Why hasn't mirroless taken over?

Crotal Bell

Crotal Bell

Messages
2,514
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
Yes
Been doing some research, pros and cons. It seems the pros outweigh the cons these days?

Nevertheless, I know many of you love/prefer DSLR. Why would you buy a Nikon D3500 when Canon M50 MkII mirroless costs just a smidge more?

There must be more to this than meets my eye, so why are DSLR holding their own and why isn't morrorless taking over? (or is it?)
 
It’s generally early days for many manufacturers regarding mirrorless. With the likes of canon now concentrating on developing and manufacturing mirrorless lenses for the time being I can’t see much future development for future DSLR cameras/lenses in the coming few years. One of the benefits of DSLRs is the huge number out there so cheaper on the second hand market.
 
In my personal case, it does not materially alter the final image so why spend the money on one? Maybe when the camera needs replacing, then again, maybe not. Viewing the image on a screen as opposed to a viewfinder doesn't affect the final image. Changing to a different lens mount does however add complications (and expense) in terms of requiring adapters. Im not anti to them, just can't see any benefit currently, plus a few reasons for not changing.
 
Crotal Bell said:
Been doing some research, pros and cons. It seems the pros outweigh the cons these days?

Nevertheless, I know many of you love/prefer DSLR. Why would you buy a Nikon D3500 when Canon M50 MkII mirroless costs just a smidge more?

There must be more to this than meets my eye, so why are DSLR holding their own and why isn't morrorless taking over? (or is it?)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go back to DSLR's now as I see too many real advantages in mirrorless. For example being able to focus anywhere in the frame accurately and consistently. Couple that to eye or even just face detect and that alone is IMO a real game changer and then there's being able to see the DoF and exposure before you press the button.

Some will hang on to DSLR's because... they like them... or maybe just the OVF's until their dying breath and some will hang on to DSLR's because it's too expensive to start again. I guess some just getting into photography might buy DSLR's because the salesman pushes one or they think that's what pros use and don't know any better (hehehe :D) or because they get a bargain.

I'm not sure I'd buy into the Canon M50 as aren't Canon now doing APS-C in a different mount?
 
woof woof said:
...some will hang on to DSLR's because it's too expensive to start again.
Click to expand...

That's me. :LOL:

Mirrorless cameras don't offer me enough benefits to switch for the kind of photography that interests me, but if I was starting out these days I'd go mirrorless for sure.
 
It is all over bar the shouting.
All the R&D money is going into mirrorless.
Very few new DSLR's are now being brought out and most of the old lines stopped.

Of course a vast majority of cameras in use by photographers are still DSLR.
But is only a matter of time before mirror less sales tip the balance.

The change over has almost been as fast as the change from film to digital.

However one would not expect the DSLR to disappear completely for a very long time. And they will always be seen on the shelves of the collector.
 
woof woof said:
I wouldn't go back to DSLR's now as I see too many real advantages in mirrorless. For example being able to focus anywhere in the frame accurately and consistently. Couple that to eye or even just face detect and that alone is IMO a real game changer and then there's being able to see the DoF and exposure before you press the button.

Some will hang on to DSLR's because... they like them... or maybe just the OVF's until their dying breath and some will hang on to DSLR's because it's too expensive to start again. I guess some just getting into photography might buy DSLR's because the salesman pushes one or they think that's what pros use and don't know any better (hehehe :D) or because they get a bargain.

I'm not sure I'd buy into the Canon M50 as aren't Canon now doing APS-C in a different mount?
Click to expand...
Ah the M50 was just a cost example as even mirroless are getting cheaper nowadays, and they were pretty well regarded. I really know nothing about the pros and cons of that actual line of cameras compared to other mirroless.

Interesting that you have found real benefits and are a convert, so do they make it easier to get good shots?
 
Crotal Bell said:
Been doing some research, pros and cons. It seems the pros outweigh the cons these days?

Nevertheless, I know many of you love/prefer DSLR. Why would you buy a Nikon D3500 when Canon M50 MkII mirroless costs just a smidge more?

