DSLR to mirrorless

peony421 wrote in post #17821366
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 shoot my X-T1 in RAW, but one nice thing about the Fujis is that the jpgs they produce are beautiful. Many users don't even bother with raw on them.

id10t wrote in post #17830947
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.

If most of your shooting are landscape and street, the A7 can be just as great as 6d. I always shoot raws so color has become a nonissue.

Its xmas day. I'm avoiding the relatives and have locked myself in the study. I can hear them rattling away with their good will and gift giving, drinking my wine and eating my food. Such is xmas. Greed, family feuds, a bit more greed, bad behaviour, more greed, a load of rubbish to dispose of, created by the excessive greed.
And me not even a christian! I still have to bare the brunt of it. No respect! I crave for a bit of respect.
Got that off my mind.
Now, about mirrorless and dslr.
What's the issue?
It's like any other set of choices; look at the options and consider which is the most likely to impress people.
It doesn;t have a great deal to do with the picture.
What was that someone said about a good idea poorly displayed?
Good ideas don't come from any particular camera. Sure , they might help in bringing the idea to light, but in the end, you do with what you have.
I've had it all. Most of the time its about what money I had to waist. Up until I had a real job, a range finder was the only option, or a second hand TLR. Then, in proportion to my salary, It was a much gear as I could accumulate without the wife finding out.
Still, if I look back, my pictures are a progression of ideas getting better, not cameras taking better pictures. Some of my best shots were taken in the 70's. Remember the 70's? Most don't. I try not to. Bad music, bad dress sense, bad women. Not a good era.
LAst year I sold everything I had and bought a few mirrorless cameras. What a delight that was. Less weight, less cost, less pretence, less to hide from Christine.
I've given the Fuji and Nikon mirrorless a good flogging over the past year and have not been disappointed. In some ways they remind me of the days of rangefinders. Simple, light, easy to use.
I'm not in love with them; not in any sort of weird way. They do the job. I can look at my pictures and say: job well done! But that's up to me, not the camera. As an amateur photographer i'm in the same catagory as with my guitar playing and poetry. My wife bought me a Waterman pen. Nice! I still write **** poetry. I have a cheap guitar. Its the same as a mate of mine owns who is a fine jazz musician. Guess what. He's still good and I'm still ****.
For 90% of the population, something simple is good enough. For the 10% left, they probably have more money than sense.

I have just made the move to mirrorless and am loving it so far!.

Previously i had a Canon 1D Mk3 and Sigma 50-500 lens, Total weight was about 9.5lbs. Admittandly i have a shorter lens now but my Sony A6000 and 18-105 G series is a great walkaround range and weighs next to nothing. One thing i will miss is the 2200 shots per battery i used to get!

I've been past the Nikon, Fuji and Canon stables and have settled on Sony now. I bought into the A7ii from a 6D as I was increasingly getting into alt lenses and was not having that much fun with a few mirror hits and having a tough time nailing focus. I kept my good canon glass and when I moved into the Sony E mount system I went with the Metabones IV EF to E smart adaptor and adapted my alt lenses (Leica R, Contax) to Canon EF mount. So my lenses share the common mount on the Sony, the Metabones hasn't come off. The recent firmware update enabled PDAF on the A7ii and so it's best of both worlds, MF with focus magnify etc, and AF which is pretty good. So my transition from DSLR to mirrorless - is done. Would I do it again, in a heartbeat. Suits my shooting style and added a technical element via the alt lens path. My shooting does not include sports.

I'd research mirrorless gear and determine your needs.

If I want to have zero issues in landing a shot I trust phase detection in my Canon gear. I micro adjust where it's needed and have full confidence when I shoot an event.

In the mirrorless world I'd highly suggest researching the methods of AF. For example the sony A7 series the A7Rmk2 has phase detection AF so your golden in landing a shot confidently with now worries of back focus. The A7R was known to miss photos due to the contrast detection AF. A7s is a contrast detection camera too.

The Olympus EM1 has a hybrid AF system using both contrast and phase detection so it's going to be more accurate than an Olympus EM5 mk2 that used contrast detection.

I've recently purchased a Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 zoom for my Gh3 and it's sole purpose is to be a "family documentation" HD camcorder/video camera with very good AF for video and shoot still photos. I'll have to say the image quality surprised me in how that $1000 lens provides almost M43 prime lens quality. What's the catch? Both my GH3 and Oly EM-5 uses contrast detection and it's lame. I truly dislike missing shots when it's the gear's fault not acquiring proper AF due to contrast detection. For casual family documentation I'm letting some "missed" shots acceptable (barely). For run and gun HD video with AF my gh3 surpasses most dslr's including my 5dmk2 or 5dmk3. I couldn't be bothered to have feeble attempts in AF with a full frame canon camera for casual family purposes.

I'm not a sports shooter so I've had incredible success using a 5dmk2 for accuracy in AF. The 6d will be equally as accurate but the 1/4000 shutter speed isn't really pleasing me with that limitation.

