Mirrorless or DSLR?

but why limit yourself? There are more well rounded cameras and lens sets out there. Don't get me wrong, I think the a6000 is amazing for the price, but the resolution figures for that 16-50 are quite pathetic and do not require pixel peeping to see. The Panasonic gm range with that tiny 12-32 is miles better
 
Chimp Paradox said:
but why limit yourself? There are more well rounded cameras and lens sets out there. Don't get me wrong, I think the a6000 is amazing for the price, but the resolution figures for that 16-50 are quite pathetic and do not require pixel peeping to see. The Panasonic gm range with that tiny 12-32 is miles better
Click to expand...

I doubt you'd see that much difference in these zooms stopped down. The resolution figures don't mean a lot, the real world images look fine enough on the web, unless you get into 100% pixel peeping. I'd get the A6000, 16-50 and the 55-210 for £699. Don't think you can go far wrong with Sony these days.

If you wanted to go up in quality you could get the Zeiss lenses for E mount etc. Sony seem to be the most innovative camera company around now.
 
Hey folks,

Thanks for the awesome response to this thread, really appreciate the amount of information! I've done some reading of reviews for lots of different cameras (both dslr and mirrorless) and I've decided to go for the 40d. For £60 it's hard to go wrong and it will let me figure out what I want.

Issue now is that it doesn't come with a lens so I'm looking for a relatively cheap starter/all round lens. Any recommendations? I've seen a Canon EF-S 17-85MM IS for £180, it seems to be a good option?
 
Last edited:
Chimp Paradox said:
id get the 17-55 as its 2.8. Much more versatile as you can use it in lower light
Click to expand...

Canon have a cashback on that one at the moment, it is a different league in performance and price from the 15-85mm though. You will be looking at £500 there abouts with cashback. Alternatively the Tamron 17-50 is almost as good for less money and Sigma are expected to release a new 17-50 lens this year. I have my eye on the Sigma one. With what we have seen from Sigma recently I'm quite excited to see what they bring out.
 
The canon 17-55 is a little out of my price range (even with the £45 cash back!) I don't want to spend loads until I've actually used the camera and decided I want to stick to slr or switch to mirrorless.

The tamron seems a good lens, and whilst more then I was looking to spend (which is around £200 ish) it might be worth the extra.
 
Last edited:
Chimp Paradox said:
the major issue with spending any money on aps-c censor Nikon or canon is that mirrorless is going to kill the whole line. its a dangerous place to spend money
Click to expand...

Hardly, the lenses will be able to be used on mirrorless cameras just fine and in the meanwhile you can take great pictures, there's no reason not to buy an SLR, and mirrorless at the moment just can't compete on autofocus for wildlife and sport which makes buying an SLR necessary for many.
 
Canon are soon to start switching their DSLR range to EVF and as a result mirror less. This is starting with the 750d, then 80d and there has been talk of it on the 6d mkii (until we see something concrete on the spec of this). I don't see there being any issue with the type of fitting used as you can use all the lens on each even with an adapter on the EF-M fitting. I'm certain mirror less does not equal EF-M fitting.
 
As other have said, DSLRs are going to be around for a good while yet as their AF tracking performance can't be equalled by mirrorless cameras at the moment.

If you don't plan to photograph action sports or birds in flight, you can get mirrorless cameras that will give near equivalent performance in a smaller form factor.

As with DLSRs, you get what you pay for in mirrorless cameras and lenses.
 
the big unspoken for action of course is that mirrorless cameras can inherently shoot faster without the need for expensive fast flapping mirrors. to get 12fps you need to spend 5k on canon. you can do the same for 20 percent of the cost with a Panasonic gh4 and the tracking is already at a good level - just not world class - and nothing at the lower end of aps-c canons is as good. That's the point I was making - the death of low end dslr, nor dslr itself.
 
Chimp Paradox said:
the big unspoken for action of course is that mirrorless cameras can inherently shoot faster without the need for expensive fast flapping mirrors. to get 12fps you need to spend 5k on canon. you can do the same for 20 percent of the cost with a Panasonic gh4 and the tracking is already at a good level - just not world class - and nothing at the lower end of aps-c canons is as good. That's the point I was making - the death of low end dslr, nor dslr itself.
Click to expand...

The GH4 doesn't track AF with 12fps though, only in the medium burst mode (7.5fps), and it doesn't really hit that speed either.

I say this as a mirrorless user. Things will improve, but you need to know what you're getting with a system- mirrorless isn't the whole answer, at least yet.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate the viewpoints but the 40d for £60 is the cheapest way to get a decent camera. After I've used it for a while I'll be in a better position to decide whether stay sith dslr or change to mirrorless. Only thing to do now is to find a decent lens. That tamron 17-55 f2.8 seems to be a good start, unless there are any better options?
 
Also don't forget the 2nd hand market, the Canon 17-55 2.8 is a fairly common lens and prices can be found much cheaper used.

Also please consider the 10-22 it's now my most used lens, the wide focal range is simply fantastic for travel.

The nifty fifty is a cheap prime that can give great results, also doubles up as a cheap macro reversed + extension tubes. I almost never use it though.

Also on the budget side, the 55-250 IS II USM can produce good results.

And that's my kit bag discussed :-)
 
Last edited:
CGrieves said:
The GH4 doesn't track AF with 12fps though, only in the medium burst mode (7.5fps), and it doesn't really hit that speed either.

I say this as a mirrorless user. Things will improve, but you need to know what you're getting with a system- mirrorless isn't the whole answer, at least yet.
Click to expand...

Yeah good point mate. I use only a dslr, so if anything I am biased the other way :)

I just get annoyed with low end dslr users being stupid :)
 
Blinkz said:
Everyone has to start somewhere. We weren't all born with the ability to know everything about photography :confused: :D
Click to expand...

Bear in mind the 40D isn't a low-end camera, it's what Canon term "Prosumer". I had one for a good while and only upgraded to the 50D (which is very similar) when the shutter failed. It's a massive amount of camera for £60. Fast, too.

I also have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. The Tamron is a fantastic lens and a bargain, but the Canon is the better lens- faster/quieter AF and IS is a godsend.

There is an element of buy cheap buy twice here.... You can pick up the Canon for just over £300 secondhand- I bought mine on these very forums. Well worth saving up for.
 
The 40D and a 17-50 Tamron is a good place to start. Print out your photos at the usual size and nobody will be able to tell if it was a £60 Canon 40D or a £5k Canon 1DX you used.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom