I would like to understand

Hello,
Why are so many photographers interested in a mirrorless camera compared to a standard dslr? I freely admit my lack of understanding regarding mirrorless cameras and why they are considered superior to a normal camera. Hopefully someone can explain why this is so or if it is just a quest for the latest and greatest new product. Thank you.

Tim

Tim for me it was the size.
I'm a tall bloke, used to carrying gear, but I wanted a camera I could easily hold one hand, was water resistant, interchangeable lenses, efv.
At the time Olympus EM5 filled the list and I've never looked back.
regarding mirrorless cameras and why they are considered superior to a normal camera
Some may argue that way, I wouldn't venture that track.
That's a Pontiac versus Oldsmobile, Holden versus Ford one, or whatever make you put in there IMO.

It's obvious new cameras draw some like light attracts insects but that's no different to other bits of technology.

If you're hunting for a camera then look and get what suits your inclinations in the photographic area.

To answer your question, I'm not sure there really is any one defined answer.

I was never interested in mirror less. Last summer I was covering a PGA event & met a guy using the new Olympus system. He was able to fire away during the players backswing because it was completely silent. If I were a fulltime PGA photographer I would definitely buy 1 Canon mirror less body for just this reason, & I'd still be able to use all of my lenses. I probably wouldn't get all mirror less. I suppose another benefit would be one less part to wear out.

raven4ns wrote in post #18734277
Hello,
Why are so many photographers interested in a mirrorless camera compared to a standard dslr? I freely admit my lack of understanding regarding mirrorless cameras and why they are considered superior to a normal camera. Hopefully someone can explain why this is so or if it is just a quest for the latest and greatest new product. Thank you.

Tim

They're not particularly superior to a DSLR. They're smaller and lighter and I think that's a draw for some. Not for me. If you want small and light there's always the Minox.

I think your last line sums it perfectly....latest, greatest, bestest, fastest, whizziest....blah, blah......which, to some makes it far superior to any DSLR.

Good question, Tim.

For me, the DSLR has become an honored and still entirely useful relic of the recent past. For years they gave us an image of the light coming through the lens. That was and is ideal for film. With mirrorless we have an image of what the sensor is making of the light coming through the lens. To me, that seems ideal for digital.

The downside of mirrorless for me is that it is still relatively new. Five or ten years from now I suspect we will see pro and prosumer cameras in very different form.

I spoke to a few colleagues that shoot Canon for sports (and have for a very long time). The answer seems to be the same: "Eventually, when they work the kinks out."

No MFA required, more consistent accurate focus, more FPS, quieter (not all bodies have silent mirror mode), lighter, smaller if that is what someone prefers.

Not saying PDAF is not accurate but it suffers slight variation.

raven4ns wrote in post #18734277
Hello,
Why are so many photographers interested in a mirrorless camera compared to a standard dslr? I freely admit my lack of understanding regarding mirrorless cameras and why they are considered superior to a normal camera. Hopefully someone can explain why this is so or if it is just a quest for the latest and greatest new product. Thank you.

Tim

Superior is subjective.

Many of the features already shared are nice bonuses in mirrorless, but most of those are still trying to keep stride with the best of the DSLRs. So thinking DSLRs are relics is a foolish notion at this point in time.

I'm adding mirrorless as an additional, and to prepare for the future transition. So far, many mirrorless are like handling a child's camera, and the lion's share do not seem fit and ready yet for professionals. Many new quality lenses are not smaller. So stacking a big lens on mirrorless for pro shooting is a bit like putting tractor tires or a volkswagon chassis with extra horsepower.

But it's worth saying, that 20 years from now, if someone buys a good DSLR and knows how to take great photos, there's a good chance they can take as good or better photos than many people using mirrorless. The new features are certainly in mirrorless. But a good number of those camera owners don't have the ability yet to meke it show in their work. But a few can.

So you can really own both systems and be quite satisfied.

I really don't care if it's mirrorless or not. I only care about whether the camera can do what I want it to do.

For me it wasn't changing brands when I bought the Sony, it was adding a capability. The EVF focus magnification with a manual Zeiss lens in a smaller, lighter overall form factor was the key capability I couldn't get on my Canon DSLR. At my age with my old eyes, manual focus through an optical DSLR viewfinder was a non-starter. I continue to use both - just different tools for different projects.

Timphoto wrote in post #18734884
For me it wasn't changing brands when I bought the Sony, it was adding a capability. The EVF focus magnification with a manual Zeiss lens in a smaller, lighter overall form factor was the key capability I couldn't get on my Canon DSLR. At my age with my old eyes, manual focus through an optical DSLR viewfinder was a non-starter. I continue to use both - just different tools for different projects.

On my DSLR I use an LCDVF with live view for critical focus. This really only works for landscape shots though or anything mounted on a tripod with a static subject.

For me face/eye detect, no focussing errors of dSLRs. Able to see before you take the shot. Easier to get flash/ambient right as you see the change in ambient as you adjust your exposure. Lighter, smaller brown points. With Fuji love the aperture ring on the lens, all dials.

Photographers? I see as many photographers with DSLR as with mirrorless.

If you don't mind EVF here is nothing wrong with mirrorless. Fuji made three cameras in X series with OVF mirrorless, but they are not something I see often in use by photographers. Majority is with mirrorless EVF.

I am easily surrounded by 50+ photographers every weekend and see almost zero mirror less. I think it has a lot to do with the huge financial investment these guys have devoted to Canon/Nikon. I know 1 personal who bought a Fuji this year and it hangs around his neck as his third camera. I will make it a point to ask him about it this Sunday, I'm interested in hearing his take.

Thank you to everyone for their input, I appreciate it. There doesn't seem to be enough reason for me to consider moving from a dslr. I currently use a 1ds mkii and I enjoy using it. My favourite camera was the eos3 and still is although I did switch to digital. Even after reading the comments it is very unlikely I will change to mirrorless cameras. Thank you again for your comments.

Tim