Mirrorless or DSLR?

Blinkz

Blinkz

Blinkz

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,183
Location
Frimley, Surrey or 38,000ft
Hey folks

After a recent trip to Japan and having to rely on my iPhone to take pics I've decided it's finally time to get a decent camera. I've been wanting to get more into photography for a while now so it's not just a passing whim! I don't want to spend more then £1000, and my interests are mainly landscapes - city skylines, sunsets/rises etc as well as night photography.

I like the idea of a mid level DSLR, mainly due to the high image quality, lots of controls to learn and develop in the future. They have a large selection of lenses to use in the future. Of course the main concern is their size! I don't forsee myself having to carry it too far, as if I'm out and about it will probably for a few hours at a time. With a decent rucksack I imagine it wouldn't be a huge issue.

Mirrorless do also seem to be interesting, a new technology which seems to be improving all the time. The quality I'm sure would be more than adequate, as would the controls. My concern with them is the lack of selection of lenses, and the fact that if in the future I want to upgrade to a DSLR then none of the lenses I would have bought for the mirrorless would be useless!

At the moment I'm stuck in the middle about what to get! A friend has offered me his 40d for £60, without lenses. However even buying a new kit lens it is probably the cheapest way to get into it?

Any suggestions more then welcome!!
 
IMO, if you aren't interested in sports or wildlife then mirror-less systems work very well. in themselves. As you have figured out, for the most part the lens selection is very limited.

A few other points:
Mirrorless cameras like the Sony A6000 and Fuji models will give the same image quality as an APS-C DSLR because they use the same sensor size, in fact the sony, Fuji and samsung models will outperform any Canon [APS-C] DSLR. Nikon DSLRs use the same kinds of sensors so mirrorless are on par quality wise.

The flipside of the Sony/Samsung/Fuji mirrorless cameras is since they use the same sensor size you end up with lenses of the same size as a DSLR, especially for longer lenses.

M43/MFT mirrorless cameras made by Olympus and Panasonic use a smaller sensor which allows both the cameras and importantly the lenses to be much smaller. The Nikon 1 series even more so.

The m43 camera system has by far the biggest lens selection for a mirrorless system, and competes very well with Canon and Nikon. Both Olympus and Panasonic work together to produce lenses conforming to the same standard. Further more the standard is fairly open so 3rd parties can make compatible lenses easily. The m43 system is the only way to get a complete camera system equivalent to a Nikon or Canon DSLR.

For select types of photpgrpahy the Fuji and Sony models do very well. Fuji cameras are particularly interesting for portrait/wedding/event work due to the fast prime lenses. Sony ones are slightly better all rounder.

Mirrorless cameras are more expensive than DSLRs. You get a lot more camera for your money with a DSLR. This can be especially true when adding decent lenses. Some of the kit lenses for mirrorless cameras are especially poor.

Flashes and lighting are a long way behind on mirrorless cameras.

Lens choices, even for m43 system are more constrained to slower aperture kit lenses and zooms or rimes in the middle focal ranges. there are less choices at the wide or long end, and in fact the very long end is often completely absent. There are less specialty lenses, e.g. fewer macro lenses.

Mirrorless cameras tend to do better at video.

Mirrorless cameras typically have a faster frame rate than DSLR at the same. unfortunately the autofocus isn't as reliable as a DSLR so you often can't made good use of that speed.


Overall, the main sticking point is size and weight.

EDIT appended an additional "APS-C" for clarification
 
Last edited:
Mr_Sukebe said:
Do you really just say that a Fuji mirrorless will outperform a Canon 5D3?
Just sanity checking?
Click to expand...

No, "the same image quality as an APS-C DSLR"

I didn't want to confuse the OP by talking about cameras with FF sensors that are out of his price range. So I then contracted "APS-C DSLR" to "DSLR" because from the OP's perspective that is all that matters in the comparison.

I appended an additional "APS-C" for clarification to avoid comments like yours.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Prompted some interesting reading. Haven't really paid much attention to mirrorless cameras, but the Fuji range does look rather good.
 
If there's any risk at all that you'll frequently leave your DSLR in the drawer when you go out for the day, or back at the hotel in the evening, because it's too big...go mirrorless.

DSLR might give 5% quicker focus in low light or better flash performance, but that's no use if you never use it.

For amateur travelling photography, I'd say mirrorless without a doubt. Sony's e-system has a future and more and more lenses will be available for it, if that takes your fancy.

Yes there's the argument that you still need big lenses with a mirrorless, but at least you have the choice to go out for an evening with a 16-50 on an A6000 and they'll both fit in your girlfriend's handbag or your coat pocket. You can't do that with a DSLR.

Caveat to that is that most of your photography is in challenging conditions light-wise, and DSLR takes the cake for this.
 
Last edited:
Wow thanks for the great replies, especially DP. Some awesome information there.

It really isn't an easy decision! I don't think the size of the DSLRs will bother me, and the mirrorless (especially the higher end ones) don't seem to be *that* much smaller. My trips only last a day or two so won't need to be carrying it for weeks. I suppose the only place that I might struggle with the size is in the flightdeck, as its a fairly small place!

As has been mentioned then DSLR is the best at what I want to capture, and better value for money. I'm leaning towards accepting my friends offer for his old 40d and buying a cheap lense for it. If I have no trouble with the size then I can always upgrade it in the future. It's probably the cheapest way to get into it, even though the 40d is missing a few features.
 
If you go mirrorless you can choose from practically any DSLR lens inthe world. Of course you then loose the small size benefit when you have that lens attached, but you can use a native lens for when small is more important.

Mirrorless cameras will match their DSLR equivelants for quality without a fuss.

