DSLR to mirrorless

I used to be on these boards all the time a few years back and kind of lost track of my photography hobby. I currently have a Canon T2i which has always treated me well. My primary lens is a Sigma 17-50 which has also treated me well. I also have a Canon 85mm that I never had much luck with. Anyway, I started hearing about mirrorless cameras. And their more compact size and they have me interested since sadly it's my iphone that mostly gets used these days for photographing my kids.

I'm just curious what people think...ditch the dslr and go for mirrorless or get back into my dslr? I don't want to invest in a mirrorless and sacrafice quality of my dslr.

There's outstanding quality to be had in both mirrorless and dslr cameras. The best one however, will be the one you have with you! Is size the sole reason for not using it?

Honestly, yes!

I'd consider it then. Weight was the biggest reason for me switching. I went from a 7D and a bunch of heavy glass to a much lighter Fuji X-T1 setup. I miss the 7D and 70-200 2.8 for sports and indoor performances, but that's about it. From a quality perspective, Fuji hits it out of the park. Very nice body and lenses. It's not what I'd call a "working" camera (as in paid professional) though, as it's too easy to bump the dials and accidentally change settings. Not a problem when it's you and the family or working at your own pace, but when you're switching bodies and need to nail a shot, it's rather upsetting to find you camera in bulb mode, metering switched, or bracketing on. That said, I love my X-T1 setup and have no regrets switching. Check this site out to get a feel for how body and lens combos size up against each other - http://camerasize.com/​compact/#ha,t.

Heya,

You have to weigh portability and convenience with the properties you can get with your SLR & various lenses.

A friend of mine went all out, went straight to a full frame 5DII, 100L, 135L, Sigma 50 F1.4 and kept it all clean and locked away, used it some times with the family and some events, but otherwise, it slowly but surely gave way to the iphone. For random snapshots which is the hallmark of most folk with their kids, having a big contraption is a hard thing to want to lug around and manage kids and still have a good time yourself. So, like many, the big camera deal went away and the iphone one out. My friend sold his entire setup and strictly uses an iphone. It's just convenient, instant sharing, video, stills, anything, instant and at the finger tips and fits in a pocket. For someone who needs that kind of convenience, having a big dslr will probably always be an issue.

I like to have a balance. I take out my big stuff when I am going to do photography.

When I'm just wanting to have a decent camera around for the kids, family, travel, or just general snap shots, I do not use my phone, I use a mirrorless EOS-M with a 22mm F2 pancake prime. For a lot of people who want instant gratification and convenience, this is still not a good answer. Me, I want a fast lens for low light, the ability to isolate with thin depth of field, or the ability to stop down for depth of field, while being wide enough for most anything, and have enough ISO ability to take shots in the dark where cellphones fail miserably and give muddy, grained out, blurry messes, I get clear shots that are clean. Easy enough to use by anyone, no fancy buttons or needing to know stuff, I can set it to literally just track faces and hand it to someone and they can just touch the screen and it will take a photo. It's my go to for general stuff and snapshots. I shoot in RAW. I have to still process these images. But overall, this is worth it to me, because I want to be able to print some of these if I wish.

So again, you have to balance what your needs and goals are, and what you actually want, versus what you'll be willing to compromise.

That T2i and any lens is going to be able to do a lot better than an iphone will at almost everything. But, it will take you knowing how to properly expose, not shooting in automatic, and being creative and conscious of composition and pay attention to light, temperature, etc. You will then have to process them. No instant sharing. If that sounds too much of a hassle, for a good image, then maybe this kind of photography is not for you. If you're not happy with your iphone images of your children's memories, then maybe ruffle your feathers a bit and go against the "I need an easy button" grain.

It's up to you to figure out if convenience and instant gratification is more important to you, than ultimately having good images that you can appreciate later down the road, that your kids will appreciate later down the road, etc.

Again, I do a balance. I have 7 cameras and anything from 10mm to 600mm. I take out a lot of gear when I want to do photography, and I generally go out with multiple cameras. But, when I'm not going to do photography and I just want to be able to take nice images, I take a compact. For me that's the EOS-M and 22f2.

That said, maybe consider something like a Canon G16. It's inexpensive, compact, has really great quality, and if you devote a little effort to photography as a skill and art, you will be able to get way better images from this than an iphone, especially in lower light shooting RAW and controlling exposure and ISO for your needs. If I wasn't already using my EOS-M, I'd get this G16 most likely.

