DSLR vs Mirrorless camera?

[mavericks7913]

Well Im still gonna stick with DSLR till mirrorless cameras become more stable since they have less life cycle than DSLR and easily malfunction. But when I tried Sony A7 series, Fuji, and Olympus, I had to re-think about my decision. Buying camera is very important issue since I can not just replace my camera every 2~3 years. Im into mirrorless technology except for the battery and durability. Pentax K-1 is what Im thinking to get because it's quite cheap and well known for durability(I still hate their AF performance tho)

I do worry about getting mirrorless camera which is some kind of adventure to me because of its durability and life cycle that many photographers experiences malfunction and camera failed within 1~2 years. DO you think it's worth it to go for mirrorless camera system instead of DSLR system for professional uses? (Portrait and fashion industry btw)

I know that the camera does not make me a better person but it is quite risky to me.

 

[techwhiz]

I have both.
I have a Canon 7D, 7D MkII and a Samsung Nx300.

The Canon cameras are great but they are heavy and big.
The advantage the mirrorless has is the size, I can take it on vacation where the Canon cameras get home and sports workouts.

It really depends on your use model, how many lenses you plan to buy, etc.
Samsung is strange because they have an APS-C sensor where the others are 4-Thirds and also have a standard lens mount. Olympus makes a great camera if you plan to buy lenses.

If you are worried about durability get a Square Trade extended warranty for 3 years.
Go check out DP Review.

 

[ocabj]

I still run a Canon 5D Mark III along with an Olympus E-M10 Mark II. I use the MFT almost all the time for regular photos. I force myself to do so just to see how well I can get by with MFT / mirrorless.

There is one specific detail why I will not ditch FF dSLR and go with FF mirrorless, yet: battery life.

 

[TheGenerous]

I take the Sony RX1 (full frame 35mm) mostly everywhere I go, outside of the country or for parties. Since it's very compact most people feel comfortable when I use it. The Canon T3i with a 50mm prime stays at home must of the time, is a tank compared to the RX1

 

[bgd]

OP, why do you think the mirrorless are less durable? I've had a Panasonic GX1 for quite a while now with zero problems. Small sample, admittedly

Fujifilm have their X range supposedly aimed at professional photographers so that could be somewhere to start.

From reading of different forums, cameras seem to be replaced more frequently due to new models coming along rather than problems with the existing camera.

I'm happy with the form factor of mirrorless and don't think I'll be heading back to DSLR. I did have a film Leica in the mix which I think influenced the move. My current camera doesn't have a viewfinder, which I miss, so any new camera will have one. But my current will still stay.

 

[dotnet]

Mirrorless cameras are for those who can't be bothered to reflect on their subject matter

 

[mavericks7913]

OP, why do you think the mirrorless are less durable? I've had a Panasonic GX1 for quite a while now with zero problems. Small sample, admittedly

Fujifilm have their X range supposedly aimed at professional photographers so that could be somewhere to start.

From reading of different forums, cameras seem to be replaced more frequently due to new models coming along rather than problems with the existing camera.

I'm happy with the form factor of mirrorless and don't think I'll be heading back to DSLR. I did have a film Leica in the mix which I think influenced the move. My current camera doesn't have a viewfinder, which I miss, so any new camera will have one. But my current will still stay.

Well, mirrorless use 100% electronic system while DSLR have less vital parts. I heard and saw a lot of sony a7 photographers complain about its durability and life cycle. BUT they are getting better and better like Olympus and Fuji.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

"Less vital parts?" There's a question of English translation. By "vital," do you mean "durable/long-lived," or "important/critical?"

Mirrorless have fewer moving parts. While the flipping mirror rarely fails, nonetheless, it's a mechanical assembly.

Perhaps you're confusing weight with solidity? Just consider, the heavier the thing is, the more damage is done to it when it swings from a neck strap or falls.

I was a longtime SLR user. Yeah, my old Nikon F was built far more solidly than cheaper, consumer-oriented SLRs - that's part of what the money buys. If you're comparing the build of a $3,000 DSLR to a $500-$800 mirrorless...

