Has anyone switched from DSLRs to Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens?

Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Messages
2,386
Location
US
For those of you who may be into photography, it's hard to ignore that Nikon and Canon have basically said that mirrorless is the way of the future. I follow Nikon a lot more closely than I do Canon, and they have officially/publicly announced that they will no longer be developing new DSLR bodies or lenses. Most of their last models remain in production, but the D6, D850, D780, etc are the end of the line. I believe Canon has also stopped new development.

For the most part, I'm still comfortable with my DSLRs. I mostly use a D850, but also have a D5(which I love unless I have to carry it), a Df because there's nothing quite like it, and a D800 and D810 that both still more or less serve as my back-ups to the D850(the D800 was my main camera for a while, followed by the D810, and then the D850 came along last summer).

Nikon F mount equipment is pretty seriously down in price, and I've taken that as a chance instead to beef things up. That's how I ended up with a D5 along with a 300mm f/2.8(a lens I had always wanted but honestly am now second guessing as I've barely used it). Last year I also replaced my 24-70mm f2.8G with the f/2.8E VR version.

Realizing that DSLRs were really only getting bigger and heavier, though, I started looking at a mirrorless system to supplement my DSLRs. There was a good argument to be made for something like a Z7, but equivalent glass didn't really get me the kind of size and weight reduction I was looking for. I looked at the APS-C Z mount offerings and in particular the ZFc, but was unimpressed by the fact that they're definitely lower end bodies(I'm not sure if Nikon will ever do a fresh take on the D500, but I doubt it) and their APS-C lenses are lacking a bit also.

That led me to Fujifilm, where you have an entire system basically built around the APS-C sensor and all the advantages that come with that. Next thing I know, I'm now sitting here with an X-T5, 16-80mm f/4, 23mm f/2, and 56mm f/1.2(plus a Fringer adapter for my Nikon glass). What can I say-I love the thing. Fuji has its quirks, but it's so small and light I really don't notice it the way I do the D850+even a small prime lens.

Still, though, I'm not totally sold on the EVF. It still looks washed out in bright sun(yes I've played with the settings all over the place) and I have to rely on the histogram to tell me if I'm clipping the sky since the EVF always seems to make it look that way. It gets really noisy and also finicky about switching from the screen to the viewfinder in low light. I realize the X-T5 isn't a speed/action camera, and the AF performance is good but I'd put it roughly at about Nikon D3 or D800 level. It gets distracted relatively easily in tracking and can't always keep up, especially with the 56mm lens wide open.

I understand that the latest and greatest high end offerings improve the EVF experience all around. A lot of people say that the Z9 makes them forget they're not using an optical viewfinder.

Still, though, for me I still really comfortable when I pick up one of my DSLRs after using the Fuji. I didn't fully appreciate, though, that I have come to use the rear LCD live view a lot more than I thought I would, and it can be a bit annoying when I first pick the DSLR back up to not have the live view as soon as I take my eye from the viewfinder.

So, anyone else made or considering making at least some progress into the world of mirrorless?
 
I enjoy photography as an amateur. Unfortunately, due to health reasons I couldn’t lug around my a900 anymore. It was a mint condition, and I regret selling it. If I ran into some unscheduled money, I think I would buy another Leica. 🤷‍♂️
IMG_0582.webp
 
I enjoy photography as an amateur. Unfortunately, due to health reasons I couldn’t lug around my a900 anymore. It was a mint condition, and I regret selling it. If I ran into some unscheduled money, I think I would buy another Leica. 🤷‍♂️
View attachment 165167
I know little about the A900 but it certainly looks like an impressive camera.

If the weight is a concern, in all seriousness look at some current mirrorless offerings from Sony or any of the others. Nikon and Canon both have really strong full frame(24x36) mirrorless line-ups. Canon, Nikon, and Sony in addition to Fuji all have APS-C offerings, which can save you a lot of weight(and honestly money).

