Why hasn't mirroless taken over?

[rob-nikon]

Not really.

I think that there's enough evidence to suggest that sites like Flickr show only a tiny proportion of the images made. The only accurate data on the proportions of camera purchase (and therefor an indication of usage) has to be those sales figures.

Flickr’s figures as a sample of photography enthusiasts using Flickr will show changing habits of their user base so could be compared to their previous user stats if they are available. Of course there are still photographers out there that will still be using DSLRs that don’t use Flickr.

This article has an interesting statistic:

Report shows Sony leads mirrorless market

The 2021 year-end sales report from Japan, by BCN Retail, has revealed that Sony is the leader in the mirrorless camera market while Canon leads DSLR sales.

www.amateurphotographer.co.uk

“The full year CIPA figures for 2021 reveal that total mirrorless camera shipments to Europe were 68,739,523 and total DSLR shipments were 29,632,578. This indicates a 14.7% year-on-year rise in shipments of mirrorless models to Europe but a 3.8% decrease in shipments of DSLRs to Europe”.

Going by that manufacturers are distributing 2 mirrorless models to 1 DSLR. At some point that will mean there will be a move towards mirrorless by more users. The best thing canon and Nikon have done is make their DSLR lenses adaptable to mirrorless cameras. That alone will help aid the movement to a mirrorless ecosystem for those who’ve not made the move yet as their DSLRs still do what they need it to.

 

[woof woof]

Flickr’s figures as a sample of photography enthusiasts using Flickr will show changing habits of their user base so could be compared to their previous user stats if they are available. Of course there are still photographers out there that will still be using DSLRs that don’t use Flickr.

This article has an interesting statistic:

Report shows Sony leads mirrorless market

The 2021 year-end sales report from Japan, by BCN Retail, has revealed that Sony is the leader in the mirrorless camera market while Canon leads DSLR sales.

www.amateurphotographer.co.uk

“The full year CIPA figures for 2021 reveal that total mirrorless camera shipments to Europe were 68,739,523 and total DSLR shipments were 29,632,578. This indicates a 14.7% year-on-year rise in shipments of mirrorless models to Europe but a 3.8% decrease in shipments of DSLRs to Europe”.

Going by that manufacturers are distributing 2 mirrorless models to 1 DSLR. At some point that will mean there will be a move towards mirrorless by more users. The best thing canon and Nikon have done is make their DSLR lenses adaptable to mirrorless cameras. That alone will help aid the movement to a mirrorless ecosystem for those who’ve not made the move yet as their DSLRs still do what they need it to.

Those are amazing figures. I had no idea that amount of cameras were getting shipped to europe. I thought cameras were a dying thing but those seem like big numbers.

 

[rob-nikon]

Those are amazing figures. I had no idea that amount of cameras were getting shipped to europe. I thought cameras were a dying thing but those seem like big numbers.

The numbers do seem huge don’t they when you think there are only 750 million people in Europe. I’ve trying to find actual sales figures for 2021.

This article states DSLR sales are up and mirrorless are down.

DSLRs are back! Sales increase 132%, while mirrorless cameras decline 57%

DSLRs are far from dead – in fact, sales are up 132% while mirrorless cameras have dropped 57%. What's going on?

www.digitalcameraworld.com

Interesting that two reasons for this were given as:

* shortage of components seems to have restricted supply of mirrorless so DSLRs have sold as they have more availability.
*increase of beginners taking up photography (COVID/lockdown related? as people reassess things) who are more likely to buy cheaper models which likely means lower end DSLRs rather than higher cost mirrorless models.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

for sure, nonetheless a large and relevant dataset to supplement all our individual anecdotes of our observations so relevant to the OP.

My point being that neither individual anecdotes nor Flickr are reliable sources in this context. Rob's extract of CIPA data is a much more reliable source.

 

[ConnorFlynn-Photography]

I went out with my DSLR a week ago to photograph some small birds in a meadow and there was one other older gent there with a mirrorless camera, as i walked by i didn't hear his camera fire once in spite of it being to his eye most of the time... As I stood at the other end of the field flappy clacking away at a blue tits nest in a tree hollow I felt like i was using a mechanical typewriter next to someone on a macbook pro... Needless to say I am looking forward to when my R7 eventually arrives, just that feature alone will be worth the upgrade lol

 

[rob-nikon]

I went out with my DSLR a week ago to photograph some small birds in a meadow and there was one other older gent there with a mirrorless camera, as i walked by i didn't hear his camera fire once in spite of it being to his eye most of the time... As I stood at the other end of the field flappy clacking away at a blue tits nest in a tree hollow I felt like i was using a mechanical typewriter next to someone on a macbook pro... Needless to say I am looking forward to when my R7 eventually arrives, just that feature alone will be worth the upgrade lol

That can be one of the advantages of mirrorless. I’ve noticed that i get less portraits of a deer with both ears facing forward towards me. I’ve put this down to the lack of a shutter not giving the deer a sound to focus on. It’s not a bad thing as it’s more natural and less disturbance.