There must be more to this than meets my eye, so why are DSLR holding their own and why isn't morrorless taking over? (or is it?)
Click to expand...

The answer is partly that DSLR is a mature technology (particularly since much stretched back to film days) and mirrorless is a developing technology but will no doubt replace it, aided by being simpler to manufacture.
 
It's normal for systems to run alongside each other in a time of transition. Not everyone wants or needs the benefits of mirrorless, and particularly few will want to spend the extra cash if there's no perceived benefit for them.

I bought mirrorless because we have grandchildren and I wanted the better AF in order to keep up with them. All the other benefits like great dynamic range and better lenses (define what's better! ;) ) were just a bonus - otherwise I'd still be using Nikon FX kit.
 
Guess it's called progress. Many underestimate the stickiness of old technology, if it works then why change?

The future IMHO Is all about sensors and software. The days of using a mechanical shutter are in decline. and I don't think we will see many (if any) new shutters being released.

Right now for professional use, mirrorless cameras can still beat mobile phone cameras due to the larger sensor and other features. But, the software is moving fast.
 
Why does this need to be controversial. I have a FF DSLR and a half frame ML. Each has different strengths. Both cameras have fast focussing (and face recognition) though I think my ML is marginally better. IQ is still slightly better in my DSLR but not so different that Topaz cannot sort out. When in comes to weight, the ML kit is 1/3 of the weight which is probably the most critical for me, If I still only had just my DSLR, I would probably not take with me sometimes and no camera no photo. When I was reviewing what to buy, I found that some ML FF cameras actually out performed my FF DSLR for IQ (but were actually heavier). I will still hang on to my DSLR for now as I can still use it for studio work. I am off to the NE in a week or so and will only take the ML with me and I will not be at a real disadvantage. No one says you should dump your DSLR just because there are new ML cameras out there but if you need to buy a new camera anyway then ML may fit the bill.

Dave
 
Crotal Bell said:
Ah the M50 was just a cost example as even mirroless are getting cheaper nowadays, and they were pretty well regarded. I really know nothing about the pros and cons of that actual line of cameras compared to other mirroless.

Interesting that you have found real benefits and are a convert, so do they make it easier to get good shots?
Click to expand...

I think mirrorless does make it easier to get good results and not only good results but consistently so as there's much less chance of the AF vagaries from shot to shot you can get with DSLR's as focus is taken off the sensor, no micro adjust faff on is requited. As I posted above, being able to AF anywhere in the frame is a definite advantage and that's not really possible with a DSLR with its focus points clustered around the central area so you have to focus and recompose or focus using the existing AF point and crop for the final composition you want. So in that example, yes, getting the shot is easier with mirrorless as it allows compositional freedom and focus consistency and accuracy anywhere in the frame. I do believe that seeing the DoF and exposure make things easier too although the exposure and histogram may not be exact. Another advantage is silent shooting. My Canon EF-S APS-C cameras sounded like an anvil being thrown into a tin bath and the 5D wasn't silent either but some mirrorless cameras have an electronic shutter and whilst that may come with rolling shutter and banding issues it's there to be used if these things can be avoided or mitigated.

Oh, another thing I haven't mentioned yet... With mirrorless you can have faces programmed in in preferred order so if for example Mrs WW is in a crowd the camera will focus on her face and if she's not there it'll look for the next face. The OVF v EVF debate is a personal thing but I prefer an EVF as it allows peaking and the use of a magnified view allowing very accurate manual focus if you have the time to do it. Even without manual focus the magnified view allows you to zoom in to the scene and check around it. There are no doubt other advantages with mirrorless that I don't use like being able to do video with the camera to your eye and being able to shoot at a zillion frames per second, silently, with eye detect and with the dof and exposure visible.

All in all I'd never want to go back.
 
Plain Nev said:
At the moment I think lack of battery power has held mirrorless back. Crack that and it will really take off.
Click to expand...

