Dumping the EOS gear for these MILC's, fad?

I keep seeing more and more posts of people ditching their big DSLR's for these mirrorless designs.

I recently picked up the Fuji X100s, and I have to say, the image quality is very good. It's also really fun to shoot with, light and easy to carry. I find myself grabbing it when I can't or don't want to bring a 5D III with grip and L lens with me.

While there's no question of the quality of these new cameras, it seems to me it's kind of a "bandwagon" to sell off your DSLR in some sort of statement or what not. I know if I sold my camera and lenses, I couldn't afford to get them back.

For me, I went with the Fuji X100s over a second "system" specifically because it would prevent me from getting the G.A.S. and buying a bunch of lenses and things. I have specific uses for each camera this way... flexibility and superior quality with the 5D III, and small walkaround with still great quality with a fixed lens on the X100s.

I would think that once you start adding lenses, you then need to carry a bag, even with the mirrorless. Surely the DSLR's are bigger and heavier, but once you are bringing a bag with you anyway, doesn't it start to matter less that there's a few pounds difference?

I don't know. Just spewing here. Should just shut up and go out and shoot and not worry about such things

I'm not into the mirrorless thing at all. They don't make lenses that are long enough for my specific genre, and the bodies are too small and light - they don't feel good in my hands . . .

BUT, if I were to get one, I think the one I'd choose would be the Sony NEX 7 with the 18-200mm lens. I think that's the longest lens made specifically for mirrorless, and 18mm on the short end would be more than wide enough for anything I'd ever want to shoot. So, with that combo one would most likely not have to carry extra lenses and a bag.

Yeah, I see you are into wildlife photography. I can't see a MILC for that at all either. Nor sports. No way.

Walking around, travel stuff, street, some landscape, sure. I also like my little Fuji for when I go out on my bike around the city, toss it in the trunk bag and go.

Doooooo iiiiiiiiit...

No but seriously, it depends on what you need. I haven't sold my DSLR system yet (mainly because I'm lazy, and because I haven't decided yet if I should keep the body and a specialist lens or 2) but it's been mostly gathering dust since I got my Fuji earlier this year. My rationale was that I liked taking pictures, but:
a) I hated lugging my 15 pounds of gear with me (which always counted as my carry-on on the plane)
b) you can't be inconspicuous with a DSLR
c) I wasn't really using some key features of DSLRs (fast AF, continuous AF tracking and continuous shooting) but I was frequently complaining about the occasional inaccuracy of phase-detect AF on my 5D2
d) I'm a whore for noise control at high ISO

For the kind of stuff that I do, a mirrorless camera just made more sense. I have two lenses - down from 5 - and my camera bag is tiny (also, stylish!). The gear just gets out of my way and I just happily snap away.

Haha, I will not be doing it, at least for a while. I just got the 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II this year, and love them.

Plus they have an "ooh look at me and my fancy camera!" aura to them.

DSLRs have one thing on their side: flexibility.

Shoot from macro to ultra wide to super telephoto, and all points in between, with a single camera.

But just because DSLRs *can* do all of these things doesn't mean they are the *best* tools for all of these things.

DLSR bodies are heavy in comparison to MILCs, and DSLR lenses of equivalent focal length and maximum f/stop are generally much larger.

DLSRs are obtrusive if you happen to be shooting in a genre that requires you to be unobtrusive.

DLSRs require faster minimum shutter speeds before camera shake sets in, all other things being equal, because of the mirror.

If anyone asks me what DSLR they should get (and I get this often), the first question I ask is "why do you want a DSLR?" To most people they are simply synonymous with "high quality". And until recently, this was correct; DLSRs were the only way to get reasonable image quality in a digital camera. That is no longer the case. I would argue that the DSLR has become (or at least should become) something of a niche product; a camera for people who either need to shoot lots of different things or one very specific thing that a MILC cannot handle very well (mainly ultra telephoto, though image stabilization helps with this a lot).

Ryan0751 wrote in post #16233177
Plus they have an "ooh look at me and my fancy camera!" aura to them.

As opposed to 20-inch-long red ringed lenses attached to a pro body?

