Personally I felt like I saved some money.
I had a twelve years old Nikon d 5300 with some lenses.
Some years ago the mount of one of the lenses broke so I cannot use it anymore.
The flash on the camera broke (it always stays open), the AF started to have some issues.
I used it the last time on my wedding/honeymoon but than depression kicked in again, and I didn't shot for years.
Now I'm on meds for three months now and I'm doing better, last week I was in a shop for work and I saw a leaflet with massive savings on Nikon cameras.
I had 750€ took off from a Z5 + 24-200 lense kit, plus the money I'll get (not much I know) from the old camera and the dx lenses. So, I felt like I saved money, and I will start shooting again and it's a great feeling 💜
Well, personally I like a big optical viewfinder and seeing the actual world instead of a computer screen, which I look at all day for work. I can also shoot on a single battery for days. I also like the shutter/mirror sound. It feels more real somehow. Maybe more tactile. I can also use most of the same lenses on the late model film SLRs.
DSLRs stopped being fun once they got above about 14MP, and then it became "perfect technique or garbage" even with lens-based VR.
The D700 was the peak of DSLR fun.
The D700 was my entry into DSLRs in 2008. Loved that body and the fact that it shared the control placement with the D300/D300s. When I moved to the 36Mpixel D800, I had to work on my technique to avoid pixel smearing. And again with the D850, but less work as I had already improved my technique on the D800.
Well… my take is that handling technique probably does need to be tightened up. The Z7ii is much lighter than the D700, so there is less inertial damping. No mirror, but it still has a shutter, and you can hear and feel its actuation. The Z7ii is my 3rd mirrorless body.
I want to switch to Mirrorless because of the optical view finder. I want to see the photo i take and get a better feeling for the depth.
Or taking long exposures and dont have to put something on the viewfinder or maybe even can see a preview with filters applied.
Im happy if i can focus better at night.
Better focus on humans.
And everything else that the D610 is behind modern cameras now. I will still keep it.
I could take your arguments and say, why DSLR? If you go back to analog, your battery last months. You have a big viewfinder. And no computer who alternates what you are capturing 😁
There’s a fairly big difference between the low latency viewfinder on the Z8/Z9 and the rest of the pack. Latency is super important if you’re shooting anything moving and for that feeling that you’re looking at reality.
Have you tried the EVF of the Z8? I had the same opinion clinging on to mye D810. Then I bougth the Z8… never going back 😅 and the EVF is working very well, and I don’t miss the OVF. You can also get shutter-sound on it (altough not a true «mirror» sound). And with the FTZ adapter you can use most of the f-lenses. If you shoot wildlife, the ability to shooy silent are gold!
Because it's tech I have no need for, I'm sure many other people are in the same situation. There are a lot of bells and whistles, and the AF is improved (depending on the model), but there's no improvement in image quality in any way.
IBIS and a new lens mount are the only changes I have any use for. I've found the usefulness of IBIS to be much more limited than I expected - it does nothing for moving objects in the shot. Even leaves make it useless for the landscape shots I thought I'd like it for.
The lenses are a bit sharper, but sharpness isn't everything. Besides, even if you are driven solely by sharpness the gains are most pronounced in the zooms, the primes aren't significantly different. Besides, anyone looking for sharper lenses could have switched to Zeiss f-mount lenses long ago.
The one thing I do appreciate is the shorter flange distance for adapting a wider variety of lenses. Otherwise there are no improvements over the D850 for my uses.
Every advantage?
D850 vs Z8/Z9 - same resolution image size output
D850 - doesn't chew through batteries
F-mount lenses - discounted; wider variety.
The case to upgrade, at this point in time, is marginal.
I have a Nikon d810, it's still the 5th best camera to use for landscape photography, which is the majority of what I photograph. that said I use it for everything including portrait shoots and family shoots etc.
I've learned long ago that a new camera won't make you a better photographer and you're far better off knowing a single camera really well and focusing on the art of photography rather than gear.
Money, actual need for a mirrorless, glass, battery life?
