Can I sell my DSLR and swap to Mirrorless?

i know when the x-e1 first came out shooting in RAF actually produced poorer results than the jpegs, partly because of lack of support at the time or very poor editing software for rafs and partly because the fuji Jpegs were so darn good.
If i could afford a second camera id be all over a fuji x100S or fuji x20 as a pocketable walkabout camera
 
im heading down this route too, the D800 ist just too bulky with lenses to lug about hills. Although for now i ended up getting a medium format fuji i did trial the XT-1, Olympus OM thing and the Sony A7R. While the Fuji and Olympus were little crackers i was just disappointed with file sizes/resolution. Ive been spoiled with the D800 and large format scans so the smaller sensors just put me off. The Sony was lovely and with the same sensor as the D800 would give me the confidence of a lovely image, the only downside for now is the lens range, there isnt a lot of choice unless you bolt on adaptors and dont mind manual focusing. But it was small, surprisingly lightweight and a definite contender to take over from my D800 when the time comes, well worth a fiddle with if you local shop has one.

If only Fuji would bring out a nice FF range :)
 
4wd said:
I'd be a bit concerned some of these 'new' mirrorless systems might fall by the wayside after a few years, why not just get a good compact to complement the SLR which you will still get back to at times.
Click to expand...

Is that why nikon sales are declining and mirrorless sales or on the increase?
 
Some commentators/bloggers seem to be of the opinion that mirrorless is the future and that most cameras will be mirrorless at some point.

Time will tell.
 
essexash said:
im heading down this route too, the D800 ist just too bulky with lenses to lug about hills. Although for now i ended up getting a medium format fuji i did trial the XT-1, Olympus OM thing and the Sony A7R. While the Fuji and Olympus were little crackers i was just disappointed with file sizes/resolution. Ive been spoiled with the D800 and large format scans so the smaller sensors just put me off. The Sony was lovely and with the same sensor as the D800 would give me the confidence of a lovely image, the only downside for now is the lens range, there isnt a lot of choice unless you bolt on adaptors and dont mind manual focusing. But it was small, surprisingly lightweight and a definite contender to take over from my D800 when the time comes, well worth a fiddle with if you local shop has one.

If only Fuji would bring out a nice FF range :)
Click to expand...

I keep going back to look at the A7, I know the lens range is small but for landscapes and street the lenses are top quality. But the Fuji ones are too....doh! I defo need to have a go with all of them.
 
definitly take a memory card with you and look at them at home. Like i say, i thought the fuji and olympus were lovely but when i loaded the image into lightroom and zoomed my first thought was "is that it!" Silly reason really but i do print large on occasion and its just nice to have a few spare million pixels to crop around with :)
 
Andysnap said:
I keep going back to look at the A7, I know the lens range is small but for landscapes and street the lenses are top quality. But the Fuji ones are too....doh! I defo need to have a go with all of them.
Click to expand...

What native landscape and street lenses does the a7 have?
 
4wd said:
Well, Betamax video players were better - and sold quite a lot of units.
Click to expand...

Mirrorless has been around a few years now and figures are increasing every year, must be a fad. :rolleyes:

So are you saying dslr is betamax?
 
twist said:
What native landscape and street lenses does the a7 have?
Click to expand...

Sorry, not quite sure why you are asking this?

There's a 24-70 and a 28-70 as well as a 35mm, all of these are perfectly ok for both street and landscape I would have thought.
 
Andysnap said:
Sorry, not quite sure why you are asking this?

There's a 24-70 and a 28-70 as well as a 35mm, all of these are perfectly ok for both street and landscape I would have thought.
Click to expand...

The 24-70 is a decent walkabout thats fairly wide with a slow aperture not that you need a fast aperture for landscape. Most prefer wider for landscapes though.

28-70 is definitely not wide. Average kit lens. Certainly not top quality.

35mm is okay for street but no markings for zone focusing.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
The 24-70 is a decent walkabout thats fairly wide with a slow aperture not that you need a fast aperture for landscape. Most prefer wider for landscapes though.

28-70 is definitely not wide. Average kit lens. Certainly not top quality.

35mm is okay for street but no markings for zone focusing.
Click to expand...

What kit lens is better? It blows the lens cap and hood off any "kit" lens I've ever owned but I do accept that that's going to be also down to the camera it's mounted on :D Not a shabby combo IMVHO :D and I could make a good case for an A7+average kit lens + just one fast prime for being more than most people would ever need.

Zone focusing? I thought I was the only one left who cared about such things and if I'm not the issue is easily fixed by buying a manual 24 or 28mm f2.8. Even with a cheap 28mm f2.8 you should get very good results.
 
Got the 16-35 coming soon as well.
And if your after focus markings the Zeiss offerings.
 
woof woof said:
What kit lens is better? It blows the lens cap and hood off any "kit" lens I've ever owned but I do accept that that's going to be also down to the camera it's mounted on :D Not a shabby combo IMVHO :D and I could make a good case for an A7+average kit lens + just one fast prime for being more than most people would ever need.

