What is the fuss about mirrorless?

[Freida]

So here is a question to the ring, please.

As I will finally make the switch from DX to FF and my plan is to get D760 (or D750 depending on price/features) with 28-70 2.8 lens would I be better off to get mirrorless? ie. is mirrorless the future here? What I'm asking is that when I make a purchase I like to make one that will last me as long as possible. I've had my D90 since 2009 and it served me well except the limitations it has especially in low light.

Few months ago I did a portrait photography workshop which I really enjoyed and plan to do more of that kinda stuff. I also enjoy landscape and did few weddings (as an additional photographer as my friends like my pics).

DSLR are not going anywhere for the next 10 years or so, right? The reason I ask is because I don't wanna spend close to £3k on new body and lens only to find out that everyone is mirrorless in 3 years time. )))

Ideally, I wanna buy the gear I meantioned above and from then update the body once every 7-10 years or so and keep the lens forever as those should last a lifetime.

Opinions, please?

 

[whg]

DSLR are not going anywhere for the next 10 years or so, right? The reason I ask is because I don't wanna spend close to £3k on new body and lens only to find out that everyone is mirrorless in 3 years time. )))

Ideally, I wanna buy the gear I meantioned above and from then update the body once every 7-10 years or so and keep the lens forever as those should last a lifetime.

Opinions, please?

Nikon made an attempt with mirrorless starting with the V1 (1" sensor). With an adapter you can use FF Nikon lenses, but with a focal length factor of almost 3 this is only interesting for wildlife photography. On the other hand, if you take Canon, they seem currently more serious with mirrorless with the new M5 which has an APS-C sized sensor and where adapted EF lenses work very well. For me, the investment in lenses is the biggest long-term asset. The current entry level FF from Canon is the 6D with a rumoured upgrade expected next year. For low light the 6D is a very good choice if you can live with the single central focus point.

 

[sos47]

Isn't DSLR technically better and more versatile? If mirrorless has attachable lens like DSLR then what is the point of having mirrorless in the first place? (apart from having slightly smaller and lighter body?)
To me, it seems that mirrorless still costs tons of money so why is there such a crave?

First look for the lenses you may need, then for the system. There are pros and cons for every system and it depends on the requirements (travel, street, wildlife, sports, etc)

 

[maflynn]

Regardless, if IQ in mirrorless is the same as DSLR then why bother having DSLR?

Its my understanding that most mirrorless cameras have inferior DOF given the physics and small lens/camera body. Many DSLR are now full frame and you have that going for you.

DSLR are not going anywhere for the next 10 years or so, right?

No one knows the future, and the camera industry is indeed under siege as more and more people rely on their phones for photography.

Personally, I couldn't justify spending so much on a nikon body when the M43 system offered a smaller body, for much less money. While others knock the notion of size and weight, it is a factor, at least to me and if I don't have to lug around a ginormous camera and lens, then I won't.

One size doesn't fit all, and I think people take these discussions way too serious. The Mirrorless camera works for me, it may not work for you. One size does not fit all.

DSLR are expensive, but offer features and performance that are not usually found in the mirrorless systems. I don't think anyone can bank on where the camera industry will beyond 10 years. Heck 5 years may be too much to prognosticate on

 

[FredT2]

Its my understanding that most mirrorless cameras have inferior DOF given the physics and small lens/camera body. Many DSLR are now full frame and you have that going for you.

Two misconception here: first DOF is a function of sensor size for a given aperture and focal length, and many mirrorless cameras have full-frame sensors, and therefor the same DOF characteristics as full-frame DSLRs. Second, "inferior" implies that shallow DOF is a bad thing. For macro shooters like me, the greater DOF of a camera with a smaller sensor is an advantage. I used to use Canon APS-C cameras even though I could have bought full-frame for the same lenses, but I did not because I wanted more DOF. Now I shoot with micro four-thirds and the advantage to me is even greater.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

So here is a question to the ring, please.

