Anyone made the switch to a mirrorless?

I made the switch but kept my 5D Mk2, a 24mm TS-E and a 50mm 1.4.
I bought an XT-1 , 18-135, 10-24 and a 100-400 and I do not regret it, I now have a camera that I take with me when walking rather than one than sitting at home simply because of weight and portability.
I have the Canon gear sitting unused at home and as I don't need the money I have not sold it, but the time is I feel rapidly approaching when it will go.

sporadic wrote in post #18570343
I'm just curious, in what scenarios are you holding a camera in a ready to shoot position for hours on end? I agree with the ergonomics of a DSLR when it comes to bigger lenses and shooting sports (and I imagine wildlife which I don't shoot), but for everything else I prefer my Fuji kit.

.
Wildlife. . There are many wildlife photoshoots where the camera can't be in a pocket or a backpack or anything. . I have to be ready to shoot the instant a critter shows up, so that the camera is held "at the ready", and can be employed with minimal movement, lest I spook the critter away.

Also, when I used to shot high school football and basketball games I had the camera in my hands, ready to shoot, at all times during the entire game. . One must be ready for any and every moment when a potential image presents itself.

I have only shot three weddings (as favors for friends and family), but at each one I had my camera in my hands, ready to shoot at all times throughout the duration of the service and during most of the reception afterwards.

When I do photography, I am doing photography and nothing else, period. . It's not like I do "regular stuff" and just want to have a camera with me to pull out every now and then to capture a special moment or whatever. . I can see family people doing that kind of thing when they do fun things with their kids or significant other or whatever, but for me it's all about the photography.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18570432
.
Wildlife. . There are many wildlife photoshoots where the camera can't be in a pocket or a backpack or anything. . I have to be ready to shoot the instant a critter shows up, so that the camera is held "at the ready", and can be employed with minimal movement, lest I spook the critter away.

Also, when I used to shot high school football and basketball games I had the camera in my hands, ready to shoot, at all times during the entire game. . One must be ready for any and every moment when a potential image presents itself.

I have only shot three weddings (as favors for friends and family), but at each one I had my camera in my hands, ready to shoot at all times throughout the duration of the service and during most of the reception afterwards.

When I do photography, I am doing photography and nothing else, period. . It's not like I do "regular stuff" and just want to have a camera with me to pull out every now and then to capture a special moment or whatever. . I can see family people doing that kind of thing when they do fun things with their kids or significant other or whatever, but for me it's all about the photography.

.

Me too, as far is camera in the hand when 'working'.
If I want to just have a camera around, having my S95 in my pocket is the most I want to deal with. I will readily admit that after a full day of walking about as a tourist in a city with strong photographic interests, I would indeed relish a lighter weight camera on the shoulder, though.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #18570363
This just makes me think of this video anytime I see someone complain about a small grip

https://youtu.be/NL_va​T76C28

.
That camera in the video is so small. . Because of its small size, the way that he has to hold it looks extremely uncomfortable, if not actually painful. . The way that his fingers have to curl around, in relation to his palm, is something that I hope I never have to do.

He speaks of "turning your hand into a claw" and "using your fingers as a grip" as if it is not uncomfortable. . Ouch! . To me it looks extremely awkward.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18570440
.
That camera in the video is so small. . Because of its small size, the way that he has to hold it looks extremely uncomfortable, if not actually painful. . The way that his fingers have to curl around, in relation to his palm, is something that I hope I never have to do.

He speaks of "turning your hand into a claw" and "using your fingers as a grip" as if it is not uncomfortable. . Ouch! . To me it looks extremely awkward.

.

Tom,
We should all simply acknowledge that what works for one simply does not work for another. And that is why, back in 1970's and 1980's, cameras like the Olympus OM and the Canon AE-1 were immensely popular so that most every other brand had to come out with compact SLRs to offset the tremendous popularity of both the OM and the AE-1.Grips (with optional motor drives) were an afterthought option; autowind mechanisms were integrated into the SLR with the first Konica FS-1 in the late 1970's and even then it added only a relatively small amount to body thickness nothing like the grips of today.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18570440
.
That camera in the video is so small. . Because of its small size, the way that he has to hold it looks extremely uncomfortable, if not actually painful. . The way that his fingers have to curl around, in relation to his palm, is something that I hope I never have to do.

He speaks of "turning your hand into a claw" and "using your fingers as a grip" as if it is not uncomfortable. . Ouch! . To me it looks extremely awkward.

.

I use mine all day quite frequently, no hand cramps what-so-ever... and I wear XL gloves

The camera weighs so little that it honestly wouldn't even matter if it were just a slab of metal, it's easy to carry around without thought. Beyond that, the grip on it is actually quite comfortable to me, I prefer it to the deeper grip of my X-T1. For those who "need" more grip, they have plates you can screw on to the bottom to add a grip more like a DSLR, it gives you options.

https://www.amazon.com …9Q0PBQMZY16&pd_​rd_w=mGI5s

my experience from dslr to mirrorless has been great.

i started with a canon rebel and from there i went to bigger bodies. 50d and nikon d800. as much as i love the handling and size, the weight and size of it was a con. lots of times i did not to take it with me and when i finally went on a vacation I told myself 'I am so going to get a smaller camera when I get back.' at that time I was thinking of the sony crop e-mount and a buddy told me that sony was releasing a full frame mirrorless so i anxiously waited for that. since then, i've been really happy.

for what i carried in the past as a walk around, a nikon d800 and 50 1.8, I could now carry a ful frame mirrless with 3 lens and felt lighter than the dslr+lens. i enjoyed my trip more not having to feel the camera sinking into my shoulder as I carry them around.

my old kit includes the following: a7R1, 24-70 f4, 35 2.8, 55 1.8

Ive now expanded and added a7R3, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 which causes some concerns.

the a7R3 is bigger and heavier body compared to the original but still smaller and lighter than a dslr. The 2.8 zoom lens is heavy and comparable to a dslr size lens. with this kind of setup, the thought of having a smaller and lighter set up with a mirrorless does not make sense.

i've told myself before that If i was going to get a big and heavy lens I would prefer it on a dslr and look into getting a dslr again. at the end I wanted to keep it simple and stick to one system. of course if money wasn't an issue, id have both.