I've had a number of DSLRs from different manufacturers and never had a problem with carrying them around on holiday. I've since changed to mirrorless though and can't see myself ever going back to a dslr. I don't do sports photography so don't need super fast continous AF, and a lot of the enjoyment I get is trying out legacy non-native lenses.

All that being said, the 40d isn't a bad camera to learn with. You'll be able to sell it in a year or so for a similar price to what you paid.
 
I used to have a DSLR (7D) and switched to a Fuji X-Pro 1 and have no regrets. It's much nicer to carry around as its so much lighter/smaller and the image quality is superior. I'd love to buy a Fuji XT-1 at some point.

Of course there are negatives to mirrorless such as poorer handling/ergonomics and certain features like auto bracketing aren't as good with my Fuji.
 
Last edited:
We have both a DSLR, a Canon 60d, and mirrorless, a Canon EOS-m.

Personally I prefer the 60d as I find the m too small for my hands. I also prefer the additional weight of the 60d as I think it make it more stable. I went for the 60d size body as I found both the 700d and the 1200d (I think that is the correct model) too small.

My son prefers the m as it is less bulky than to 60d and operated more like a mobile device with its touch screen.

The best thing I can suggest is that you go along to a John Lewis or a Currys and handle the cameras. That way you will find which you prefer the feel of.
 
Last edited:
It's a tough call, the mirror less market has certainly been given a shot in the arm by Fuji's revival as a serious camera company. If I was starting out again I'd be sorely tempted as most of what I shoot is scenery and travel photography where the small body really would be nice on occasion!

I have just added an EOS m to the bag for just this reason it is DSLR quality in an almost pocket size package (plus it was silly cheap) will be interesting to see how much use it gets compared to the 5D mkii and vice versa!
 
40D is a great camera to start off with, and plenty capable enough to take you a long way. I used one for a year and only upgraded to a 50D when the shutter failed on my 40D. For £1000 you could easily get a good kit- 17-55mm f2.8 IS and a 70-200mm f4L IS would cover most bases. Maybe add an ultra-wide angle lens at your leisure.

Early this year I bought a Fuji X-E2 (mirrorless) on a whim, with 12mm f2, 18mm f2 and 35mm f1.4 primes, and I haven't looked back, and have used my DSLR maybe twice since. Shooting JPG it just gives me the results I want, very rarely requiring post-processing, and what I see in the viewfinder is what I actually get in the photo, which is a revelation. It's just fun to use. The lens selection isn't as huge as for Canon, but every single XF lens available is top-quality, and even the consumer zooms are good.

I also bought the wife an EOS-M with an 18-55mm and a 22mm f2 prime for the wife, and it's an excellent little camera, and costs peanuts. DSLR quality shots in a tiny body that's feels like it's carved from marble. Worth a look if you can live with the slightly sluggish autofocus.

Having said that everyone is different, and it's best to have used both before you decide. For the money I'd say the 40D is a no-brainer. Get a good quality 17-5Xmm f2.8 lens and you're sorted for the basics.

Get it done!
 
Last edited:
It should be said just in case it's mis-interpreted from CGrieves post, that all good mirrorless cameras will shoot RAW just a DSLR.

Get the 40D use it, then 6 months to a year down the line review how you are using it and see if you want/need to upgrade, then make a decision from there.
 
I've got a Nikon D7000 SLR and an Olympus OMD-M10, and since I've had the Olympus the Nikon doesn't get used as I find it too bulky to want to carry around - I should really sell it..
 
Thanks again for the grat replies folks. I went into Currys today and had a play with a few cameras, there wasn't a huge selection but I at least got an idea between the mirrorless and DSLRs. I have to say I didn't find the SLRs that big or heavy, although they didn't have huge lenses on. The mirrorless were a little smaller and seemed a little more modern. I wasn't sure how much I liked the EVF. It was a lot of information in it however the actual image wasn't very clear in it!

As a lot of you have said I'm leaning towards getting the 40d to make a start with and then I won't be spending a huge amount of money for something I might not like.
 
I'd go with mirrorless for most applications, assuming the system is going to survive when Canon and Nikon release their mirrorless cameras with their gargantuan lens selection. A full frame system if your doing portraits or night photography for shallow depth of field and great noise levels.

If you need great tracking for sports and wildlife though go SLR.
 
Energize said:
I'd go with mirrorless for most applications, assuming the system is going to survive when Canon and Nikon release their mirrorless cameras with their gargantuan lens selection.
Click to expand...

Should be fine, since you can get adapters.

The Canon and Nikon offerings will also be pricey I'm guessing.
 
I managed to get my wife a Fuji X-M1 for xmas, was an impulse buy fuelled by black friday discounts. Body + kit + 27 f2.8 prime + free 50-230mm tele for £399 was an absolute bargain for a camera for her. I had a play with it for a couple of nights before wrapping it up. My mini first impressions were:


  • I.Q. looked impressive with clear and rich coulours & definitely much better than my 650D at higher ISO/low light.
  • Will make a nice camera to take to parties and potter around.
  • Also very curious to *borrow* it for some astro/milky way shots with a wide angle lense given the low light/ISO performance.
  • Handling was a bit awkward, I kept looking for a viewfinder and somewhere to anchor my fingers on the front, but I'm sure that has a lot to do with several years using my Canon so far.
  • The inbuilt flash was kind of handy, you can bend it back and bounce it off the ceiling for some OK results (even though I don't think you are supposed to...)
  • Interface is pretty tidy.
  • Lenses are expensive-ish.
  • Would love for it to get the wi-fi features the other X-models are getting (remote control & intervalometer)
  • Body and lenses are receiving new firmware upgrades.
  • Static AF seemed competent (no moving subjects attempted)

It will be interesting to see where Fuji ends up with this, I unfortunalely suspect they will remain a niche player out there. I do like what they are doing with their EVFs though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom