Dslr vs mirror less cameras...

[waloshin]

Example of mirror less:

"I can’t picture myself investing any more money in DSLR bodies and lenses. The new Nikon D4 that is coming out? Not interested.

3rd Gen Cameras are already here, and they will only get better according to all the laws of size and speed we’ve come to know and love."

According to Stuckincustoms

What do you think?

Will you continue to buy dslr bodies and lenses?

 

[whiteonline]

The biggest downfall is the viewfinder is an LCD.

 

[AlexH]

No, I have already stopped purchasing DSLR bodies and lenses, in fact, I sold my D300 and Nikkor lenses. I've switched to micro 4/3. For what I shoot and how I shoot, it's been a very pleasurable switch. I've enjoyed the lighter weight, smaller kits and bags, and I have not seen a decrease in image quality. But like I said, that is just me and for my photography. That is not a blanket statement meaning m4/3 is going to deliver equal or better quality images in all cases and types of photography.

I owned some really good Nikkor glass, and so far I've been really impressed with Olympus and Panasonic lenses. 3 in particular, the 12mm and 45mm Olympus lenses, and the 20mm Panasonic Lumix. I haven't felt limited at all, those are really nice lenses.

 

[MacNut]

I have a 4 thirds kit that I love, it is bigger than the micro but not heavy and for what it does the image quality is good. You won't get the quality of a full frame but you are also not paying the price either. I don't see mirrorless replacing standard dslr anytime soon. But I do see these taking a bite out of the point and shoots.

 

[elppa]

I have a 4 thirds kit that I love, it is bigger than the micro but not heavy and for what it does the image quality is good. You won't get the quality of a full frame but you are also not paying the price either. I don't see mirrorless replacing standard dslr anytime soon. But I do see these taking a bite out of the point and shoots.

The thing is: most DSLRs sold aren't full frame either.

At the price you'd pay for a mirrorless body, you are unlikely to get a full frame DSLR.

I think it is only fair to put a link to the original piece the OP is referencing:
DSLRS are a Dying Breed – 3rd Gen Cameras are the Future

This is a key point in the article:

Of all this, the important thing is to remember a Sony NEX (camera) […] has the same sensor size as a Canon APS-C or Nikon DX body.
So, for the vast majority of DSLR users, this is not even a consideration, as they are used to these sensor sizes.

Also the video performance from a mirror less will likely be better than a entry level DSLR, if that is important (it may not be important to all users).

The main advanatge of DSLR is the range of lenses for the mounts, but there is no reason why this can't and won't change over time. The other advantage might be handling (although this is personal preference). For the vast majority of enthusiasts mirrorless will increasingly be the obvious and logical choice: DSLR image quality in a compact body (see comparison photos below).

There will always of course be professionals who demand full frame/medium format.

Although there is nothing to say we couldn't see a full frame mirrorless, although by that point some of the size advantages would be lost.

The biggest downfall is the viewfinder is an LCD.

Not always, no. Fuji use a hybrid optical/electronic viewfinder.

 

[maflynn]

I'm opting for a MFT camera.

I think ML type cameras offer the enthusiast an alternative over low end DSLRs that are cheaper, and smaller. These two factors are reasons why I'm going that route.

 

[elppa]

I'm opting for a MFT camera.

Any reason why you are not buying a NEX? Lens choice?

 

[driftless]

We are just hobbyists photogs, so that make the decision easier; however, we will be purchasing only higher-end m4/3 lenses and bodies in the future. It is really about usage, I can't imagine pros or serious amateurs giving up Full Frame DSLR's in the near future. For travel, outdoor activities where the camera is just one of the pieces of gear and not the focus, have with you all the time, etc., it's hard to beat some of the new mirrorless cameras. It is also nice to see Oly, Fuji, etc., making some nicer glass in addition to their kit lenses.

My opinion only, your mileage will vary,
David

 

[maflynn]

Any reason why you are not buying a NEX? Lens choice?

Superior native lens selection. The NEX particularly the 7 has on paper some great specifications. I'm not sold on how it's designed, what I mean by that, with a larger lens the weight distribution is off center and may not be that comfortable.

The larger sensor requires larger lenses physically and from what I've read the camera may not be that sharp around the edges.

The up and coming OMD seems to have everything I want, and on paper looks to be an excellent camera. Like the NEX only when I get to physically use it, will I be able to discern if its a good camera for me.

 

[runlsd]

The biggest downfall is the viewfinder is an LCD.

Fuji, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung all make mirrorless cameras with viewfinders now. The problem for me is that they're electronic... (or hybrid in Fuji's case).

I think mirrorless cameras are certainly moving in the right direction. Even the Pentax K-01 has its appeal. Sure, it's big, boxy, and has a love it or hate it design.. But the ability to use native K-mount lenses and having the same sensor as the K-5 (only video optimized) is a great advantage, also has SR. EM-5 from Olympus will turn some heads as well. Nice retro design, weatherseal, IBIS.. And I'd expect Sony to make more lenses available for their NEX series as well.

Currently I own a K-5. Fantastic camera. But I'm not opposed to venturing into the mirrorless world in the future. I had a EP3 a little while back. I thought the VF-2 was disappointing compared to the reviews I read. The grip was always an issue. But AF, metering, and external controls were all very competent.

 

[maflynn]

The problem for me is that they're electronic... (or hybrid in Fuji's case).

I think that's an advantage. Many low end DSLRs with an optical sensor does not have 100% coverage but the ML cameras I looked at with EVF have 100% coverage.

The NEX-7 has the best EVF from what I've read and I prefer a view finder over using the display on the back - especially outside

 

[Bear]

I have a Nikon D200 and several lenses. If (when?) I have to replace it, it would make sense to buy a new D-SLR as I already have most of the lenses I want. (There's always another lens a person wants.)

 

[runlsd]

I think that's an advantage. Many low end DSLRs with an optical sensor does not have 100% coverage but the ML cameras I looked at with EVF have 100% coverage.

The NEX-7 has the best EVF from what I've read and I prefer a view finder over using the display on the back - especially outside

Yeah, I was saying that EVF is an advantage over no VF, absolutely. But Olympus VF-2, which has excellent reviews, was disappointing. Personally, I'm not a fan of electronic viewfinders. But I'd take it over no viewfinder.

And you're right, Nex-7 and one of the Panasonic cams have EVFs that are as big as FF viewfinders.

 

[blueroom]

I use a NEX-5N, amazing camera and just small enough with the 18-55 I can take it everywhere I took my old Canon S90 P&S. In a pinch I could get the 16mm pancake which makes a pretty small combo.

I hated carrying around my old Canon 10D DSLR it was big and you could feel it around your neck, it also drew lots of attention well because it looked like a pro camera and getting a candid street shot was tricky.

 

[upbraid]

definitely DSLR, but only because the full frame high iso capabilities and the chance to explore film making. i do wish the full frames have smaller bodies though, if they come out with a full frame mirrorless the size of a nex7, i will be tempted to switch.

 

[joelk2]

they both have their uses.

ive recently sold some dslr items and purchased myself a MFT camera for the size/convienience.

 

[VI™]

I have a 4/3 kit to go along with my DSLR. My Oly PEN can't shoot at 17mm FOV f/4 and 4000 ISO with any type of decent IQ. You jack the ISO up too much and there's a ton of grain. My widest lens that I own is a 20mm that gives a 35mm equivalent FOV of 40mm. I'd have to find a 8.5mm lens to give me a FOV of my widest rectilinear lens on my 5DII and then the perspective distortion would be a lot greater than an actual 17mm lens.