Hardly a fad I think. As much as I'll mourn the loss of the optical viewfinder, that's really the only reason to have a mirror anymore on an SLR. With the release of the 70D, it's shown that the main imaging sensor can be just as effective for phase-detect high-speed auto focus as dedicated focus sensors. Exposure metering can be done better directly by the sensor. Micro-focus adjustment for lenses will become simpler because you can measure it directly by the imaging sensor again. Why have the mirror at all?

The mirror adds an extra moving part that can fail, and also slows down high-speed shots. Think about it, when you main sensor can now do both focus and image continuously, and with electronic shutter curtains, the only thing preventing 30-60fps full frame resolution high speed shots is that your storage or your processor can't keep dumping the full frame that fast. The mirror would only slow things down having to get out of the way. Even now, with the ultra-high speed RAW video on 5DIII with Magic Lantern you can already get close to this kind of high speed shooting. So again, what good is the mirror?

Lastly, reducing the distance between the sensor and the lens by removing the mirror makes it easier to design lenses with less distortion and makes lenses smaller. You could probably end up having a 300mm telephoto not much bigger than the current 24-105.

Full-frame mirrorless cameras will be where the future is headed, mirrors are living on borrowed time as is. You can argue that the bigger camera "feels better" in your hand, but if you can get the same quality/speed/flexibil​ity in a smaller package, why wouldn't you? The camera that you have on you, and can get out of your bag in time for the shot is always better than the camera you didn't bring because it was too big to carry.

I can see that. I just wonder if it's premature?

I'm going to be dump'n my stuff Canon 5D2s and 24L,35L, 85L and 200 2L for Leica M. I picked up a Leica MM and 35 Lux FLE and I'm hooked. Leica M glass is just amazing and I really prefer the rangefinder shooting experience.

Naito wrote in post #16233726
Micro-focus adjustment for lenses will become simpler because you can measure it directly by the imaging sensor again.

Focusing directly from the sensor doesn't make MFA simpler, it completely eliminates the need for it.

I like the great DoF scales on manual focus lenses. No auto focus in the world is faster than being pre focused.

Ryan0751 wrote in post #16233752
I can see that. I just wonder if it's premature?

Probably premature if you DO require the stuff we currently need a mirror for, i.e. high speed focus for sports shooting. But for the vast majority of people who need a good camera to take pictures on vacations or of their kids, I dare say the current line of mirrorless cameras are getting pretty damn close.

Heck, I can see getting an EOS-M version 2 once that comes out. Mirrorless + good high-iso performance + full time phase-detect fast auto focus, gimme =)

Actually now that I think about it, the other thing that's going to make me sad is the loss of the feel and sound of an SLR. We've already lost the sound of film winding, now even the sound of mirror slap and shutter click too. Kids are going to have no idea what that sound on their iPhone camera comes from soon.

Ryan0751 wrote in post #16233114
I keep seeing more and more posts of people ditching their big DSLR's for these mirrorless designs.

I recently picked up the Fuji X100s, and I have to say, the image quality is very good. It's also really fun to shoot with, light and easy to carry. I find myself grabbing it when I can't or don't want to bring a 5D III with grip and L lens with me.

While there's no question of the quality of these new cameras, it seems to me it's kind of a "bandwagon" to sell off your DSLR in some sort of statement or what not. I know if I sold my camera and lenses, I couldn't afford to get them back.

For me, I went with the Fuji X100s over a second "system" specifically because it would prevent me from getting the G.A.S. and buying a bunch of lenses and things. I have specific uses for each camera this way... flexibility and superior quality with the 5D III, and small walkaround with still great quality with a fixed lens on the X100s.

I would think that once you start adding lenses, you then need to carry a bag, even with the mirrorless. Surely the DSLR's are bigger and heavier, but once you are bringing a bag with you anyway, doesn't it start to matter less that there's a few pounds difference?

I don't know. Just spewing here. Should just shut up and go out and shoot and not worry about such things

I agree with some of the other posters, a smaller camera would be a good accessory but not one with a fixed wide focal length like the Fuji X100. I shoot sports, surfing, etc. so need telephoto. I also like the large aperture primes