 

[Sangoma]

I went out with my DSLR a week ago to photograph some small birds in a meadow and there was one other older gent there with a mirrorless camera, as i walked by i didn't hear his camera fire once in spite of it being to his eye most of the time... As I stood at the other end of the field flappy clacking away at a blue tits nest in a tree hollow I felt like i was using a mechanical typewriter next to someone on a macbook pro... Needless to say I am looking forward to when my R7 eventually arrives, just that feature alone will be worth the upgrade lol

He had you.
He was just using it as a monocular

 

[TimHughes]

My point being that neither individual anecdotes nor Flickr are reliable sources in this context. Rob's extract of CIPA data is a much more reliable source.

of sales... not usage.... I'll leave it here

 

[Nebulous]

I'm not sure if I should wade in here, but here goes. It might be rather long-winded, so feel free to move on.

Art has always been an alien land to me - despite spending a lot of time in art galleries, and trying to like it. If I have any art ambitions at all, it is to take decent photos, though I fear that may not happen. A way of trying that may be to throw money at it. I've another expensive hobby, in cycling, which takes priority. Thank God I don't play golf.

I had a 35 mm slr a Minolta XG-M. I took a lot of photos, but the time delay in getting the results, and the cost of film / processing got in the way. I'd take 24 or 36 photos, have high expectations, but when I got them back they were primarily s***e. I had specific interests - landscape and I also followed the Highland Games, so action shots of big guys throwing and moving quickly.

I then moved on to family life - less money, and eventually found myself with several Canon powershot bridge cameras. Interests then were pictures of family / children and still occasional landscapes, holiday scenes.

After my family grew up, and particularly as there was less expectation to share a camera I bought a Samsung mirrorless camera with exchangeable lenses. I thought I'd found my home here. I was working, was often away from home overnight, but had the evenings to take photos. The auto-focusing was rubbish, but the sensor was great in low light, and as I was working all day, and Scotland tends to be dark outside working hours it worked for me. I took a few photos I was pleased with; of the Kelpies, of Inverness at night, of Glasgow city centre and of oilrigs at Nigg. Then Samsung announced they were pulling out of the camera market. I was devastated - had intended buying more lenses and investing in the system, but felt I had blown the money I had already spent.

After a period of reflection I felt I had to start again. If Samsung could walk away, I probably needed a company which was in it for the long-haul. I decided the only two which fitted that criteria were Nikon or Canon. I decided there were enough Canons in the world, so I would go Nikon and bought a D3300. My eyesight was beginning to fail. "There is nothing wrong with your eyesight other than age-related deterioration." The diopter in the D3300 was a revelation. That wee dial I could adjust, so I could actually see through the lens, was amazing. Yet the camera itself was disappointing. The low light photos didn't match my Samsung. The menu options were complicated enough to be difficult to understand, but at times it didn't have enough options - limited focusing points for instance. I used it off and on for 4-5 years or so.

I then came to retire and decided to move to mirrorless / full-frame. I read articles saying I didn't really need to, but decided I wanted to anyway, I got some money from my colleagues, bought a Z5 and a couple of lenses by topping up myself. I'm fairly happy with IQ results, though focusing on full-frame is a challenge, but I'm still artistically limited. I've about £2.5k in equipment, without a flash, without a spare battery, and my interests are expanding. I'm enjoying photographing flowers, so possibly need a macro lens. I've taken an interest in birds, so need a long lens. I could easily drop another £5k on lenses and equipment. Then I have a sanity check and remind myself what that money would have represented when bringing up children. (I'm still a s***e photographer, remember!)

So what's the point of this diatribe? It isn't about SLR or mirrorless. It's about a camera satisfactorily compensating for failing eyesight. It's about taking some interesting photos in low light. It's about a system you can depend on being there for the long haul.

Most of all however, it is about the competing demands on people's wallet. I can't take the bird photos I want without a long lens. The z 100-400 is £2699. I'd say that is the main reason mirrorless hasn't taken off. It requires a massive investment, which most people can't afford. Those people - like me- who probably can afford it, will still baulk at the price, because we can remember driving cars that cost considerably less than one lens....

 

[woof woof]

I went out with my DSLR a week ago to photograph some small birds in a meadow and there was one other older gent there with a mirrorless camera, as i walked by i didn't hear his camera fire once in spite of it being to his eye most of the time... As I stood at the other end of the field flappy clacking away at a blue tits nest in a tree hollow I felt like i was using a mechanical typewriter next to someone on a macbook pro... Needless to say I am looking forward to when my R7 eventually arrives, just that feature alone will be worth the upgrade lol

Something similar happened to me when on holiday but I was in a church when a guy with a DSLR walked in and fired off shots at anything and everything and in the confined space the noise and spectacle was excruciating and people actually left.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Something similar happened to me when on holiday but I was in a church when a guy with a DSLR walked in and fired off shots at anything and everything and in the confined space the noise and spectacle was excruciating and people actually left.