If size and weight is really a concern, though, there are some really incredible micro 4/3 offerings from Olympus, Panasonic, and I think a few others. As it's a defacto standard you have a lot of freedom to mix and match camera and lens makers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y_K
It was only a few years ago I finally embraced FF DSLRs and with my Canon 5Dii and Nikon D600 I found myself really enjoying the full use of the drawerful of classic glass I'd been slowly collecting / hoarding for years.
At the end of 2023 I jumped into mirrorless with the purchase of an OMD EM-1 and finally found what they'd all be raving about for years.
They'll take my FF cams from my cold, dead hands, though. I still enjoy them too much.
 
No mirrorless yet for me. I use mostly older Nikon cameras and have many different F mount lenses for 'em. The lesser weight of mirrorless cameras does not entice me, nor does the very high cost of an FTZ adaptor make enough sense.
 
I just bought a Canon R6 mirrorless camera. I bought the adapter as I have 3 EF lenses. Took a bunch of pix in Yosemite recently; all seem to come out fine. The EVF is hard to get used to.
 
I guess I've had my X-T5 for a little over a year now.

Funny enough, it's made me value something which my D850 never gave me, and that's little to no post-processing work.

DSLR wise, I've been using my D5, and to a lesser extend my D4 and even my more recently acquired D3X a whole lot more because they deliver that in a way I've never been able to get the D8xx Nikons(I have all three of them, all doing a couple of years at a time as my main camera) to do.

Still, though, the X-T5 goes with me places I'd not haul a DSLR, so it's a win in that respect.

I actually don't find the X-T5 viewfinder that bad. Lag is minimal and resolution is decent. I think the X-T5 came out in November '22, so the design is a few years old at this point and it was good but not the best on the market by any stretch when released. I do sometimes on DSLRs find myself missing the convenience of having waist level or other off-angle viewing just by lowering the camera from my eye.

Even more fun lately has been the Leica M3...say what you will, but that camera is enjoyable to use in a way that's hard for me to describe.
 
Photography has lost its charm for me. With internet being the main consumption medium, almost anything can be made to look good. So wether you take your pics with a potato or something else is a lot less relevant for an amateur nowadays.

BTW, I still have this grandpa. I let my kids play with it from time to time.

IMG_3516.webp
 
Photography has lost its charm for me. With internet being the main consumption medium, almost anything can be made to look good. So wether you take your pics with a potato or something else is a lot less relevant for an amateur nowadays.

BTW, I still have this grandpa. I let my kids play with it from time to time.

I have a D70s around here somewhere. 2017ish when I was considering switching to Nikon and getting heavier into DSLRs, I bought one cheap to try. I did not use it much as it pretty quickly disappointed me with noise performance and in a few other areas. About two weeks later, I bought a D2X on Ebay, which was a camera I lusted after even when I was shooting with Canon film cameras in 2006. As much as I loved the results from the D2X in good light(and still do) it was way too noisy for my liking at anything over ISO ~400. Next up was a D300, which honestly was a downgrade as even though it did about a stop better on noise, it gave me worse colors than the D2X. Finally that revolving door stopped when I bit the bullet and bought a D800, which I still have, and shifted to building a good set of glass for it.

Cell phone cameras are phenomenal, and they have a lot of technology baked in to do that. With that said, when I'm somewhere and have my "real" camera out, most people do notice the difference compared to what they may have seen on their own cell shots. Among other things:

1. AF tracking is getting better and better. My D5 seems to read my mind. The D850 is nearly as good. The D4 and D800/D810 are really good also, they just lose performance in lower light and are more easily "distracted." Mirrorless adds a whole new dimension to this thanks to the machine learning/AI that gets baked into the firmware now. My X-T5 has had one major and a few minor firmware updates since I bought it that have improved this. All of this lets me have a perfectly in-focus shot and have moved on to the next one while someone else's iPhone is still fighting to focus.

2. I've started shooting a lot more bursts. High frame rates let you catch someone's fleeting expression or other things like that. Some people call this lazy, but it often amazes me in say a 5 or 10 shot burst how I'll often clearly have "the" photo that I might not have had on single frame. Storage is cheap now too. My D5 with decent XQD or CFExpress cards will just keep going at 12fps until it hits the set limit(200 max). My D850 is nearly as good, as is my D4, although both run at lower frame rates(10fps with the grip and 11fps respectively). The X-T5 manages a nutty 15fps with the mechanical shutter, but I have to use it sparingly as it pretty quickly fills the buffer and is slow to clear.

3. Even an APS-C sized sensor tends to have a lot more dynamic range than a small sensor in a phone or compact camera. HDR isn't a substitute for just capturing the information a single exposure.

4. When light isn't the greatest, my "real" cameras can easily be uses with flash, whether on-camera or, even better, off camera. I use a Metz 45-series flash a lot, which is a handle mount flash, and bounced appropriate it throws really great light. If I have to use direct flash, something like a Quantum Q-flash is in pretty much every conceivable way better than anything else I can think of, especially if you squeeze a compact softbox or something like that onto it. Yes, it looks comical, but it does the job. Off camera flash with proper studio gear(whether compact options like the Q-flash or Lumedynes, or a full blown pack and head system like my Normans) and appropriate modifiers gives far better control and light quality than anything I've ever used, and I don't think you'll be connecting those to your cell phone.

5. A real camera gives me far better control of DOF than anything else. "Fake" phone shallow DOF(and Lightroom now has a tool to add it in post processing...) looks, well, fake to me. Of course the lack of DOF especially on full frame digital can be annoying. Fortunately on most of the cameras I regularly use now, I can use 5 digit ISOs without too much worry so that I can stop down if needed.

All of the above make a real, tangible difference even web resolution. Yes, non-photographers notice it, even if they can't point out what it is.
 
Oh I’m well aware of the advantages of a dedicated camera system, even though I have been out of the game for a long, long time. It was the same story when I got that D70s back in 2005 or so, except the market was flooded with point and shoots at that time instead of smartphones.


The reason I brought up digital consumption is that, unless you view pictures on a large, high res screen, the difference between a smartphone shot and a pro camera may not be noticeable.

Also, when it comes to print, I noticed that even my relic Nikon with its whopping 6 megapixel sensor can still produce better pictures than a smartphone. The post processing that all smartphones need to do, doesn’t play well with printing.
 
Oh I’m well aware of the advantages of a dedicated camera system, even though I have been out of the game for a long, long time. It was the same story when I got that D70s back in 2005 or so, except the market was flooded with point and shoots at that time instead of smartphones.


The reason I brought up digital consumption is that, unless you view pictures on a large, high res screen, the difference between a smartphone shot and a pro camera may not be noticeable.

Also, when it comes to print, I noticed that even my relic Nikon with its whopping 6 megapixel sensor can still produce better pictures than a smartphone. The post processing that all smartphones need to do, doesn’t play well with printing.

Sorry, didn't mean to just word vomit.

Like I said, though, even on screen most people can NOTICE the difference, they just may not be able to point to what it is.

Your point about printing from phone cameras is very on-point, though. At least on my pictures from a proper camera, I tend to have a pretty light hand on the sharpening slider. My D810, D850, and X-T5 lack any kind of low pass filter on the sensor, and because of that there's rarely a reason to sharpen. Some of the other cameras I still use regularly-the D5, D4, D3x, Df, and D800-do have low pass filters and generally benefit from a small amount of sharpening in post but moderation is the key.

Almost every phone camera cranks the sharpness WAY up, which makes for good small screen viewing but tends to look very weird when printed.

I've sort of fallen into being the "unofficial official" photographer at my wife's family events. My mother in law will often end up with a big stack of 4x6s from Walgreens, often mostly of photos of I've taken but with some others thrown in. Thumbing through them, the cell phone photos really do stick out like a sore thumb for this exact reason.
 
Back
Top