tdekany Loc: Oregon

You are a very uninformed person if you actually believe that M4/3 can't print your above mentioned sizes. Even the 16mp sensors can and do print even bigger than 20x30. I have them on my wall. Not to mention that if you are using the HI RES feature, you are working with 64MP (16MP sensors) or 80MP files in the 20mp cameras (em1 mark 2 and PEN-F)

Please try to provide accurate info.

markjay

of course mirrorless are better.
The only reason there are still DSLR's is that they are legacy cameras and people dont want to go out and change all their gear and glass. Even those still buying DSLR cameras are doing so because they cant use their glass inventory on most mirrorless.
It is just a matter of time. In 10 years, a DSLR will be the same as a film camera today - an antique only used by a few who are nostalgic and somehow think they have a special application that works better with a DSLR.

Anyone who says that is not the exact direction of the industry has their heads in the sand.

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

Not sure about that. I photographed my ex-wife's entire family on Halloween with my 1899 Graflex.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

It is not that one is better than the other, but that they are different designs. Most everyone understands the design of a mirror camera. But Olympus and Panasonic heard their customers wanting smaller, lighter, and less costly. They realized that a smaller format allowed the cameras to start being smaller. Then they asked the question of what are the various cost and weight of certain parts/assemblies. They realized that the pentaprism was a source of both size, weight, and cost. If they got rid of the pentaprism, they would have no need for the mirror box assembly, another source of size, weight and cost. But then how does one view the image at the sensor? Then someone thought, why not take the signal off the sensor and send it to a small TV screen for viewing? With that, the mirrorless camera was born. By taking out the mirror assembly and pentaprism, the body thickness was reduced and the height was reduced. Potential mechanical problems disappeared with the mirror box. A chunk of weight disappeared with the pentaprism. And the size for a camera shrunk and the weight of a camera lessened. Less material was needed for building a camera and, therefore, the camera became less costly. For the same sensor size a camera became smaller, lighter, and less costly. Then one shrinks the sensor size for more savings. This is why the Canon costs $7350 and weights 7.6 lbs. while the equivalent of this costs $4500 and weights 4 lbs. in the Olympus. There are pros and cons to each format, but these are some of the major differences.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Many, many folks called them mirrorless for about that long also!!

markjay

Please stop pontificating on this site. This was a response to the question as to why one is better than the other. And it doesnt answer the question. All it does is spout off about something that everyone knows.....

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Yes, but take care. Their souls are engraved in the film holder. When you remove the film, they can escape to infect others!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. It does address the question and I stated my answer right up front and supported it with observation. Since cameras with or without mirrors have sensors and the three controls of aperture, shutter, and ISO, in essence they are the same. Where they are not the same is in the design of their structures to house that sensor and the three controls. Yes, there are intrinsic differences between the sensor sizes, but that does not mean one is better than the other unless you are weighting one specific feature against another. Each format has it's pros and cons. This means that comparison between an APS-C mirrorless camera and a 4/3rds mirrorless camera will have its pros and cons with photographers picking one or the other as the "better" camera for them. Like wise, the comparison between an APS-C mirrorless camera and an APS-C mirrored camera will also have their pros and cons with photographers picking one or the other as the "better" camera for them. So as I stated before, it is not so much that either mirrored or mirrorless is better than the other, but more a difference in design preference. You need to learn to read.

markjay

You need to learn to understand a question and not waste peoples time.
The question was - which is better.

If you think neither is a clear winner - than dont waste our time pontificating on why you think there are pro's and cons - nd then not even saying what you think are the pro's and con's ! What does your rambling say ? ..... It says people may have design preferences - in response to the question - which is better. You are clearly the type that just likes to hear yourself speak. You dont even care what you are saying. You just like to be listened to. In actuality - you are just wasting peoples time here.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

markjay, which type do you think is better?
I use booth. Sony a6000 and Nikon D500. For me hands down D500 is better. Bought the a6000 for an extra camera. My wife wanted a smaller lighter camera and my daughter needed a camera for a South African Safari vacation we went on in June.

D500 controls and menu system is better. Both take nice pictures. a6000 can be a kind of point and shoot if you want to go full automatic. Live View is simpler for some adjustments on the a6000.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

These are differences between manufacturers, not differences between technologies; controls on my MILC Pentax Q-7 and my DSLR Pentax K-30 are virtually identical. If Nikon would construct an APS-C MILC, it would have technology of A6000, but controls of D500.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

That would be nice.

Dalek Loc: Detroit, Miami, Goffstown

I have the Olympus m1 MarkII with a few lenses for general travel. When out in the field I still use my Nikon DSLR gear with tele primes.
Yes I enjoy both. I am still not used to the electronic viewfinder. I have found the Nikon Dslr D5 and D500 to be MUCH better at focusing on birds in flight. The Oly is ok not on a par with my Nikon. However the Oly MarkII is MUCH lighter as are the lenses and MUCH smaller to pack for travel. In general the lenses are somewhat less expensive for the Oly as compared to equivalent Nikon lenses in focal length and F-stop.
Now having said all of this: If I was not a bird-in-flight shooter and was buying a first camera, I would explore the less expensive Olympus M5 and Nikon 5600 bodies with kit lenses.
The bottom line is to have fun getting into photography.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

As a follow-up to my own comment, it would be interesting to compare user interface of new Canon M5 to those of Canon 80D and T7i.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Again, the OPs question was which was better, mirror or mirrorless. Since I am answering the OP and not you, I gave the OP the why for my answer just like all the other people posting their answers. Sorry if everyone's answers, and the various differences between the answers, offends you.