It's never been a problem for me but I'm just a happy snapper and I don't machine gun off the shots. I have exhausted one battery in a day out but never two but I can see how some would need a pocket full.

Comparing mirrorless to DSLR's is one thing but look at SLR's. I had my Nikon for years and years and although I can't remember how many batteries I went through it wasn't many, the battery lasted... ages. Then there's older cameras in which the battery lasted even longer and further back some didn't need batteries at all :D
 
One big advantage — not to photographers but to the general public — is that it will eventually get rid of the noisy clackity-clack that interrupts news conferences. ;)
 
woof woof said:
I think mirrorless does make it easier to get good results and not only good results but consistently so as there's much less chance of the AF vagaries from shot to shot you can get with DSLR's as focus is taken off the sensor, no micro adjust faff on is requited. As I posted above, being able to AF anywhere in the frame is a definite advantage and that's not really possible with a DSLR with its focus points clustered around the central area so you have to focus and recompose or focus using the existing AF point and crop for the final composition you want. So in that example, yes, getting the shot is easier with mirrorless as it allows compositional freedom and focus consistency and accuracy anywhere in the frame. I do believe that seeing the DoF and exposure make things easier too although the exposure and histogram may not be exact. Another advantage is silent shooting. My Canon EF-S APS-C cameras sounded like an anvil being thrown into a tin bath and the 5D wasn't silent either but some mirrorless cameras have an electronic shutter and whilst that may come with rolling shutter and banding issues it's there to be used if these things can be avoided or mitigated.

Oh, another thing I haven't mentioned yet... With mirrorless you can have faces programmed in in preferred order so if for example Mrs WW is in a crowd the camera will focus on her face and if she's not there it'll look for the next face. The OVF v EVF debate is a personal thing but I prefer an EVF as it allows peaking and the use of a magnified view allowing very accurate manual focus if you have the time to do it. Even without manual focus the magnified view allows you to zoom in to the scene and check around it. There are no doubt other advantages with mirrorless that I don't use like being able to do video with the camera to your eye and being able to shoot at a zillion frames per second, silently, with eye detect and with the dof and exposure visible.

All in all I'd never want to go back.
Click to expand...
I suppose there's other considerations for newbies on a budget. Something like the Nikon D3500, entry level DSLR with well respected performance at the price point and lots of tech from the higher end Nikons. For a starter in serious photography it will still blow you away with the results, without putting a big hole in your pocket, and the used market for lenses is massive.

You moved up to mirrorless, that made sense for you, but for a starter with shallow pockets maybe DSLR still has advantages?
 
Crotal Bell said:
I suppose there's other considerations for newbies on a budget. Something like the Nikon D3500, entry level DSLR with well respected performance at the price point and lots of tech from the higher end Nikons. For a starter in serious photography it will still blow you away with the results, without putting a big hole in your pocket, and the used market for lenses is massive.

You moved up to mirrorless, that made sense for you, but for a starter with shallow pockets maybe DSLR still has advantages?
Click to expand...

I think DSLR's only have two or three possible advantages. They may be cheap, the batteries may last longer and the OVF, if you must have one. I can't think of anything else but maybe someone else can.

Just on cheap... older mirrorless cameras can be had for forty odd quid and up with something decent being around £200 maybe but you might have to buy a lens and that could be another £50-£100. That's not too bad, IMO.

At the mo I just love this combination...

KCey5Ec.jpg


That's a Panasonic GX80 and a 14mm f2.5. I've seen GX80's go for about £200 and the lens cost me £105 but you might get an APS-C DSLR and a twin lens kit for less :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
I think DSLR's only have two or three possible advantages. They may be cheap, the batteries may last longer and the OVF, if you must have one. I can't think of anything else but maybe someone else can.

Just on cheap... older mirrorless cameras can be had for forty odd quid and up with something decent being around £200 maybe but you might have to buy a lens and that could be another £50-£100. That's not too bad, IMO.

At the mo I just love this combination...