As I will finally make the switch from DX to FF and my plan is to get D760 (or D750 depending on price/features) with 28-70 2.8 lens would I be better off to get mirrorless? ie. is mirrorless the future here? What I'm asking is that when I make a purchase I like to make one that will last me as long as possible. I've had my D90 since 2009 and it served me well except the limitations it has especially in low light.

Few months ago I did a portrait photography workshop which I really enjoyed and plan to do more of that kinda stuff. I also enjoy landscape and did few weddings (as an additional photographer as my friends like my pics).

DSLR are not going anywhere for the next 10 years or so, right? The reason I ask is because I don't wanna spend close to £3k on new body and lens only to find out that everyone is mirrorless in 3 years time. )))

Ideally, I wanna buy the gear I meantioned above and from then update the body once every 7-10 years or so and keep the lens forever as those should last a lifetime.

Opinions, please?

It really doesn't matter where anything goes. You choose your tool and you use it. How does it matter what the market does.

Nikon on the other hand I hope has a great future but might be the most unstable in terms of financials from the big 3. EDIT: This comment goes in the direction which brand to choose from. To me it looks you are unsure if you are making an investment which will be future proof. Both DSLR and Mirrorless are here to stay for the foreseeable future. I would worry more about which brand to invest in. Canon will be there, Sony I assume also and as a big Nikon Fan I do hope Nikon as well. Phones are eating into the margins and they sell less cameras. I hope all survive.

 

[maflynn]

You choose your tool and you use it

Agreed, if DSLR is something that fits your needs better, then go for that, or if Mirrorless, then that.

As previously stated my needs are such that Mirrorless fit the bill better, but that's not say that mirrorless are superior to dslrs, but rather they're different

 

[kenoh]

Another long on... short answer is it is merely a personal choice...

It is merely a choice I think. If you are going to stay in the standard zoom lens kind of focal lengths then there are options to maintain compactness. beyond the 70mm focal length then the laws of physics exert their supremacy and we get into negligible differences in the real world. I mean my Sony A7Rii in the hand is lighter than a D750 but is it really compelling enough to make me buy that for that reason specifically? no not really.

I had DSLRs and they never went anywhere with me. They orbited the house at a range of about 200yards. I usually took a Sony RX100 and made do because it was too much to carry the gear - at the time, I had a baby too so that didnt help - by the time you load up with their "essentials" there is no room left for anything other than dads wallet and car key...

About that time the Sony A7 came out and as there were no native lenses to choose from really, I ended up doing two things 1. I learned to shoot with primes as there were only a choice of 55 and 35 for a while with it. 2. I got into legacy lenses and in particular Leica glass (wow wasnt that a bad move for the wallet!).

Now I think I am just set in my ways, so continue to like mirrorless. I suppose I would use a DSLR just as much if that was what I shot today but for convenience for me, I can pack my Sony A7Rii, 70-200, 55mm and an adapted voigtlander lens in a tidy little messenger bag, or the Leica, the 50 and the 15mm Voigt. I am not a bag carrying type so the little messenger form factor works for me. Even more perfect is that I can hang the M round my neck, pocket a lens and mini tripod in my jacket pocket and not carry a bag... cant carry a DSLR round your neck all day easily.

I am not sure I like the DSLR way of working for me as manually focusing a lens on a DSLR is not as easy as on a mirrorless with focus peaking and live view. So I suppose I have got lazy too... DoF is an interesting one, yes Full Frame vs smaller lenses is a factor but once you get over your razor thin DoF for everything phase, then this becomes less compelling an argument.

I also think that a skilled practitioner with a crappy camera will always out shoot a numpty with a pro DSLR and all the trimmings so again, not sure it is about the camera so much anymore. It is a tool and the important thing is to learn your tools, learn their strengths and their weaknesses, learn to accommodate and adapt, then it is irrelevant what camera you have because you will be able to get the result you want.

I do fin that my GAS is more contained now that I have the Sony and the Leicas. Having said that the Leica M10 is rumoured to be launched on January 18th... so I may have a flare up of GAS on the 19th... thankfully I cant afford a new M and the gear I have got way out performs my capabilities.