Ultimately, due to the rapid evolution of electronic photography, we have to consider the bodies to be short-term investments, rather than long term. Just as with SLRs, once we choose a camera maker, our investment in lenses will keep us coming back for more bodies from the same maker, so choose wisely.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Well Im still gonna stick with DSLR till mirrorless cameras become more stable since they have less life cycle than DSLR and easily malfunction. But when I tried Sony A7 series, Fuji, and Olympus, I had to re-think about my decision. Buying camera is very important issue since I can not just replace my camera every 2~3 years. Im into mirrorless technology except for the battery and durability. Pentax K-1 is what Im thinking to get because it's quite cheap and well known for durability(I still hate their AF performance tho)

I do worry about getting mirrorless camera which is some kind of adventure to me because of its durability and life cycle that many photographers experiences malfunction and camera failed within 1~2 years. DO you think it's worth it to go for mirrorless camera system instead of DSLR system for professional uses? (Portrait and fashion industry btw)

I know that the camera does not make me a better person but it is quite risky to me.

If your shooting fashion and portrait is a DSLR weight really a problem?
I don't think anybody would argue that mirror less are as good as a DSLR (yet). Where they are growing in popularity is due to their lower weight and small form factor.
If your struggling about weight and find you leave your camera at home, then maybe a smaller camera is the way to go.
But for me I'll be sticking with DSLR and all my pro glass for a good few years yet.

 

[MCAsan]

Shot SLRs from 1972 and moved to DSLRs around 2000. Bought the wife a 150-600mm lens for wildlife and she could not carry it. I woke up. We sold off our two huge sets of Canon DSLR bodies and L glass and went Olympus micro four thirds mirrorless. Now instead of trying to carry 50+ pound rolling bags or huge backpacks, we have 25 pound messenger bags with two E-M1 bodes, 4 Pro lenses from 7-300mm (14-600mm equivalent for FF 35mm). Those kits worked very well in Kenya last November and we are using them for brown bears in Alaska later this month.

If I had to do 35mm again, I would without a doubt go Sony with A7rII FF body for landscapes and the A6300 for wildlife.

 

[The Bad Guy]

Shot SLRs from 1972 and moved to DSLRs around 2000. Bought the wife a 150-600mm lens for wildlife and she could not carry it. I woke up. We sold off our two huge sets of Canon DSLR bodies and L glass and went Olympus micro four thirds mirrorless. Now instead of trying to carry 50+ pound rolling bags or huge backpacks, we have 25 pound messenger bags with two E-M1 bodes, 4 Pro lenses from 7-300mm (14-600mm equivalent for FF 35mm). Those kits worked very well in Kenya last November and we are using them for brown bears in Alaska later this month.

If I had to do 35mm again, I would without a doubt go Sony with A7rII FF body for landscapes and the A6300 for wildlife.

That's just great and we never tire of that tale, but you're not shooting portraits or fashion like the OP enquired about are you.

 

[mavericks7913]

"Less vital parts?" There's a question of English translation. By "vital," do you mean "durable/long-lived," or "important/critical?"

Mirrorless have fewer moving parts. While the flipping mirror rarely fails, nonetheless, it's a mechanical assembly.

Perhaps you're confusing weight with solidity? Just consider, the heavier the thing is, the more damage is done to it when it swings from a neck strap or falls.

I was a longtime SLR user. Yeah, my old Nikon F was built far more solidly than cheaper, consumer-oriented SLRs - that's part of what the money buys. If you're comparing the build of a $3,000 DSLR to a $500-$800 mirrorless...

Ultimately, due to the rapid evolution of electronic photography, we have to consider the bodies to be short-term investments, rather than long term. Just as with SLRs, once we choose a camera maker, our investment in lenses will keep us coming back for more bodies from the same maker, so choose wisely.