For the smaller sensor mirrorless many like the fuji colours and olympus has pleasing colours. Panasonic is meh...... however I still own a gh3 and would consider a gh4 for run gun video.

If you want a killer stills mirrorless camera the Sony alpha series is still a no brainer for ultimate image quality. Seems there's a draw to Sony A7s series for video rigs. Fuji and Olympus is not known to be desirable for video but people like them for colour rendition for stills. Panasonic walks all over Fuji and Olympus regarding video and sound codec but stills I dont think they are the "wow" factor.

Pick your poison. For still photography in the mirrorless world Sony is listening to their customers and providing amazing bodies. Every other mirrorless like Fuji, Oly, Panasonic, Nikon and Canon cannot compete in noise control and they all have small sensors compared to the Sony full frame mirrorless.

When I jumped in the mirrorless world I was experimenting and on a steep learning curve. I'm still not fully satisfied with the M43 regarding ultimate image quality for run/gun event situations. For casual shooting that's for uncritical eyes the IQ is good enough for print in the mirrorless M43 world. I just love the video capabilities my old GH3 provides. If I want a mirrorless small sensor body for stills the Oly EM1 would be my pic for functionality, incredible AF hybrid speed and nice Olympus colours.

As you can see picking a camera in the mirrorless world isn't so easy. You really must look at your needs. This is where you must research like mad or you'll be having an expensive experiment in buying gear that may not suite your shooting style.

I think AlanU gave a nice writeup on some of the camera options and features. But one thing not discussed in this thread is more of a look at the companies instead of just the current offerings. I'm not going to try and describe the entire market, but I think just some thoughts on kind of two extremes of the market might give a view to what I'm thinking about.

Canon represents the conservative end of the spectrum. They are executing a plan to offer a full line of dSLR bodies from consumer to professional along with a comprehensive lens line. Along with that comes a dedication to service repair facilities and professional services. This makes Canon a comfortable choice for a professional photographer, or for someone who likes to invest in a system and know how that system works and where the company is headed. This makes Canon a frustrating company for people who are looking for the cutting edge. Canon can seem slow to react to new technologies like the Exmor sensor or mirrorless systems. No doubt, I've seen plenty of people here at POTN who have been frustrated with the 'good enough' attitude and slow reaction and who have moved to other systems.

This can feel like a turnaround as Canon was on the vanguard of digital some 15 years ago. But that was because digital fit in to the Canon market plan well in the first place. But one can see other areas of conservatism there, like Canon being determined to force 1.6X format and EF-S to be a 'consumer-only' line. Nikon conservatism in offering DX only for so long is another example of these companies and their slow pace at times.

Sony represents the opposite end of the spectrum. For sure they have been fast to react to new concepts and have released the most functional, high performance camera designs on the market right now in the mirrorless arena. I personally don't find their alpha-mount cameras to be all that appealing, but I do give them credit for being open to new ideas. It's also worth noting that Sony doesn't have repair facilities, has a terrible track record in providing service parts to the 3rd party vendors that do their repairs, and they have a pale shadow of a professional services operation.

Quite frankly, I'm leery of Sony because they don't seem to have a plan. They seem to be a bit like a toddler, staggering from one new shiny bauble to the next. Sony wanted to get into the market. They bought up the old Minolta stuff and launched the alpha line of cameras and lenses. But then they never did much with Minolta and lately don't seem to have a huge interest in finishing Alpha. Sony was one of the first companies to jump into mirrorless and the NEX system was revolutionary. But then Sony figured FF was the place to be, and where is NEX headed now? The dustbin?

The new A7II bodies are really quite remarkable. But this represents Sony's third lens mount in less than 10 years and they never bothered to fill out lines 1 and 2. I see Sony offerings today as being quite exciting, but I'm interested to see which direction they are going to move in next.

I have been deeply rooted in dSLRs...and mirrorless cameras gradually changed my shooting style. Ever since 2012, my main shooting cameras are those Sony E mount or FE mount ones. Their smaller sizes, lighter weight allows me to carry multiple bodies and lenses to a trip with minimal need to change lenses. Have I missed shots? Surely I have and this is why I have not complete out of dSLR camps, yet.

Just have bought a LA EA3 adapter so that my SSM enabled A mount lenses can mount on my A7rII. I tested the AF roughly and the speed is more or less the same as I use my L lenses. They are definitely not as brisk and speedy as either 5DIII or D800. I will try not to use adapted lenses in fast shooting conditions like weddings/sport/wildlif​e but other than that, mirrorless as a whole is the future.

JeffreyG wrote in post #17841104
The new A7II bodies are really quite remarkable. But this represents Sony's third lens mount in less than 10 years and they never bothered to fill out lines 1 and 2. I see Sony offerings today as being quite exciting, but I'm interested to see which direction they are going to move in next.