As you can see I sort of went backwards to what I wanted in a mirrorless.

I'm not trying to sell you on sony here, i'm only using it because that's what I've experience with. I never owned a Fuji but i see that it's a good camera and I love the colors coming out of Fuji.

to sum up what ive said. for a light setup, use the smaller lens. if you get a bigger lens, there's no point in going smaller. i really enjoyed my original mirrorless setup, it was light and enough for what i need. i only got the 2.8 zooms because of weddings.

there's no doubt that full frame has better iso. but EverydayGetaway here dropped full frame and went with Fuji crop seeing that the iso holds up very well with not much of a difference. And from what I see, i agree.

The cameras I grew up shooting and learnt on were full size SLR's oddly enough about the same size as the cameras I now use. Go figure.

I shoot weddings so have a camera to my eye more or less for about 12 hours. With the Canon's I was tired and my feet would be feeling it. These days, with the Fuji setup it's simply no bother to hold a camera in my hand all day, it's perfect with out a big grip as it's so light. I doubt I'd ever look forward to having to go beak to lugging about two heavy cameras about all day any time soon.


The X-T20 or the X-T1, the newer camera has faster AF, is smaller and better high ISO, the older camera is WR and that huge EVF is amazing to shoot with. I've been lucky to shoot with all the recent cameras, I like the X-PRO2 the best but I like the size of the EVF on the X-T1. The speed of the new cameras in terms of operation is great but I still bring the X-T1 & X-E2 to work. Hope you get to try a few out before you buy.

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18570689
The cameras I grew up shooting and learnt on were full size SLR's oddly enough about the same size as the cameras I now use. Go figure.

Methinks what you experienced is highly contextual in terms of when you learned vs. when I learned!
If when you learned was in the days post the launch of the EOS line, that is very different from those of use who learned well before the EOS line.

mmmmmmm, well anyones experience is highly contextual.

Anyway, the one camera I have left, that I use to shoot with, is a mid 80's 'Full Frame' SLR. Here it is beside my X-PRO2, check out the lack of a grip...

From your earlier comment, "The cameras I grew up shooting and learnt on were full size SLR's oddly enough about the same size as the cameras I now use" it really sounded like the camera you learned on was as large as the typical dSLR of today. My mistake.

Here is a nice visual aid to show the size and weight change.
The Canon 35 f2 IS vs the Fuji 35 f2
The fuji is sharper as well

No way am I going to take my 5DIII when just swanning around on vacation, mostly in the middle of the day, with family who are not going to wait around 2 hours for the light and in locations I haven't scouted.

Fortunately Canon finally got their foot out of their ass and made a mirrorless that can actually track something faster than a snail and at more than 1 fps in raw. I looked so often at smaller systems, but it would have to be in addition to all the gear I have and I really didn't want to do that for shots of the kids that get printed at 8x10 max.

I made the switch..

I only got into photography recently..i always had an interest but...
When was the rebel t4i released ...2012?
Had that for 9 months before I actually took it out of green mode and learned how to use.. found digital rev on YouTube and learned i had to be full frame and the 5d3 was greatest of all time..
Saved my pennies , bought a 5d3 .. and, I started bringing my camera along less often. . Too big , plus the 24-70 2.8 mkii.. I felt like had a cinder block hanging off my n3ck..
Took it on a few vacations .. what a pita it became.
Fantastic images but damn...
Then I heard about mirrorless
Tried panasonic , sony and fuji.
A coupl3 of months ago(literally) I thought I wanted to go back to my main being a ff dslr and my side piece being a small mirrorless..
I was wrong , I had the 5d4 for about 5 weeks maybe and sold it..
Yes the size and weight. .But the evf , and all its benefits.. ease of shooting manual , wysiwyg, etc..

Mirrorless can be smaller . .. you have the option with mirrorless to be smaller if thats the reason .. but not if you intend to go ff with 1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms. .. but if you do there are other benefits , size and weight possibilities arent the only reason to go mirrorless..
When i had the 5d4 , the size and weight didnt bother me , as i said it wasn't going to be my take with m3 every where camera...it was how "old tech" it seemed compared with what an evf could give me..

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18570242
For me, size is definitely a factor ...... but not in the way that it is for you.

I actually prefer a larger camera - one that properly fills my hand.

My main body is a Canon 1D Mark 4, which is very much a full sized DSLR. . It feels 'right' in my hand because my fingers don't have to curl awkwardly to hold the body. ...

I have to agree with Tom, here. The 1D4 is the best 'hand-feel' camera I've ever owned. It is equally at home with 50 STM as it is with a 100-400L. I no longer own one because my carry-shoulder can't take it anymore, but I miss the feel of it in my hand.

I recently bought a Yashica FX-D so I could get back to basics with an all-manual shooter. It is about the size of the Sony and Fuji MILCs mentioned in this thread; downright puny! I am much more comfortable with a hand full of camera.

That's a 135mm f/2.8 on the FX-D.