Downsizing to mirrorless?

This is more spitballing and speculation, but I find myself more and more inclined to do this ...

Currently, I have a 7D, with a 70-200 f4, 28mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 primes as my main glass. I have three 600RTs and a STE3 for lighting.

On top of all that, I have all the associated *stuff* that comes with years of being a photography enthusiast ... grips, stands, tripods, modifiers, cheap glass, toys and gadgets.

I don't use them to even a 1/4 of their capabilities. I do little professional shooting these days, and when I shoot for fun, it's usually with one or the other prime, wide open, shooting at a local gym, or my kid, or at a weekend event with my friends. I do a LITTLE video.

So, am I going down the wrong path to think of selling the bulk of the big gear and buying into a mirrorless system, with a couple of high quality pieces of glass?

I've heard rumblings that more and more people are going down this route, but I don't know anyone personally.

My beef with my current setup is I don't take it with me. It just doesn't get brought to places - too big, too bulky ...

Watching reviews, reading reviews and looking at spec sheets, the Sony A6000 seems to meet my needs - fast AF, half ok video, good ISO performance, quality glass - and small. Easy to drop in a day bag, or big pocket.

Who's done this and loved it? Who's done this and wished they didn't? Who else is looking at doing this, and what have you considered?

Haven't done it but seriously toying with the idea as well. I've had a chance to play with the A6000 and I was quite impressed. My big issue is that Sony tends not to support their formats well. They seem to be tossing a new mount out there every other year or so. Now with this new curved Sony sensor coming out I'm sure there is going to be yet another new lens design even simpler and smaller due to the simplified optics of having to project a curved image circle.

I was under the impression the EF mount was relatively mature, with good selection of Sony and Zeiss glass?

I too have toyed with the idea of using a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera (MILC).

If I had the funds, I'd acquire a MILC for travel & hiking and pick up a 35mm camera for more serious, fast pace stuff. As I recall, the AF performance of the first generation MILCs were lack-luster. Now, it seems MILCs have improved AF performance but I don't know how they compare to DSLRs. I believe that DSLRs are still superior in terms of AF performance.

That said, I don't capture sports or anything that particularly demands a fast robust AF system. I mostly do landscapes and a couple portraits so maybe it'd make more sense for me to just drop the DSLR system altogether and go mirrorless all the way.

If one was doing event photography in challenging lighting, then it'd make sense for them keep their DSLR system as per the premise that DSLRs still have superior AF to MILCs.

Fujifilm seems to be quite popular. Looking at their offerings, they look nice, stylish, and compact but a bit pricey for certain lenses and bodies. Zack Arias and David Hobby (two semi-famous photographers, click their names for links to their blogs) seem to really like their Fuji's but the A6000 has quite some impressive specs.

I do shoot sports, and I do shoot in challenging conditions - but not often enough for me to want to keep a setup entirely for that, and I can't afford both options

On the basis of sensor noise and AF performance I suspect you will suffer...

To be honest, if you want something light, why not add it on top of your equipment?

If I was doing it, I would go Fuji. They have a pretty nice selection of stabilized lenses and fast primes, and are there are third parties (rokinon, zeiss, etc) making lenses in Fuji X mounts as well. I wouldn't be surprised if Sigma would be next.

http://www.slrlounge.c​om …-add-fuji-x-mount-lenses/

The X-trans sensor actually shows less noise than Canon's APS-C in most tests I've seen.

http://www.dpreview.co​m/reviews/fujifilm-x-t1/18

I have been looking seriously at the Olympus version; looks quite impressive. I may make the leap before we take our October trip through Central America/Panama Canal.

Part of the problem is the current generation of mirrorless camera's ALL look impressive I don't think there's a bad one in the bunch.

Fuji and Sony have APS-C sensors, Olympus and the remaining guys have 4/3rds sensors.
Fuji has slower AF, Sony has quicker AF - but the Fuji video is poor, the Sony video seems good.
4/3rds systems have wider lens variety, but smaller sensors means tougher times in low light.

All of them are light weight and portable, all of them have features that set them above their competitors in some way.

I'd love to have both a 7D and full Canon setup *and* a mirrorless and full setup, but I also have a wife, and a child, and a mortgage payment and *APPARENTLY* that plays into decisions like this, in some way, according to my wife. I'm not convinced ...

pcj wrote in post #16995805
Part of the problem is the current generation of mirrorless camera's ALL look impressive I don't think there's a bad one in the bunch.

Fuji and Sony have APS-C sensors, Olympus and the remaining guys have 4/3rds sensors.
Fuji has slower AF, Sony has quicker AF - but the Fuji video is poor, the Sony video seems good.
4/3rds systems have wider lens variety, but smaller sensors means tougher times in low light.

All of them are light weight and portable, all of them have features that set them above their competitors in some way.

I'd love to have both a 7D and full Canon setup *and* a mirrorless and full setup, but I also have a wife, and a child, and a mortgage payment and *APPARENTLY* that plays into decisions like this, in some way, according to my wife. I'm not convinced ...

Cameras don't really incur a running cost once bought.
If you can put money aside without issues then that might be the best way to go.
Maybe that's an option? You put money aside when you can and buy your toys as you wish?

DetlevCM wrote in post #16995823
Cameras don't really incur a running cost once bought.
If you can put money aside without issues then that might be the best way to go.
Maybe that's an option? You put money aside when you can and buy your toys as you wish?

Thats called "saving up", right? Otherwise known as "wifes spending money"

Seriously though, I know - and I get that - I only use the 7D in those conditions three or four times a year, and it's too bulky to take to all the other places I *wish* I had a good camera - makes sense to rotate the gear.

pcj wrote in post #16995860
Thats called "saving up", right? Otherwise known as "wifes spending money"

Seriously though, I know - and I get that - I only use the 7D in those conditions three or four times a year, and it's too bulky to take to all the other places I *wish* I had a good camera - makes sense to rotate the gear.

Well, why would she spend all money that can be saved?

If you have very different requirements, the only good solutions is to have different gear combinations.
Something light to just carry around.
Something mid sized where one may expect photographs or a compact does not suffice and a DSLR for the situations where one plans on shooting and needs the capabilities.

Heck, I happily carry a 5D MK II with grip on holidays or when just spending a day out of the house...

I have the Nikon V3 on order, it looks like a nice system. Went with it because I can use my existing collection of Nikkor lenses. Been playing with the AW1 (their ruggedized/underwater mirror less) for a few months. I like it, the AF speed of these things is phenomenal.

hang on to your camera gear,if you need smaller then add one of canons smaller size bod's and keep your current lenses,have the best of both worlds on hand.

Mirrorless is still kinda big once you have lenses - lighter, and smaller, but you still need a dedicated bag. That's why I got a Sony RX100 - it fits in any pocket in a pants or top and can go anywhere. Great image quality, decent zoom range, ISO6400 is usable, RAW files, lots of great features. I take it instead of a DSLR on most holidays now.