Regrets Going From DSLR to Mirrorless?

Choderboy wrote in post #19550495
The A7RII has a great sensor and some still prefer it or the same sensored A7RIII over the later 61mp A7R4 / R4a / R5.
It also had the smaller NP-FW50 battery and all following bodies got the bigger NP-FZ100.
It's AF was also improved greatly with the A7RIII. Not only with native lenses, but adapting went from just useable to quite good in many, but not all cases.

The cheaper 'non R' line also improved significantly, the A74 is 33mp and AF greatly improved.

So for your use, the A7RII will continue to achieve excellent results for as long as it works.
Any upgrade in the future (to later Sony body) will provide much improved experience but not necessarily big difference in IQ.

While I never looked into the newer editions, you are spot on in that I realized its capabilities and am still learning all it has to offer. The images, IMO, are more than crisp and sharp, and the camera is a highly capable piece of gear. The learning curve was a bit of an obstacle being an avid Canon fan, but it really didn't take long to find my comfort zone with it and all it has to offer. I will keep it and enjoy it. The batteries are small, and when I purchased the body, I soon purchased additional batteries for that reason. I haven't look at any of the Canon R gear as I have no interest in changing up my current equipment. Money is always a consideration of course, but for what I shoot, I simply don't need all that the R series has to offer. Fortunately I am beyond the GAS (gear acquisition syndrome) and I'm happy with what I have!

You are right . Mirrorless are very fast compared to erstwhile DSLR's and have more new functions. Nonetheless DSLR's also used to

be fast and good for the action scenarios.

Its now age of mirrorless. DSLR production has stopped with their lens line. So in a way you will buy only what is available in the market ,

has a current lens line with service support and shun putting your money in a pre - owned DSLR sans service support and a discontinued lens

line.

That way I feel one is forced to buy a mirrorless because there is no other choice.

Jai.

J R Mohan wrote in post #19550780
That way I feel one is forced to buy a mirrorless because there is no other choice.

Jai.

Jai,

I am sorry you feel that way. There is no reason to feel that there is no other choice. There are gazillions of used Canon DSLRs for sale, gazillions of used lenses for sale in Canon EF mount, and lots of independent repair and service options, should you need them (and you most likely never will).

Service and support aren't really very important because many used discontinued models are and will be available so inexpensively that if something breaks it will be more cost effective to just buy another body or lens than to get the broken one fixed.

So DSLRs and the old EF lenses that go with them is a very viable choice today, and will continue to be a very viable choice well into the future.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19550227
.
I shoot wildlife, which often involves a lot of action. . I am still shooting a DSLR. . However, I am an outlier at most of the venues I shoot at. . Almost every other serious wildlife photographer I meet at known wildlife venues - national parks, national wildlife refuges, rookeries, "destination" state parks, etc. - is shooting mirrorless.

I will note that the places I shoot most often at are places that people travel to from great distances, so the people shooting alongside me are very serious about their wildlife photography and spend literally thousands upon thousands of dollars every year on gear and travel. . I mean, if they are spending 10K+ per year on travel to wildlife destinations, you bet they're going to make sure they have the very best equipment that money can buy. . So I am not really very often encountering the local guy who just likes to get out to the local park and take a few pics on the weekend. . Maybe those types are the ones still using their DSLRs?
.

.
That is an interesting opinion, as it seems to contrast with my idea of what each system is best at. . The way I see it, mirrorless is especially suited to action photography because it focus tracks the subject for you with great precision, is capable of focusing on the subject no matter where it is in the frame, and because it is capable of far more frames per second than any DSLR ever was. . If you are shooting portraits then you have time to focus the image yourself (via autofocus, not manual focus, of course) and you have the time to both focus and compose, whereas in action photography you usually do not have the time to focus and compose before the moment is gone. . So action is where mirrorless really shines.

.

