OT: Photography: Moving from DSLR to Mirrorless

[jcs7282]

Hey PL,

Going OT here, but figured there's probably some photo geeks among us bike nerds. For anyone that fits into that category...

Have you made the jump from DSLR to Mirrorless? If so, please share your experiences, positive or negative. I am mostly concerned with "real world" implications (in terms of results, ease of use, et cetera) and much less interested in technical nuances or "pixel counting" or 'pixel peeping" so to speak.

Background on my question: I have an older DSLR (circa 2014ish Nikon D810) that I invested in when my two kids were just tiny peanuts. It's served me well for chasing them around and also occassional travel and nature photography. But, it's had some issues of late and I am considering converting to a mirrorless setup.

If any of you have made the jump to mirrorless, please let me know why and your thoughts on it retrospectively...good or bad, or both. Thanks in advance for sharing.

(phone) pic for clicks!

[jeffkoller91]

I can’t comment too much on going from DSLR to mirrorless specifically but I used to shoot only film and finally bit the bullet a few years ago and bought my first digital camera. I decided to go mirrorless primarily for the compactness. I specifically went with a Fujifilm xt20 because it has all the tactile features of a traditional film camera which I really liked and made my transition to digital much easier. Fuji is a bit of an expensive line to buy into but I’ve been super happy with it thus far. There are some really appealing “pancake” lenses for the xt20 too that make it small enough that I could easily take it biking but just haven’t made that investment yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trener1]

I did that switch.
Went from a Sony DSLR to a Sony mirrorless (I think the 6100).
I think I made the switch about 2 years ago, so far I have been really happy.

[ftf]

I went from a D800, to a Sony A7RIV, it's a "upgrade" it's it's not as substantial as some make it out to be. If you have a lot of glass, I would stick with a Nikon DSLR.

[reuben]

Over the decades I've shot with film SLRs, digital SLRs (still do), and now mirrorless. Canon and Nikon. For most applications mirrorless is fine. Plus, if you're carrying it any distance the camera, and probably the lenses, weigh less.

Sony was pretty much the top mirrorless dog for a while, but others have caught up. I'm very happy with my Nikon mirrorless, but I'm not giving up my Nikon DSLRs (and tens of thousands of $$$ worth of lenses). I could "upgrade" from the Z6, but there's no need to at this point, and I still have my DLSRs.

Don't chase the number of pixels. Pixel quality is much more important, as are other things like knowledge and lenses. I routinely make 36x45 prints from a 16 megapixel DSLR (Nikon D4) and they invariably get rave reviews. Of course, it helps to know how to operate the camera and process the images, but those are separate subjects.

[jcs7282]

Thanks all.

To add in to my earlier post.

Primarily I use a 50mm/1.4 95% of the time. I also have a mid-range zoom and a wide angle prime that see very, very occasional use...so, I am kind of invested in Nikon glass, but probably not as much as other more serious/pro users...

[reuben]

Originally Posted by ftf

If you have a lot of glass, I would stick with a Nikon DSLR.

There's an adapter, and I have one, but have never used it. Have you used the adapter, and if so, how would you compare the images to "native" mirrorless lenses?

[trener1]

I should add that I don't shoot as much as I used to as I am busier now with kids etc...
Also I had a decent lens collection with the DSLR, so far I only bought 2 lenses for the new camera.
so that is something to consider, not just the of the camera but the glass.

[.RJ]

I switched from Canon DSLR's to Fuji Mirrorless ~10 years ago. No ragrets. At that time Canon had more or less stopped new development of SLR's - yes, I know there were new models, but no substantive changes to the camera line or sensors.

Fuji and Sony were first in, but Nikon and Canon have taken their time and they are coming in hot. I would have a really hard time choosing between the different brands right now, they are all very good.

What I like about the Fuji is the glass is very, very good and the tactical feel of the camera bodies with controls on dials makes it easy to use. I get asked a few times a year if they are vintage/film cameras. What I dont like is the AF systems are generally.... not great. I would not commit to shooting sports or fast moving wildlife with them.

What I like about mirrorless in general is - the cameras and lenses are much smaller/lighter, the new sensors are amazing, the high ISO performance is really good and still getting better (usable images at 3200-6400 ISO, more for Sony), the speeds are amazing. I dont think there's really a downside to mirrorless, other than the spend. Canon and Nikon I think are making their old SLR lenses compatible with the new bodies if you have existing glass, but the new Canon RF lenses look amazing.

At this point, IMO, if you have any sort of DSLR its time to move on and get mirrorless.

I just do this as a hobby for fun, but I do make a practice of it and have taken a bunch of classes. Fuji photos --> https://www.instagram.com/photo.dromo/

[ftf]

Originally Posted by reuben

There's an adapter, and I have one, but have never used it. Have you used the adapter, and if so, how would you compare the images to "native" mirrorless lenses?

I have adapted some lenses, Sigma lenses for Canon EF mount, using the Sigma adapter and it's good, almost as good as native. The images are exactly the same, the difference is AF speed and accuracy. With the Sigma Lenses you can adjust them for accuracy but they are slightly slower still.