Very best,

Thanks so much for your reply! This is very helpful. Thank you for giving a recommendation to look into and consider.

Many thanks for your honest opinions. They are much appreciated. A few years back I was fully engaged in my photography hobby, taking classes and experimenting a lot. I also shoot in RAW and process my images in Lightroom. But since kiddo number 2 came along frankly I just haven't had the time. I guess like you said I'm trying to find that balance. I do still pull out the DSLR for special events. But I want overall better snapshots. I noticed a lot of these mirrorless cameras now come with connecting to your phone so it's easy to transfer photos. This is appealing to me. Thanks for the camera recommendation as well.

peony421 wrote in post #17821366
Many thanks for your honest opinions. They are much appreciated. A few years back I was fully engaged in my photography hobby, taking classes and experimenting a lot. I also shoot in RAW and process my images in Lightroom. But since kiddo number 2 came along frankly I just haven't had the time. I guess like you said I'm trying to find that balance. I do still pull out the DSLR for special events. But I want overall better snapshots. I noticed a lot of these mirrorless cameras now come with connecting to your phone so it's easy to transfer photos. This is appealing to me. Thanks for the camera recommendation as well.

Heya,

I know what you mean. I have a 2 year old, and time is definitely limited between work, home life, etc. I still make time though. I don't watch TV at all, so I seem to find time to do stuff... amazing how much time we "lose" to that as a culture. I still like to make sure that I'm making images that I and my family and later my daughter can appreciate more and care about more later in life. I look back at my childhood photos and they're either gone, look like retro art you'd find on the wall in a video game as texture, or are just a mess that in a few more years will probably fall apart or become garbage. I'd like to look back at my daughter's childhood and really enjoy good images. More importantly, I'd like her to have her childhood memories from my perspective, kind of a memento, and they not be low quality mess.

Here's an example of why I can't be bothered with using a smart phone's camera to deliver.

1/40s, F2, ISO 12800. A cellphone simply would never get this image today. This is just a snapshot, but if this were done with her mother's camera phone, with no flash, it would have been a blurry, grained out, mess. If you understand exposure, those settings mean quite a lot. This is why I use the EOS-M as my "snapshot" machine. I can take clean, sharp images in very low light, where cellphones simply fail miserably. Some of the times you want a photo of your kid, is in the worst of light, and until a tiny sensor found in a cellphone can deliver clean ISO 12,800 or higher sensitivity, I won't be relying on them for my memories.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/BAfZ​V6

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Bfyt​rL

peony421 wrote in post #17821366
A few years back I was fully engaged in my photography hobby, taking classes and experimenting a lot. I also shoot in RAW and process my images in Lightroom. But since kiddo number 2 came along frankly I just haven't had the time.

I think you need to take a real thoughtful assessment of why you stopped shooting. Maybe it was just that the T2i was too big to have along a lot, but maybe you just got bored with photography? It's important to try and understand this, because if you got bored then the new camera will spike your interest for a while (new gear is fun!) but eventually it will fade just like the T2i.

And I've found that with small kids, you are carrying a bag anyway.

But if you are instead sure that size really is the culprit, you need to next think long and hard about cameras and size. Here is what I tend to find about size:

Most cameras that have adequate IQ for my needs are big enough that they won't fit in a pocket. As I think of it, cameras fall into three categories for size:
1) Small enough to fit in my pocket. This is typically a cell phone, but there are some small P&S cameras that also fit. This is the camera you always have with you.
2) Small enough to fit in my jacket pocket like my Panasonic GF-1. I'm more likely to have this along in he winter, but come summertime this camera is not much less of a burden than a dSLR. Then again, I don't carry a purse.
3) Everything else. In my opinion, once I have to carry a bag along just to hold the camera, it doesn't really matter if that camera is a Fuji mirrorless or my large 5D Mark III.

So that's my take. Smaller ain't worth much until you get small enough to stick the camera in a pocket or purse that you would have had on your person anyway.

All the new cameras, even the huge ones, have wireless file transfer.

I figured I'd "try" mirrorless when the EOS M went on sale for super cheap, figured there'd be little chance of mirrorless winning me away from my full frame DSLR (6D) with it's great optical VF and ergonomics... the M got way more use than I thought it would, and it made me long for a bridge between the 6D and M, so I got an X-E1... then my 6D began collecting dust. Before long I realized there really wasn't any reason for me to keep the 6D, so I sold it and got an a7R to replace it first, then replaced that with an a7S and haven't regretted it for a moment.

