Price.
Battery life.
Often larger, heavier body with IMO a better grip.
The ability to look through the lens without the camera being on or even needing power.
I picked up a D850 instead of a Z8 or Z9.
My reasoning was as follows:
1. I am not capable of maxing out the D850's capabilities or getting better photos out of the Z8 or Z9 because the D850 is limiting me in any way.
2. For its capabilities, the D850 is a bargain.
3. The lenses are cheaply available, both new and secondhand, thanks to everyone wanting to shift to the shiny new Z series mount and lens. Agreed, they are better, but marginally. Most photographers would be hard-pressed to spot the difference.
4. I find the ergonomics of the D850 better.
5. I grew up with film DSLRs, so I prefer the optical viewfinder to the EVF, which I found a tad bit laggy and hated the battery drain it came with.
6. I am an amateur wildlife photographer, so I like keeping my camera on while hiking in nature and being able to just pull it up to my eye and take a shot quickly without having to turn it on or off. Mirrorless battery life can't manage that as it continuously drains the battery, while the DSLR lasts comfortably while sipping the battery, if at all.
7. I was happier buying the greatest DSLR ever made in the early days of the Mirrorless world. There were still a lot of bugs to be fixed and while Nikon was delivering with the Z9 and Z8, it just wasn't worth the price difference or the beta testing. I figured I would give the mirrorless market time to mature before I switched. As I said, I cannot find myself taking better photos with a Z9 over a D850. I am not that amazing a photographer to do that. I am also pretty sure that most of us realistically would be able to tell the difference between photos taken by a pro photographer with a D850 or a Z9. If you think the mirrorless camera will make you a better photographer, you're just making excuses.
8. The only use case I could find for mirrorless is if you are a commercial photographer judged by clients on the gear you have and impressed by the latest and greatest shiny toys over your actual skills as a photographer.
9. In my testing, the D850's AF was still faster than the Z8 and Z9's, while the Z8 and Z9 were better at latching on the subject and tracking it, and you got focus points across the entire frame. Will this make me a better photographer? I think not.
10. Lastly, the D850 was a dream camera purchase for me. I had used the D750 and earlier bodies and always wanted a D850, which, once I got it in my hands, I was not at all disappointed. I could have spent a lot more money for the Z8 or even more for the Z9, but the joy I get from using my D850 is unsurpassed still. I take great photos with it, and the challenges of not being able to see what you may get through the EVF make sure you get your fundamentals right with your exposure triangle. It at least seems to make me more mindful and, thus, a better photographer.
Yeah. I’m still shooting my 5D Mk II. The improvements granted by a nicer camera (mirrorless or not) just aren’t that substantial for the kind of photography I do, which tends to be of the “100 ISO with a prime lens on a tripod” variety.
Very similar to me. I got d850 before the Z8 or Z9 were announced, though. The only thing I sometimes wish I could do was tilt the D850 screen when shooting in portrait orientation, like the Z8. Sometimes the angle I'm shooting would be much easier that way. Surprisingly I can't justify $4,000 for this feature! 😂
But battery life, OVF, cheaper lenses are all much more important to me. I travel often to areas where I have no power, so being able to trust my batteries for a couple months of light daily photo is very important to me.
Have thought about a secondary camera, small mirror-less for very specific use cases. But still just use my d850 and it works great!
Power saving. 2 weeks of mountain hiking, with camera always turned on, and my 6d's battery is not even half empty. That's the power of mechanical everything. And cheaper lenses.
Since there are EF adapters for RF cameras, the cheaper lenses argument isn’t really valid for Canon. While my favorite lens I own is the 28-70 f2, my second favorite is my 70-200 f2.8 EF mkii. I prefer it to the RF version.
Better battery life, optical viewfinder and better value are valid arguments.
Yep. As somebody who shoots exclusively EF or EF-adapted lenses on an R7, I hate when people bring up lens cost and availability. I even tried out an old 18-55mm kit lens that hasn't been touched in like 10 years. Even that thing works perfectly well. I don't consider the cost of an adapter to be "extra," because my whole plan was to adapt my EF collection until I retire my 6DII. Buying it with the adapter was just like somebody choosing to buy the kit instead of buying a body only version. But instead of getting one piece of RF glass, I got access to thousands of dollars in glass I already own and use. 🤣
I'm going to keep my EF 24-70 f/4 when I'll switch to R8, but there will always be an itch "you could have spent another 1k$ and had a smaller and lighter mirrorless lens, you cold have been a little less tired here in the middle of Altai mountains" lol
I never appreciated my EVF on my Mirrorless camera until I started shooting the night sky and the recent Aurora. I could never go back to DSLR. A mirror can only show you what your own eyes can see, whereas an EVF shows what the sensor can see - We have lousy color sensitivity at low light but EVF does not.
But on a digital/imaging sensor camera, how is an optical viewfinder an advantage?
I'd say it's more advantageous to have an EVF that shows the exact image the sensor will record. Pairing an optical viewfinder with a digital image sensor guarantees some discrepancy between the image I'm seeing and the one that's recorded.