To get back on point, I just think that once you move away from anything requiring a really long lens or the fastest most accurate run and gun capabilities then it is just a matter of personal preference. I like the Sony and the Leica for the fact that people who dont know cameras, think they aren't good ones and dont give them a second glance - kind of like dont wear a Rolex in the ghetto, wear an IWC because the toerags havent heard of IWC...

Funny moment, my wife's cousin came to visit from Australia and she brought her Canon 70D with her and her kit lens. Big, black, cumbersome, shoots it permanently on auto. I was rocking the M9 with the 50mm Summilux. I got to talking to her about her photography trying to get her to moveoff full auto and actually use her cameras capabilities, and stone me but half way through the conversation, she points at my camera and says, you know maybe you would get better pictures if you binned that old film camera and got something better like my Canon. I nearly fell over laughing. She had no clue what it was.

Anyway, since going mirrorless and being able to class Leica M in that category, I have no desire to go back to DSLRs but I dont think they are the answer to the future of photography anymore than a DSLR is... thats just my chosen weapon.

However..... it is fun to wind certain folks up on here about how superior the Sony system is compared to the "archaic" Canikon offerings...

 

[Apple fanboy]

Another long on... short answer is it is merely a personal choice...

It is merely a choice I think. If you are going to stay in the standard zoom lens kind of focal lengths then there are options to maintain compactness. beyond the 70mm focal length then the laws of physics exert their supremacy and we get into negligible differences in the real world. I mean my Sony A7Rii in the hand is lighter than a D750 but is it really compelling enough to make me buy that for that reason specifically? no not really.

I had DSLRs and they never went anywhere with me. They orbited the house at a range of about 200yards. I usually took a Sony RX100 and made do because it was too much to carry the gear - at the time, I had a baby too so that didnt help - by the time you load up with their "essentials" there is no room left for anything other than dads wallet and car key...

About that time the Sony A7 came out and as there were no native lenses to choose from really, I ended up doing two things 1. I learned to shoot with primes as there were only a choice of 55 and 35 for a while with it. 2. I got into legacy lenses and in particular Leica glass (wow wasnt that a bad move for the wallet!).

Now I think I am just set in my ways, so continue to like mirrorless. I suppose I would use a DSLR just as much if that was what I shot today but for convenience for me, I can pack my Sony A7Rii, 70-200, 55mm and an adapted voigtlander lens in a tidy little messenger bag, or the Leica, the 50 and the 15mm Voigt. I am not a bag carrying type so the little messenger form factor works for me. Even more perfect is that I can hang the M round my neck, pocket a lens and mini tripod in my jacket pocket and not carry a bag... cant carry a DSLR round your neck all day easily.

I am not sure I like the DSLR way of working for me as manually focusing a lens on a DSLR is not as easy as on a mirrorless with focus peaking and live view. So I suppose I have got lazy too... DoF is an interesting one, yes Full Frame vs smaller lenses is a factor but once you get over your razor thin DoF for everything phase, then this becomes less compelling an argument.

I also think that a skilled practitioner with a crappy camera will always out shoot a numpty with a pro DSLR and all the trimmings so again, not sure it is about the camera so much anymore. It is a tool and the important thing is to learn your tools, learn their strengths and their weaknesses, learn to accommodate and adapt, then it is irrelevant what camera you have because you will be able to get the result you want.

I do fin that my GAS is more contained now that I have the Sony and the Leicas. Having said that the Leica M10 is rumoured to be launched on January 18th... so I may have a flare up of GAS on the 19th... thankfully I cant afford a new M and the gear I have got way out performs my capabilities.

To get back on point, I just think that once you move away from anything requiring a really long lens or the fastest most accurate run and gun capabilities then it is just a matter of personal preference. I like the Sony and the Leica for the fact that people who dont know cameras, think they aren't good ones and dont give them a second glance - kind of like dont wear a Rolex in the ghetto, wear an IWC because the toerags havent heard of IWC...

