The attractiveness of mirrorless cameras (Page 6): I used both, DSLR and (now) mirrorless. I can tell you after using both types for years, (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Miranda etc on the...

danbir1 Loc: North Potomac, MD

I used both, DSLR and (now) mirrorless.
I can tell you after using both types for years, (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Miranda etc on the DSLR side for about 35 years) and the Fujifilm X system these days, that the reasons for switching (for me) to mirrorless were :
1).....Weight - the APS C Fuji X-T20 weighs quite a bit less than my older FF Canon 7D and so do the
Lenses...
2).....Build quality - Less plastic and more light metal like magnesium and most of the lenses in the
system are superb in built quality.
3).....Image Quality, (I know I might get an argument from some of you...), but, enlarged on a 52" TV
Screen, the Fuji JPEG quality of the X-E1 was better than that of the Canon 7D.
4).....Size, the cameras are much more pleasant to travel with, store, handle and street walk/shoot with.
5).....The X-Trans sensor (argument??), I love the sharpness and the colors.
All the above is not "lab tested", it is my own opinion based on taking photos for about 55 years

Beenthere

Hi oboysen. The difference is simple, there is no mirror flopping up and down which means a source of vibration is eliminated. The cameras, as demonstrated by Nikon and Canon's introducing mirrorless models, can be any size the manufacturer chooses. However, the lack of a complicated mechanism to raise and lower the mirror make it possible to design a smaller camera, if desired, with matching technology to DSLR.

Examples of compact cameras are Panasonic and Olympus, who offer cameras in Micro 4/3s mirrorless, although Panasonic builds other models as well. Both have embraced the Micro 4/3s sensor format resulting in smaller cameras because the smaller sensor requires less space. Both these manufacturers build compact, high quality, mirrorless cameras. However, Olympus has concentrated on M4/3 mirrorless only, and If you are hesitant about the M4/3s sensor size keep your eyes out for mirrorless offerings from Nikon and Canon.., very expensive at the moment, but who knows?

Shutterbug57

CHG_CANON wrote:

The myth that mirrorless cameras will make you a better photographer is even more seductive than the myth that mirrorless cameras are better technology. Removing the mirror over essentially the same sensor has to provide that special something-something that the next incremental model in the DSLR product series never seemed to provide ...

Getting an EVF which can go WYSIWYG with a histogram right on it in many cases is an advantage. I have a D500 (OVF) & X-T2 (EVF). The D500 is the winner for sports, wildlife and studio work (between these two). The X-T2 is the winner for travel, street, general shooting and dragging the camera around all day. If I had to shoot sports with a Fuji, I would make the jump to the X-T3, but I have no need. Does the X-T2 make me a better shooter, no, but it does make certain things easier - and some harder.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Shutterbug57 wrote:

Getting an EVF which can go WYSIWYG with a histogr... (show quote)

The EVF lets me return to my manual focus lenses that were within one firm decision to sell off once and for all. I can manually focus as good as the AF, if I can "see" what I'm trying to focus. Too much film was being wasted with the manual focus lenses where I guess my eyes aren't good enough anymore without the assist from the 100% focus "peek" in the EVF. As the comment said, that's a technology advantage of the mirrorless platform, a serious advantage vs film cameras and old manual focus lenses, but still that doesn't mean I'm any better ...

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

I've been hearing a lot about the Nikon Z6-Z7 high end cameras, my only question is, is Nikon going to start producing mid-range mirrorless cameras since they scrapped the Nikon1 system?

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Ched49 wrote:

I've been hearing a lot about the Nikon Z6-Z7 high end cameras, my only question is, is Nikon going to start producing mid-range mirrorless cameras since they scrapped the Nikon1 system?

There’s so many excellent mid range mirrorless cameras out there already...why wait for Nikon.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Cdouthitt wrote:

There’s so many excellent mid range mirrorless cameras out there already...why wait for Nikon.

I know there are a lot of good mid-range mirrorless cameras, I already have a Nikon1 J5 with a FT-1 adapter that works really well with my Nikon lens.

cochese

10MPlayer wrote:

The body is smaller and weighs less. Because of physics, the lenses are bigger and weigh more. I am not sold yet. If someone can show me how the entire package of body and lens is smaller and lighter I'd like to see it.

m43. Olympus and Panasonic. Both lenses and bodies are smaller and lighter, and Olympus makesnsome stellar lenses.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

For myself - and I was a Canon shooter.
It was:
In body image stabilisation.
Relatively smaller, and excellent, lenses.The added bonus was a live histogram in the viewfinder.

90% of my photography is now done with a pair of Olympus M4/3 bodies.

cochese

RichardTaylor wrote:

For myself - and I was a Canon shooter.
It was:
In body image stabilisation.
Relatively smaller, and excellent, lenses.The added bonus was a live histogram in the viewfinder.

90% of my photography is now done with a pair of Olympus M4/3 bodies.

I too switched from a semi pro Canon aps-c kit. The smaller size and weight were my initial selling points. But now that I have embraced the Olympus E-M1 II I am in love with the technology.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

cboysen wrote:

I probably missed the initial discussions as to why the interest in mirrorless cameras, but I've been wondering: are they in some ways better than DSLRs? If so, how? Are they lighter? Cheaper? Do they use better lenses? I'd appreciate answers. Thanks.

I’ve used a mirrorless for years. Called a Coolpix s8200 and s9600. We must be specific on defining exactly what “mirrorless” means. Many different variations of cameras that do not use mirrors, some good, some not so good.

EyeShootWideOpen Loc: Florida

I thought one of the big benefits was not having the minimum flash speed limitation. Am I wrong?

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

10MPlayer wrote:

The body is smaller and weighs less. Because of physics, the lenses are bigger and weigh more. I am not sold yet. If someone can show me how the entire package of body and lens is smaller and lighter I'd like to see it.

Lenses are NOT bigger by necessity. I use the same lenses on my a65 as I did on my a200 mirror SLR. Of coarse, Sony was first in developing the translucent mirror system which kept the relationship of the distance between the lens mount to focal plane the same as it was going all the way back to the Minolta AF cameras. This was the best example of manufacture to user consideration that ever happened. 50 year old Pentax m42 Takumars adapt to these Sonys easily with $3.00, non optical adapters, and extends to all M42 35mm format lenses from many other producers. It was disappointing to find that Sony deviated from course when It decided to come out with the E series cameras.

User ID

EyeShootWideOpen wrote:

I thought one of the big benefits was not having
the minimum flash speed limitation. Am I wrong?

Probably

.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

There has to be a reason that a lot of pros are switching to mirrorless.
The fact the Nikon and Canon have decided to try to enter the market says a lot also.
I think that the quality is a factor as well as the size.