Funny that my cheap bridge camera has a completely silent mode, obviously a better camera than a DSLR then

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

of sales... not usage.... I'll leave it here

If you can find reliable data on usage, that would be interesting but I can't see anyone funding a survey to identify how many pictures are taken with which type of camera. So we're stuck with the only reliable information being how many of each type were sold.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

If you can find reliable data on usage, that would be interesting but I can't see anyone funding a survey to identify how many pictures are taken with which type of camera. So we're stuck with the only reliable information being how many of each type were sold.

You would also need to count 2nd hand sales then; there are lots and lots cameras changing hands.

Then there are issues with new cameras not being used much at all vs older ones being used a lot. And then many of us are not exactly advertising that we still shoot with 5 or 8 year old Canon dslr because A) what is the point, and B) there are too many 'clever' people that only judge work and the supplier by the gear used, so clearly anyone even without a clue with R6 is better than 5DIII and my experience... well obviously not [necessarily] but you go and explain that to them.

 

[Crotal Bell]

It's so interesting to read all the comments. Personally I think the technology will get more affordable and in a few years mirroless will mean very few DSLRs are in the shops for sale as new. Consequently there will be loads of DSLR bargains knocking around, and as many of you will testify, they will still take fantastic photos.

If you look at a photo, can you tell which of the two types it was taken on.

 

[woof woof]

It's so interesting to read all the comments. Personally I think the technology will get more affordable and in a few years mirroless will mean very few DSLRs are in the shops for sale as new. Consequently there will be loads of DSLR bargains knocking around, and as many of you will testify, they will still take fantastic photos.

If you look at a photo, can you tell which of the two types it was taken on.

Interesting.

I think entry level cameras will benefit from trickle down of features and abilities but I worry about affordability, lenses ditto or even more so when it comes to prices going up.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You would also need to count 2nd hand sales then; there are lots and lots cameras changing hands.

I agree. The whole thing is a hiding to nothing...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

If you look at a photo, can you tell which of the two types it was taken on.

Highly unlikely I would say particularly if it was processed by someone knowledgeable with recent software. Even if I pushed my cam to its limits and beyond, I can still get a clean-ish result by pushing it through Denoise AI, etc. The thing is that DSLRs reached maturity for still some 8-10 years ago and anything new is just small incremental updates.
Now in the video sphere things are totally different, and as such it would be extremely apparent. Recent mirrorless are just about hitting the spec I was waiting for. That's essentially 4K60 RAW internal or close. So I will likely get that mirrorless shortly but expect me to use DSLR for majority of stills work for some time to come.

It's so interesting to read all the comments. Personally I think the technology will get more affordable and in a few years mirroless will mean very few DSLRs are in the shops for sale as new. Consequently there will be loads of DSLR bargains knocking around, and as many of you will testify, they will still take fantastic photos.

I am debating getting another 5DIII in case I somehow destroy mine. Magic lantern hack makes them very suitable for my work; vanilla spec is sort of not very useful at all.
And at some point I might be very much tempted to add Nikon D850 or D810 and fish for the best F-mount glass there was.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Interesting.

I think entry level cameras will benefit from trickle down of features and abilities but I worry about affordability, lenses ditto or even more so when it comes to prices going up.

Prices are cheaper now in real terms, than they were in the 50s when I started my journey.
To buy a top line camera then, like a Leica, Contax or Rollie, was a real commitment. I bought a new Rollie.
At that time Cameras attracted luxury levels of purchase tax. Which made things even worse.
However today we have equally heavy commitments in the way of technology and cars and the like. all competing for our money.
Photograph in comparative terms has never been cheaper.

 

[wornish]

This thread has taken on a whole life of its own.

I am certainly no expert at Photography (look at my posts) but !
Some comments on here are just so uninformed and stuck in the past that I give in.

Even I can see that mirrorless has crossed the chasm into mainstream use, but the DSLR laggards will not move quickly.
People always underestimate the stickiness of old tech.





But, whether your a pro or not tech moves on

 

[woof woof]

Prices are cheaper now in real terms, than they were in the 50s when I started my journey.
To buy a top line camera then, like a Leica, Contax or Rollie, was a real commitment. I bought a new Rollie.
At that time Cameras attracted luxury levels of purchase tax. Which made things even worse.
However today we have equally heavy commitments in the way of technology and cars and the like. all competing for our money.
Photograph in comparative terms has never been cheaper.

Go back far enough an a 50mm f1.4 was beyond many people, I know that, but I think the trend is going up now especially for the new mirrorless FF systems which is maybe understandable as the quality is also going up, maybe only for some lenses and there are cheap options but some have issues such as slow or iffy focus or dubious QC.