Funny moment, my wife's cousin came to visit from Australia and she brought her Canon 70D with her and her kit lens. Big, black, cumbersome, shoots it permanently on auto. I was rocking the M9 with the 50mm Summilux. I got to talking to her about her photography trying to get her to moveoff full auto and actually use her cameras capabilities, and stone me but half way through the conversation, she points at my camera and says, you know maybe you would get better pictures if you binned that old film camera and got something better like my Canon. I nearly fell over laughing. She had no clue what it was.

Anyway, since going mirrorless and being able to class Leica M in that category, I have no desire to go back to DSLRs but I dont think they are the answer to the future of photography anymore than a DSLR is... thats just my chosen weapon.

However..... it is fun to wind certain folks up on here about how superior the Sony system is compared to the "archaic" Canikon offerings...

Flamer!

Pick a camera, learn how to use it and go make pictures. That's all there is to it.
I like to joke as much as the next guy, but if mirroless is what suits your needs then great for you. If a film camera floats your boat, good for you.

We're all different.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

It is fundamental that all cameras will be mirrorless at some point. Having a dedicated focus array, and pentaprism that splits the light but has to move out of the way, is clearly destined for the dustbin of history. The only question is... how long until we get there? How long until the electronic viewfinder is as good as the optical viewfinder? How long until on-sensor focus detection is as good as a dedicated unit?

We aren't there today. A DSLR still offers tangible benefits in battery life, viewfinder quality, and speed. I think as far as absolute capture quality goes the Sony A7R MK2 is the equal of pretty much any DSLR. But most mirrorless cameras don't have a full frame Exmor R sensor, so by and large mirrorless cameras are inferior in quality today versus FF DSLRs.

Mirrorless cameras are majority APS-C (Sony, Fujifilm) and Four Thirds (Olympus, Panasonic) sensors. Which puts them in the same discussion as Nikon and Canon's APS-C DSLR cameras as far as quality goes. Mirrorless has often been criticized for lacking the speed of DSLR systems. Olympus put steam into mirrorless with the OM-D E-M5 in 2012. They are looking to do it again with the OM-D E-M1 Mark II here in 2017 because it's all about speed, speed, speed. Addressing a long standing pain point. We'll see if they manage to accomplish their goal.

I tend to think that mirrorless makes trade-offs in favor of size. This is why they aren't as popular with pro photographers. If it is your job to take pictures, you're much more likely to put up with the weight and size of a large DSLR camera system. That isn't to say no pros use mirrorless. Many do, often as a secondary system, or a personal system. A lot of pros love their mirrorless cameras, but only some will use them for work. There is a bit of a stigma attached to smaller cameras which doesn't help I'm sure. That same size trade-off is why enthusiasts often love them. You get plenty of quality in a compact package.

I would say that it is only recently that most of the mirrorless systems are catching up to Canon EF and Nikon FX mount options. Sony's EF system is getting high quality GM lenses. Fujifilm X-Mount has a decent range now. So does MFT with the new 300mm Olympus prime. I am only really counting the very high-end glass because all systems have had cheap and mediocre options for most focal lengths for a long time. These systems aren't going to be in a position to compete with DSLRs until they get high quality glass. And just so we're clear, some of the glass available to mirrorless systems is simply exceptional. Do not think for even a moment that these smaller lenses are necessarily of poor quality. The Olympus 75mm f/1.8 is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen in my life.

So where do you stand? I've noticed a lot of people con themselves into buying a DSLR and then find the size and weight inconvenient. They would take a lot more photos and be a much better photographer if they had bought a smaller system that was with them more often. Fundamentally it's the camera which you have with you that is most important. You have to be a bit of an enthusiast to even be considering a dedicated camera when smartphones are very reasonable and you always have one with you.

 

[robgendreau]

If you go over to dpreview.com there are lots of ways to compare say the D750 vs a M43, like the Oly E-M1 II already mentioned. The Oly is probably a couple hundred US more. But do the comparison and look at the images. I don't think I saw anything here saying what the OP used for output; big prints might certainly be a reason to go for a FF (or maybe medium format?) sensor. But it might also be overkill for other uses.