Another genre I absolutely adore mirrorless for, and for which I would never go back to a DSLR, is stage production photography. Lighting changes constantly (not just lights themselves, but also performers moving in and out of the lighting patterns). Performers move along with the need to rapidly switch focus from one performer to another. With mirrorless cameras, I can continuously ride exposure with my left fingers, move and change point of focus with my right thumb, and release the shutter with my right index finger. I'd never go back to a DSLR.

My simple thoughts...

How many of you changed to mirrorless simply because Canon offer no other option?


If Canon were to release a new DSLR with the AF, video, frame rate etc.. as good as say the 5R, and also able to mount EF lenses without an adapter... I suspect it would outsell the current mirrorless line-up in a heartbeat.

PH68 wrote in post #19551706
My simple thoughts...

How many of you changed to mirrorless simply because Canon offer no other option?


If Canon were to release a new DSLR with the AF, video, frame rate etc.. as good as say the 5R, and also able to mount EF lenses without an adapter... I suspect it would outsell the current mirrorless line-up in a heartbeat.

It's not just Canon who is not offering other options. All the camera companies are abandoning dSLR's.

Personally, now that I have completed the transition to mirrorless, I have no desire to go back. I used the opportunity to revamp my equipment lineup completely, and have a much lighter and more streamlined kit than my old Canon dSLR and EF lens lineup. Since I downsized several lenses and went from three bodies to two, I made the transition without spending any extra money -- I'm actually $600 ahead of the game right now.

PH68 wrote in post #19551706
My simple thoughts...

How many of you changed to mirrorless simply because Canon offer no other option?

No one I would say... When I bought my 5DIII, I kept the old(er) 60D ready, with aa charged battery and used it often, especially as a light(er) travel kit. When I bought the R6II, I pulled the batteries out of both dSLRs and put them in my 'old camera' case... The capabilities of the mirrorless are that compelling!

PH68 wrote in post #19551706
My simple thoughts...
If Canon were to release a new DSLR with the AF, video, frame rate etc.. as good as say the 5R, and also able to mount EF lenses without an adapter... I suspect it would outsell the current mirrorless line-up in a heartbeat.

Why would I want a camera with a simplistic AF subsystem? The addition of the ring adapter makes the use of EF mount lenses seamless, the lenses AF better, IBIS is an added bonus, WISIWYG viewfindwer is a major plus (with a twist of the ring adapter I can see an exposure compensated view and can decide not guess if I want the effect or not. I don't own any R lenses,I might never do, since I can buy the equivalent EF at a deep discount, slightly used. I cover the gamut 16mm, 24-400mm with L glass, what more would I want? Why would I want a dSLR? Why would I pay for it?

It's like saying if FORD brought back the Rambler with carburators, it would outsell the present Mustang line...

PH68 wrote in post #19551706
.
My simple thoughts...

How many of you changed to mirrorless simply because Canon offer no other option?

If Canon were to release a new DSLR with the AF, video, frame rate etc.. as good as say the 5R, and also able to mount EF lenses without an adapter... I suspect it would outsell the current mirrorless line-up in a heartbeat.
.

.
I doubt that.

I am pretty desperate to acquire a mirrorless body because focus peaking is necessary for some of the photography I want to do. . Also, animal eye tracking is never going to be able to be as good on a DSLR, and subject eye tracking is so valuable to have. . The ability to see the affects of our exposure settings is also important. . Basically, the reasons a mirrorless body is better at these things is because they are not able to be implemented in a DSLR due to, well, physics. . It is literally impossible to ever make a DSLR with these features, or with these features working as well as they do on a mirrorless body.

EDIT:
There are still all of the DSLR options out there that there ever were. . We just have to buy most of them used. And that isn't an issue at all because I always buy everything used anyway. . At this point, I would MUCH rather have a 5 year old used mirrorless body than a 5 year old used DSLR. . And that is because those old mirrorless models can do things that the DSLRs just can't do.


.

PH68 wrote in post #19551706
My simple thoughts...