 

[rob-nikon]

This thread has taken on a whole life of its own.

I am certainly no expert at Photography (look at my posts) but !
Some comments on here are just so uninformed and stuck in the past that I give in.

Even I can see that mirrorless has crossed the chasm into mainstream use, but the DSLR laggards will not move quickly.
People always underestimate the stickiness of old tech.

View attachment 356104



But, whether your a pro or not tech moves on

Agree with what you’ve said. Mirrorless is definitely the future of interchangeable lens cameras. Manufacturers have decided that’s the way they’re moving so that’s what’s going to happen. DSLRs will of course still be around for a decade or so like any electronic device until they need repairing, which is what will eventually lead to their demise. In that time they will still take photos like they always did it’s just that there are unlikely to be any future DSLR models.

 

[rob-nikon]

Go back far enough an a 50mm f1.4 was beyond many people, I know that, but I think the trend is going up now especially for the new mirrorless FF systems which is maybe understandable as the quality is also going up, maybe only for some lenses and there are cheap options but some have issues such as slow or iffy focus or dubious QC.

Are mirrorless prices going up due to changes in the economies of scale ie less are cameras are now sold compared to 10-20 years ago whilst research/design costs have likely increased due to change from DSLRs to mirrorless so sale price has to go up.

 

[woof woof]

Are mirrorless prices going up due to changes in the economies of scale ie less are cameras are now sold compared to 10-20 years ago whilst research/design costs have likely increased due to change from DSLRs to mirrorless so sale price has to go up.

I don't know but with lenses part of the reason must be because they're getting better and all those special pieces of glass and voodoo coatings and general cleverness must cost.

 

[boer13]

Get your cameras ready, that little man is heading straight down the chasm

Starting out today I'd be building a mirrorless system. Especially if I've first won the lotto.

I'm however not starting out today, and I don't buy lotto tickets. What I have is a small, slowly evolving collection of the best L-glass I could afford at the time of purchase. All are well understood and well trusted. I like them and they deliver. 16-35/4, 35/1.4, 135/2, and 2 x long whites. I see no need to replace these and am dubious if going mirrorless will deliver any 'upgrade' to my humble endeavours, as I'm already outclassed by my kit.

So I'll continue enjoying my old 1Dx until there are actual advances that I find useful for what I do. Or if it falls down a cliff. But even then I'll be looking at converters to avoid having to change my lenses as I cannot imagine how I would justify the cost. I think many people with decent glass are in this boat.

When I bought my first camera in the majority of photo club members were still using manual focus systems, and shooting slides. They knew their gear and could use it very well. 10 years later started the gradual switch to digital. Now the next change is happening - swiftly - and will be 80% done by 2030*.

Fortunately photography is about images, not cameras!

(* my numbers..)

 

[rob-nikon]

Get your cameras ready, that little man is heading straight down the chasm

Starting out today I'd be building a mirrorless system. Especially if I've first won the lotto.

I'm however not starting out today, and I don't buy lotto tickets. What I have is a small, slowly evolving collection of the best L-glass I could afford at the time of purchase. All are well understood and well trusted. I like them and they deliver. 16-35/4, 35/1.4, 135/2, and 2 x long whites. I see no need to replace these and am dubious if going mirrorless will deliver any 'upgrade' to my humble endeavours, as I'm already outclassed by my kit.

So I'll continue enjoying my old 1Dx until there are actual advances that I find useful for what I do. Or if it falls down a cliff. But even then I'll be looking at converters to avoid having to change my lenses as I cannot imagine how I would justify the cost. I think many people with decent glass are in this boat.

When I bought my first camera in the majority of photo club members were still using manual focus systems, and shooting slides. They knew their gear and could use it very well. 10 years later started the gradual switch to digital. Now the next change is happening - swiftly - and will be 80% done by 2030*.

Fortunately photography is about images, not cameras!

(* my numbers..)

That’s the great thing about canon now being in the mirrorless system. There is no need to replace any existing EF lenses you already have them to go mirrorless as they work just as well on R cameras with the adapter. By the time your 1DX fails you can likely pick up a R3 or equivalent at a good price second hand. Whether it’s worth buying more EF glass knowing sooner rather later they won’t be supported for repair or spares available that’s another thing entirely. Lack of repair support it what will end up pushing people to mirrorless cameras.

I do agree when looking at the big whites the RF equivalent lenses are just silly prices compared to EF.

 

[TimHughes]

Get your cameras ready, that little man is heading straight down the chasm

Starting out today I'd be building a mirrorless system. Especially if I've first won the lotto.

I'm however not starting out today, and I don't buy lotto tickets. What I have is a small, slowly evolving collection of the best L-glass I could afford at the time of purchase. All are well understood and well trusted. I like them and they deliver. 16-35/4, 35/1.4, 135/2, and 2 x long whites. I see no need to replace these and am dubious if going mirrorless will deliver any 'upgrade' to my humble endeavours, as I'm already outclassed by my kit.