Zone focusing? I thought I was the only one left who cared about such things and if I'm not the issue is easily fixed by buying a manual 24 or 28mm f2.8. Even with a cheap 28mm f2.8 you should get very good results.
Click to expand...

Average in its the same as most slow aperture kit lenses except the fuji. You could make a case but you have a cupboard full of fast primes.

With regards your zone comment, actually alot of people use it for street and im pretty sure i said NATIVE lenses.
 
robj20 said:
Got the 16-35 coming soon as well.
And if your after focus markings the Zeiss offerings.
Click to expand...

16-35 will be decnt but thats not here yet is it .... Zeiss no AF, and carry a hefty price tag. So you can choose an af zeiss with slower aperture and no markings or a manual zeiss with markings. Seems a strange way of doing things.
 
I consider 28mm a wide lens. Although I do shoot medium format film so mostly my lens are around the 75mm length, ideal for landscapes... in my opinion :D I went off wide lenses for landscapes a long time ago as I found I generally eneded up with a lot of small things a long way off, I actually prefer to shoot a few and stitch together. Just my way of doing it though, your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
16-35 will be decnt but thats not here yet is it .... Zeiss no AF, and carry a hefty price tag. So you can choose an af zeiss with slower aperture and no markings or a manual zeiss with markings. Seems a strange way of doing things.
Click to expand...

Most of my landscapes are shot in manual focus as most of my cameras are really, really old so this ain't a problem.

Anyway, I'm not even close to deciding which system (if any) to go for yet, the Sony might well be out of the running after I've had a play with one.
 
Andysnap said:
I consider 28mm a wide lens. Although I do shoot medium format film so mostly my lens are around the 75mm length, ideal for landscapes... in my opinion :D I went off wide lenses for landscapes a long time ago as I found I generally eneded up with a lot of small things a long way off, I actually prefer to shoot a few and stitch together. Just my way of doing it though, you mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that, should be fine with the zooms then. If the Sony lenses suit you then its a fantastic camera.
 
I assumed when you were talking about replacing your d7100 thats what you use.
 
twist said:
Average in its the same as most slow aperture kit lenses except the fuji. You could make a case but you have a cupboard full of fast primes.

With regards your zone comment, actually alot of people use it for street and im pretty sure i said NATIVE lenses.
Click to expand...

Yes, you did. My point was that the issue goes away if you buy the by many accounts excellent AF 35mm f2.8 and spend an extra £25 on a legacy lens (and either another £10 or £99 depending on your need to have Made In Germany or Made in China printed on your adapter) for the times when you want to do street (I'd rather die) zone focusing.

Personally I have a problem liking FBW lenses but the fact is (sadly) that the vast majority of CSC are no end stop no marking FBW these days. It's the modern way :eek:
 
Last edited:
Damn double post thingy.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
I assumed when you were talking about replacing your d7100 thats what you use.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry I've gone a bit off topic here. It will be to replace my D7100. The MF stuff is mainly done on a tripod at low level (I'm not going to lug a tripod up any hills, no way, no sir!!!) I generally shoot digi when we go on a long walk.
 
I went from a D7000 with 28mm 1.8 , 50mm 1.4 & 85mm 1.8 primes to the Fuji XE1 / Pro1 with 14mm , 23mm & 56mm primes.

D7000 has better handling & tracking ability (have not tried the XT1, that's on the shopping list). What the Fuji has is better build quality (at least it feels that way), but without question I find the image quality from the fuji lenses (Sensor?) much more appealing, constant tac sharp images with a nice natural feel.

Both systems have there strengths and weaknesses & sometimes I still find myself hankering after a 5D iii and L lenses, but I know that is the GAS talking. Ideally I would like both platforms (oh and a Leica & 50 Noctilux).

If you are thinking of changing systems it might pay to buy a used cheaper body & lens first just to see if it's for you. An XE1 & 35mm or 18-55 for example.
 
Andysnap said:
So, basically I'm thinking that if I move on my Nikon D7100 and a few lenses I could probably have £1400 to £1600 to spend on a smaller, lighter system. But, are these systems going to give me the image quality and flexibility of my DSLR? I shoot mainly landscapes but some wildlife, can they cope with both? Are the longer lenses for them up to the job? Would I regret swapping?
Click to expand...

Whew, if you want a camera with no mirror and amazing lenses that is light and less than £1500, I'd personally be looking at a Mamiya 7. It has arguably the best lenses of any camera of all time and is fantastic for landscapes.
 
There is no question the a7 is a great camera as is the a6000. Granted they are both smaller than the d7100 but the tele zoom lenses you will be using for wildlife and the majority of the weight in your bag won't be. I would consider a m4/3 if you want to scale back the size and weight of your bag.
 
skysh4rk said:
Whew, if you want a camera with no mirror and amazing lenses that is light and less than £1500, I'd personally be looking at a Mamiya 7. It has arguably the best lenses of any camera of all time and is fantastic for landscapes.
Click to expand...

Film though?
 
twist said:
Film though?
Click to expand...

