Should I buy a mirrorless?

Schizo said:
I was in the same boat as you,big DSLR and never took it out,sold everything (had a Nikon D7000+5 lens) and got a Sony A6000 and was blown away by it.

Then came the time to get a new lens,had a look around and found them to be out of my budget,they are so expensive compared to a DSLR lens.

Sold the Sony and went back to a DSLR (got a canon now) and I'm happy again,I always take it out and make a habit of it.

Have a think what you want and need and your budget.
A decent lens for the Sony was ££££
Click to expand...

This should not be ignored if cost is one of your limitations.
Take ultra wide angle lenses as an example:

Sony E Mount 10-18mm: £699!
Fuji 10-24mm: £849!

Canon 10-18 IS STM: £239

The Canon is every bit as sharp as the others and stick it on something like Canon a 200D and you've a tiny package with access to a load of inexpensive lenses.
DSLR cameras aren't going anywhere anytime soon either, there is just too much legacy for them to simply dissappear.
 
That (the photo) illustrates your point well.

It's funny but since buying a 5D4 I now consider that in much the same way you've drawn your comparison, though my last three bodies have been 1D4, 1DX, 1DX2 and the 5D4 seems tiny. It's a noticeable weight saving when your go to lens is a 600. I've been really pleased with the final images from the 5D4, probably slightly moreso than the output of the 1DX2, but that's likely because while working distances remain the same the number of pixels on a subject has increased. AF, fps and buffer are the tradeoff and the reason why I've retained the 1-series body, tailoring what I use to how I plan to shoot a subject.

Raymond Lin said:
If you want true portability, get a micro 4/3.
Click to expand...
 
I was in the same boat, sold my Nikon 5300 and just brought a Panasonic LX100. Love the LX100, easy access to all settings and so much more pocket friendly that it is always with me.

Probably taken more photo's in the last 2 weeks than I did in 6 months with the Nikon but that could just be new toy syndrome :D
 
I would recommend m4/3 really as a walkabout setup, I find myself carrying one with me everywhere because it fits in my jacket pocket. The weight and size of my D610 are not really an issue when I want to take it out somewhere, but that's the key point, the SLR is something to take with me when I have the intention of going to shoot something whereas the m4/3 is something that I can whip out when I see something interesting in my everyday life.

m4/3 and other mirrorless systems in general are ridiculously overpriced compared to SLR's for the same quality, and there is simply no equivalent to an f/1.4 prime on m4/3 so as a system it's not a viable replacement to a full frame, but having a single cheap lens setup complements an SLR very well.
 
And said:
That (the photo) illustrates your point well.

It's funny but since buying a 5D4 I now consider that in much the same way you've drawn your comparison, though my last three bodies have been 1D4, 1DX, 1DX2 and the 5D4 seems tiny. It's a noticeable weight saving when your go to lens is a 600. I've been really pleased with the final images from the 5D4, probably slightly moreso than the output of the 1DX2, but that's likely because while working distances remain the same the number of pixels on a subject has increased. AF, fps and buffer are the tradeoff and the reason why I've retained the 1-series body, tailoring what I use to how I plan to shoot a subject.
Click to expand...


Put a 17mm/1.8 lens on it then you can just about put it in your pocket. The other cameras, not so much.
 
ethan said:
There is nothing up with a Fuji XE3 and either of the XF35mm combinations or pancake lens. Quite portable.
Click to expand...

This. I have the XE2S and 35 f2, takes great photos and isn't big. You can get some really good 2nd hand lenses. My 35 was like new for £298.

Rarely do I need anything other than the 35 for walk about and social event photography.
 
this question has come up now then and it is still a relevant position to ponder !
to mirror-less or not to mirror-less, that is the question !
I have both, an EOS 7D original which is large body for APSC sensor and a Sony NEX5R APSC mirror-less cameras. Though I love using my 7D to bits and enjoy the ease of use to quickly changing the modes or settings. The NEX5R is just great for taking out in pocket of jacket for almost any event or occasion, and the video is better quality than my 7D mov files. The 7D I now use for more dedicated shoots i.e motor sports, airshows, horse racing etc were the high fps, quick AF is required.
The fujifilm'sI love the retro look and would not say no if some gave me XT-1 or XT-20.
yes Sony a6*** line up are great and the a6500 is a very good camera and I am sure the Op would not be disappointed with it. As Sony have done a great job on designing the a6500 and now the FF A7iii a such a low price !

I have looked into purchasing A7iii and the biggest problem is the cost of native glass or even new sigma Art E mount glass, as it is very expensive, plus there is not much used E mount glass around at the moment.

My advice is buy a used Fujifilm or Sony A6500 ( IMO the A6500 is a cracking camera ) and go and enjoy it and have best of both worlds. I am sure in the next few years there might be more lower end sony E mount glass around as people upgrade to G Master or Zeiss glass
 
Thanks for the replies.
I think I probably will go for a mirrorless :D
I've been trying to not focus on the fujifilm, because I know the look is calling to me, but from the people here it sounds like it's not a bad shout
 
I was looking at the fuji range as well, I like the look of them and they are well known as great camera's as many will say.
You never know I might get one down the line one day to quench my curiosity .
 
I'd go Fuji over Sony mirrorless having owned a 6000 and now xt2. As others say, if you invest in glass on Fuji you can always upgrade the body later. On Sony, this works less so as you'll simply wish you went ff Sony instead of crop as both lenses and bodies are better at cost. The only reason I wouldn't go Fuji is if you want to shoot mostly sports, having said that, since a recent firmware update on the xt2 and I think other bodies they're by no means bad. Depending what style of photography you like, I'd also say that unless you're competent at editing, it's harder to get satisfying results from the Sony as they don't have the presets Fuji do. You can get some really nice results with minor editing on Fuji simulation modes from raw. With Sony, you really need to understand color more and be working with presets more in my view as things can otherwise look very generic and bland.
 
I’ll add another vote for m43 based cameras. Switched about 4 years ago and really happy with it.
There is plenty of choice to suit most budgets and loads of lenses, again covering most budgets.

Perhaps not ultimate quality due to the smaller sensors, but I don’t have any complaints for my usage.
Plenty of photos on my Flickr account if you want to check them out!
 
GiraffePencils said:
Thanks for the replies.
I think I probably will go for a mirrorless :D
I've been trying to not focus on the fujifilm, because I know the look is calling to me, but from the people here it sounds like it's not a bad shout
Click to expand...

Many of us on here swear by Fuji. The two I've got are like my shadow. If you do decide have a look on MPB for a bargain.
 
I love my RX100 IV, and take it pretty much everywhere I go. However, I just can't get anywhere near the same quality of motorsport photos that I get out of my D750, but I only use that twice a year these days. So I'm selling the D750 and all the lenses, and will just stick with the Sony until something better comes along. The A7iii doesn't quite do it for me, and the price of lenses is still way, way too high, to the point where it feels like Gillette pricing (cheap razor bought once, expensive blades bought more frequently).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom