SLR versus mirrorless - the gap is closing fast.

mikep

will do snakebunk, will do.

ironheart, i know i wont get what i paid for it all, of course, but i will get a fair bit, enough to fund a sony easily, and the longer i leave it, the less i will get. lasy year i got a set of strobes from a friend for a good price, if i sell those too i should actually make a profit. but man, these days ebay charges 10 percent .... thats steep, im not gona be happy paying my next ebay bill.

i used to have a sony ex3, which is actually what i sold to fund my d700 about 4 years back, and id rather not get another camcorder, because i still want to be able to take pictures; i want something than can do both. by the way, when i sold this ebay fees were about 1% ... those were the days.

because of its size, i just think m mount stuff has a longer life ahead of it than f mount. if nikon made a full frame mirrorless, which im sure they will sooner or later, i have a feeling that it wont be F mount. in fact, i think the reason nikon and canon are not putting out these systems is because it will hurt their current dslr systems and lens sales. i think perhaps the reason its sony that is leading this area is because it needs cash and has less to lose since its dslrs arent its bread and butter.

a full frame mirrorless that accepted f mount wouldnt really change the overall size of the system, the lenses are going to dictate that the camera remain on the larger size; the size of the mount, the optics, the balance etc.

as i think i mentioned before, ive been waiting for a full frame mirrorless for a few years, ever since the m9 was released ive like the idea, but never wanted to spend m9 prices on a body. the lenses can last forver-ish but the body will not. since the m9 came out i knew another manufacturer would make a cheaper alternative eventually, and its just happened to be sony.



small full frame body and some voigtlander etc, coupled with focus peeking, its my dream camera ... well, it may not be perfect, but im sure its gona be fun.

jimh12345

I currently have both a Nikon D7000 and a Sony a6000 mirrorless. Lately I've been doing some bird photos and have to spend time patiently waiting for the bird to land on the perch, and have been using 'live' view so I can sit comfortably and watch the LCD instead of having my eye stuck to the finder.

When the bird shows up and I hit the shutter button, the. DSLR takes MUCH longer to respond than the mirrorless - and it's a noisy process. Apparently the d7000 does 'live' view by raising the mirror - so why does it have to put it back down before activating the shutter?

Ironheart

@jimh, take the lens off of your camera and observe what is happening. In live view the mirror is raised and the shutter is opened (for obvious reasons). When you snap a pic, the shutter must close in order to fire for the prescribed amount of time, and then it must open again to restore live view. Unless your camera has an electronic shutter (meaning it only samples the sensor without any mechanics involved) it will do this dance, mirror or no mirror. As long as live view is activated, the mirror stays up. Look for yourself. The delay you are experiencing is the shutter having to close in order to reopen.

jimh12345

@ironheart, I did that and of course you're correct. I get it now. There's no way around this, and it really reduces the usefulness of 'live' view in capturing live action. The mirrorless has a shutter too - but apparently it uses a different sensor for the viewfinder/LCD display - or there's some other mechanism involved...

Ironheart

Most mirrorless cameras have this shutter-stutter lag, when using the mechanical shutter. Many mirrorless cameras have the ability to use a purely electronic shutter (i.e. just sample the sensor for the prescribed period of time) which will a) have less lag, and b) be completely silent.

jimh12345

I found out the a6000 has electronic front curtain, 'on' by default. It doesn't need to close the shutter before taking the shot in live view.

So, my question did relate to the topic - this is another reason to go mirrorless. Apparently Nikon's d810 has this capability, but no indication that the d7200 might have it too.

Ironheart

Not all mirrorless cameras have that ability, so caveat emptor
Another reason that I don't believe the gap is closing that quickly. I also don't think DSLRs will ever be obsolete, they will co-exist with other technologies and eventually be oddities, but never go away. We still have horses and carriages, and people who breed horses, and people that make carriages.

jimh12345

The DSLRs will be around, yes, but how many new DX formats will be bought? Sorry Nikon but I'm not going "full frame". It turns out that electronic front curtain is important to me - but Nikon will only give it to me in the d810 for $3K, while Sony has it in the a6000 for $600. I'd like to upgrade my d7000 to a d7200, but it looks like they're not interested in offering that feature on DX.

I get the feeling that they really want to keep all the customers that can be herded into "full frame" - and will buy a new round of high end gear - and the rest of us are at some point dispensable.

WestEndFoto

How will you feel when a full frame DSLR can be had for $500?

sevencrossing

......and the rest of us are at some point dispensable.

I dont think so
Wait for D7200

jimh12345

@sevencrossing, I am. But I'm also watching for the rumored Sony a7000. If the d7200 doesn't have EFC, that will be a big factor.

manhattanboy

I found out the a6000 has electronic front curtain, 'on' by default. It doesn't need to close the shutter before taking the shot in live view.

So, my question did relate to the topic - this is another reason to go mirrorless. Apparently Nikon's d810 has this capability, but no indication that the d7200 might have it too.

If you can solely shoot using liveview than you really do not need a DSLR. Something like the 1v3 or upcoming 1J5 can shoot pretty fast and allows for tap to shoot in liveview.

To me nothing really replaces the optical viewfinder in relation to ease of shooting.

Ironheart

To me nothing really replaces the optical viewfinder in relation to ease of shooting.

+1
I love my V3, and it shoots quick and quiet, but IMNSHO, EVF and live view have a long way to go to replace the optical viewfinder. Hence why I see the gap as not closing that fast.

jimh12345

Of course, I want both. I also love the OVF. But once in a while I really want 'live view' with quick response. Nikon could give me this in the d7200 but I don't think they will.

retread

I believe the rumors are D7200 = D750 style and D9300 = D810 style body. Maybe we will get the electronic first curtain shutter in the D9300 if it comes.

mikep

http://www.slrlounge.com/will-canon-nikon-lose-to-sony-sigma-cameratalk-matthew-saville/

was just reading through this, and it sums up what i think tbh. of course who knows what will happen, a company is only as good as its next round of products, perhaps nikon and canon will continue to dominate ....

like i said before, i know some of you cant move because you need your dslrs, or have no desire to move because you love your dslrs, but personally i just cant get myself excited about getting another one. i was considering the d750 ... but the new sony on the other hand .... oh yes im excited.

my beloved d700 is on ebay now, mid auction, and im sad to see it go tbh, but its time for me to move to something smaller. i never really liked walking around with a dslr, it always attracted attention, and not to mention the shoulder ache after a few hours/days/weeks of travelling and carrying it around. size and weight are perhaps the biggest factor in my decision to move systems.

i have this funny feeling that smaller mirrorless systems are going to take off (even more than they have already) and that F mount, EF mount etc dont have a future mainly due to their size/cost. i think that the cameras i am going to want over the next decade are going to be smaller mirrlorless things, and M mount stuff is going to be compatible whereas my nikkors wont be. in actual fact for the last 5 years ive wanted a smaller mirrorless thing, it just didnt exist when i bought previously.

M mount stuff feels like a more certain long term purchase to me at the moment. i dont like having to sell lenses just to get a new body. imagine not being strapped in to a system like we have been with nikon and canon. imagine being able to invest in good lenses and know they will be usable on whatever camera you choose to buy next, from whichever manufacturer .. thats what i want and im putting my money on M. there are going to be more sony models, and other manufacturers including canon and nikon are going to have to get into the full frame mirrorless market sooner or later, and M will likely work with most of it, sans auto focus of course.

honestly, i think nikon and canons "silence" on the mirrorless thing is deafening. we see it all the time; keeping the best features for their expensive models to keep sales high, the example that springs to mind is the d600 auto focus system, released 4? years after the d700 and they stick a worse focus system in the d600. i think that their halfhearted mirrorless offerings are the same shenanigans. like the article says if they arent careful the rug will be pulled out from under them.

some food for thought :



the new sonys are attacking many areas of the market, they are taking leica sales, dslr sales, mirrorless sales, video camera sales .... so surely other manufacturers will be forced to compete here? i duno. maybe we will all just be using our iphones to take pictures and videos in 5 years time!

sorry for the long post btw. tldr = mirrorless is the future (maybe)

safyre

I was at CES convention in Las Vegas a couple weeks ago and got to try the A7II. Phenomenal camera. If I already wasn't invested in Nikon, I would go the Sony route instead. Even right now, I have some thoughts about selling my Nikon gear and going fresh with Sony. I also had a nice chat with the rep from Canon and even she was talking about how she wanted to ditch her 5dmk3 and jump ship over to Sony. A few pros I know from Nikon/Canon have also switched recently. Is mirrorless the future? Definitely, and I would be willing to bet money on it.

Ironheart

@mikep, the M mount thing seems like a step backwards when you look at no autofocus. Sure, I surrived the first 30 years of my photography experience with manual focus, but now I at least want the option (with rare exception).

