Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

Well, I have a Nikon D850 and a 2011 Corvette Grand Sport Z16. I don't intend to upgrade my D850 to mirrorless, nor do I intend to upgrade my 2011 GS to a 2023 Mid-engine Stingray Corvette. It's a lot of money for both, and although there is an improvement in performance in both products, I'm happy with what I have. There will always be something better, but having something good is where we all want to be.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I don’t have to imagine - I am as ‘successful’ as I could ever want to be, and the answer is “yes”; I even use film some of the time. Technology relates to inputs, but doesn’t really relate to results -{which is all that matters}.

leftj Loc: Texas

I’m dying to hear about your success.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I'm not.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I’m happy; that is all you need to know.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Because the live view struggles to focus.
Because outdoors it is difficult for most to see the screen
Because holding the camera with a longer lens out from the body is miserable and unstable for most.
Nikon DSLRs are miserable to do video with if the subject moves due to inability to focus and all the reasons above.
Compare the DSLR for the reasons above with a mirrorles and you can very easily answer the question you asked yourself.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

These are either Nikon issues or user issues {I don’t hold a camera in ‘Zombie’ position, when using LV, for example}.

epd1947

Nothing at all wrong with continuing to shoot with a DSLR if that’s what you have and are comfortable with. As to live view - with the DSLR you are restricted to using that functionality only on the LCD screen so you lack the advantages associated with such viewing when shooting with the eye level viewfinder. If that’s not an issue for you then just stick with what you are comfortable using.

gwilliams6

gwilliams6

gwilliams6

Sorry wrong, as a longtime pro shooter with 50 years in the business that has used all iterations of gear for decades, the reality is that technology DOES relate to results too, always has, always will.

Cheers and best to you.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Sorry, I speak as an amateur of over 50 {actually over 60 } years, and have never afforded “professional level” equipment. What I do has been helped by the march of technology, but the results ultimately have depended on what I do, always will.

gwilliams6

Nothing wrong with sticking with what works for your and your needs, and satisfies you.

You acknowledge that there is improved performance out there to be had. If you need it go for it, if you dont need it, use what you have and be happy.

Too many UHHers wont even acknowledge the improvements available in mirrorless, in their zeal to defend their continued choice of DSLRs.

There is room for us all. I have used DSLRs since their inception, and I chose to move to mirrorless to reap the benefits of those performance and technological advances that no DSLR can physically ever have.

But not everyone needs those advances. And I respect those folks, maybe more than some DSLR UHHers respect mirrorless users here in UHH, LOL

Cheers and best to you all.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I began with a Kodak Instamatic, then purchased a rangefinder camera which allowed me to control shutter speed, but no change in my photography of trains standing still. Later I purchased a {Pentax} SLR, which gave me ILC, but no change in anything within ‘standard’ range. Later I gained autofocus when I switched to Canon EF/usm in 1995. I have had IBIS since I moved back to Pentax in 2015, so the recent discovery of IBIS by Canon and Nikon hasn’t affected me. In general, I don’t shoot weddings or sports, nor have I been affected by the “advantages” of MILC listed above {for example, I occasionally use burst - but never above 3/4 frames / second - no use for higher speeds}.

When digital arrived I was a Canon user, so I purchased Rebels, which were within my price range. Over the next seven years, I owned two of them. In both cases, the camera showed signs of processor problems, eventually failing and being good for nothing but the dump - so I switched back to {the same price-range of} Pentax. That was eight years ago. Since then I have owned two of their DSLRs. The K-30 lost the ability for the body to control the aperture, but works fine using film-era lenses which allow me to control the aperture at the lens. Thus, both of them are still usable. Since I don’t see anything I would gain from MILC, and not trusting lower-tier Canon after my experience with those two Rebels, and no experience with Nikon and their strange non-standard language, I see no reason to leave Pentax a second time.

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

If it’s not broke, no need to try and fix it. Stick with what you know.