So I'll continue enjoying my old 1Dx until there are actual advances that I find useful for what I do. Or if it falls down a cliff. But even then I'll be looking at converters to avoid having to change my lenses as I cannot imagine how I would justify the cost. I think many people with decent glass are in this boat.

When I bought my first camera in the majority of photo club members were still using manual focus systems, and shooting slides. They knew their gear and could use it very well. 10 years later started the gradual switch to digital. Now the next change is happening - swiftly - and will be 80% done by 2030*.

Fortunately photography is about images, not cameras!

(* my numbers..)

I agree about the EF lenses, this is my strategy too. However I have made the jump to canon mirrorless as the features, especially vastly superior AF tracking, bring major benefits to what I do. So far, no need for RF lenses. I'm very glad Canon supported its base with the transition to mirrorless in this way. I guess I'm in the green category of "early majority".

 

[woof woof]

Fortunately photography is about images, not cameras!

(* my numbers..)

I have mixed feelings about statements like this as I want to say it's true but in reality it just often isn't and often the kit is limiting and I'll now try and support my radical alternative view that the kit does matter. Sometimes.

Firstly, modern mirrorless kit is technically better than DSLR's and allows things like incredible ISO's and frame rates and silent shooting and without these things you just can't do the things that they enable and get the results that they allow no matter how good a photographer you are. And then there's the new lenses, they're the best we've ever seen. So there's all that. All that which, remember it's about images, could get you images which could have been just about impossible with a DSLR or at least very difficult. But maybe we don't want to use these new feature? We'll just take the pictures our kit allows and we wont worry about the noise the shutter makes and if we're not allowed to make a noise we just wont take the picture and we wont mind if the pictures we are allowed to take aren't sharp into the corners at all apertures because that's just dull anyway and those picture we didn't get? Forget them.

Secondly, modern kit allows you to do things easier for example being able to focus accurately and consistently anywhere in the frame. With DSLR's focus isn't taken off the sensor and so could be hit or miss from shot to shot and body to body and if you've selected lenses which work well on your camera there is no guarantee they'll work as well on the next. Couple the better focus of mirrorless with eye detect and you can focus quickly and reliably at f1.2 (if you want) on someone or some things eye anywhere in the frame while they're walking or running or even flying and the shot will be more likely to be sharp and that's something that's a lot harder to impossible with a DSLR no matter who you are. Take away these things and you decrease your hit rate and increase your chimping and reshooting and taking multiple shots rate and tying yourself to focus points clustered around the centre of the frame means you may have to focus and recompose (and try that with a moving person or a bird in flight) or use a centrally located focus point and crop the shot to the composition you want. But maybe we don't care about all that. If we want to take a picture of someone we'll tell them to stand still and who needs endless tack sharp pictures of birds in flight anyway, we're happy if we get one good one a day.

Thirdly, there's the things which are just nice to have, like WYSIWYG, being able to see the dof and the exposure, being able to shoot vid with with the camera to your eye and being able to review results with the camera to your eye.

So to sum up my alternative view to the above statement...

No matter how good a photographer you are mirrorless gives more options and allows things which would be very difficult or impossible with DSLR's.
No matter how good a photographer you are the new kit gets you more consistent and reliable results more easily than any DSLR ever could.

Yes it's all about the image but mirrorless makes more images possible more easily than a DSLR.

Really, it's like cars and getting from A-B and comparing a model T Ford to a modern car. They both do the same thing but one is very limiting and wont get up that bank at the end of the road no matter how good a driver you are and even if you push it up the bank it'll take all day to get to the shopping mall whilst the other allows more possibilities, possibilities which are expanded and easier to obtain and you can do it all with the radio and air con on.

But OK. The above statement about it all being about the image not the camera is probably true if you stay rigidly within the envelope of what's possible with a DSLR and don't pixel peep the results.

 

[Sangoma]

I have mixed feelings about statements like this as I want to say it's true but in reality it just often isn't and often the kit is limiting and I'll now try and support my radical alternative view that the kit does matter. Sometimes.

Firstly, modern mirrorless kit is technically better than DSLR's and allows things like incredible ISO's and frame rates and silent shooting and without these things you just can't do the things that they enable and get the results that they allow no matter how good a photographer you are. And then there's the new lenses, they're the best we've ever seen. So there's all that. All that which, remember it's about images, could get you images which could have been just about impossible with a DSLR or at least very difficult. But maybe we don't want to use these new feature? We'll just take the pictures our kit allows and we wont worry about the noise the shutter makes and if we're not allowed to make a noise we just wont take the picture and we wont mind if the pictures we are allowed to take aren't sharp into the corners at all apertures because that's just dull anyway and those picture we didn't get? Forget them.