KCey5Ec.jpg


That's a Panasonic GX80 and a 14mm f2.5. I've seen GX80's go for about £200 and the lens cost me £105 but you might get an APS-C DSLR and a twin lens kit for less :D
Click to expand...
Well you've blown me away and exposed my complete ignorance. I never imagined an experienced photographer would use one of those.

The problem for us novices is the lack of understanding, when I watch You Tube reviews of cameras like that, there's always negatives about them, and you feel you have to look higher, but perhaps the nit picking in the reviews masks the fact that they still take great photos. It's a minefield when you're starting out.
 
Its funny I just read this article and though of this thread:

Smartphones will kill off the DSLR within three years says Sony

What a load of tripe - they're not just talking "DSLR but ILC's (mirrorless) too - claiming that image quality on smartphones will match cameras in the next few years (as if thats the only reason people use dedicated camera)

Frankly I see better IQ from my latest S21 that I would have got with my first camera about 15 years ago - but would I use it over that camera? No, not for more than snapshots.
 
OMG I have no idea where some people get there theories about ML from … about 3 years ago I suffered major heart failure and the only way I could could carry on at the time was to downsize the weight I carrying around , after a chance meet up with Andy rouse via mutual friends I was convinced of the route to take .
I switched fully to Olympus and learnt how to use it , my main photography is wildlife so I needed reach .. my current set up is a omd1.mkiii body coupled with a 100-400 mm lens .the all up weight is exactly 2kg or = to a bag of sugar .. in full frame terms this gives me 200-800 mm of reach due to 2x crop .. and thanks to superb built in i.s in both body and lens I have not used a tripod or monopod in those 3 years . Built in weatherproofing negates the need for bags or covers as well .
What about the battery life .. well I have a spare battery but as yet have NEVER had to use it in the field .. last year at bempton cliffs I took just short of 900 shots and on returning to the car and checking there was 35% of battery life left .

Cost and adaptors the other beauty of ML is you can use virtually any lens ever made with them via adaptors and if you use focus peaking MF becomes a doddle . I have a Nikon 300mm f4 a.fs lens with a broken focus motor that gives stunning results and I can even get sharp b.i.f shots with it
The majority of MFT standard lenses from both Olympus and Panasonic are also lighter than there FF equivalents and a hell of a lot cheaper to .

Yes sometimes nostalgia hits and I yearn for DSLR rigs I used before but once thought about and investigated the idea soon goes on a back burner …
 
Some like the larger size of the DSLR - cold hands and small, closely placed buttons do not mix. Mirrorless tend to be smaller but there are some decent sized ones. Namely the GF Fuji's, Panasonic S1, and Z9.

Then there is the EVF. Some just prefer the optical finders - I know I do but the later mirrorless camera's are getting better EVFs and this will only continue.

I shoot D850 and 645z - both large DSLRs and I shoot exclusively landscape. There is nothing in a Z7ii or GF50 series camera feature wise that would assist me further other than the newer and more superior lenses - but it's largely accademic for stopped down shooting where the improvements are very marginal between the older DSLR lenses and latest greatest by wire mirrorless lenses.
 
Last edited:
Agree with everyone above mirrorless is a brilliant system, I used to think that DSLR was still better until Phil on here told me what the R5/6 autofocus could do, I went for it and bought an R5 and it was a revelation and I’m still learning what the camera can do.
The eye tracking focus is so effective for photographing animals I haven’t picked up my 7D2 since
The R5 also can do in camera focus stacking, I’m still learning the best way to use this in macro but it’s brilliant I used to do it manually but it was hit and miss
There is no need to buy new lenses with the canon system all my old EF lenses work on the R5 with an adapter :)
 
Plain Nev said:
At the moment I think lack of battery power has held mirrorless back. Crack that and it will really take off.
Click to expand...
I was not aware that this is a problem. A charged battery on my Sony ML will give me well over 500 frames much the same as my DSLR. I do carry a spare but have never had to use it yet. Even at Moto GP where I was machine gunning and took about 500 frames; there was still some life left in the battery. Of course it will depend on brand and model.