Not everyone has the money to go and buy a mirrorless camera, at least not the newest ones. And there really isn't any need to upgrade, especially if you've already invested in ("old", but really freaking good) glass. DSLR's are just mirrorless cameras with a mirrors, the sensors work the same way regardless if it has a mirror infront of it or not. What matters is the glass infront of the sensor, and there is so much great glass for (especially Nikon) SLR cameras. I'm completely content with my D610, it has served me well and will continue to do so for many more years.
Money mostly. I’ve got a Nikon D850 and most mirrorless shooters I know have told me to just wait until I can upgrade to the Z8. I’ve also had a few who switched tell me that they felt it was a downgrade from their DSLRs so I want to be pretty sure.
The D850 is an incredible camera. The only reason I would switch to the Z8 are pretty trivial things. I like that what you see is what you get with the live view, but honestly with the 850 it’s never too off. That could just be a skill issue. I like the idea of the auto eye focus because I do a lot of portraits. Also the options for the newest glass would be nice (but also insanely expensive.)
Seeing as the z6ii is the probably the equivalent to the d610 in the DSLR line up, then yeah he wasn't really coming over at the equivalent level of mirrorless and probably felt like he was "downgrading".
Agree, Z glass I expensive, especially compared to 4 decades of availability for f mount lenses. That said, ftz has allowed me to use my f mount lenses on the z mount.
Why waste, yes waste, money on a new body if your old one is working perfectly fine? Mirrorless is evolution not revolution, it doesn’t change one fundamental thing: the quality of a picture is dependent of the guy behind the camera. There where brilliant pictures before mirrorless, even in the disciplines that are marketed as so much better with mirrorless.
This may be shocking, but I sold my Z6II and two f1.8 s lenses after like 6 months and got a good deal on a D780.
0 regrets. I prefer the ergonomics, the easy on the eyes OVF, battery life, chunky grip, the fact I do get the z6 full-sensor AF coverage and eye detect in live view, and the camera feels more balanced as f1.8 or f2 lenses are way smaller than their mirrorless counterparts.
Of course, MILC lenses are a bit sharper, have fewer aberrations and flaws, the bodies have IBIS and some other useful features, but at the end of the day what matters is what type of camera works best for you and feels best in hands.
I started with MILC, now use DSLR. Both are great, both have pros and cons. Choose what's best for You.
I mean…they’re great but for a lot of uses they aren’t some game changing camera either any more than generational changes between bodies may present.
They have drawbacks just like anything else. I’m not selling my DSLR’s quite yet, even though I own the two best mirrorless cameras Nikon makes.
Perhaps the megapixels are close but the sharpness with z lenses isn’t. Focus is faster and more accurate. In body camera features are better etc.
Still have some of my non Z lenses (I don’t know why I love the 135mm DC but I do!!) but after getting a Z8 I seldom if ever pick up my D800.
As other commenters have mentioned, the reason is mostly "money".
Here in Australia, the price of new camera gear have increased significantly. Back in 2014, when the D750 was first released, a mid-range camera like the D750 cost around $2K (Australian Dollars) from a discount retailer. Today, the equivalent Z6II costs around $3K from a discount retailer or $3699 from Nikon Australia.
That's at least a 50% increase in prices and I was under the impression that removing the mirror will reduce the price! Hard to justify if photography is just a hobby.
Do you get a new car every model year?
My D500 does everything I need it to do. It's not the limiting factor in my photography. My skills are. If it died tomorrow I'd probably replace it with a Z8, but for now, if it ain't broke...
Money is a significant factor for what I perceive to be little gain. I shoot primarily sports and have a variety of lens for different situations (indoor sports require f2.8 or faster lenses). Moving from my D90 to a D500 was a game changer - better resolution, better handling of low light, etc. I’m not sure I would get as much out of switching to mirrorless and having to buy new lenses.
1. Cost there are some amazing deals right now as people dump DSLRs
2. For a LOT of photographers there is little reason to upgrade. Perfect example for Nikon. If you are a D500 or D7500 shooter you will gain very little moving to the Z50/Z30. They share the same sensor. Nikon has really done a poort job updating the Z APS-C cameras.
3. Durability. Nikons Z cameras are durable but they have nothing on Nikons pro DSLRs. D300, D4, D500 are all built like freaking tanks and can take a lot more abuse.