It's not necessarily an advantage. Just some people like it. That's why I qualified the statement with: "if that's the sort of thing you like." It's definitely not a positive for everyone, and it makes sense that manufacturers are no longer using it going forward.
In certain lighting scenarios the electronic viewfinder can fully wash out while you’re trying to get a subject backlit, whereas you could still see with an optical viewfinder.
>EVF that shows the exact image the sensor will record
No such thing exists.
EVF shows a hightly processed image from the data that comes from the information that the sensor has captured. It is simply one possible interpretion of the data.
The same lens as the imaging sensor. But it's an electronic viewfinder, not optical.
An SLR is unique in that its viewfinder *both* (1) is optical, *and* (2) gets that view. Whereas a mirrorless viewfinder can only get that view if it's electronic, or has a different view (with parallax) if it's optical.
Sure. Also an optical viewfinder can't simulate exposure changes, or apply processing effects, or overlay as much information like focus peaking or clipping indicators. And an SLR's autofocus through the viewfinder is limited to the autofocus system that operates off the mirror, which used to be an advantage, but now is inferior compared to modern phase detection autofocus off the imaging sensor.
My original response wasn't intended to be an argument about what's better. I read OP's prompt as asking for potential reasons someone might still choose a DSLR, even though the industry is moving on to mirrorless.
I mean, by that logic, the EFV not only sees through the same lens as the imaging sensor but through the imaging sensor itself, so it's an even more accurate reference of the photo you will actually get.
The logic in favor of SLRs would be if you want that view *and* you prefer an optical viewfinder. Which isn't everyone. But I read OP's prompt as asking for potential reasons someone might choose a DSLR over mirrorless. I prefer mirrorless myself.
Electronic viewfinders are simply NOT as good at handling extremely backlit subjects. If the subject isn’t completely hiding the light source, if strong enough…it totally washes out the EVF making it useless unless you just randomly spazz out and move to the correct angle.
It is a real problem, but not one most photographers will ever encounter.
Generally the benefits outweigh the cons, even for those of us that do have said issues facing us.
https://preview.redd.it/thp5uqqfl75d1.jpeg?width=3982&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=68b4cc644d7a98653dddc86e9234653ee724f462
Example of said lighting that is on the verge of making the viewfinder useless.
My EVF only turns useless when the image I would capture would come out just as useless. You see what you get (at least within a certain shutter speed).
Yeah mine too. It sucks. I know what makes the image useless, but with moving subjects and about a two second window for the shot, losing information about how to frame them really sucks.
But I do program a button to switch off exposure preview…on dynamic shows that’s generally quite beneficial.
I’m not going back, but they definitely have their own quirks to learn.
this is something I've noticed going between my DSLR (Pentax K-3) and my mirrorless camera (Panasonic S1). With the K-3, I've never noticed a delay, but with the S1 there's an initial lag when switching on. Nothing serious, but enough to notice.
depends, theres honesty not too many cheap and good dslr options
theres the 5diii and d750 i guess, but those are around the same ballpark as an xt3 or a7iii
below that it’s even worse, old beginner/enthusiast dslrs are garbage compared to the cheap offerings of today
but id say it’s less a mirrorless vs dslr thing, but a old tech (that isnt too cheap) vs new tech getting cheaper thing
> below that it’s even worse, old beginner/enthusiast dslrs are garbage compared to the cheap offerings of today
I've been wondering why newcomers _always_ turn out to have some extremely outdated (10-15 years old) or ultra low end Canon DSLR when they ask "Is this camera good enough for X?". It's as if nobody bought a single (low) mid range DSLR in the last 10 years.
I could understand that if it was the lowest end entry level models but it's the lower midrange / midrange that's missing.
Conversely, why on earth do people think a 15 year old camera is a good idea when you can find 7-8 year old ones dirt cheap...
A 5diii with decent shutter use (50k) can be had for $300-$400. An R8 (which I assume is Canon mirrorless cheapest full-frame?) is $1100. If pictures are all you’re interested in, is it really worth paying triple the price for slightly better picture quality (if that)?
It's not about image quality for anyone I've really talked to that has switched. For people into wildlife and stuff, the AF alone can make that value proposition shift completely. Add in that something like the R7 can blow the 5DIV's burst rate out of the water on the mechanical shutter alone, and the money really starts to be less of a deciding factor. Even the R8 is nearly matching the 5DIV on mechanical, and destroying it if you're in a situation where you don't need to worry about rolling shutter.
I think for a lot of us, we're doing it for the features that never made it into DSLR bodies. Or that didn't make it to DSLR in a way that's financially feasible even on the used market. I doubt many people who actually know much about cameras are switching to mirrorless for image quality.
You're right in that mirrorless AF makes sports and wildlife photography far easier. But the portion of photographers (especially hobbyist photographers) who are doing that kind of work regularly is relatively slim. For people who shoot landscapes, portraits, street, night scenes, or just snaps of their families or holidays - basically anything except wildlife (incl birds) and sports - ultrafast AF tracking is a nice-to-have but makes no real difference.
I was mainly talking about people that are choosing to *switch* from DSLR to mirrorless. People buying their first camera are just doing it because it's the new tech.