Dave
 
Crotal Bell said:
Well you've blown me away and exposed my complete ignorance. I never imagined an experienced photographer would use one of those.

The problem for us novices is the lack of understanding, when I watch You Tube reviews of cameras like that, there's always negatives about them, and you feel you have to look higher, but perhaps the nit picking in the reviews masks the fact that they still take great photos. It's a minefield when you're starting out.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't describe myself as an experienced photographer Keith, I'm very much a happy snapper and definitely nothing more.

PS.
When I had the Canon 5D I thought I'd never want a better camera but image quality and higher ISO ability has moved on and these days I believe that the Micro Four Thirds cameras I have, GX80, GX9 and GM5, give better image quality than my old 5D and even the 5DII that someone shot my wedding with. MFT isn't for everyone and my Sony A7 gives better image quality but I wouldn't write off the likes of the GX80 as kit like that will be easily good enough for lots of people a lot of the time and indeed there used to be a lady on this site who shot professionally (weddings, maybe more) with MFT. I don't know if she's still here today.

Here she is talking about kit...

www.lindsaydobsonphotography.com

Is Micro Four Thirds still a Popular Professional System in 2022? — West Sussex Portrait Photographer

When I changed from Canon DSLRs to Micro Four Thirds several years ago the relief of the small size and weight was life changing. But as the years have rolled on we’ve seen the emergence of mirrorless systems from a raft of manufacturers - so, have I given up on Micro Four Thirds?
www.lindsaydobsonphotography.com www.lindsaydobsonphotography.com
 
Last edited:
A tangential view from another continent, though I think too late to follow, even if it were true here:

That said, I got an easy route to switch from DSLRs to Mirrorless. During the pandemic, prices for used equipment went through the roof here in India, as new supplies were not coming in. I sold 90% of my Nikon F kit at inflated prices and made the switch to mirrorless. Yes, that does include a Z9! No doubt my background in the equity markets made me act promptly in selling off the DSLR kit when the prices were good. The lesson that markets teach you, time and again, is that there is seldom anything to be gained by procrastinating.

Quote is from a comment on yesterday’s post on;

theonlinephotographer.typepad.com

More on Those $6,000 and $7,000 Cameras

ChrisC wrote, yesterday: "I’m not sure if this is something you have already posted about, but to add to your comments on economics: Boots Theory. Cool. Here's The Boots Theory, in case you don't want to follow that link: "The...
theonlinephotographer.typepad.com
 
From my point of view there are two distinct brackets for mirrorless.
FF and APS-C, then there is M43.

The FF/APS-C are in essence going to give the same or better (because they are newer) image quality as dSLRs using the same sensor.

The M43 cameras in general are lighter, as are the lenses. This is a major bonus for many, and where the major difference of the lighter weight of mirrorless comes in.

I went for Panasonic M43, and I am very happy with it. Still learning how to drive them, but fortunately from the G2 to the G9 the menus are very similar, and all are easy to find what you want in the menus.

I have several 16MB Panasonics, and the G9. In many instances the 16MB is enough, sometimes is nice to have the 21MP.
That went for different models of Canon I had too :)

As for price, I bought more than one G3 for £25 or less, and 14-42 lenses for less than £50. That will perform as well as an APS-C dSLR of the same era, and weigh a fraction of the weight, plus be very easy to use. I bought my G80 for just over £200. If you are prepared to be patient, good priced come along.

The EVFs are as good as any optical viewfinder I have used for my use, and better in low light, though I can see that some will find the optical viewfinders better and easier, would depend on how you use it.

As mentioned, the 100-400 lens and combined with a camera with in body stabilisation can be hand held easily, so not having to carry a tripod is another weight saving and convenience.

I agree that youtube isn't the place to get a definitive opinion, but it does give a range of pros and cons to look out for. I looked and many videos comparing the Panasonic G9 and the Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III, and although they both had different things one did better than the other, I could see the Panasonic suited me better.
Also found there there were very few negative points found on the G9, and none of the few that did come up affected me.
Youtube can be a useful tool, but you have to average many opinions and apply them to your own use.

