorless in some areas... that's a good thing in my mind. This post is more about money, comon sence, and usability. There are many who cannot master one tenth of what is built into today's current cameras, but dump and spend to have the latest and greatest...

bikinkawboy Loc: north central Missouri

I think a good analogy of the mirrorless-DSLR squabble is in the automotive world, the old fashioned carburetor-points ignition vs electronic ignition-digital fuel injection.

There are conditions where the old mechanical systems can perform equally to that of the newest computerized systems. However, the old systems can never function as efficiently as the new systems under all conditions.

That said, there are many things a DSLR can do just as well as a mirrorless. Conversely, there are things a mirrorless can do that a DSLR can never do simply due to physics.

Technology keeps marching on and old will never outdo new whether it’s cameras or fuel management systems. Just remember that today’s crop of mirrorless cameras will soon become obsolete just like today’s digital fuel injection made earlier electronic fuel injection obsolete. Technology is just like a rose: the bud grows, matures, has its glory moment when it blooms but then wilts and dies. Today’s mirrorless are in their glory moment today, but in a few years they will just be old outdated cameras.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Paul pretty much nailed it. There’s no way of knowing if a shot was taken with a DSLR or mirrorless. People that say “you won’t get better IQ with mirrorless” are right and I’ve always said it’s not a reason to go mirrorless, (although as sensor technology improves mirrorless are getting capable of slightly better IQ simply because these sensors will never be used in DSLR’s). The things I get from mirrorless enhance the shooting experience and allow me to get shots that would be difficult with a DSLR and would require some luck. Faster frame rates and better AF tracking are game changers if you shoot wildlife or action. Especially with my cameras that have absolutely no screen blackout when I’m shooting and pre capture modes that allow me to get shots from before I pressed the shutter button. While I often use a tripod, IBIS allows me to get handheld shots at slower shutter speeds when I can’t use a tripod. Being able to “see” the exposure removes any guesswork on how much EC to use when making exposure adjustments. I also use manual lenses on occasion and mirrorless is a real game changer here. DSLR’s were never designed for manual focus, lacking even the focusing aids such as split screens and microprisms. With mirrorless I have focus peaking and 10x screen magnification, opening up much better use of those lenses. So no, I can’t post an image that demonstrates the difference in mirrorless. If you’re problem is lifeless, uninspired images it won’t make a difference.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I apologize for the rambling nature of this, but it's edited from many of my previous posts.

I used Canon and Nikon gear for 44 years. Then I switched from both to Panasonic. Here's why:

There is no *viewfinder blackout* at the moment of exposure. You have a choice of what happens at the moment of exposure — continuous live view, or image review.

The camera requires *no noisy mirror* that gets out of focus alignment. Fewer moving parts mean better reliability and less vibration/sharper images.

There is *no fan-like mirror to knock dust and goo onto your sensor.* (There is less air movement in a mirrorless camera during exposure. Mirrors blow bits of metal and lubricant and mirror-dampener foam dust all over the place. The sensor may be exposed when the lens is off, but a quick lens change is less likely to spot the sensor than the dSLR camera's own deteriorating mechanisms.)

There is *no flippy-floppy mirror to make noise.* Because there is no mirror, the shutter can be, but does not have to be, "electronic" — essentially, the camera makes a COMPLETELY SILENT video frame grab.

The removal of the mirror allows engineering a shorter lens flange to sensor distance. This improves wide angle lens designs and performance, and allows mirrorless bodies to mount lots of different dSLR and cine lenses, via adapters.

The EVF, lack of a mirror, and silent electronic shutter allow low light stills and video work in a theatre by not distracting others with noise or a dSLR's rear-of-camera live view LCD.

The EVF can show you the effects of manual exposure changes. It displays what a processed JPEG image will look like, so you can make menu adjustments on the fly and generate files for truly immediate use.

The EVF can be used for most or all of the tasks that the separate OLED or LCD screen on the camera is used for. It can display several different sets of information, including a live histogram, audio meters for video, full exposure data, a level, and much more than a dSLR can include.