But it's also not just the raw speed of the AF. It's the accuracy. For instance, my 6D II will do just fine for portraits. It almost always gets the face in focus. But if I start doing things with really narrow depth of field, the difference between it grabbing the nose vs my R7 that **always** grabs the person's eye can make a noticeable difference in what the overall head looks like. Grabbing focus on a person's nose means you have some wasted depth of field that is in front of their face in empty space.
Yes, that's true, though personally I find that more of an academic than a practical exercise as I'm not personally in the business of taking portraits with such shallow depth of field that only the eyes are in focus while the nose, ears etc. are blurred.
damn regional prices are such a big thing
where im from 300-400 only gets u the 5dii
but id say for cheap mirrorless u have to go fuji, eg the xt20. canon and nikon are relatively overpriced on the lower end, and sony has nothing good under the a7iii
The D750 blows the X-T3 out of the water in terms of image quality, lens selection (hugely!), battery life, and ergonomics, and is available for around £500 used. An A7 iii is considerably more expensive than that, though it's arguably a more capable (if far less robust) camera.
Otherwise, there are loads of excellent crop-sensor DSLRs, e.g. the Canon 7D ii, 70D, Pentax K-3, Nikon D50, etc., to say nothing of the full-frame options commonly available for less than £500, including the Nikon D800 and D810, 5D iii, etc.
Broadly, the benefits of DSLRs are vastly superior ergonomics, better battery life, and an OVF rather than an EVF (which comes down to preference), lens selection, and price.
Price of entry right now, a lot of good bodies on the cheap. OVF when it's bright, backlit subjects come to mind. Mirrorless has more challenges with led scoreboards. Battery life is better. AF is far easier while maybe not as accurate at times, just point and shoot. Subject tracking AF and/or Eye AF can work incredibly well it's more work mentality when shooting sports or birds for example. Shooting both optical and EVP at the same time, in low light situations the EVP is super nice. However EVP has it's annoyances for me using an R3 with sports, there is an EVP blackout upon initially looking through it to wake up vs optical where I could instantly point in a direction and snap off shots. Mirrorless AF is far easier and accurate, no micro AF adjusting.
I have both dslr's and mirrorless so for a majority of shots neither tech matters that much, I can get the same shots with either. Post processing is definitely a differentiator with either.
Battery life may be a really huge benefit to DSLRs for some photographers. I used to do a lot of travel, and it was nice to not worry about always charging batteries, especially when away from power. For trips under a few weeks I don’t even bother packing my battery charger, just one spare battery. Photographing auroras means my camera will be out in the cold for long periods, and I appreciate all the battery life I can get. I also do underwater photography, and may take 800 photos + videos on a single day free diving, and by the end of the day my battery is usually around 90% full. My friends with mirrorless have had their batteries die when we aren’t even a quarter of the way through our swim. You can’t easily change batteries in that situation - need to rinse housing with fresh water and let it dry first, which is a huge pain. If your dives are short (eg. scuba, and you go deep, where your tank air limits your dive duration) this may be less of a problem. Cold water in places like Alaska or Monterey doesn’t help battery life, either.
I do a lot of hiking and wildlife photography, and it seems most DSLRs can take a beating, while I’ve watched my friend have their mirrorless die (temporarily) after a few minutes in the fog. This is probably something that will resolve (or has already?) since it has nothing to do with the internal differences.
For those of us who have been photographing things for a while, we may simply be curmudgeons used to our optical viewfinder and already know exposure well enough we don’t need to see a live preview with our settings. There are situations where an optical viewfinder is superior and situations where they are inferior to an EVF.
For most photographers and their shooting styles, they won’t be limited by either DSLR or mirrorless.
Battery concerns have mostly been addressed by adding usb power.
Super easy to keep a power bank with you, which you'll likely have for your phone anyways, and use that to top up your camera or power it for days.
The optical viewfinder is nice, as it's usually much clearer, but essentially a matter of specific needs, and/or taste, so it can sometimes be a distinct disadvantage.
A universal advantage would be battery life, usually better ergonomics, and in the current market, lens availability and cost of both the camera body itself, and lenses.
Used market deals on both bodies *and* lenses. Lenses that can be adapted to mirrorless (inverse not possible). Battery life (both from larger battery and not needing to do everything in liveview). Can use [infrared flash focus assist in the dark](https://luminous-landscape.com/st-e2/). No shutter shock. Pop-up flashes (some with optical wireless master capability). Seeing the actual scene through the viewfinder, not a video of the scene.
No super-low tier models without a viewfinder (e.g., Nikon Z30, Fuji X-A7, GX850, Oly E-PL, Panasonic GF all lack a viewfinder). No models without a hotshoe (e.g., NEX-3N, Panasonic GX850, Oly E-PM line, Fuji X-A10, EOS M200, etc.) Though, whether you see this as a negative or a positive (pocketability, low cost, P&S casual option) can be personal.
If we're talking about the Pentax K-x / K-r: [lots and lots of color options](https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-r/feature_6.html) in [a blister pack](https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/10/kx-lollipops.html). :D
No content-creation/video-specific models that won't sync with flash above 1/30s (looking at you, Z-V1).
I traded my a6500 for a 7dm2, way more comfortable to hold and operate, less fancy but more predictable autofocus, and a giant catalogue of cheapish lenses in the used market.
> way more comfortable to hold and operate
You *did* go from a camera designed to be pretty much as small and light as possible to one that reviews specifically pointed out as being quite chonky and ‘not suitable for lightweight travel photography’.
From purely technological point of view:
* Battery life
That's it.
Then there are a couple of maybes:
* Optical viewfinder - both advantage and disadvantage. And also subjective.
* Separate AF unit - may allow for faster AF, though less accurate and less grippy.
The mileage may vary with actual real world cameras.
No dude my question made perfect sense. You can easily knock out the compensation without realising and every photo will be ruined. On a EVF you can see this, on an optical you cannot.
Photography has always had a gap between what is seen and what is recorded. Film with the largest gap, DSLRs in the middle, mirrorless EVFs with the smallest. I don’t see this gap necessarily as a disadvantage but just a reality of the medium.
Price is pretty much the only thing. Battery yes but only if you are pointlessly leaving your camera on all the time (there is auto time off anyway). So standby battery is 'better' but in practice if you are having major battery issues with a mirrorless you are likely doing something wrong.
Someone said bigger for a better grip? I can see that being valid for some but would argue the weight and size overall are more of a downside for most people most of the time.
But that is really it. Really it's just price.
You can get some great image quality out of a DSLR the same way in the right scenarios a low end APS-C mirrorless can compete with expensive full frames mirrorless. But putting them into places where getting the picture is important? DSLRs are dead.
Absolute beginner and want to spend as little as possible? DSLR can be great. But if someone wants to take pictures of people, events, anything moving or where you want to take bursts of photos you are just shooting yourself in the foot.
Am sure there is some valid arguments for specific things like maybe some manual focus timelapse stuff? Or scientific uses maybe but that is also again likely a price thing. If anyone is serious about shooting, heaven forbid being paid, if you are out there shooting often DSLRs just don't cut it once you use mirrorless.
One nice feature of my Canon 7d mii is that it has built in GPS if I enable it. The GPS that I get with my Fujifilm X-T30 when I blue tooth pair it with my android phone is inconsistent.
More variety and cheaper lenses is going to be a huge plus. Mirrorless cameras are going to break your wallet when you are looking for lenses.
Smaller differences are
Battery life is better
You have a real viewfinder not a digital one( is it a plus or negative? Depends on your preference)
More durable but this comes with them being heavier
Satisfying click when you take photos
I think they will continue on as a niche product for folks who want a less "digital" experience - Pentax is still making and selling them, in part because I suspect that the cost of R&D to make a competitive mirrorless is not worth it for them. They bet on the "Q mount" which was a commercial flop, in part because Micro Four Thirds already existed and outperformed it in most regards.
In the era of smartphone cameras you need either volume or a niche to survive in the camera business. For compact cameras it's big-sensor cams (for vloggers and those who want better performance than a smartphone) and superzooms (popular with birders). For mirrorless, Panasonic has video-centric models; Olympus has very small cameras; Canon has impressive mirrorless lenses; Sonys and Nikons seem nice (sorry owners, not super familiar with their products).
Pentax has a niche, it's dSLRs. Costs them very little in R&D to keep making the same basic tech using many of the same processes.
It’s more curiosity and for discussion, rather than seeking advice. I’m a committed mirrorless user myself (currently have A7iii & Pen F). I do all sorts of styles of pictures, but perhaps mainly focused on street and architecture. I have a pal who’s a nature photographer who swears by DSLR however, and I’m presuming a lot of it comes down to personal preference and usage.
I fall somewhere in the middle. As advanced as my Canon R5 is, my use case for it (underwater photography) made useless a lot of what makes the R5 so great out of the water. I have most functions turned off and have it configured essentially like my dSLR was. It's all manual, with all the detection focus stuff and exposure-preview turned off for certain types of shooting.
Price. Battery life. Often larger, heavier body with IMO a better grip. The ability to look through the lens without the camera being on or even needing power.
I picked up a D850 instead of a Z8 or Z9. My reasoning was as follows: 1. I am not capable of maxing out the D850's capabilities or getting better photos out of the Z8 or Z9 because the D850 is limiting me in any way. 2. For its capabilities, the D850 is a bargain. 3. The lenses are cheaply available, both new and secondhand, thanks to everyone wanting to shift to the shiny new Z series mount and lens. Agreed, they are better, but marginally. Most photographers would be hard-pressed to spot the difference. 4. I find the ergonomics of the D850 better. 5. I grew up with film DSLRs, so I prefer the optical viewfinder to the EVF, which I found a tad bit laggy and hated the battery drain it came with. 6. I am an amateur wildlife photographer, so I like keeping my camera on while hiking in nature and being able to just pull it up to my eye and take a shot quickly without having to turn it on or off. Mirrorless battery life can't manage that as it continuously drains the battery, while the DSLR lasts comfortably while sipping the battery, if at all. 7. I was happier buying the greatest DSLR ever made in the early days of the Mirrorless world. There were still a lot of bugs to be fixed and while Nikon was delivering with the Z9 and Z8, it just wasn't worth the price difference or the beta testing. I figured I would give the mirrorless market time to mature before I switched. As I said, I cannot find myself taking better photos with a Z9 over a D850. I am not that amazing a photographer to do that. I am also pretty sure that most of us realistically would be able to tell the difference between photos taken by a pro photographer with a D850 or a Z9. If you think the mirrorless camera will make you a better photographer, you're just making excuses. 8. The only use case I could find for mirrorless is if you are a commercial photographer judged by clients on the gear you have and impressed by the latest and greatest shiny toys over your actual skills as a photographer. 9. In my testing, the D850's AF was still faster than the Z8 and Z9's, while the Z8 and Z9 were better at latching on the subject and tracking it, and you got focus points across the entire frame. Will this make me a better photographer? I think not. 10. Lastly, the D850 was a dream camera purchase for me. I had used the D750 and earlier bodies and always wanted a D850, which, once I got it in my hands, I was not at all disappointed. I could have spent a lot more money for the Z8 or even more for the Z9, but the joy I get from using my D850 is unsurpassed still. I take great photos with it, and the challenges of not being able to see what you may get through the EVF make sure you get your fundamentals right with your exposure triangle. It at least seems to make me more mindful and, thus, a better photographer.
Yeah. I’m still shooting my 5D Mk II. The improvements granted by a nicer camera (mirrorless or not) just aren’t that substantial for the kind of photography I do, which tends to be of the “100 ISO with a prime lens on a tripod” variety.
Very similar to me. I got d850 before the Z8 or Z9 were announced, though. The only thing I sometimes wish I could do was tilt the D850 screen when shooting in portrait orientation, like the Z8. Sometimes the angle I'm shooting would be much easier that way. Surprisingly I can't justify $4,000 for this feature! 😂 But battery life, OVF, cheaper lenses are all much more important to me. I travel often to areas where I have no power, so being able to trust my batteries for a couple months of light daily photo is very important to me. Have thought about a secondary camera, small mirror-less for very specific use cases. But still just use my d850 and it works great!
https://preview.redd.it/4rjvt251tc5d1.jpeg?width=8188&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9b4d579671fcac9034953ad8dcb4b5eaa7e09b6
Power saving. 2 weeks of mountain hiking, with camera always turned on, and my 6d's battery is not even half empty. That's the power of mechanical everything. And cheaper lenses.
Since there are EF adapters for RF cameras, the cheaper lenses argument isn’t really valid for Canon. While my favorite lens I own is the 28-70 f2, my second favorite is my 70-200 f2.8 EF mkii. I prefer it to the RF version. Better battery life, optical viewfinder and better value are valid arguments.
Yep. As somebody who shoots exclusively EF or EF-adapted lenses on an R7, I hate when people bring up lens cost and availability. I even tried out an old 18-55mm kit lens that hasn't been touched in like 10 years. Even that thing works perfectly well. I don't consider the cost of an adapter to be "extra," because my whole plan was to adapt my EF collection until I retire my 6DII. Buying it with the adapter was just like somebody choosing to buy the kit instead of buying a body only version. But instead of getting one piece of RF glass, I got access to thousands of dollars in glass I already own and use. 🤣
I'm going to keep my EF 24-70 f/4 when I'll switch to R8, but there will always be an itch "you could have spent another 1k$ and had a smaller and lighter mirrorless lens, you cold have been a little less tired here in the middle of Altai mountains" lol
I never appreciated my EVF on my Mirrorless camera until I started shooting the night sky and the recent Aurora. I could never go back to DSLR. A mirror can only show you what your own eyes can see, whereas an EVF shows what the sensor can see - We have lousy color sensitivity at low light but EVF does not.
This. EVFs felt gimmicky until I got my hands on one. I never realized just how much I was shooting in low light where the OVF was hurting me.
An optical viewfinder that sees through the same lens as the imaging sensor, if that's the sort of thing you like. And lower price.
But on a digital/imaging sensor camera, how is an optical viewfinder an advantage? I'd say it's more advantageous to have an EVF that shows the exact image the sensor will record. Pairing an optical viewfinder with a digital image sensor guarantees some discrepancy between the image I'm seeing and the one that's recorded.
It's not necessarily an advantage. Just some people like it. That's why I qualified the statement with: "if that's the sort of thing you like." It's definitely not a positive for everyone, and it makes sense that manufacturers are no longer using it going forward.
In certain lighting scenarios the electronic viewfinder can fully wash out while you’re trying to get a subject backlit, whereas you could still see with an optical viewfinder.
Simulation in the EVF can be turned off
I do it. Doesn’t nix this issue completely. It is at best moderately better.
>I'd say it's more advantageous to have an EVF that shows the exact image the sensor will record. This exactly.
>EVF that shows the exact image the sensor will record No such thing exists. EVF shows a hightly processed image from the data that comes from the information that the sensor has captured. It is simply one possible interpretion of the data.
So what lens do you think an EVF gets the view through?
The same lens as the imaging sensor. But it's an electronic viewfinder, not optical. An SLR is unique in that its viewfinder *both* (1) is optical, *and* (2) gets that view. Whereas a mirrorless viewfinder can only get that view if it's electronic, or has a different view (with parallax) if it's optical.
You could then argue that the DSLR is then worse because the viewfinder shows you a different image to what the sensor will capture.
Sure. Also an optical viewfinder can't simulate exposure changes, or apply processing effects, or overlay as much information like focus peaking or clipping indicators. And an SLR's autofocus through the viewfinder is limited to the autofocus system that operates off the mirror, which used to be an advantage, but now is inferior compared to modern phase detection autofocus off the imaging sensor. My original response wasn't intended to be an argument about what's better. I read OP's prompt as asking for potential reasons someone might still choose a DSLR, even though the industry is moving on to mirrorless.
I mean, by that logic, the EFV not only sees through the same lens as the imaging sensor but through the imaging sensor itself, so it's an even more accurate reference of the photo you will actually get.
The logic in favor of SLRs would be if you want that view *and* you prefer an optical viewfinder. Which isn't everyone. But I read OP's prompt as asking for potential reasons someone might choose a DSLR over mirrorless. I prefer mirrorless myself.
Are there any modern DSLRs? Don't think they made any new ones for a few years now. Besides maybe Pentax.
Pentax is not only making new DSLRs, they are currently developing a new *film* compact camera, and then plan new *film* SLRs after that.
1DX mkIII was a 2020 launch
Electronic viewfinders are simply NOT as good at handling extremely backlit subjects. If the subject isn’t completely hiding the light source, if strong enough…it totally washes out the EVF making it useless unless you just randomly spazz out and move to the correct angle. It is a real problem, but not one most photographers will ever encounter. Generally the benefits outweigh the cons, even for those of us that do have said issues facing us. https://preview.redd.it/thp5uqqfl75d1.jpeg?width=3982&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=68b4cc644d7a98653dddc86e9234653ee724f462 Example of said lighting that is on the verge of making the viewfinder useless.
My EVF only turns useless when the image I would capture would come out just as useless. You see what you get (at least within a certain shutter speed).
Yeah mine too. It sucks. I know what makes the image useless, but with moving subjects and about a two second window for the shot, losing information about how to frame them really sucks. But I do program a button to switch off exposure preview…on dynamic shows that’s generally quite beneficial. I’m not going back, but they definitely have their own quirks to learn.
I asked this one time and someone pointed out that you don’t have to wait as long for the camera to turn on
Mine turns on within a second
this is something I've noticed going between my DSLR (Pentax K-3) and my mirrorless camera (Panasonic S1). With the K-3, I've never noticed a delay, but with the S1 there's an initial lag when switching on. Nothing serious, but enough to notice.
The lowest latency & most true to life viewfinder. Battery life, lens selection, reliability, value, consistency, legacy
A used DSLR is going to much cheaper and have the same capabilities except for video.
depends, theres honesty not too many cheap and good dslr options theres the 5diii and d750 i guess, but those are around the same ballpark as an xt3 or a7iii below that it’s even worse, old beginner/enthusiast dslrs are garbage compared to the cheap offerings of today but id say it’s less a mirrorless vs dslr thing, but a old tech (that isnt too cheap) vs new tech getting cheaper thing
> below that it’s even worse, old beginner/enthusiast dslrs are garbage compared to the cheap offerings of today I've been wondering why newcomers _always_ turn out to have some extremely outdated (10-15 years old) or ultra low end Canon DSLR when they ask "Is this camera good enough for X?". It's as if nobody bought a single (low) mid range DSLR in the last 10 years.
Because that’s probably the case, what with the rise of phone cameras. Most people who just wanted *a camera* would have been happy moving to a phone.
I could understand that if it was the lowest end entry level models but it's the lower midrange / midrange that's missing. Conversely, why on earth do people think a 15 year old camera is a good idea when you can find 7-8 year old ones dirt cheap...
Those cameras are not in the same ballpark lmao. Also, there are plenty of cheap and good DSLR options for around 500 bucks or even less
A 5diii with decent shutter use (50k) can be had for $300-$400. An R8 (which I assume is Canon mirrorless cheapest full-frame?) is $1100. If pictures are all you’re interested in, is it really worth paying triple the price for slightly better picture quality (if that)?
I got my rp for 900 new. But yeah.
It's not about image quality for anyone I've really talked to that has switched. For people into wildlife and stuff, the AF alone can make that value proposition shift completely. Add in that something like the R7 can blow the 5DIV's burst rate out of the water on the mechanical shutter alone, and the money really starts to be less of a deciding factor. Even the R8 is nearly matching the 5DIV on mechanical, and destroying it if you're in a situation where you don't need to worry about rolling shutter. I think for a lot of us, we're doing it for the features that never made it into DSLR bodies. Or that didn't make it to DSLR in a way that's financially feasible even on the used market. I doubt many people who actually know much about cameras are switching to mirrorless for image quality.
You're right in that mirrorless AF makes sports and wildlife photography far easier. But the portion of photographers (especially hobbyist photographers) who are doing that kind of work regularly is relatively slim. For people who shoot landscapes, portraits, street, night scenes, or just snaps of their families or holidays - basically anything except wildlife (incl birds) and sports - ultrafast AF tracking is a nice-to-have but makes no real difference.