I've never used Nikon lenses on the Sony camera.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by reuben

There's an adapter, and I have one, but have never used it. Have you used the adapter, and if so, how would you compare the images to "native" mirrorless lenses?

I havent heard of any IQ issues with the adapters, either canon or nikon. I think its a smart thing they did to get existing users to upgrade their bodies without investing in a whole system after they just rendered the SLR stuff obsolete.

One of the other neat things about mirrorless is that you can adapt all sorts of old film lenses to them - I have a bunch of Konica Hexanon lenses I'm using on my Fujis. Each adapter is $10-20.

[retropean]

My path was:
Leica M4 -> Canon DSLR -> Sony A7

I liked the A7’s weight but ultimately I sold it for my iPhone which I’ve been more than happy with. Best camera is the one you have with you! But yeah I couldn’t go back to a DSLR, on weight alone. The major selling point for the Sony for me was that wide array of adapters available so I was able to use my Leica and Minolta lenses.

[mhespenheide]

I switched from a 5Dm1 to a Sony A850, then to the Sony A7R and now the A7R2.

You could easily get another Nikon D800 or D810, used, for relatively cheap $$. If you wanted to.

Mirrorless can be lighter, depending on the lenses you use with it. Top level mirrorless lenses are pretty similar in weight to SLR lenses.

Personally, the biggest two changes I found were (1) being able to zoom in to focus on any point in the frame and (2) drastically higher battery usage. The rest isn't going to be all that different -- and the D810 has a live view function that lets you do option (1), anyway. If you have lenses that you like with your D810, I'd probably stay in-system and pick up another D810. I shot with the D810 for a few months and there's not too much of a difference in image quality at low ISO's up to 400 or 800.

On the other hand, if you actively want to change, a modern full-frame mirrorless camera will give a little better results and almost certainly noticeably better image quality in low light at high ISO's. Or you could go for a complete switch and drop down to a crop-frame system from Fuji or Sony and get basically the same image quality as your D810 with a lighter overall system.

[reuben]

Originally Posted by .RJ

What I like about the Fuji is the glass is very, very good and the tactical feel of the camera bodies with controls on dials makes it easy to use.

Taking a broader view, if you're happy with the camera you have, regardless of brand, buying a mirrorless camera from the same manufacturer will be a much easier transition - the feel, the location of the controls, the menus, etc.

Originally Posted by .RJ

What I dont like is the AF systems are generally.... not great. I would not commit to shooting sports or fast moving wildlife with them.

I've shot a bit of wrestling and basketball with mirrorless, but not much. The AF is a tad slower, but nothing that would stop me from using mirrorless (Nikon Z6).

Originally Posted by .RJ

What I like about mirrorless in general is - the cameras and lenses are much smaller/lighter, the new sensors are amazing, the high ISO performance is really good and still getting better (usable images at 3200-6400 ISO, more for Sony), the speeds are amazing.

Smaller and lighter have big appeals to me, both in everyday life and on backpacking trips. Pretty much all sensors are amazing these days, coupled with the various algorithms and how you can fine tune them - notably high ISO noise reduction both in camera and in postprocessing.

Truth be told, I don't take my full frame/pro DSLR unless I think I really need it. A lot depends on what you shoot. Photojournalism or outdoor sports at night (high ISO fast shutter speed)? Family portraits (low ISO slow shutter speed)? Casual gatherings of family and friends? Wildlife? Landscape?

I'm suggesting that you go all N+M on cameras like Paceline tends to do with bikes, just suggesting that you might want to look at cameras from the manufacturer you currently use (if you're happy with it), and consider the types of photography you'll be doing. Video may be part of that.

[veloduffer]

I made the jump several years ago and currently have a Nikon Z6 II (for general photography) and Nikon Z7 (for landscapes). The things I found most beneficial:

- smaller form (especially full frame) making it easy to carry, especially hiking for landscape photography
- in camera stabilization, you can take sharp photos well below 1/30 of second and is better than Nikon's in-lense stabilization from DSLR
- new native Z lenses are much sharper than their DSLR equivalents, even the f2.8 lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200
- more wireless capabilities and phone apps for remote controls
- can use the FTZ adapter to use older Nikon/Nikkor lenses, even manual

As a Nikon user, you'll appreciate that the menu system is essentially the same as your DSLR. The various photography sites compare Sony to Canon to Fuji to Nikon but it's mostly for pixel peeping and fairly minor differences about autofocus speed (more important for sports and wildlife). Learning a new menu system is a PITA.

Nikon is continuing to expand its Z lens lineup and even has very good lenses at lower price points (new 40mm f2 and 28mm f2.8 that list at $299) that make great carry around and street photography lenses - almost like pancake lenses.

I changed over from the Nikon D810 and Zf camera. Loved the Zf for its smaller form factor (travel, etc) and low light capabilities; my fav carry around kit was the Zf with a old AF-D 35mm f2, especially travel. The Z6 II replaced the Zf.

As for the new camera, the Zfc is a DX sensor and with its retro look competes with Fuji. The Z5 is a very good camera if you are on a budget and if you want the ultimate, the new Z9 is fantastic but overkill unless you are into sports and wildlife.

Hope that helps.