You can see an image in the EVF in far dimmer light than with an optical viewfinder. The EVF is always clear and bright.

You can focus and meter with smaller maximum aperture lenses than are possible to focus and meter through with a dSLR. The EVF can compensate for the smaller aperture during composition.

"Pixel shift" schemes allow still life compositions with four times the resolution, by recording 4-8 images sequentially and combining them. 100MP raw hand-held, from the GH6?!?!

The camera can *buffer a stream of continuous frame grabs,* so that when you press the button, it saves the last 15 frames or so before the button press, plus a lot of frames after you press it. Then you may scroll through the buffered images and pick the one(s) you want to save to the memory card. That lets you pick peak action or peak expression.

Many of these things can be done *after exposure* on a dSLR, but the EVF allows feedback before, during, and after exposure.


Why I use Micro 4/3:

On a purely practical level, I make tests to determine whether any given piece of gear, and/or a given *system*, will meet my needs. (I tested before I bought.)

For most of what I do, for instance, Micro 4/3 absolutely suits me best. I record lots of video with important, single-system, onboard audio, and I record lots of stills. The results are most likely to wind up on smartphones, tablets, computer screens, projection screens, TVs, and video monitors. Still photo results may also be viewed as PDF files, or printed to letter-size documents. I rarely print larger than 20x16 inches, but I've had two awesome 40x30 prints made from un-cropped Micro 4/3 files.

I don't use a full frame or APS-C dSLR, because there are not enough AV options available at a reasonable price. I could use a few other mirrorless cameras. Sony could work well, but it would mean spending twice as much and carrying a much heavier and bulkier kit that would yield an insignificant difference in the work I do. And I HATE Sony’s menus.

But... for LANDSCAPES, a full-frame or even a medium-format system would be much better than m4/3 or APS-C, especially for making large prints (30x20 or 60x40 inches). Even though the *standard* viewing distance for any print is 1x to 1.5x its diagonal dimension, more pixels and more details allow closer inspection. Joe Public probably won't notice, or care. But the format nazis at your local camera club probably will!

Panasonic Lumix Micro 4/3 high end:

The G9, G95, the GH4, GH5, GH5 II, and GH5s series, and the new GH6, have a great "feel in hand."

The Leica lenses (8-18, 10-25, 12-60, 25-50, 50-200, 100-400, 9, 12, 15, 25, 42.5, 45 macro, 200 f/2.8…) are spectacular. So are the 12-35mm f/2.8, and 35-100mm f/2.8 weather-sealed Panasonic Pro lenses, and the 30mm f/2.8 macro.

The menu and general working ergonomics are quite likable, especially among those coming from Sony and Olympus models. They are most familiar to Canon users.

That said, it's hard to find a bad camera these days. Six sigma quality is a given. The manufacturers have carefully carved out their individual niches in the market, with varying blends of features catering to different users' needs. Study reviews carefully and compare feature sets with your needs and wants.

A MAJOR advantage of Micro 4/3 is that it is the ONLY camera format (other than Nikon's now-defunct, much smaller, and electronically noisier 1 series) that saves you a lot of weight when you put a complete system together. You can save 2/3 to 3/4 the weight over an equivalent full frame system, and 1/3 to 1/2 the weight over an equivalent pure APS-C or DX system ("pure" means you don't buy full frame lenses for APS-C cameras).

The other MAJOR advantage, for me, is that Panasonic, in particular, has spectacular video. I use a Lumix GH4 for filmmaking. I plan to get a GH6, soon.

The Lumix G9 records even better video than my GH4, but because of its lesser audio features, it is aimed at still photographers. The G9 competes nicely with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II and Mark III. Each has a few goodies the other doesn't have. Check out online reviews (http://www.dpreview.com and YouTube are great places to start). Menus and ergonomics are entirely different.

The GH6 (like all the GHx bodies before it) is made specifically to record a hybrid balance of video and stills.