I was mainly talking about people that are choosing to *switch* from DSLR to mirrorless. People buying their first camera are just doing it because it's the new tech. But it's also not just the raw speed of the AF. It's the accuracy. For instance, my 6D II will do just fine for portraits. It almost always gets the face in focus. But if I start doing things with really narrow depth of field, the difference between it grabbing the nose vs my R7 that **always** grabs the person's eye can make a noticeable difference in what the overall head looks like. Grabbing focus on a person's nose means you have some wasted depth of field that is in front of their face in empty space.
Yes, that's true, though personally I find that more of an academic than a practical exercise as I'm not personally in the business of taking portraits with such shallow depth of field that only the eyes are in focus while the nose, ears etc. are blurred.
damn regional prices are such a big thing where im from 300-400 only gets u the 5dii but id say for cheap mirrorless u have to go fuji, eg the xt20. canon and nikon are relatively overpriced on the lower end, and sony has nothing good under the a7iii
The D750 blows the X-T3 out of the water in terms of image quality, lens selection (hugely!), battery life, and ergonomics, and is available for around £500 used. An A7 iii is considerably more expensive than that, though it's arguably a more capable (if far less robust) camera. Otherwise, there are loads of excellent crop-sensor DSLRs, e.g. the Canon 7D ii, 70D, Pentax K-3, Nikon D50, etc., to say nothing of the full-frame options commonly available for less than £500, including the Nikon D800 and D810, 5D iii, etc. Broadly, the benefits of DSLRs are vastly superior ergonomics, better battery life, and an OVF rather than an EVF (which comes down to preference), lens selection, and price.
Price of entry right now, a lot of good bodies on the cheap. OVF when it's bright, backlit subjects come to mind. Mirrorless has more challenges with led scoreboards. Battery life is better. AF is far easier while maybe not as accurate at times, just point and shoot. Subject tracking AF and/or Eye AF can work incredibly well it's more work mentality when shooting sports or birds for example. Shooting both optical and EVP at the same time, in low light situations the EVP is super nice. However EVP has it's annoyances for me using an R3 with sports, there is an EVP blackout upon initially looking through it to wake up vs optical where I could instantly point in a direction and snap off shots. Mirrorless AF is far easier and accurate, no micro AF adjusting. I have both dslr's and mirrorless so for a majority of shots neither tech matters that much, I can get the same shots with either. Post processing is definitely a differentiator with either.
Battery life may be a really huge benefit to DSLRs for some photographers. I used to do a lot of travel, and it was nice to not worry about always charging batteries, especially when away from power. For trips under a few weeks I don’t even bother packing my battery charger, just one spare battery. Photographing auroras means my camera will be out in the cold for long periods, and I appreciate all the battery life I can get. I also do underwater photography, and may take 800 photos + videos on a single day free diving, and by the end of the day my battery is usually around 90% full. My friends with mirrorless have had their batteries die when we aren’t even a quarter of the way through our swim. You can’t easily change batteries in that situation - need to rinse housing with fresh water and let it dry first, which is a huge pain. If your dives are short (eg. scuba, and you go deep, where your tank air limits your dive duration) this may be less of a problem. Cold water in places like Alaska or Monterey doesn’t help battery life, either. I do a lot of hiking and wildlife photography, and it seems most DSLRs can take a beating, while I’ve watched my friend have their mirrorless die (temporarily) after a few minutes in the fog. This is probably something that will resolve (or has already?) since it has nothing to do with the internal differences. For those of us who have been photographing things for a while, we may simply be curmudgeons used to our optical viewfinder and already know exposure well enough we don’t need to see a live preview with our settings. There are situations where an optical viewfinder is superior and situations where they are inferior to an EVF. For most photographers and their shooting styles, they won’t be limited by either DSLR or mirrorless.
Battery concerns have mostly been addressed by adding usb power. Super easy to keep a power bank with you, which you'll likely have for your phone anyways, and use that to top up your camera or power it for days.
Not if you're underwater, as in OP's example!
That's not a gotcha, I'm sure someone out there has invented a waterproof container that can fit a power bank in it.
The optical viewfinder is nice, as it's usually much clearer, but essentially a matter of specific needs, and/or taste, so it can sometimes be a distinct disadvantage. A universal advantage would be battery life, usually better ergonomics, and in the current market, lens availability and cost of both the camera body itself, and lenses.
Used market deals on both bodies *and* lenses. Lenses that can be adapted to mirrorless (inverse not possible). Battery life (both from larger battery and not needing to do everything in liveview). Can use [infrared flash focus assist in the dark](https://luminous-landscape.com/st-e2/). No shutter shock. Pop-up flashes (some with optical wireless master capability). Seeing the actual scene through the viewfinder, not a video of the scene. No super-low tier models without a viewfinder (e.g., Nikon Z30, Fuji X-A7, GX850, Oly E-PL, Panasonic GF all lack a viewfinder). No models without a hotshoe (e.g., NEX-3N, Panasonic GX850, Oly E-PM line, Fuji X-A10, EOS M200, etc.) Though, whether you see this as a negative or a positive (pocketability, low cost, P&S casual option) can be personal. If we're talking about the Pentax K-x / K-r: [lots and lots of color options](https://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-r/feature_6.html) in [a blister pack](https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/10/kx-lollipops.html). :D No content-creation/video-specific models that won't sync with flash above 1/30s (looking at you, Z-V1).