Secondly, modern kit allows you to do things easier for example being able to focus accurately and consistently anywhere in the frame. With DSLR's focus isn't taken off the sensor and so could be hit or miss from shot to shot and body to body and if you've selected lenses which work well on your camera there is no guarantee they'll work as well on the next. Couple the better focus of mirrorless with eye detect and you can focus quickly and reliably at f1.2 (if you want) on someone or some things eye anywhere in the frame while they're walking or running or even flying and the shot will be more likely to be sharp and that's something that's a lot harder to impossible with a DSLR no matter who you are. Take away these things and you decrease your hit rate and increase your chimping and reshooting and taking multiple shots rate and tying yourself to focus points clustered around the centre of the frame means you may have to focus and recompose (and try that with a moving person or a bird in flight) or use a centrally located focus point and crop the shot to the composition you want. But maybe we don't care about all that. If we want to take a picture of someone we'll tell them to stand still and who needs endless tack sharp pictures of birds in flight anyway, we're happy if we get one good one a day.

Thirdly, there's the things which are just nice to have, like WYSIWYG, being able to see the dof and the exposure, being able to shoot vid with with the camera to your eye and being able to review results with the camera to your eye.

So to sum up my alternative view to the above statement...

No matter how good a photographer you are mirrorless gives more options and allows things which would be very difficult or impossible with DSLR's.
No matter how good a photographer you are the new kit gets you more consistent and reliable results more easily than any DSLR ever could.

Yes it's all about the image but mirrorless makes more images possible more easily than a DSLR.

Really, it's like cars and getting from A-B and comparing a model T Ford to a modern car. They both do the same thing but one is very limiting and wont get up that bank at the end of the road no matter how good a driver you are and even if you push it up the bank it'll take all day to get to the shopping mall whilst the other allows more possibilities, possibilities which are expanded and easier to obtain and you can do it all with the radio and air con on.

But OK. The above statement about it all being about the image not the camera is probably true if you stay rigidly within the envelope of what's possible with a DSLR and don't pixel peep the results.

However being technically perfect doe not make an image a good one.
It is how the photographer (be that beginner or expert) takes the shot that determines if it is good or not.

There have been many instances where a technically deficient shot is good, and many more where technically perfect shots are lousy.

And it doesn't take an expert to determine that, the natural wiring of the brain usually does that.

Of course if it is a good shot, and technically perfect (where that perfection adds to the shot) then that is better.

Some of my favourite digital photos were taken with a Canon A10 compact.
Some of my worst were taken recently with the G9. Give my daughter the A10 and me the G9 on the same trip, she will come back with lots of good shots, and I might get one or two.
She can "feel" the light and composition, I don't have that gift. But I can take a load of perfectly focussed and exposed rubbish ..

 

[ancient_mariner]

Some of my favourite digital photos were taken with a Canon A10 compact.
Some of my worst were taken recently with the G9. Give my daughter the A10 and me the G9 on the same trip, she will come back with lots of good shots, and I might get one or two.
She can "feel" the light and composition, I don't have that gift. But I can take a load of perfectly focussed and exposed rubbish

Maybe you should give her the decent camera instead of the crappy one?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I have mixed feelings about statements like this as I want to say it's true but in reality it just often isn't and often the kit is limiting and I'll now try and support my radical alternative view that the kit does matter. Sometimes.

Firstly, modern mirrorless kit is technically better than DSLR's and allows things like incredible ISO's and frame rates and silent shooting and without these things you just can't do the things that they enable and get the results that they allow no matter how good a photographer you are. And then there's the new lenses, they're the best we've ever seen. So there's all that. All that which, remember it's about images, could get you images which could have been just about impossible with a DSLR or at least very difficult. But maybe we don't want to use these new feature? We'll just take the pictures our kit allows and we wont worry about the noise the shutter makes and if we're not allowed to make a noise we just wont take the picture and we wont mind if the pictures we are allowed to take aren't sharp into the corners at all apertures because that's just dull anyway and those picture we didn't get? Forget them.

Secondly, modern kit allows you to do things easier for example being able to focus accurately and consistently anywhere in the frame. With DSLR's focus isn't taken off the sensor and so could be hit or miss from shot to shot and body to body and if you've selected lenses which work well on your camera there is no guarantee they'll work as well on the next. Couple the better focus of mirrorless with eye detect and you can focus quickly and reliably at f1.2 (if you want) on someone or some things eye anywhere in the frame while they're walking or running or even flying and the shot will be more likely to be sharp and that's something that's a lot harder to impossible with a DSLR no matter who you are. Take away these things and you decrease your hit rate and increase your chimping and reshooting and taking multiple shots rate and tying yourself to focus points clustered around the centre of the frame means you may have to focus and recompose (and try that with a moving person or a bird in flight) or use a centrally located focus point and crop the shot to the composition you want. But maybe we don't care about all that. If we want to take a picture of someone we'll tell them to stand still and who needs endless tack sharp pictures of birds in flight anyway, we're happy if we get one good one a day.

