Whats so special about mirrorless bodies?

Lately I've seen more and more people going to mirrorless and even getting rid of their Canon/Nikon bodies for mirrorless (Sony, Fuji, Oly, Samsung, Leica, Panasonic, etc.).

I guess I am just confused as to why people would prefer a camera like that where lenses and accessories are extremely limited).

Is there something I am missing, or are these people just bored with Canon/Nikon?

Smaller and lighter I would reckon. Plus, not everyone needs the gamut of lenses currently available to DSLRs. And actually, given that some of these mirrorless bodies (most of these?) can use rangefinder lenses, anyone not needing longer than 135mm has access to an incredible number of lenses.

Smaller, lighter, and with the new Sony cameras a much better sensor and the ability to use Canon lenses.

Hmm, seems to me like the hipster way of photography. They wanna be original so they buy the Olympus or Panasonic. That's just a first thought though.

A number of the mirrorless bodies have adapters that allow people to still use their good glass, but on a body that's is a fraction of the size. Sony being the primary path that people are going for that, with the A7 family.

JM Photos wrote in post #17055903
Hmm, seems to me like the hipster way of photography. They wanna be original so they buy the Olympus or Panasonic. That's just a first thought though.

I went to Paris with a x100s and it was smaller, lighter, forced me to think about my shots AND the image quality was UNREAL. I can't ever see myself using them for work because they do have limitations but I'll never pick up my DSLR again if I'm just going out.

Calling it a hipster trend is not really understanding how people are using them. The hipster way of photography is Urban Outfitters selling $50 'retro' instant cameras.

Mirrorless is far from a hipster trend. Small cameras can be just as good as your big DSLR =)

And, even if they're not as good as your big DSLR, sometimes they don't need to be.

If I'm going out to dinner with friends or walking around when photography is not the main focus of the event, I'll sometimes take my EOS-M instead of a DSLR.

Its lighter, have better sensors (sony), and discrete.

Sometimes it makes no sense to bring a 1Dx to a birthday party in a crowded restaurant. Its the right tool for the job in certain cases.

The body is smaller - most importantly not as thick.
And this allow wider lenses to be made significantly smaller too, since they can be placed closer to the sensor.

But the main reason for the Sony is probably because of the Sony sensor together with Canon lenses.

How is wanting a smaller and lighter camera “hipster”? Be careful about conflating and labeling. Remember, roughly seven billion folks on the planet with varying personal preferences.

A camera, any camera, is a camera as legitimate as any other; after all, the camera does not determine who or how it will be used. And just because a certain group (is hipster really any worse than suburban materialistic automaton) might prefer a particular type of camera does not automatically taint the camera or its capabilities.

Because my Fuji kit weighs less than half my Canon kit (and I've already got the lightest Canon FF DSLR) and performs just as well in good light. Being a "hipster" has literally nothing to do with it. If Canon came out with an EOS M with the same capability as the Fuji system (lenses, settings, EVF, the list goes on) then I'd go with it if it supported the same EF to EF-M adapter support as the current M.

Fuji has a lens for almost any need I can think of and all of them are top performers at very reasonable prices for what they offer. The bodies are catching up quickly to DSLR's (though not quite there yet for some needs) and did I mention they're significantly lighter and smaller? I don't like lugging my DSLR with me everywhere I go, it gets in the way far easier than a mirrorless camera does.

Plus you get the added bonus of being able to use literally any lens ever on it. Using my BavEyes focal reducer I can use my FF lenses in pretty much their full glory, same DOF, same FOV (almost, off by a few mm) and on an awesome AA-less sensor with amazing color rendition (seriously, Fuji's colors are simply better).

I'm not ready to abandon my 6D yet because I still need the low light capability and I have a preference toward an OVF (could be unjust given how much better the X-T1 EVF is said to be) and the DSLR still gives me more room to grow if I need good, fast and reliable AF later down the road (right now I don't).

Marketing.

sjones wrote in post #17056052
How is wanting a smaller and lighter camera “hipster”? Be careful about conflating and labeling. Remember, roughly seven billion folks on the planet with varying personal preferences.

A camera, any camera, is a camera as legitimate as any other; after all, the camera does not determine who or how it will be used. And just because a certain group (is hipster really any worse than suburban materialistic automaton) might prefer a particular type of camera does not automatically taint the camera or its capabilities.

But then again, people can have an opinion, and others can ignore said opinion. Methinks that person hasn't been keeping up on the mirrorless news and advancements.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #17056069
Marketing.

Rent an X-T1 or A7, I think you'd change your mind on that one

I certainly like the look/feel of the Sony offerings especially as they are full frame and I don't have to buy any new lenses. However the lack of a viewfinder and hopelessly slow AF would mean that they would be of little use to me except for the occasional landscape shot. I guess that I will have to struggle on with my 1 Series lump!