[Brightcolours]

For me, the A7 series would just be frustrating (EVF, small which inhibits ergonomics, poor AF with my favorite lens (due to its bokeh rendering and MFD performance: EF 70-200mm f4 L USM), short battery life for instance). And size wise with adapter it would not make much sense.

 

The Nikon Df gives nice files too, like my 6D. But the ergonomics are a bit wayward. My old Nikkors would work on it too, but other lenses would not. And I would miss the responsive and accurate AF and the EOS Remote app. 

 

So, I'd most probably stick with the 6D. And an EOS 100D instead of my EOS M, for its OVF-ness and for focus trap.

[popo]

There is one other hope of course: Sony releasing a similar APS-C body with IBIS, add the metabones speed booster and away you go. But there's a lot of "ifs" there, particularly if IBIS will work correctly with a speed booster.

[thxbb12]

I've been using mirrorless for about 2 years now.

I don't regret DSLRs at all. Even if you gave me the best DSLR out there, the first thing I'd do would be to sell it to fund a mirrorless system.

The only advantage DSLRs have is AF tracking. That's about it. Everything else is prehistoric.

Mirrorless gives you accurate AF regardless of the lens and aperture every single time. Something DSLRs are struggling with.

Mirrorless is totally WYSIWIG (What You See Is What You Get).

For these two reasons alone, I'd never consider anything else.

 

I'm into Fuji at the moment, but I would probably be equally happy with MFT (especially since it looks like Oly is finally going to release very  fast glass). If I had to restart from scratch, which I did 8 months ago after being fully robbed, I'd still go with Fuji. They offer the best and more well thought lens lineup in the industry.

[Brightcolours]

I disagree with AF tracking being the only plus. Ergonomics, including an OVF which shows you the world instead of camera settings, a good grip among other things. Then there is the idea that DSLRs struggle with AF accuracy.... That may be true for some cameras like the D800/D600 (according to user reports) and my 350D way back when, but I have no complaints at all with my 6D.

 

Foto Magazin's AF test show different too, with the EOS 70D outperforming mirrorless in its PD AF accuracy.

[thxbb12]

I disagree with AF tracking being the only plus. Ergonomics, including an OVF which shows you the world instead of camera settings, a good grip among other things. Then there is the idea that DSLRs struggle with AF accuracy.... That may be true for some cameras like the D800/D600 (according to user reports) and my 350D way back when, but I have no complaints at all with my 6D.

 

Foto Magazin's AF test show different too, with the EOS 70D outperforming mirrorless in its PD AF accuracy.

 

Ergonomics are very subjective.

The two cameras with the best ergonomics I've ever used were the Pentax K5 and Olympus E-M1. The way the Pentax operated was amazing. I know some people tend to like large cameras, but I don't. It's very personal. Did you handle an E-M1 ? The grip is perfect IMO, better than any DSLR I've ever used.

 

As far as AF goes AF inaccuracy is inherent to the technology used in DSLRs, except if the AF sensor is on the imaging sensor. All the DSLRs I have used suffered from some inaccuracy (I didn't try a Canon 6D, but the technology does still suffer from the same limitations).

 

The fact mirrorless works on the final image is extremely more powerful and flexible. The whole mirror mechanism in a DSLR is a major limitation, you really can't argue with this simple fact.

 

Now, regarding OVF vs EVF. Again, it's personal. I consider it to be an advantage. You actually see what you're going to capture. I don't care if it's not exactly what my eyes see. What I want to know is what my camera sees, so I can adjust the exposure accordingly! Furthermore, anything can be added to the EVF as it's just a matter of implementing it in software. This is not the case with OVF which is why the info in it is extremely archaic and limited.

 

DSLRs have just way too many shortcomings. They are greatly limited by the legacy of the mirror. In other words, they are technology limited. This doesn't even include the cost issue related to manufacturing, alignment, tolerances, etc. of the whole mirror AF mechanism.

[popo]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0704217...on-sensors

 

This seems a good point to link to the above. It is an interview with the "Senior Manager Sales & Marketing at Fujifilm's Optical Device & Electronic Imaging products division". Unusual for many such interviews, he has no issue referencing competitors products and seems to like the 7D mk2!

 

For the mirrorless fanboys, you might like this quote:

 


If you had to guess, how many years will it be before the DSLR has no technical advantages over mirrorless?
Thinking about the current advantages of DSLRs there’s focusing speed, lens lineup, overall responsiveness… I’d say maybe two or three years time.

[Sylvain]

I'm definitely part of the mirrorless gang, for size.