The GH5s is filmmaker-centric. It is a low-light complement to the GH5, primarily for videography. It disappoints bloggers, because it does not have IBIS, but leaving out IBIS was intentional, because IBIS won't work in jarring run-and-gun situations (chase scenes, safari video from the back of a Jeep, etc.). It disappointed still photographers, too — The GH5s has HALF the MP count of the GH5. But that means it records much less noise in low light video… for performance comparable to full frame bodies. It also has Dual ISO (400 and 2500 are both considered 'native').

My GH4 (and most other G & GH models I mentioned) can be COMPLETELY silent, when used in electronic shutter mode. I used it in a dark theater one night to make over 300 exposures without disturbing other patrons.

Over 110 native Micro 4/3 lenses are available — https://alikgriffin.com/micro-43-lens-buying-guide/

On the downside, the best Micro 4/3 cameras (except for the GH5s) have about two f/stops less light-gathering ability than full frame cameras, and about one stop less light gathering ability than APS-C and DX cameras, when you compare cameras of the same age and similar megapixel counts. That's by the laws of physics.

ISO 3200 on Micro 4/3 is about as noisy as ISO 12,800 on an FX (full frame) Nikon, or ISO 6400 on a DX (APS-C) Nikon, which is to say all three are pretty useful up to those points.

For video, ISO 6400 is still usable on Micro 4/3, because motion hides some of the noise in most situations. (You can see this equivalence for yourself by comparing the test charts. Go to this review of a Nikon D5 (https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review/6) and Compare raw at ISO 12,800, with raw at ISO 6400 on a Nikon D500, and raw at ISO 3200 on both a Lumix G9 and a Lumix GH6.)

If you are an extreme sports and wildlife photographer, I would *rent to try before you buy* (good advice for anyone in any situation, actually). But know that the Micro 4/3 system you build today will still be viable in the future. Each generation of camera body is more and more advanced, and brings with it a wave of new lenses to take advantage of it.

Panasonic frequently updates the computer firmware in its cameras and lenses — not just to fix bugs, but to add new features, improve performance, ensure compatibility, and match some features in its other new models. So the camera you buy today will get better over time, provided you download and install the new firmware updates.

There are two fisheyes at 8mm in the Micro 4/3 world. One is by Panasonic, while the other is by Olympus.

Leica engineered an 8-18mm f/2.8-f/4 zoom for Micro 4/3. If you need the rough equivalent of a Canon 16-35mm, that's it. Olympus has a 7-14mm f/2.8 zoom, and Panasonic has a 7-14mm f/4 zoom, too. None of these zooms is a fisheye.

So whether you come to Micro 4/3 from Canon or Nikon full frame gear, you can find an equivalent for most of your lenses. "35mm equivalent field of view" focal lengths exist from 14 to 800mm (7-400mm actual focal lengths on m43). Again... https://alikgriffin.com/micro-43-lens-buying-guide/

About Audio:

The one area where dSLRs and some mirrorless cameras' video features fall far short is AUDIO.

About 60% of what we perceive from most video is in the soundtrack. Yet most of these dSLR/MILC cameras have:

> truly awful microphones that pick up camera handling noises and aim upwards
> microphones that will almost never be close enough to the subject to yield a decent signal-to-noise ratio (i.e.; closer than three feet)
> no headphone jack
> automatic gain (record level) control that cannot be defeated
> no manual audio level controls
> no level meters
> no switchable peak limiters
> no line level input
> an unbalanced mic input that limits noise-free cabling to about six feet
> noisy mic preamps

Accordingly, to get around this, use an external digital recorder/mixer at 48KHz sample rate, along with external microphones. Then sync the sound in Final Cut Pro or Premiere Pro (etc.), using (then muting) the reference track from the camera to match the good audio wave forms in the timeline.

What I DO, and how Video fits into it:

I am a training content developer. I use a Lumix GH4 for about equal amounts of still and video photography.

I used to use a Canon EOS 50D and a Canon GL2 SD video camcorder. Using both was sequential, confusing, and slow. Traveling with both was expensive and tiring! Excess baggage charges added up quickly. Security of the gear, and going through airport security, were always worrisome.

Now, everything I need is in one backpack that fits under an airplane seat. If I record 4K, I sometimes extract stills from the video to use in printed and PDF manuals. So now, much of what I do takes half the time.

Since I grew up with SLRs in my hands, I actually PREFER that form factor for video. I had six different video cameras or camcorders from 1982 to 2012. For the work I do, I don't miss the features or shape of any of them.

Maybe if I were making Hollywood movies, an ARRI Alexa, or a Red Epic, or even a Black Magic Cinema camera would make sense, but for simple storytelling, training, documentaries, and film festival entries, my GH4 is fine.

If you don't think professionals can do good work with cheap cameras, look up the film, *Sriracha*, by Griffin Hammond, free on Amazon Prime. It won several festival awards. It was filmed with the older Lumix GH3.
 
On my Panasonic Lumix GH4, I tend to use 1/24 or 1/48 second shutter speed for 24.000 fps cinematic video. Outdoors, I use an ND64 for six f/stops of light reduction. For late in the day or cloudy days, my ND8 (–3 stops) is good.

The slow shutter speed allows some motion blur from frame to frame, which is what makes film action look smooth. The wide aperture allows better isolation of a subject from the background. 1/24 is very dreamy looking; 1/48 is more realistic.

Yes, you can use higher shutter speeds, but the video will look jerky at 23.98 or true 24 fps.

Three formats, six manufacturers:

Canon and Nikon recently entered the professional and ADVANCED enthusiast full frame mirrorless world. They are about ten years later than pioneers, Panasonic and Olympus. The discontinued Nikon 1 System (1" class sensor) worked fine, but it was aimed at fashion-conscious travelers. The Canon M series (APS-C) got off to a rocky start, but its current models are fine.

Fujifilm is known for its medium format (larger than full frame!) and APS-C cameras. If you want spectacular JPEGs from your camera, look at Fujifilm's XT-5 first. Fujifilm lenses are mostly spectacular. The cameras are solid and reliable. Their 50MP medium format sensor is cleaner than Canon's 50MP full frame sensor, so if you need that...

Sony makes APS-C and full frame mirrorless bodies. Their menus can be complex, but they have quickly become a top supplier of cameras, period. Sony makes the sensors in many other cameras (Nikon Z9, for instance). Check out the A9II, A7rIII, A7III, a6500...

OMDS (Olympus) is known for excellent lenses and clever engineering. OM Systems' Olympus OM-1 is jam-packed with cool features that make it extremely useful in a wide variety of situations. Their E-M1X is for sports/wildlife.

Panasonic is known for excellent lenses, great ergonomics, intelligible menus, and video-centric engineering. I've noted why I use them above.

dSLRs will be with us for years to come. Their market share is fading rapidly, but they still have advantages for certain types of photography that, until matched by mirrorless bodies, will make them viable. At the current moment, only Sony (A9II) and Nikon (Z9) make models that challenge the top dSLRs for fast action, low light sports, and wildlife still photography.

I could go on, but that's enough to chew on for now. Do your research!

... meanwhile somewhere in Norway Loc: none

That was interesting and I did read the entire page.

One thing not mentioned is that live view is essentially mirrorless... The 1DX MK3 hybrid is at the level of today's mirrless when the mirror is up. Many shoot with a screen or with monitor rather than the eye piece. I like a monitor for portraits and automotive shoots and get corner to corner focus and fantastic eye recognition.

The point is that there are many DLSR's that are capable and built like tanks now on the market. They have a long expected lifespans and in the case of my purchase, there are still 470,000 exposures left in the combined, predicted life expectancy.

I use a Fuji X100s for walk around casual images, but with all the features and advancements, it still cannot compete when it come to focus to my DLSR's... and I don't really like the live view, I switch it off.

When the R1 is out, step aside cause I will be first in line... For now I will be happy with two 1DX MK 3's... they should produce over one million images between the two and the second was dirt cheep.

It is great mirrorless are being developed, but I will take two for the price of one any day... that is... until mid 2024 perhaps.

Aloysius Loc: Tampa, FL

Are you saying that Journey’s “ Lovin, Touchin, Squeezin” is a tribute to mirrorless cameras?