He already shoots film and I don't think he said the camera had to be digital, although perhaps it was implied... The Mamiya 7 ticks all of the boxes and is an amazing system. It's still available new, although it'd be much cheaper to buy secondhand.
 
skysh4rk said:
He already shoots film and I don't think he said the camera had to be digital, although perhaps it was implied... The Mamiya 7 ticks all of the boxes and is an amazing system. It's still available new, although it'd be much cheaper to buy secondhand.
Click to expand...

"Yes, sorry I've gone a bit off topic here. It will be to replace my D7100. The MF stuff is mainly done on a tripod at low level (I'm not going to lug a tripod up any hills, no way, no sir!!!) I generally shoot digi when we go on a long walk."

Dont you then have to buy a decent scanner which is very expensive and also buy film and pay for development?
 
Last edited:
twist said:
"Yes, sorry I've gone a bit off topic here. It will be to replace my D7100. The MF stuff is mainly done on a tripod at low level (I'm not going to lug a tripod up any hills, no way, no sir!!!) I generally shoot digi when we go on a long walk."

Dont you then have to buy a decent scanner which is very expensive and also buy film and pay for development?
Click to expand...

Fair enough that he generally shoots digital on a long walk, although a Mamiya 7 would be a bit smaller than most other MF systems and much easier to take on such a walk.

twist said:
Dont you then have to buy a decent scanner which is very expensive and also buy film and pay for development?
Click to expand...

Well, the scanner doesn't have to be expensive (I bought mine for £5 from a guy off of gumtree), but Andy already has a scanner, I believe, so that's not an issue.

Anyway, if he managed to get a secondhand Mamiya 7 at a good price, he could probably buy and develop a lot of film with the money leftover in his budget. Actually, I think Andy also already has the materials for developing his own black and white, so it'd be cheap as chips to develop that.

At any rate, if Andy definitely wants digital then the Mamiya 7 obviously isn't a good fit, but otherwise, it's an amazing system that does everything else he asks.
 
Last edited:
How's the Mamiya 7 for wildlife shots? in his opening post > "I shoot mainly landscapes but some wildlife, can they cope with both". Just asking, as I haven't got a clue on film cameras.
 
Thanks for all the further comments folks.

@skysh4rk . I'm definitely after a digital camera this time mate, good as the Mamiya 7 is it is still a big beast and I need to be able to see a shot and get it quick as my missus already walks way faster than me and I don't want to get left behind. :D

rjbell said:
There is no question the a7 is a great camera as is the a6000. Granted they are both smaller than the d7100 but the tele zoom lenses you will be using for wildlife and the majority of the weight in your bag won't be. I would consider a m4/3 if you want to scale back the size and weight of your bag.
Click to expand...

I won't be taking any of the longer lenses out walking with me so it would just be a camera and one lens. The longer lenses will only be for taking to nature reserves etc where weight isn't such an issue.
To a degree the same applies to the Mamiya, I generally only shoot film when I have time to set up and compose, time I don't have when I'm out with the Current Mrs Snap :whistle:
 
Andysnap said:
@skysh4rk . I'm definitely after a digital camera this time mate, good as the Mamiya 7 is it is still a big beast and I need to be able to see a shot and get it quick as my missus already walks way faster than me and I don't want to get left behind. :D
Click to expand...

Go for a Mamiya 6 then; it's 6x6 and has a collapsible lens mount. ;)

Good luck with whatever you decide, Andy.
 
I've been watching this thread with considerable interest since, like Andysnap, I'm a bit fed up with lugging around a DSLR (D7000 in my case) and a load of lenses. In fact I already got a Sony RX100II to solve this very problem, a camera I like a lot but miss the lack of viewfinder. Apart from that it is doing its job well. So, I am thinking the same way as Andysnap: get rid of the DSLR for good and replace with mirrorless. 48 hours ago I was ready to pounce on one of the Sony jobs (or maybe the Fuli) so I went to look at them. Look was all I did, since they both seemed bigger than I expected, so then I started to do some sums:

The D7000 plus a standard zoom lens (16-85) comes in at 1268g. The Sony A7/A7R with the Zeiss 24-70 is 900g. The Nikon lens is longer and wider, and I can reduce weight by replacing the 16-85 with an 18-70. Also, the D7100 is, I think, a little lighter than the D7000. The Fuji X-T1 with standard lens is a mere 750g but still nearly 500g more than the RX100. Not sure I want to spend 2-3 grand on saving 365g. Things get more bizarre when you start carrying around wide, standard and tele lenses. The D7000 with the standard zoom, a 10-20 Sigma, and a Nikon 80-200 is 1990g. Finding the same line-up for the Sony is pretty hard, but the best I could do is around 2320g, which includes the very heavy (840g) and expensive 70-200 f4. Fuji wins again at 750g covering most of the focal length range. On the other hand I could get a much lighter Nikon DSLR body for under 300 quid...

No doubt the Sony A7/A7rs are a cost effective way into FF, and the prospect of legacy and native Zeiss lenses is attractive, I am not convinced now is the time to jump, even taking into account what I can sell the Nikon kit for. I can get my RX100 and an MF film folder into a small rucksack that doesn't scream camera bag and take the DSLR out when I need to.

No doubt I will back on here in a week having bought an A7r and a load of lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top