You dont understand vital parts. It doesn't always has to be moving parts. For mirrorless camera, any electronic parts like motherboard and sensor are vital parts since they require 100% electronic mechanism and functions. Mechanical shutter is the only part which does not require electronic features(although there is an electronic shutter mode). It would be easy to understand that DSLR always use live view mode to take pics.

 

[dwig]

You dont understand vital parts. It doesn't always has to be moving parts. For mirrorless camera, any electronic parts like motherboard and sensor are vital parts since they require 100% electronic mechanism and functions. ...

... and the same things are equally critical to DSLRs and DSLRs have the additional reliability burden of the mirror system. Any electronic failure that would cripple a mirrorless camera would also cripple a DSLR with the possible exception of the LCD panel. Many mirrorless cameras have dual electronic VFs, one on the rear panel and one eyelevel, so that if you break the rear panel you can still use the camera via the eyelevel. Damaging the rear LCD on many DSLRs severly cripples them and many controls are only available via the LCD.

 

[entropi]

I love the pix I am able to shoot with my fullframe canon 6D, but it isn't that fun to actually bring it on a trip - it's at least 40% of my packing!

 

[mavericks7913]

... and the same things are equally critical to DSLRs and DSLRs have the additional reliability burden of the mirror system. Any electronic failure that would cripple a mirrorless camera would also cripple a DSLR with the possible exception of the LCD panel. Many mirrorless cameras have dual electronic VFs, one on the rear panel and one eyelevel, so that if you break the rear panel you can still use the camera via the eyelevel. Damaging the rear LCD on many DSLRs severly cripples them and many controls are only available via the LCD.

And DSLR does not use fully electronic features till it shoot but mirrorless camera always need to be operational because of the sensor.

 

[dwig]

And DSLR does not use fully electronic features till it shoot but mirrorless camera always need to be operational because of the sensor.

But if you can't shoot there is no need for anything else to work.

 

[Zuri Sebastianski]

I am a long time Nikon Dslr user. I have the D600 and 800 FF cameras. I was curious and tried the Fuji X-pro 2 and was super impressed with the quality build, smaller size, speed and quietness. I will be picking this one up or the XT-2 in the fall.

 

[mavericks7913]

But if you can't shoot there is no need for anything else to work.

I have no idea what you are saying. There are a lot of photographers using 5d mark 2 which is quite old and still functional. I can not spend money on mirrorless which fail or broke easily for more than $2000. That's too risky.

 

[0970373]

I love my Canon 7D but since I picked up my Olympus OMD EM5 3 years ago, I've barely used it with the exception of some portrait shoots I did for a friend. I love my Olympus. It's very sturdy and I have not had any mechanical problems with it. I'd considered trading up to the Mark II but really, my Mark I works fantastically still. I've never had any mechanical issues with it. Best of all, a full kit is much much much lighter when I travel.

But the kind of camera you need is based on personal needs, wants, preferences, etc. If you're a professional, you obviously should have a DSLR. But I don't see how that should preclude you from getting a m43 for when you're not in the studio or at the end of a runway. This is actually what I originally got the Olympus for - an experiment/2nd body to carry around day-to-day, etc. But man I have fallen in love with that thing.

I can speak to the durability of my Olympus if this is your concern. It has been in some rough terrain during my travels. And also my purse which could rival some of the mountains I've been up. haha. As for my DSLR, I had considered selling the whole kit but found I could not part with it just yet. It's there if I need it but have found few occasions where the Olympus didn't work just as well 95% of the time.

 

[mavericks7913]

I love my Canon 7D but since I picked up my Olympus OMD EM5 3 years ago, I've barely used it with the exception of some portrait shoots I did for a friend. I love my Olympus. It's very sturdy and I have not had any mechanical problems with it. I'd considered trading up to the Mark II but really, my Mark I works fantastically still. I've never had any mechanical issues with it. Best of all, a full kit is much much much lighter when I travel.

But the kind of camera you need is based on personal needs, wants, preferences, etc. If you're a professional, you obviously should have a DSLR. But I don't see how that should preclude you from getting a m43 for when you're not in the studio or at the end of a runway. This is actually what I originally got the Olympus for - an experiment/2nd body to carry around day-to-day, etc. But man I have fallen in love with that thing.