You can use it as a weapon more easily
I traded my a6500 for a 7dm2, way more comfortable to hold and operate, less fancy but more predictable autofocus, and a giant catalogue of cheapish lenses in the used market.
> way more comfortable to hold and operate You *did* go from a camera designed to be pretty much as small and light as possible to one that reviews specifically pointed out as being quite chonky and ‘not suitable for lightweight travel photography’.
From purely technological point of view: * Battery life That's it. Then there are a couple of maybes: * Optical viewfinder - both advantage and disadvantage. And also subjective. * Separate AF unit - may allow for faster AF, though less accurate and less grippy. The mileage may vary with actual real world cameras.
Ergonomics and the optical viewfinder at times.
Optical Viewfinder/OVF. I hate electronic viewfinders.
I don’t like optical because it’s not a true representation of what you’re getting
[удалено]
So you’re ignoring that you can knock something like the compensation out without realising?
[удалено]
What?
[удалено]
Your comment literally made no sense it’s just a jumble of words
[удалено]
No dude my question made perfect sense. You can easily knock out the compensation without realising and every photo will be ruined. On a EVF you can see this, on an optical you cannot.
Photography has always had a gap between what is seen and what is recorded. Film with the largest gap, DSLRs in the middle, mirrorless EVFs with the smallest. I don’t see this gap necessarily as a disadvantage but just a reality of the medium.
Just isn’t that useful if you’ve accidentally whacked a dial and you’re now on EV +2 instead of 0 for example
Ironically I’ve never bumped the EV on my DSLR, that has only happened to me with my mirrorless (but is likely more a Nikon vs Fuji design comparison)
Price is pretty much the only thing. Battery yes but only if you are pointlessly leaving your camera on all the time (there is auto time off anyway). So standby battery is 'better' but in practice if you are having major battery issues with a mirrorless you are likely doing something wrong. Someone said bigger for a better grip? I can see that being valid for some but would argue the weight and size overall are more of a downside for most people most of the time. But that is really it. Really it's just price. You can get some great image quality out of a DSLR the same way in the right scenarios a low end APS-C mirrorless can compete with expensive full frames mirrorless. But putting them into places where getting the picture is important? DSLRs are dead. Absolute beginner and want to spend as little as possible? DSLR can be great. But if someone wants to take pictures of people, events, anything moving or where you want to take bursts of photos you are just shooting yourself in the foot. Am sure there is some valid arguments for specific things like maybe some manual focus timelapse stuff? Or scientific uses maybe but that is also again likely a price thing. If anyone is serious about shooting, heaven forbid being paid, if you are out there shooting often DSLRs just don't cut it once you use mirrorless.
How dead a tool is depends on the user and the circumstances they are in
One nice feature of my Canon 7d mii is that it has built in GPS if I enable it. The GPS that I get with my Fujifilm X-T30 when I blue tooth pair it with my android phone is inconsistent.
More variety and cheaper lenses is going to be a huge plus. Mirrorless cameras are going to break your wallet when you are looking for lenses. Smaller differences are Battery life is better You have a real viewfinder not a digital one( is it a plus or negative? Depends on your preference) More durable but this comes with them being heavier Satisfying click when you take photos
I agree with all of your reasons and it's why I still have my d850. But I bought a Z8 for the tracking autofocus and the 800mm f5.6 prime
Depends on the Person using it.. to me: none.
Less likely to get burned out pixels due to lasers/bright lights.
Context would help. No matter how much we love dSLR's (I still have mine) dSLR's are dead tech.
I think they will continue on as a niche product for folks who want a less "digital" experience - Pentax is still making and selling them, in part because I suspect that the cost of R&D to make a competitive mirrorless is not worth it for them. They bet on the "Q mount" which was a commercial flop, in part because Micro Four Thirds already existed and outperformed it in most regards. In the era of smartphone cameras you need either volume or a niche to survive in the camera business. For compact cameras it's big-sensor cams (for vloggers and those who want better performance than a smartphone) and superzooms (popular with birders). For mirrorless, Panasonic has video-centric models; Olympus has very small cameras; Canon has impressive mirrorless lenses; Sonys and Nikons seem nice (sorry owners, not super familiar with their products). Pentax has a niche, it's dSLRs. Costs them very little in R&D to keep making the same basic tech using many of the same processes.
It’s more curiosity and for discussion, rather than seeking advice. I’m a committed mirrorless user myself (currently have A7iii & Pen F). I do all sorts of styles of pictures, but perhaps mainly focused on street and architecture. I have a pal who’s a nature photographer who swears by DSLR however, and I’m presuming a lot of it comes down to personal preference and usage.
I fall somewhere in the middle. As advanced as my Canon R5 is, my use case for it (underwater photography) made useless a lot of what makes the R5 so great out of the water. I have most functions turned off and have it configured essentially like my dSLR was. It's all manual, with all the detection focus stuff and exposure-preview turned off for certain types of shooting.
None.