coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

Yes, people have too much time on their hands.

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

And very opinionated.

ejsfoto2u Loc: Golden, Oklahoma

I do like the idea of not needing to check the frame constantly. And I'll admit I have a friend who upgraded with
( canon R5 & rf 70-200mm 2.8f) my opinion the holy grail! I don't say that easily, it's with a little tone of jealousy, because the quality of her photos is undeniable.
But I don't see a way I can ever afford that set-up with out going into debt. Photography business requires constant expenses it's so hard to save up that much while keeping business running.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

On UHH you get:

(1) expert advice
(2) strong conflicting opinions
(3) completely wrong answers

And it’s up to the reader to sort them all out.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ain't that the truth!

ELNikkor

The Z6III might be in my future. IBIS, AF improvements, video focusing speeds & silence, and vintage lens adapters are far more important than any possible EVF compromises. I'll be keeping my D750 and D200 for any benefits they offer over mirrorless. Adding improvements does not mean removing previous benefits.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

😜🤪🤣😂🤣
Yep. When I go out to the nature preserves all I see are Alpas and Sinars.

tgreenhaw

If you are happy with the tool you have, anything else is a waste of time and money. That said your justifications are IMHO simply off base.

- LIGHT!!! If too bright, good luck using the display.
Huh? The EVF shows you the actual exposure. If it's too bright, your exposure will be too.

- Eyes issue If one needs glasses all bets are off, there is no way to adjust for that but use the tiny in camera display in the 'view finder'. Go check for accuracy on that since the display is made of tiny pixels vs 'a normal light' (analog)
Huh? Mine has the same diopter wheel to adjust just the same as my old DSLR

- Weight unbalance. (Light body, heavy lens)
Huh? Are you holding the camera with one hand?

richandtd Loc: Virginia

I really enjoyed using my D810 then during the Nikon Black Friday sale I picked up the Z8 with the 24-120mm lens.
The difference in the Z8 and the D810 is amazing and until I used the Z8 I had no idea what I was missing. I now can see why mirror cameras are being fazed out.

kcholman Loc: Florida

I think he was referring to bright ambient light hitting the LCD display, not the EVF or the brightness thereof. I typically use the EVF when shooting in sunlight, so that's not an issue for me.

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

I have to smile each time I read how everyone should totally reject the mirrored DLSR... you do list a Canon DLSR as "possibly enough" in your portfolio.

There are manufactures that produce DLSR's that cost north of 20K and more and are considered superior to any FF mirror-less camera in their discernible output (Leica S3 for example). "Rangefinder" is also a term not synonymous "mirror-less", yet have a huge following and seem to reject the replicated video seen in a mirror-less eye piece...

I think any modern camera that can help make the job of image taking easier, or may have superior image quality is a good thing. On the other hand the lack of a mirror has little to do with anything except in what you see in your viewfinder. Lens mount is also debatable if you consider all those who are using adapters or discovering "legacy" lens quality options.

Any image should stand on it's own. It's never about the tools used when it comes to things like fine art or auto restoration, so why is the lack of a "mirror" so important? The loss of the mechanical wonder is inevitable for sure, yet to see any difference directly attributed to the loss of the mirror has yet to be seen in my opinion. I think there is so much more to talk about, like sensor speed or possessor ability that really has a much bigger impact in what can be considered an improvement or advancement in an image.

Some features are for convenience, but I do acknowledge those things are necessary in future design, especially when it comes to eliminating mechanical things like the mirror...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

And another going off about something he clearly doesn’t understand. Never about tools? Maybe when I see artwork I like I don’t think about the tools used, maybe if I see a beautifully restored car I don’t think about the tools, but I bet the artist cared about his tools. I bet the auto restorer used the tools that felt best to him.
You don’t think the new lens mounts are important because of all those using adapters and discovering legacy lenses? It’s only because of those mounts that those legacy lenses are being used more.

therwol Loc: USA

The list of the "anythings" has been repeated over and over in this thread, "anythings" such as noise, speed, size and weight, IBIS, possibility of better lens designs, what you see is what you get and so on.

Image quality isn't the issue. The issue is features not possible with a DSLR. Does everyone need them? No, but you can't argue that no one benefits from them.

There will be a time in the near future when you won't be able to buy a brand new DSLR unless Pentax continues to be a holdout. You buy what's on the market. Many people will look back and wonder why we put up with the noisy beasts.

Edawsoni

Something's not right -- this thread is being edited!

I wanted to reply to imagextrordinair by quoting an earlier response back near the start of the thread but couldn't find it. It was from selmslie. I was however able to find a post from User ID that quoted the post by selmslie. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-802457-4.html#14517933

Here's the content (from quote) of the post that was removed.



What's going on? Why would selmslie's post have been removed and who removed it?