The advantages of mirrorless far outweigh the advantages of a DSLR for my needs. Whether that's true or not for you depends entirely on your needs and preferences.

The advantage of having something light, small and frankly, more stylish is massive. I have no issues carrying my a7S most places, and for literally everywhere else I take my X-E2... I always have an amazingly capable camera with me and I wouldn't have it any other way

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17822551
I figured I'd "try" mirrorless when the EOS M went on sale for super cheap, figured there'd be little chance of mirrorless winning me away from my full frame DSLR (6D) with it's great optical VF and ergonomics... the M got way more use than I thought it would, and it made me long for a bridge between the 6D and M, so I got an X-E1... then my 6D began collecting dust. Before long I realized there really wasn't any reason for me to keep the 6D, so I sold it and got an a7R to replace it first, then replaced that with an a7S and haven't regretted it for a moment.

The advantages of mirrorless far outweigh the advantages of a DSLR for my needs. Whether that's true or not for you depends entirely on your needs and preferences.

The advantage of having something light, small and frankly, more stylish is massive. I have no issues carrying my a7S most places, and for literally everywhere else I take my X-E2... I always have an amazingly capable camera with me and I wouldn't have it any other way

I also just sold my 6d along with my canon lenses because after I bought the olympus em1 I didn't touch the 6d the last six months. I take the em1 with me everywhere, and I wasn't going to do that with the 6d. the em1 is perfect for my needs.

I could never really see the point of mirrorless. Until I saw what Panasonic have done with DFD focusing. So I've picked up a GX8, & so far a 14mm f/2.5 pancake, 20 mm f/1.7 pancake & 25mm f/1.7. It just plain works. AF is fast, snappy & accurate. It can track moving subjects. The body fits my hands beautifully. The lenses are made specifically to suit the format, you're not dragging around huge lenses, then throwing away 1/2 the image. There's a huge range to choose from, at quite reasonable prices. IQ in low light is every bit as good as Canon APS-C to my eye. And it's small, light & portable.

Edit -Oh yeah, it was cheap too. The GX8 will cost me $700 by the time I claim back the tax, the 14 mm cost me $195 second hand, but unused, the 20 1.7 pancake cost me $350 & the 25 came as a free promo bonus with the body. Couldn't go wrong

Having invested heavily in mirrorlesss, I have to say for wildlife shooting, dSlrs are the best

I am going through a similar question with my gear. I have a 6D and a Sony A7II and I am trying to eliminate the Canon gear but have not been out shooting enough with the Sony to determine if that's the way I want to go. I only have one native lens for the Sony and that's the 55 f1.8 which seems to be a very nice lens, but I only have had it a short time. It maybe just me but I think the Canon does a much better job with face color right out of the camera, where as the Sony seems to have too much magenta.

Fwiw, I have jumped around alot regarding brands and format sizes. I grew tired of lugging around my heavy Nikon dslr even with a three small prime outfit for travel pics.

I experimented with an Olympus m4/3 outfit (I think it was an EPL2) and was disappointed. The camera itself had issues (battery overheating, rubber peeling all within one week). The images I got with the smaller sensor were unimpressive; lack of detail and lack of dynamic range were the biggest issues. So, I returned it.

Fast forward a few years and I decided to purchase a Panasonic G5 outfit. I even got the adapter to fit my Nikon lenses on it. While it was a nicely built camera, the IQ was nowhere near what I was getting with my older cropped sensor D200. Even with my older Nikon manual focus gems (like my 105mm 2.5 AIS) and shooting RAW, I was still not getting the IQ anywhere near that of my much older D200.

So, I went shopping for a lightweight travel alternative and came accross a T3i outfit. I never owned anything Canon, but I was open minded. The T3i felt great in my hand and was light enough to be my new travel camera. While I like the IQ of the T3i, I absolutely hated the AF point selection method (pressing a button while turning a wheel to select an AF point in the frame), and the rear articulating lcd was absolutely useless when it came to capturing an image in live view; almost impossible for the camera to lock focus on anything, even still objects). Despite these two major quirks, I kept the T3i for travel pics.

If I were to do it again, I would have gone with a Canon SL1 with three small pankake primes. It is probably the same size as a typical m4/3 camera but with a bigger sensor costing a fraction less. It might not have as many advanced features as m4/3 cameras, but the larger sensor size coupled with sharp inexpensive Canon STM primes will yield much better IQ imo.