Technically, sony still has only two mounts, the A mount and E mount, they didnt create anything new (NEX is gone in favor of a unified naming convention of alpha). Just newer FE lenses similar to how canon has EF and EF-s lenses within the same mount. They havent abandoned A mount yet, since they developed the 70-300, 24-70ii, and 16-35ii not too long ago. It's possible that the A mount cameras be reinvented to remove the translucent mirror:



Being mirrorless, it's quite possible to make a body that supports both long and short flanged lenses. Something like this can reinvent the A mount system while keeping the same mount in tact. So while sony is developing FE lenses like mad and ignoring aps-E lenses, FE lenses can still be used on a regular E system, and unlike canon, it can be argued that the E-mounts are fairly mature. They have a nice collection of fast lenses at different price ranges, more than the canon M and more than canon EF-s.

Sony is employing a different strategy and it seems to work for them.

have just bought an LA EA3 to use my old A mount lenses. Upgraded my A7rII to firmware 3.0 and chose phase detection as AF. Guess what, the focusing is instant.
Still have luck to use L lenses at the same speed. Fortunately my Techart adapter allows me to upgrade its own firmware and I can't really wait to see the result.

Charlie wrote in post #17841318
Being mirrorless, it's quite possible to make a body that supports both long and short flanged lenses. Something like this can reinvent the A mount system while keeping the same mount in tact.

This is true, and is actually why I think Nikon or Canon would be smart to release a high end mirrorless similar to the A7II. To me the Nikon and Canon mirrorless concepts to date are pointless. But with a smart camera design and a handful of the right lenses either of the big two could own this market.

The key thing to understand about 35mm format mirrorless cameras and short register distances is that these only make for small lenses when considering <50mm primes and possibly short zooms. Anything else will be just as big and heavy as the longer register found on a dSLR. So the logical thing for C&N to do would be to release an A7II clone and a small set of 20, 24, and 35mm primes (and maybe a 24-50/2.8 zoom or something) that take advantage of the short register. Then use an adapter to mount the longer lenses from your existing lens lines and you have the entire F-mount or EOS line of lenses to fill out the set.

Sony would have the same concept going here, except the A-mount wasn't (and isn't) a complete line in the first place. And then the sub-format NEX line was a bit of a false start which created a whole bunch of E-mount lenses that don't work on the A7. Finally, they are now releasing some FE mount lenses that are slow superzooms etc. which seem like a mis-match with the idea of a short register. This is what I mean by Sony seeming to lack a vision overall. It's like they thought they were going to beat C&N at the dSLR game and were ferverishly working on the A-mount.....but then they thought of the NEX. And just as that was getting going, Sony invented the A7.

I'm going to ignore the M-mount, unless Canon ever does decide to come out with a serious mirrorless camera and then some lenses that would really take advantage of it.

But I think you are crossing up how the E-mount played out as compared to EF-S. Canon released the sub-format 1.6X sensor to provide affordable dSLR cameras below the 5D/1D price level. They already had a complete line of lenses that were well matched to 35mm format in EOS. All that EF-S is, is a subset of lenses that were released to fill in gaps for 1.6X shooters. These 1.6X shooters needed an UWA option (EF-S 10-22), a fast wide zoom (EF-S 17-55), a walkabout zoom (EF-S 17-85, 15-85, 18-135) etc.

Admittedly, Canon has also released a few EF-S lenses that they didn't really need (60mm macro, 55-250) but for the most part the line was created to fill a gap.

The E-mount went the other way. Sony released NEX and then got busy trying to fill out a lens line entirely dedicated to the sub-format and short register. Then at some point they switched direction and headed towards the A7. This sequence leaves the lens line in a bit of a mess, if you ask me.

Now Sony is working to fill out the E-mount with FF lenses. I guess I'll be interested to see if they get that done before something else catches their attention or not.

But I really do think Canon and Nikon are missing a huge opportunity in a camera like the A7II. If they released that, it would really chop off Sony at the knees as C&N have the full lens lines and they can actually provide repair service and professional services. But for now all we get is the M, and it's ilk. So Sony is doing well by having a great design and no significant competition.

I don't think either Nikon or Canon has missed any opportunity here because the real threat to current any camera maker is mobile phone.

In the interchangeable lens market, mirrorless has captured between 20 - 25% of camera sales these past few years. Those camera sales most likely came at the expense of CaNikon. I sure bet both those companies would love to see their sales increase by 25%.

Hogloff wrote in post #17844165
In the interchangeable lens market, mirrorless has captured between 20 - 25% of camera sales these past few years. Those camera sales most likely came at the expense of CaNikon. I sure bet both those companies would love to see their sales increase by 25%.

Well the thing is that the overall market for cameras is declining and mirrorless cameras aren't necessarily bringing new consumers into the market...they're poaching consumers from existing market segments. So if/when leaders in the DSLR segment like Canon and Nikon finally bring legitimate mirrorless cameras and lenses to market, it will do so at their own expense as they'll simply be cannibalizing their existing product lines. Given the huge costs involved in developing a new system, you can see why they would hesitate to go mirrorless. For a given segment, they'll significantly increase their own cost of competing for the same dollar of revenue by bringing two products to the same segment. It's a losing proposition if we think of it in terms of pure P&L, and neither companies' imaging departments are doing particularly well as is.