I can speak to the durability of my Olympus if this is your concern. It has been in some rough terrain during my travels. And also my purse which could rival some of the mountains I've been up. haha. As for my DSLR, I had considered selling the whole kit but found I could not part with it just yet. It's there if I need it but have found few occasions where the Olympus didn't work just as well 95% of the time.

Pentax K-1 is my best option but it still has very poor AF performance and accuracy which concerns me a lot. Other FF choices like Canon and Nikon are way more expansive than K-1 which still has similar specs. Sony A7 series are the other options but as I said before, I can not rely on A7 series cameras since I saw many complains of its durability. I do sick of DSLR AF adjustment issue which effect af accuracy but K-1 is the only choice that I have.There is no such thing like Pentax K-1. I wish Fuji or Olympus to make FF camera but I don't think so.

 

[phrehdd]

For those of us left from 35mm and medium format film days, I admit I get a kick about the complaints of auto focus of both DSLRs and mirrorless. What did all those people do in the day when they had to manually focus everything? How did some make those award winning shots or the hobbyist who caught that moment of a kid sliding into homebase at the park?

As for today's choices, so many excellent choices that sometimes it comes down to three things - ease of use, quality of output and the type of photography one wishes to engage.

I'm equally happy with DSLR as with mirrorless. My personal preference would be to go with mirrorless "cropped" frame as in the fine Fuji X line up or jump to medium format. For weight, price and quality of file, the mirrorless are coming very close to FF DSLR. Under typical circumstances, most people would be challenged to see the difference on identical subjects properly exposed with similar counterpart lenses unless they are looking for it.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

You dont understand vital parts. It doesn't always has to be moving parts. For mirrorless camera, any electronic parts like motherboard and sensor are vital parts since they require 100% electronic mechanism and functions. Mechanical shutter is the only part which does not require electronic features(although there is an electronic shutter mode). It would be easy to understand that DSLR always use live view mode to take pics.

I asked you a question for clarification, so I could understand what you mean by "vital parts." You chose to assume I do not understand anything. I fully comprehend how cameras work.

Apparently, you believe that a DSLR is better and more reliable than a mirrorless because the viewfinder system is mechanical, and, to quote you,

And DSLR does not use fully electronic features till it shoot but mirrorless camera always need to be operational because of the sensor.

A DSLR cannot capture an image without electronics. Period. A DSLR with malfunctioning electronics is like an SLR without film. Who cares if you can see something through the viewfinder if you can't record what you see?

Whether you use the DSLR's LCD display or turn it off, the electronics in the DSLR are going to be turned on at all times, not just when "it shoot." It has to have essentially the same electronics as a mirrorless, and in order to be ready to capture an image, those electronics have to be booted up and running at all times.

The key differences between mirrorless and DSLR are not in image capture, but in the viewfinding systems. And a viewfinder is not an essential component in a camera (incredibly useful, yes, but not essential). If you close your eyes and click the shutter, the camera still takes an image.

Is it possible you're thinking solely in terms of extending battery life? That a DSLR may use less battery, thanks to that optical viewfinder, and therefore the batteries won't die at the wrong moment???

I shoot with a mirrorless. I usually carry four, compact batteries. Each is smaller than a roll of 35mm film. Each is good for many hundreds of shots. I change the batteries in my camera far less frequently than I changed the film in my old Nikon F, and changing those batteries is a much faster process than changing a roll of 35mm film.

 

[kenoh]

I used to shoot Canon DSLR. I had the papparazzi lenses, red rings all round. I never took the thing further than 200 yards from the house. I had the crop sensor so admittedly not armour plated so much like the 5d or 1d.

I moved to Sony A7 a couple years ago and swapped my lens system. Because I liked the idea of increased portability ergo more use.

I have had no issues. I now get to enjoy shooting an a7rii and a pair of Leica Ms. Which I adore using but this is a hobby for me not a profession.