As already noted, each has advantages and disadvantages. Indeed, every individual camera is a tradeoff. That's kinda why we're talking interchangeable lenses here, since one-size-fits-all doesn't cut it. And the features you need may end up making a decision for you. For example, I like to use legacy manual lenses. So good focus peaking, a wide availability of adapters, touch screen, and in-body stabilization are big pluses for me. For others it might be phase detect autofocus for sports. Either could be a deal breaker; sensor size may not matter nearly as much. Or there might be special features: the pixel shift tech available on some M43s like the Oly (or with FF like the Pentax) is stunning for a lot of still life and landscape photography for instance. Or the amazing Astrotracer built in star tracker in some Pentaxes. You just have to start making lists and being pretty honest about your needs.

Maybe you should get both....

The good thing is that it's hard to go wrong.

 

[kenoh]

Both... Now we are talking!!!

 

[MCAsan]

With E-M1 Mark II, just like E-M5 Mark II, you do high res mode. Instead of producing a raw file in the 20M range, it will be more like in the 80MP range. The camera takes 8 exposures and slightly moves the sensor between shots. So the captured detail level is huge. To get into the 80MP range with any other body you like have to head to medium format territory.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/olympus-e-m5-ii/olympus-e-m5-iiTECH2.HTM

 

[jaduff46]

Was looking at a refurb Canon EOS 70 or 80D and saw this post. Getting into photography after retiring last year.

Was just wondering what you mirrorless users have and how happy you are with the results. Sony A6000 and Olympus are mentioned a few times. Full frame or crop? Lenses? I'm turning 70 next Sunday and weight would be a consideration. Have seen some nice shots from @stillcrazyman and @Hughmac.

Thanks in advance.

John

 

[Precision Gem]

I have a Nikon D750 and lenses ranging from 14mm to 300 mm. The camera bag I normally carry for this camera, minus the 200mm macro lens and a few others weighs almost 20 lbs.

I also have an Olympus OM-D M1 with lens ranging from (equivalent) 14mm to 600mm and the camera bag is just 6 lbs.
With M1, I also have a pancake 14-80 zoom, and when mounted on the body, I can fit the camera in my jacket pocket.

Still use both cameras, but find I am using the M1 a lot more than the D750.

 

[Hughmac]

Was looking at a refurb Canon EOS 70 or 80D and saw this post. Getting into photography after retiring last year.

Was just wondering what you mirrorless users have and how happy you are with the results. Sony A6000 and Olympus are mentioned a few times. Full frame or crop? Lenses? I'm turning 70 next Sunday and weight would be a consideration. Have seen some nice shots from @stillcrazyman and @Hughmac.

Thanks in advance.

John

I appreciate the thoughts about the nice shots; thanks

I currently use an APSC Sony NEX-6, forerunner of the A6000 series but very similar. I have the best lenses I can afford - 4 primes and the obligatory zoom for wildlife. My signature below has all the details.

I've never had a full frame camera so I can't comment on the differences in quality, but I'm happy with what I have mainly because it's a heck of a lot cheaper to buy, and lighter to lug around than a Nikon D300 and Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 amongst other lenses (I still miss that lens )

There are others e.g. @kenoh who have the full frame Sony A7 camera and may wish to chip in, but I think the Sony FE lenses for these are much more heavy and expensive.

Hope this helps,

Cheers

Hugh

 

[kenoh]

I appreciate the thoughts about the nice shots; thanks

I currently use an APSC Sony NEX-6, forerunner of the A6000 series but very similar. I have the best lenses I can afford - 4 primes and the obligatory zoom for wildlife. My signature below has all the details.

I've never had a full frame camera so I can't comment on the differences in quality, but I'm happy with what I have mainly because it's a heck of a lot cheaper to buy, and lighter to lug around than a Nikon D300 and Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 amongst other lenses (I still miss that lens )

There are others e.g. @kenoh who have the full frame Sony A7 camera and may wish to chip in, but I think the Sony FE lenses for these are much more heavy and expensive.

Hope this helps,

Cheers

Hugh

Thanks for the nod Hugh.

