FF DSLR vs Mirrorless FF camera - has the weight and size advantage disappeared? (Page 8): Sony A7III vs Canon 6D Mark II (from Dan Watson) both cost around $2000.

gwilliams6

Sony A7III vs Canon 6D Mark II (from Dan Watson) both cost around $2000.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es7TZoYqDnk&t=520s

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Smolakid6X wrote:

What is the matter with everyone? I thought the driving choice between mirrorless and full DSLR is the blown up photo (16x20, 20x24, 30x36 or whatever)
The image in my mind is how the end result looks in a nice frame hanging on the wall. Some folks like MLess, some like DSLRs, let it go.

That maybe so about picture size, abut the biggest problem is most of the folks complain about weight which I find odd because by the time they start using other lenses on those 4/3rd. Camera’s the difference is so close and sometimes exceeds what the weight of a DSLR.
But health can play in some cases!

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

RichardSM wrote:

That maybe so about picture size, abut the biggest problem is most of the folks complain about weight which I find odd because by the time they start using other lenses on those 4/3rd. Camera’s the difference is so close and sometimes exceeds what the weight of a DSLR.
But health can play in some cases!

Printing at 24x36 on metal from my em1ii is not an issue...no need to use non native lenses. We have plenty of native choices, especially the pro lenses.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Cdouthitt wrote:

Printing at 24x36 on metal from my em1ii is not an issue...no need to use non native lenses. We have plenty of native choices, especially the pro lenses.

My thoughts remain as stated.

I know your feelings on 4/3rds. And that’s okay for you but others have there opinions too!

tdekany Loc: Oregon

RichardSM wrote:

That maybe so about picture size, abut the biggest problem is most of the folks complain about weight which I find odd because by the time they start using other lenses on those 4/3rd. Camera’s the difference is so close and sometimes exceeds what the weight of a DSLR.
But health can play in some cases!

You should really try to check into facts. Only on uhh would someone make a claim that m4/3 is as heavy as FF.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Smolakid6X wrote:

What is the matter with everyone? I thought the driving choice between mirrorless and full DSLR is the blown up photo (16x20, 20x24, 30x36 or whatever)
The image in my mind is how the end result looks in a nice frame hanging on the wall. Some folks like MLess, some like DSLRs, let it go.

No, it is whether or not you captured the shot to blow up to begin with. If one system gives you a higher keeper rate and better focus, that might be the one to go for. Of course this applies to sports, BIF etc. Keeper rate in a controlled studio environment is a different game.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

dsmeltz wrote:

To be honest, I really like a lot of what mirrorless has to offer. However, I have never considered weight the issue so many others seem to make of it. In fact, I think I would buy a grip if I ever went mirrorless just for the balance and feel. So many mirrorless cameras with long lenses look front heavy.

I don't care how a camera 'looks'. Backs when cameras were more svelte, I learned to cradle a long lens with my left hand, so when I get a Pentax KP, which is svelte for this generation of DSLRs, a grip is the last thing I would think of getting.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

rehess wrote:

I don't care how a camera 'looks'. Backs when cameras were more svelte, I learned to cradle a long lens with my left hand, so when I get a Pentax KP, which is svelte for this generation of DSLRs, a grip is the last thing I would think of getting.

Good for you??

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

Svelte? Most mirrorless look a lot like bricks IMHO. Not saying their not awesome tools, just that many are squared in corners etc w/o graceful ergonomics. But then beauty is always in the eye of the beholder...

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

It's called "quick reply" so I'll make it quick.
4/3 was my format since it was called 110 film.
M4/3 is now my format because cameras are back to that size again.
I will never use a large picture taking apparatus for photography. It stays small, or not at all.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

DaveyDitzer wrote:

With the increasing popularity of FF ML (mirrorless) and accompanying increase in size, it seems that the weight advantage of the ML vs the traditional DSLR is rapidly disappearing. Without less weight and compact size advantages, what are the compelling reasons to switch from DSLR to ML?

The weight advantage depends on the lens and body combination and can go either way, particularly with FF ML. The smaller sensor ML cameras still boast an advantage in most cases.

If one is heavily inventoried in lenses and accessories there is no compelling reason to switch at this time. However that could change. Today how many still shoot with the professional Kodak models...?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

rehess wrote:

I don't care how a camera 'looks'. Backs when cameras were more svelte, I learned to cradle a long lens with my left hand, so when I get a Pentax KP, which is svelte for this generation of DSLRs, a grip is the last thing I would think of getting.

ltj123 wrote:

Svelte? Most mirrorless look a lot like bricks IMHO. Not saying their not awesome tools, just that many are squared in corners etc w/o graceful ergonomics. But then beauty is always in the eye of the beholder...

I specifically referred to a Pentax DSLR, plumper but with the same lines as this Pentax SLR

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

RichardSM wrote:

That maybe so about picture size, abut the biggest problem is most of the folks complain about weight which I find odd because by the time they start using other lenses on those 4/3rd. Camera’s the difference is so close and sometimes exceeds what the weight of a DSLR.
But health can play in some cases!

This is only true for maybe 4 or 5 cases. The rest, as far as size and weight, is a slam dunk for 4/3rds to win over FF. Click on the link below to see a comparison by Image Resource (formerly SLRGear) of the Panasonic GH5 + 200mm f2.8 and the Canon + 400mm f2.8 in the second image in the review. These systems are essential the same except in low light ability (both good to ISO 6400) and DOF. Which one would be easier to carry for a whole day without a tripod? It can easily be done with the Panasonic (6.5 stops stabilization with this combo and easily handholdable). Does anyone think it would be easy with the Canon?

https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/200mm-f2.8-power-ois-leica-dg-elmarit/review/

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

wdross wrote:

This is only true for maybe 4 or 5 cases. The rest... (show quote)

Yeah, just about any Canon fanboy will think it’s easy. Wait for it...

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Cdouthitt wrote:

Yeah, just about any Canon fanboy will think it’s easy. Wait for it...

I'm not sure, but the Canon setup could be half my 5'8" height. Add a camera strap and I know the end is at least below my hips. Enough weight there to damage one's thighs or knees.