Have you looked at the Nikon 1 stuff, there is this nifty FT-N adapter, and autofocus still works. I hear you on the size thing, my V3 has become my new buddy, but there are still times that the trusty DSLR comes out to play.

mikep

hi ironheart, i agree that autofocus is sometimes super helpful, and for some situations indispensable. i couldnt imagine doing sports with a manual focus lens, that would be silly. landscapes/products however not so much. im actually gonna use it for video initially, so i wont need autofocus, at least at first.

im hoping that the focus peaking will help. i used to have a sony video camera that had peaking and it was pretty good for focus. i guess ill see how it goes and get a sony lens with autofocus if i find myself wanting it. i think i will pick up a voigtlander 50mm on ebay first to test the water.

WestEndFoto

How will you salvage the value of your lenses if Sony quite the camera business? You seem to think there is a risk with Canon and Nikon, but I think the risk is higher with Sony.

Paperman

Thanks for the graph Mikep ... There is interesting information there .....

I was at CES convention in Las Vegas a couple weeks ago and got to try the A7II. Phenomenal camera. If I already wasn't invested in Nikon, I would go the Sony route instead. Even right now, I have some thoughts about selling my Nikon gear and going fresh with Sony. I also had a nice chat with the rep from Canon and even she was talking about how she wanted to ditch her 5dmk3 and jump ship over to Sony. A few pros I know from Nikon/Canon have also switched recently. Is mirrorless the future? Definitely, and I would be willing to bet money on it.

Which Sony model did those " Professionals " jump to ??

FrenchRiviera

I was at CES convention in Las Vegas a couple weeks ago and got to try the A7II. Phenomenal camera. If I already wasn't invested in Nikon, I would go the Sony route instead. Even right now, I have some thoughts about selling my Nikon gear and going fresh with Sony. I also had a nice chat with the rep from Canon and even she was talking about how she wanted to ditch her 5dmk3 and jump ship over to Sony. A few pros I know from Nikon/Canon have also switched recently. Is mirrorless the future? Definitely, and I would be willing to bet money on it.

I went to Tokyo last week ... and tried this A7II .
It is a great camera for traveller ( compact , good compromise for handling , EVF bis not an issue ) .
I could buy one , unfortunately , Sony prime lenses offer appears too poor .
It was presented with a too big 24-70 2.8 , far from being good advertising :-/
I would like Nikon to do one like this A7II , it could be nice travelling with light 1.8 prime lenses

WestEndFoto

That is the issue. I cannot imagine myself jumping ship over a camera as I, and many others, are invested in a system where lenses are the primary consideration and the camera is secondary.

Now if Sony had a great lens lineup, it might be a different story.

But alas, Sony's lens lineup is a joke compared to Canon and Nikon.

JustForFun

I think mirrorless are not there yet to substitute DSLR.

Number of shots on a single battery is very low on mirrorless, I would probably have to bring more batteries (let's say: 5 instead of two) and two chargers to some of my trips.

Lens choice is very limited - I frequently use 70-300 f4.5-5.6 on my APS-C DSLR, I shoot without tripod, often at 300, so I need the stabilization just to get what I want in the frame, otherwise the viewfinder image shakes too much to use it - probably only in-lens stabilization is suitable at such focal length. And despite using 300 I still have to do quite some cropping to get the Gargoil on the roof the right size... Nikkor 80-400 would be better, but is too big and too expensive. As far as I know, there is no lens in the mirrorless world for me..

Not to mention the Sigma 18-35 f1.8. I also consider buying the upcomming Tokina 11-20 f2.8...

Next: I have big hands, I had to buy the grip to hold the DSLR in a stable and comfortable way (otherwise my last finger would be without support). So the smaller size of the mirrorless is not necessary an advantage for me (at least not all the times).

I also consider migrating from my D5100 to the upcomming D7200, mainly for the dual card slot. How many mirrorless cameras exists with a dual card slot? Buying a WiFi capable SD card, some external wireless data bank, a power bank and yet another charger is out of question - too much hassle.

Mirrorless as a secondary camera, when you can't bring the DSLR for some reason? Yes (in fact, that's why I bought the mirrorless!). Mirrorless as a DSLR substitute? Sorry, not for me...

Ironheart

There is a 70-300 for the Nikon 1 system that meets or exceeds your requirements for telephoto. 810mm equiv, great VR, sharp, fast focus. When I'm doing wildlife, it is my new BFF.