tdekany Loc: Oregon

You are exactly correct, but for birding the Sony A9 will destroy you 2 combo setup. Just saying. 20fps, silent shooting and even beats the D5/1dxII for fast shooting. So mirrorless is there right now. Just as an FYI.

photog601 Loc: New York, NY

I agree both are fine to own.

HT

Thx, but FYI, based on actual use of a (burrowed) A9 before I purchased the D850, I respectfully disagree.

The 20fps doesn’t interest me, especially when one up with 20fps of out of focus shots as soon the light gets difficult, reduced DR, or if it starts to rain and the (barely there) weatherproofing or robustness of body becomes an issue, or the battery life: just sayin’

Look, mirrorless has a bright future, but it doesn’t suit everyone just yet. And the Sony A9 certainly does not “destroy” my combo of D500/D850 and fast primes in my photographic circumstances.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

I agree that mirrorless already provides equal or better IQ than DSLRs. I would like to add a couple of clarifications.

"[The IQ] has nothing whatever to do with whether the camera has a viewfinder composed of a prism and mirror or an electronic screen.] This is true only superficially. The electronic viewfinder allows you to see the picture before you take it so you have a lot more control over the outcome. I have been spending much less time in post since I have been using a Sony A7 III. More importantly, it enables a new generation of autofocus systems, including eye autofocus, that a DSLR with its analog viewfinder cannot provide. This makes a difference in IQ.

"The mirrorless allows closer distance from the lens to the focal plane, and theoretically that CAN improve image quality in a variety of ways." True, but not just theoretically. A shorter flange distance makes possible more compact, high-quality lens designs as seen in the compact and light-weight Sony 24mm GM lens.

HT

I know I’m going to regret participating in this thread...

One: a DSLR using an optical viewfinder, it’s not an analogue system. EVF’s strive to first equal the quality of an optical system, then improve upon it via WYSIWYG. No EVF is yet as good as an optical system.

Two: shorter flange distances have some advantages, but don’t think for a moment it’s not without significant challenges. Not all lens made for a short flange will be more compact or better quality than found cameras with longer flange distances. Not by a long shot!

Three: Terrific you spend less time in post with mirrorless. Congratulations and sincerely hope you continue to get pleasure from your kit, with or without a mirror 😎

anotherview Loc: California

You made my argument for me. Similar IQ between the two approaches. Other considerations thus may weigh in favor of mirrorless.

jcboy3

You should look at Pro Capture in the Olympus E-M1 II.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

No, it is not "as good" it is BETTER. My wysiwyg EVF can show me the well exposed scene in virtual darkness. My optical Nikon is just as blind as I am. The only people who can say "No EVF is yet as good as an optical system" are those with limited or no experience using an XT-2 or equivalent EVF.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Increased control of the outcome is not due to whether a mirror is employed or not, because the IQ is determined by the lens and sensor. The virtues of the EVF have to do with enhancing the skill of the operator in making decisions, not specifically the IQ. There was no "just" in my statement. Yes the short focal plane distance does allow for more compact lenses. It also allows for FASTER lenses which will allow for better IQ in low light conditions. Some of these are as yet theoretical as the lenses have not yet been made to exploit these advantages. But these advantages are not due to the differences between viewfinders, but rather to the spatial geometry afforded by elimination of the mirror, and differences in the lenses permitted by the altered optical physics. In other words we can make more efficient lenses if we get rid of the mirror. And better lenses will make better IQ.

le boecere

Take it to'em, Cat!!

HT

Srsly? Why do Mirror v Mirrorless discussions wind up becoming a form of homiletics?

Nikon D850 will AF down to -4EV. A Sony A9 will AF down to -3EV (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Specifications.aspx?Camera=1136)

You may think your mirrorless performs better in low light, but it doesn’t. And even “if” your magical thinking was infectious and indeed it is superior to the D850, -4EV is hardly “blind”.

Here’s another simple fact: your mirrorless is no doubt a superb camera, yeah!!! But here’s the thing, my DSLR choice is also superb and it suited my needs better than mirrorless: for now.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

anotherview Loc: California

I like your analysis of the virtues of mirrorless camera mechanics.

To this statement of yours, however, I'd add the processor: " the IQ is determined by the lens and sensor." Conceptually, the processor makes sense of the signal that the sensor recorded.

1963mca

I know this will sound like sour grapes, but I have to agree. I've gave up on Sony products in the late 80's. From the end of the 60's on, I had purchased many Sony products, tape recorders, cd players, hifi equipment, radios, TV's etc. They were fine for several years (4 or 5 typically) but then started to fail. In the majority of cases, when I tried to get support I was told the parts were no longer available (proprietary/specialized ic's etc). I switched to other brands and did not experience the failure rate I had with Sony. In fact I still have some hifi gear I purchased after my Sony gear and it is still functioning today, over 30 years later. Now if it failed today, and no parts were available, I could understand that. But I have not purchased any Sony products since that time. While hopefully Sony's product parts life cycle is much greater now especially with high end gear, I am not willing to risk a purchase of very high end expensive equipment based on my track record with them. The Sony items I had originally purchased were also high end gear at the time that usually didn't get me much past 5 years of use. I won't mention what brand cameras I use so as not to start a war, but the only camera I have that had a problem, I purchased in 1989. The failure was the LCD in the viewfinder got too dim to read and this was just 2 years ago. I contacted an authorized repair shop about the failure. They said they still stocked the lcd, and gave me a very reasonable repair cost. I sent the camera in, got it back a few weeks later with a new lcd, plus a list of several other items replaced due to wear, and a complete CLA, for the same quoted price. This for a 25 year old camera (at the time). Comparing this experience to my Sony experience, I'm not about to change brands. Admittedly, my Sony experience is well over 30 years old, but you don't have to be burned too many times to say never again.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

You are missing the point, I think. When you look through the superior optical viewfinder of your 850 into a poorly lit room in the early morning, what do you see? My EVF, providing I have dialed in the appropriate ISO and shutter speed and set the correct aperture, shows me a brightly lit room. I think it is fair to say, that you would have a hard time with your optical viewfinder just as I do with my Nikon, (under these conditions - my livingroom looks like a black hole through its viewfinder.) If you can. and just so you KNOW, why don't you borrow an X-T2 and see for yourself (or a Sony, though I have no idea if they are the same as the Fuji - I would not presume to comment on something I have not used.)