 

I'd consider Olympus, Fuji or Sony.

 

Having had SLR & DSLR, I haven't looked back since they arrived. For my type of photography -a rather modest approach while I realised I wouldn't make money from it and stopped buying L lenses- I have definitely enjoyed a massive reduction of gear volume and increase of versatility. Therefore, it excludes de facto Canon, Nikon & Pentax.

 

I'm now MFT but right now, I feel the system benefits more from Olympus products than panasonic (this is entierly personal and subject to hot debates, surely). I just stopped believing in OIS since the E-M5 IBIS and generally don't like the bodies Panasonic has been releasing over the last years (either too big or weird). Oly lenses have been very sexy lately. 

 

That being said, I think that MFT has to readjust quickly to its ever aggressive competitors : Fuji & Sony. I believe, and that's my personal interest, they have to compete on DOF equivalence in the prime lenses territory.

Fuji & Sony are in the F/1.4-F/2.0 territory equiv (F1.4 for fuji equiv to F/2.0 FF), not counting third party lenses.

Pana are at best at f/2.4 (again, not counting Voigtlander, manual focus isn't exactly mainstream), Olympus is lagging behind at f/3.6.

 

That's the challenge to stay in that trio for me. Olympus does that, I'll stay, I love their bodies & millions of options in their cranky menus. I really do.

 

:-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello fellow Photozoners,

 

Many of us have of had a Nikon or Canon (D)slr camera, a few have (had) another brand camera. But the two largest companies are (still) Nikon and Canon when it comes to Dslr camera's.

 

But I thought, let us assume you would start afresh and don't have a camera or lenses anymore. Then what would you do? Would you buy a Dslr and the same brand again or would you go for another system or brand? Like would you consider Sony, Samsung NX1 or whatever other camera there is and why? I ask this, because the other brands and other camerasystems have gotten so good, that there is plenty to choose from instead of the obvious choices.

 

Hope to hear from you.

 

 

Kind regards,


Reinier

[felix]

For the mirrorless fanboys, you might like this quote

 

As a user of a Fuji mirrorless camera, I'd say he is completely right. The X-T1 is fast enough for most purposes, but prosumer and pro DSLRs are definitely more snappy. However, I just love the no-bullshit retro ergonomics of the X-T1, where every important setting has its own dedicated and clearly visible knob or dial.

My father owns a E-M1 and it's a nice camera, but it probably takes a year or so until you have truly mastered its controls. Maybe there is such a thing as too many FN buttons? 

 

If I had to start over, my choice would depend a lot on the available budget:

Given the same budget, I'd be torn between the X-T1, D610 & 6D (+2-3 lenses), but I would probably end up with the X-T1 again. 

With a bigger budget, I'd be seriously tempted by the 5Ds and D810 + something small like a RX100M3. And lastly, with less money available, I'd consider something like a E-M10 or X-E2. 

 

Imho, DSLRs definitely still have some advantages, but only in the higher end bodies. I think mid-level DSLRs like the D5500 or Rebel series with their small and dark viewfinders are quite unattractive nowadays...

[Guest]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0704217...on-sensors

 

This seems a good point to link to the above. It is an interview with the "Senior Manager Sales & Marketing at Fujifilm's Optical Device & Electronic Imaging products division". Unusual for many such interviews, he has no issue referencing competitors products and seems to like the 7D mk2!

 

For the mirrorless fanboys, you might like this quote:

Are any "fanboys" disputing this? This is pretty clearly Canon & Nikon's territory, no one doubts it. If you're using your camera with a 300/2.8 for paid sports work, you don't show up with a mirrorless camera, period. That doesn't negate at all the limitations of the non-mirrorless systems.

 

Also, by 'lens lineup' he means 'native lens lineup' which is totally different than the total number of lenses available for a system. I'm currently using Voigtlander M, Pentax (DA& K), M42, Nikon (F & G), Konica AR, and of course native Fuji X lenses on my mirrorless system.

 

A DSLR can't come close to allowing me the following setups:

Fuji X-E2; Voigtlander 15/4.5; Fuji 35/1.4; Fuji 60/2.4 macro

Fuji X-A1; Pentax 15/4 Limited; Pentax 40/2.8 Limited; Pentax 70/2.4 Limited

 

And as far as ergonomics go, I have a thumb grip on my Fujis and they are perfectly pleasant to use. All day. You can't disregard weight here either, because a grip can be comfy but if you're carry an extra 4 pounds it doesn't matter after an hour!

[Klaus]

As of today - Fuji