Yes I have got a Sony full frame mirrorless. It takes beautiful clinical, sterile, tack sharp images. ☺ i jest

I enjoy it immensely but if i were to be in the market for a new camera I think i would be considering the A7ii first as it is priced better and offers fabulous images too. I would also consider something like the Oly pen F which is a lovely camera. I am being drawn more and more into the Olympus mindset to be honest. The second generations of the em5 and em1 and pen f are very inreresting.

I too shoot manual focus lenses and have a few FE native lenses. To be honest, if you are talking some of the short primes then it is a great compact combo. The A7Rii is noticeably heavier than my A7 before it was and once the 70-200 is on it, it isnt that different in size to my old canon and 100-400L so if you are looking for long focal lengths then make sure you try the equivalents on each format as you are not necessarily benefitting all that much by going mirrorless. In real world the weight is not an issue so much as bulk. The native FE primes aee really not heavy at all considering, though the 55 1.8 is the size of a small can of airline size soda

The Full frame lenses are more expensive to buy but they work real well. Having said that the 50 1.8 and the 28 f2 are cracking lenses for the money. Once you look at the GMaster series then they are Canon/Nikon territory in size weight and cost.

I love the results from the Sony but not as much as the results from the Leics Ms i have the joy of using. While on paper the sony has allsorts of features that make it technically better, the Leicas have something about them that just feels so nice to use.

I would certainly consider a body with in body image stabilisation as it helps a great deal for me. I find I have what i believe golfers call the yips and IBIS helps that.

So yeah very happy with the results though not to say I wouldnt downgrade to a DSLR joke...
[doublepost=1482013209][/doublepost]

Was looking at a refurb Canon EOS 70 or 80D and saw this post. Getting into photography after retiring last year.

Was just wondering what you mirrorless users have and how happy you are with the results. Sony A6000 and Olympus are mentioned a few times. Full frame or crop? Lenses? I'm turning 70 next Sunday and weight would be a consideration. Have seen some nice shots from @stillcrazyman and @Hughmac.

Thanks in advance.

John

Careful getting into photography. Like fast women, it has been the ruin of many a poor boy! - or girl...

It never ends. Amazon make a killing of shipping various glass based gadgets to us and we constantly crave the next fix like a crack addict awaits the next hit...

Photography is a cold lover, she will caress you and stroke your ego then one day she will turn her back and leave you hollow and desperate for that glimmer of beauty..

Lol.... welcome to the gang...

 

[Nordichund]

I remember the debate between film slr v dslr. A bit like the dslr v mirrorless today. The way technology is going both will be obsolete in the future.

I fell out of love with Nikon when I discovered mirrorless Fujifilm. At the end of the day it is possible to take amazing photos with both systems. Though Fujifilm's new medium format camera will certainly put the frighteners on Nikon and Canon.

 

[phrehdd]

I remember the debate between film slr v dslr. A bit like the dslr v mirrorless today. The way technology is going both will be obsolete in the future.

I fell out of love with Nikon when I discovered mirrorless Fujifilm. At the end of the day it is possible to take amazing photos with both systems. Though Fujifilm's new medium format camera will certainly put the frighteners on Nikon and Canon.

Your experience is very similar to mine. I started in the Nikon family in film days and then ultimately (presently) belong to the Fuji X group because it meets my needs and also gives me more of that feel and control associated with film cameras.
[doublepost=1482018115][/doublepost]

So here is a question to the ring, please.

As I will finally make the switch from DX to FF and my plan is to get D760 (or D750 depending on price/features) with 28-70 2.8 lens would I be better off to get mirrorless? ie. is mirrorless the future here? What I'm asking is that when I make a purchase I like to make one that will last me as long as possible. I've had my D90 since 2009 and it served me well except the limitations it has especially in low light.

Few months ago I did a portrait photography workshop which I really enjoyed and plan to do more of that kinda stuff. I also enjoy landscape and did few weddings (as an additional photographer as my friends like my pics).

DSLR are not going anywhere for the next 10 years or so, right? The reason I ask is because I don't wanna spend close to £3k on new body and lens only to find out that everyone is mirrorless in 3 years time. )))

Ideally, I wanna buy the gear I meantioned above and from then update the body once every 7-10 years or so and keep the lens forever as those should last a lifetime.