All of these have metal frames. They are all solid enough for normal use. I admit the original A7 wasnt as tough as the a7rii but it was never meant to be.

While my current line up wouldnt take an absolute kicking, i think they are fine on the whole.

When it comes to longevity, I think the question of moving parts comes in. On a DSLR, we have decades of evidence to prove the life of the mirrorbox and shutters. Over time that engineering has been refined.

Mirrorless has the same engineering on the shutter without the mirrorbox to break so fewer moving parts, less to break. All else like @Apfelkutchen said is the same. Same electronics dependency same battery usage.

Yes DSLRs sip the battery compared to the Sony binge drinkers but that is solved by carrying a spare battery and having to take 20 seconds 2-3times a day of heavy use. It doesnt come as a surprise either. It tells you when you are getting close. So no issues. I laugh when people concern themselves with battery life when it means you take a few seconds to swap it out. Really? You carry a battery pack to get your iphone to last a day yet you moan your camera needs a swap out. Hmm... Ok...

IQ, if you are not printing large and are not a DoF addict, then the smaller sensor mirrorless cameras are coming along leaps and bounds and you will be hard pressed to tell the difference. It is the photographer not the camera afterall right? I have pictures on my wall. Printed A0 size from my brother in law. Some taken on a Hasselblad MF and some on a Fuji x100T. Apart from the Hasselblads being studio and the fuji street, you cant tell them apart.

At the end of the day it comes down to your personal needs. My systems fit me perfectly well. Do I take my cameras into hostile territory frequently enough to need rugged? No so I dont need the full on metal behemoths. Having said that, the mirrorless cameras are far from dainty wee roses that float away in the wind. One thing to note is dual card slots. Mirrorless with this fault tolerance are hard to find and if your livelihood is dependent on those images, then a n+1 dual card option is something to take seriously.

I think and I may be wrong, just my opinion, that unless you are looking for a true workhorse camera that you will beat senseless, then I dont think you need to worry too much either way.

Plus, you can buy 2 Olympus OMDs for the price of one Canon 5d or Nikon d810 so even if they only go half as long, still not a bad choice financially.

Bah! What do I know. Sorry for rambling... Just get one and go shoot! Lets enjoy some pictures and someone please help me learn the difference between snapshots and art! It is ripping my knitting!

 

[dotnet]

I use a mirrorless camera (iPhone 6s+) when size, weight and portability are paramount, and a Nikon DSLR when they are not.

 

[lvar]

For those of us left from 35mm and medium format film days, I admit I get a kick about the complaints of auto focus of both DSLRs and mirrorless. What did all those people do in the day when they had to manually focus everything? How did some make those award winning shots or the hobbyist who caught that moment of a kid sliding into homebase at the park?

I agree with you, and I don't. Modern (D)SLRs are just not made for manual focus the way they come out of the box.

Example; I still shoot film, both 135 and 120 and have properly a working EOS 500n. Autofocus is horrible. Manual focus is horrible because I can't check focus other than just looking through the viewfinder. For that reason I mainly shoot with my EOS 1V which has a great autofocus system, but manual focus is hard as well (with the standard focus screens, anyway). On my ancient Canon AV1 there is no autofocus, but manual focus is easy though. 120 cameras with focus screens are also a lot easier due to the size (and additional loupe when available).
So if manual focus is going to be crappy on a DSLR, you'd better have a good AF system

I actually find manual focus easier on my Fuji-Mirrorless as opposed to my Canon (D)SLR gear because it has focus-help-tools.

The original question; To me, both SLR and mirrorless are different tools and it depends on each person to choose between them if needed/wanted. I would go SLR, but that's me. I can totally understand people going mirrorless. Battery life is the biggest downside of mirrorless for me, but you get a lot of portability in return. (Notice I didn't mention image quality)

I don't understand the point trying to be made about the 'vital parts'. If electronics don't work in a mirrorless it is a paperweight. If electronics don't work in an SLR it is a bigger paperweight. Sounds equally vital to me.
I have Fuji mirrorless with 70k+ actuations. No problems so far.