Thirdly, there's the things which are just nice to have, like WYSIWYG, being able to see the dof and the exposure, being able to shoot vid with with the camera to your eye and being able to review results with the camera to your eye.

So to sum up my alternative view to the above statement...

No matter how good a photographer you are mirrorless gives more options and allows things which would be very difficult or impossible with DSLR's.
No matter how good a photographer you are the new kit gets you more consistent and reliable results more easily than any DSLR ever could.

Yes it's all about the image but mirrorless makes more images possible more easily than a DSLR.

Really, it's like cars and getting from A-B and comparing a model T Ford to a modern car. They both do the same thing but one is very limiting and wont get up that bank at the end of the road no matter how good a driver you are and even if you push it up the bank it'll take all day to get to the shopping mall whilst the other allows more possibilities, possibilities which are expanded and easier to obtain and you can do it all with the radio and air con on.

But OK. The above statement about it all being about the image not the camera is probably true if you stay rigidly within the envelope of what's possible with a DSLR and don't pixel peep the results.

When you read this you wonder how so many photographers managed just fine to produce incredible level content until today. If you picked up photography today and read this you might be convinced that all work is done at a minimum of 128,000 ISO, and things are moving at F35 jet supersonic speeds in in all directions (not that there weren't good F35 images to date) obviously in -3EV conditions, and that are easily spooked by a 1db level sound. I wonder what that might be?!
In truth ISO 100-1600 is the typical working range, cameras like 5DIII handled that with relative ease without even a specialist software. And the same 5DIII has a pretty silent 3fps mode (that's 2 more than I usually need) and you won't hear a thing from 2m away. All of them had the similar sort of thing. The only reason for using that was in fact less of a shutter slap for sharper shots. I couldn't give a damn thing about sound, and nor my landscapes, interiors and posed portraits.
Then the AF. I wonder how the hell we managed. 1Dx was such a crap camera. And 5DIII, IV and 5Ds that came with the same module. All highly unusable. No wonder you have skipped all of them and likely never even tried one, or any of the corresponding nikons. But praise be R3. We are finally saved and can now take a useable photo.

 

[delb0y]

This is the key, isn't it, excellent modern gear in excellent hands gives a much higher rate of excellent photos than in previous eras, and also the opportunity to capture things that couldn't have been captured before. For the professionals and artistic-visionaries I think gear does matter,

But, for the average Joe (i.e most of the population), that gap is much smaller - we probably won't ever take photos as good as those that were taken in the 1930s... Oh, ours may be sharper or with more dynamic range and better colours, etc, but those aren't necessarily the things that make a good photo (IMHO).

 

[Sangoma]

Maybe you should give her the decent camera instead of the crappy one?

I was using it as an example, she has a 7D

 

[Ed Sutton]

I wonder if people who complain about noisy shutters do so because they fire off rapid bursts of shots. A single click doesn't make much noise even with a loud shutter/mirror. Just wondering.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

In all my past working life as a professional I never shot anything like 1000 shots in a day.. I doubt I ever took more than a third of that. Most of my time on a shoot was taken up looking moving and preparing. Who would even want to sort through a thousand images. And post process them.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Who would even want to sort through a thousand images. And post process them.

I suppose it would depend on the job.

In the dim and distant, when I did dinner photography, 1000 images would have been a very good day indeed, given that we charged by the print!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I suppose it would depend on the job.

In the dim and distant, when I did dinner photography, 1000 images would have been a very good day indeed, given that we charged by the print!

When I was a student I worked at Butlins as a Brown coat walkie op taking shot of campers. we took the money up front. and we took hundreds of shots a day. we also took all the campers at their dining tables and went back and sold them the prints. it was extremely lucrative. I went home with a roll of white fivers I could hardly get my hands around. people simply did not have their own cameras. in the evenings in the bars and dance halls it was one constant flashing of flashes. we used ilford Advocates for flash, rather than the daytime leicas.

 

[woof woof]

However being technically perfect doe not make an image a good one.
It is how the photographer (be that beginner or expert) takes the shot that determines if it is good or not.

There have been many instances where a technically deficient shot is good, and many more where technically perfect shots are lousy.

And it doesn't take an expert to determine that, the natural wiring of the brain usually does that.

Of course if it is a good shot, and technically perfect (where that perfection adds to the shot) then that is better.