Opinions, please?

During film days, I used more often than not either manual or semi-automatic for exposure. I also did similar with manual lenses vs auto-focus. I did this well into the days when near all used electronics to get things done in their photography with auto focus lens and exposure. I had more "keepers' than most of my friends and peers even with their more modern cameras. My point is it doesn't matter what everyone else is using if your equipment meets the situation and you are a capable photographer. It doesn't matter if one uses DSLR or mirrorless in three years down the line IF you are a master of your gear and it serves you properly. This is perhaps demonstrated by one of the earlier Nikon "pro" digital cameras that continues to be used and has a huge fan base for being a consistent and worthwhile performer.

 

[stillcrazyman]

Was looking at a refurb Canon EOS 70 or 80D and saw this post. Getting into photography after retiring last year.

Was just wondering what you mirrorless users have and how happy you are with the results. Sony A6000 and Olympus are mentioned a few times. Full frame or crop? Lenses? I'm turning 70 next Sunday and weight would be a consideration. Have seen some nice shots from @stillcrazyman and @Hughmac.

Thanks in advance.

John

Thanks John. I'm currently using an older Sony a77 mk1 - not a mirrorless camera. No problem with getting a nice second hand camera to get some experience with.

 

[Precision Gem]

One other thing, at least as for as the m4/3 mirrorless cameras go, the cost of comparable lenses to a full frame are of much less, and of course much smaller.
For my Nikon D750 I have the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 lens, about $1800. On the Olympus the comparable lens is 7-14 f2.8 and I paid $1100 for it. That extra $700 paid for a 60 mm f2.8 macro and the 14-80 pancake lens and a camera bag.

 

[MCAsan]

And packing a m43 bag for a safari is very easy. You will not exceed the carry on size and weight limits on smaller planes in and out of the bush in Africa, Alaska or other remote locations.

 

[phrehdd]

Sometimes I wonder if we'll ever see a real popular return of the "cat" lenses given the size and telephoto ratio that makes for a lighter lens.

 

[digitaldave]

A couple of points that haven't been mentioned, or have come up in passing...

1) Mirrorless cameras display the image as it comes in from the sensor, so you can do things like focus peaking (useful for manual focus), and get real time exposure information (e.g. a live histogram or using zebras - striped lines that show over exposed areas in the frame). I believe most nes DSLRs can do this if you are in live view mode, as that's also using the live sensor output, not the view through the optical viewfinder via the mirror.

2) Adapted lenses. This is a big one for many people. Camera and lens systems are designed with a known distance between the lens mount and the sensor / film, and with traditional mirror based systems, this will be greater than a typical mirrorless system. Therefore, it's possible to make an adaptor to fit between different lenses and a mirrorless camera, giving many lens options. For example, for the Sony systems, there are adaptors for Leica M series, Canon FD (older manual focus) and EF (autofocus), and other systems. This means that you have access to focal lengths or features you may not have in the native system, or you might want to use a specific lens because of the look it gives to images shot using it.

People have already mentioned some of the other aspects, for example DSLRs will typically have much better batter life as they aren't using the batter to power the sensor and EVF or display. DSLRs are also often faster focusing for action / sports, although this is changing - I believe the Sony A6500 and Olympus OM-D E-M1 Makrk II are closing the gap down significantly.

 

[steveash]

As someone who uses both, I don't think it is really a big deal. Like for like in sensor size, the camera systems aren't much different in size, weight or price. An A7RII + 24-70 f2.8 G Master weighs 1536g while the 5DIV + 24-70 f2.8 L come in at 1695g. The difference is about the same as the extra batteries you'll need to carry around to power the extra tech.

The main benefit of mirrorless is the ability to see a preview of the image rather than see the actual scene, so you see how the camera will see it in terms of exposure, white balance and depth of field.

The marketing people want us to feel that older cameras are somehow obsolete but remember that some of the greatest art ever made has been created with archaic tools, long before digital tech arrived. Digital has made photography easier to learn, and image quality easier to obtain but the camera remains a tool for creative expression rather than the creator itself.