How many of you changed to mirrorless simply because Canon offer no other option?


If Canon were to release a new DSLR with the AF, video, frame rate etc.. as good as say the 5R, and also able to mount EF lenses without an adapter... I suspect it would outsell the current mirrorless line-up in a heartbeat.

I seriously doubt that. I've owned (or own) the entire 5 series line including the R5. As much of a game-changer as I considered the 5D4 to be in that particular series, I haven't used it at all since buying the R5. From an image quality perspective they are very similar outside of the difference in resolution, but handling, auto-focus capability, etc. all leans toward the R5, even using the same EF mount lenses.

PH68 wrote in post #19551706
If Canon were to release a new DSLR with the AF, video, frame rate etc.. as good as say the 5R...

You mean the R5? They pretty much can't. ML is the technology that makes this other stuff so good. What could the re-introduction of a mirror do to improve things?

PH68 wrote in post #19551706
My simple thoughts...

How many of you changed to mirrorless simply because Canon offer no other option?


If Canon were to release a new DSLR with the AF, video, frame rate etc.. as good as say the 5R, and also able to mount EF lenses without an adapter... I suspect it would outsell the current mirrorless line-up in a heartbeat.

There were many reasons I made the switch a few years ago, but lack of options was not a consideration. For me, not having to worry about micro-adjusting autofocus for each lens (and at varying focal lengths for zooms) was worth it alone. At that time, currently, and for the foreseeable future, there are still plenty of EF lenses available, so nobody was forced into switching.

Switching because your current gear is obsolete and unusable is very different than switching because you want the updated technology. If Canon said they were going to send out some OTA update that would brick all EF gear on such and such date, then yes, you could say you had no other choice but to go mirrorless.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19551735
You mean the R5? They pretty much can't. ML is the technology that makes this other stuff so good. What could the re-introduction of a mirror do to improve things?

You're kind of asking for the 1DX Mark III. It can do several of the things mirrorless cameras shine at, but the 1DX Mark III has to switch to live view to do it.

I didn't need any new camera at all, and I'm the first to admit to that. But if I would get one anyway, then I dismissed the 1DX Mark III as being no dramatic change compared to the 1DX Mark II as long as you use the viewfinder, and to get to the significant changes you have to do the ergonomic disaster of using it in live view mode.
For that reason I got the R3 instead, just to satisfy my gear addiction syndrome. At least it's a camera with a similar ambition level as the 1DX models I already have and it does offer some different functions compared to my 1DX models.

apersson850 wrote in post #19551747
You're kind of asking for the 1DX Mark III. It can do several of the things mirrorless cameras shine at, but the 1DX Mark III has to switch to live view to do it.

IOW you have to use it in mirrorless mode. That's pretty much the point.

One of the major user transitions to mirrorless, is in fact A VF with a mirror view or an EVF view.

With a DSLR mirror the view is like looking through binoculars, with no indication as what the sensor "sees"

With EVF you see what the sensor sees, and you can, in addition, use a real-time histogram prior to taking the shot, rather than after with a DSLR.

In the end it's whatever works best for you, but personally I'd never wish to go back to an SLR.

I suspect for some, or perhaps many, it's simply a resistance to change?

Leigh wrote in post #19551802
I suspect for some, or perhaps many, it's simply a resistance to change?

For me, not a 'resistance to change'.
Mirrorless is a 'different approach' to camera design, which carries many benefits. And a few disadvantages (is double the file size always an 'advantage'? Is low light EVF lag due to 'exposure simulation' always an 'advantage'? the need to carry spare battery if out for a long day?)
OTOH, making the change carries COSTS for replacement/augmentati​on of accessories which do not transition from EF body to RF body. And for many, the mirrorless 'benefits' are ones which do not benefit their usual style/subject matter of shooting...an upgrade to mirrorless is pointless when one considers cost vs. benefit, so it is an upgrade 'simply because'.