Some of my favourite digital photos were taken with a Canon A10 compact.
Some of my worst were taken recently with the G9. Give my daughter the A10 and me the G9 on the same trip, she will come back with lots of good shots, and I might get one or two.
She can "feel" the light and composition, I don't have that gift. But I can take a load of perfectly focussed and exposed rubbish

When you read this you wonder how so many photographers managed just fine to produce incredible level content until today. If you picked up photography today and read this you might be convinced that all work is done at a minimum of 128,000 ISO, and things are moving at F35 jet supersonic speeds in in all directions (not that there weren't good F35 images to date) obviously in -3EV conditions, and that are easily spooked by a 1db level sound. I wonder what that might be?!
In truth ISO 100-1600 is the typical working range, cameras like 5DIII handled that with relative ease without even a specialist software. And the same 5DIII has a pretty silent 3fps mode (that's 2 more than I usually need) and you won't hear a thing from 2m away. All of them had the similar sort of thing. The only reason for using that was in fact less of a shutter slap for sharper shots. I couldn't give a damn thing about sound, and nor my landscapes, interiors and posed portraits.
Then the AF. I wonder how the hell we managed. 1Dx was such a crap camera. And 5DIII, IV and 5Ds that came with the same module. All highly unusable. No wonder you have skipped all of them and likely never even tried one, or any of the corresponding nikons. But praise be R3. We are finally saved and can now take a useable photo.

You've both spectacularly missed my point and I knew this would happen.

My point is that a good photographer or even a bad one who just gets lucky can take a great picture with a box brownie but the simple fact is that those same photographers can take the picture with the best mirrorless camera whilst other people take pictures that would be impossible with anything but that best mirrorless camera and others of us just get to take pictures more consistently and more easily.

To give another extreme example which you may understand. Take a 1950's Leica rangefinder and compare it to a Sony A1. They can both take stunning pictures but the A1 allows pictures to be taken which would be impossible with the RF and the pictures which would be very difficult with the RF such as sharp natural unposed portraits with the focus on the eye at f1.2 are a doddle with mirrorless. OK, a DSLR can take pictures that a 1950's Leica can't but the abilities gap between the DSLR and the best mirrorless is still there to some extent.

Yes, you can take great pictures with anything but did you read and understand my comment about staying within the envelope of what DSLR's allow? If you can't see and concede that one point then there's just no discussion to be had.

Over and out

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You've both spectacularly missed my point and I knew this would happen.

My point is that a good photographer or even a bad one who just gets lucky can take a great picture with a box brownie but the simple fact is that those same photographers can take the picture with the best mirrorless camera whilst other people take pictures that would be impossible with anything but that best mirrorless camera and others of us just get to take pictures more consistently and more easily.

To give another extreme example which you may understand. Take a 1950's Leica rangefinder and compare it to a Sony A1. They can both take stunning pictures but the A1 allows pictures to be taken which would be impossible with the RF and the pictures which would be very difficult with the RF such as sharp natural unposed portraits with the focus on the eye at f1.2 are a doddle with mirrorless. OK, a DSLR can take pictures that a 1950's Leica can't but the abilities gap between the DSLR and the best mirrorless is still there to some extent.

Yes, you can take great pictures with anything but did you read and understand my comment about staying within the envelope of what DSLR's allow? If you can't see and concede that one point then there's just no discussion to be had.

Over and out

what you are suggesting is that the mirrorless cameras broaden the scope and possibilities and quality available to photographers.
Which I am sure is true.

The act of taking a technical excellent photograph has never been easier.
And for the public at large, probably only exceeded by a phone for its simplicity.

 

[woof woof]

what you are suggesting is that the mirrorless cameras broaden the scope and possibilities and quality available to photographers.
Which I am sure is true.

The act of taking a technical excellent photograph has never been easier.
And for the public at large, probably only exceeded by a phone for its simplicity.

At last someone gets it. Thank you!

I'm just a happy snapper and nothing more. Well maybe a little more as actually I'm a happily married happy snapper and I can wave a mirrorless camera at Mrs WW (camera not even to my eye but I can see the back screen and use that for composition,) whilst she's cooking or watering the plants and get a nice in focus picture with a wide aperture lens in which her face is wherever I want it in the frame and the point of focus and that one shot would be possible with what other sort of camera? None that I can think of.

That one possibility, to be able to have greater control over composition and take an in focus picture very quickly and candidly, no posing necessary, was a revelation to me. With any other camera I'd need to ask her to be still or use some other method such as manual focus and hyperfocal/zone with a smaller aperture or take the picture with a central area placed AF point and crop it later for the composition I want.

 

[ancient_mariner]

In all my past working life as a professional I never shot anything like 1000 shots in a day.. I doubt I ever took more than a third of that. Most of my time on a shoot was taken up looking moving and preparing. Who would even want to sort through a thousand images. And post process them.

On Friday I photographed the village jubilee celebration - about 420 pictures over 3 hours. The camera started off with 90% charge and finished on about 60%. It just shows that battery life is a non-issue with more recent mirrorless. I could imagine a sports photographer taking a couple of thousand pictures in a day at the track and culling down to a final 100 pictures.

FWIW when I did weddings in the 80s I'd normally get through 5 rolls at 15 on.