Does it help me to take better pictures? Yes, but not so much because the camera is better, but because it suits me and I can concentrate on the photo and not the camera.

I think mechanical shutters will be around for a long time yet, sensors have a long way to go before they can be read at the same speeds mechanical shutters operate at.

​

 
woof woof said:
It's never been a problem for me but I'm just a happy snapper and I don't machine gun off the shots. I have exhausted one battery in a day out but never two but I can see how some would need a pocket full.
Click to expand...

Ah, but I'm a Fuji user. ;)

I sometimes think there must be something wrong with my camera, because I don't get anything like the number of shots they claim. And I'm pretty good with saving power too.
 
Plain Nev said:
Ah, but I'm a Fuji user. ;)

I sometimes think there must be something wrong with my camera, because I don't get anything like the number of shots they claim. And I'm pretty good with saving power too.
Click to expand...

One thing that helped a bit with my Sony was turning aeroplane mode on. I think when off it continuously looks for wifi, or something, and so uses a bit of battery power all the time. Anyway. If Fuji have a similar mode it might be worth turning it on and seeing if that makes the battery last any longer.
 
chrism_scotland said:
Its funny I just read this article and though of this thread:

Smartphones will kill off the DSLR within three years says Sony

What a load of tripe - they're not just talking "DSLR but ILC's (mirrorless) too - claiming that image quality on smartphones will match cameras in the next few years (as if thats the only reason people use dedicated camera)

Frankly I see better IQ from my latest S21 that I would have got with my first camera about 15 years ago - but would I use it over that camera? No, not for more than snapshots.
Click to expand...

I think for many non photography enthusiasts smart phones are definitely the way it’s going/gone. Not many families now have a separate small camera for family snaps with many just using their phone for family snaps.

Whether phones kill off genres like sports or wildlife photography is hugely difference. I can’t see a smart phone having the zoom quality todo so for quite a while.

I can’t understand statements like this from companies like Sony who are big players in mirrorless. Sounds like Sony would be happy to dump mirrorless if they saw a bigger market in smart phones. It’s as if they pushed mirrorless as a disrupter to DSLRs and May be happy to just dump it later.

Plain Nev said:
At the moment I think lack of battery power has held mirrorless back. Crack that and it will really take off.
Click to expand...

I was worried about battery life when first getting a Sony A9 (ended up with 4 batteries!) but I’ve yet to really have a problem.

I wasn’t getting on with the handling of the Sony so ended up trying the canon R6 via the free test drive which feels better to hold for me. I’ve only got one spare battery for the R6 this time as I don’t seem to even use one battery on most trips out.

Even with DSLRs I’d change a battery out in a full days photography. If I used live view on a DSLR for landscapes the battery would drain very quickly. As I went to Skomer for a few years in a row I ended up with 6 Nikon spare batteries because I’d need 2 per day on a 3 day stay. There weren’t many plug sockets so always a queue of camera battery chargers as we often had a photography group staying too. I’d probably look at a power bank as an alternative to multiple batteries now.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Of course a vast majority of cameras in use by photographers are still DSLR.
Click to expand...
I think that needs qualification.

How many dSLRs have been produced to date? How many non-dSLRs have been produced to date? Without such numbers I don't think that claim can stand up.
 
Plain Nev said:
Ah, but I'm a Fuji user. ;)

I sometimes think there must be something wrong with my camera
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. ;)

But seriously, I get a little over 1000 shots from a fully charged battery in my A7III in a day of continuous use, compared to around 1200-1300 with a D610 I had previously and about 1100-1200 shots on a Sony A58 SLT. I don't know why much less than that should be normal with a Fuji, although the original A7 was supposed to do 400-500.
 
I think maybe it has something to do with my style of shooting and turning the camera on and off repeatedly. It could be that under optimum conditions I do get something more like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top