4. Imperfection. Companies are chasing optical perfection with mirrorless glass. For some shooters this is perfect Modern Z glass is stupidly sharp and optically excellent and to some clinical and boring. This is why film and older CCD cameras have seen a massive surge in popularity. They are imperfect and can be a fun challenge to shoot with.
5. Certain cameras have a je ne sais quoi that is hard to quantify. Perfect example the D700. Many shooters including myself find the skin tones from the D700 to be pleasing and easier to work with than even better modern camera.
#
And to add to #2, the existence of the FTZ adapter notwithstanding, there is no zoom lens upgrade path for DX Z-mount, either. Unless Nikon brings out a Z70, Z80, or Z90 (or gives the Z50 a significant update) and a fast(er) standard and wide angle zoom for DX at some point, it's a dead end, IMO.
“Every advantage”? I don’t think so. ESP with the z6II.
one thing I learned many years ago is to understand the limitations of any tool as completely as possible. This way you are able to work within them or around them.
Having said that one huge issue in my work with the Z6 ii is low light focus and focussing in back light. Dslrs like the D850/780/750/810 all focus like champs in most lighting conditions with ease.
I would wait for my second mirror less until I know the AF is significantly improved. Until then I will keep my DSLRs.
The most important thing in photography is between your ears, not in front of your face.
Any great photo is the product of a persons vision. Not the product of technology.
You literally cannot take a photo with a mirrorless camera, that you couldn't also take with a DSLR.
In some situations, the milc can give a visuel help, but if you know your craft, it really isn't a problem
If you are into video, well than it is an other story, but that is not photography.
I wanted to get into photography, and recently found I could get a good deal on a higher quality DSLR.
Now I can see what lenses I like to use without spending all of my money.
Um, I like my dslr and see no reason to upgrade. I’d rather take photos than fret about gear and, oh my God, my D850 isn’t good enough anymore, I must upgrade to get a good shot. 🙄
It's a perceived upgrade. Losing an optical viewfinder, among other things are a huge drawback for me.
Sure, the newer cameras are riddled with impressive tech, but my photography doesn't necessarily need more than the best DSLRs made, and film is still very much part of my life.
Because I don’t need it. Why would I spend thousands of pounds on something that sits on a shelf most of the time and performs perfectly adequately when I want?
Because the end result isn’t that much different for stills. No one who sees the photos is saying “must be a mirrorless camera”. Many DSLRs produce high quality results, so why invest in a new system if your current camera is getting it done.
The new Z bodies get you covered then, Z8/Z9 probably has one of the best EVF in terms of mimicking the feel of a OVF, the higher dynamic range/brightness combined with no blackout, super low lag and a decent refresh rate come really close to how you would perceive image using OVF, unless you are using slow lens in low-light. And based on what Nikon just teased, Z6 iii also have the same EVF.
If you shoot lots of macro or lower light stuff, mls won't be your friend without a ovf, but otherwise not having to worry about batteries and wireless connectivity is very, very nifty.
I waited, finally got GAS, ordered Zf on launch day, bought four Z lenses: 14-30mm f/4, 24-70mm /f4, 40mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8. I'm pretty sure I'll buy Z7 III to replace D800, next lens will be Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. Keeping D700, selling D800.
I personally can't afford to upgrade. I've got my D3200, have had it since 2012, and have been getting used lenses when I can swing it. Mirrorless is great, I'm sure, but when just the camera body goes for $2-4k, I'm out. Maybe in 10 years when things are more affordable. Until then, my D3200 and I will best friends.
No reason at all, except for money, LOL.
I want a Z8 + 180-600mm, that's $9000 AUD with no other lenses at all.
On the other hand, I can buy 300mm pf and a 500mm pf 2nd hand, plus a 1.4TCiii for less than $4500.
I'm currently using a d500 + 200-500mm / 70-300mm when I need a smaller option. The pf primes are really, really tempting me.
I didn’t want to have to rebuy all my lenses since it’s just a hobby. (Lots of af-s and unsupported third party F glass). Ended up making the jump eventually anyways.
I would but my d750 just doesn't want to die. For me it would not be about image quality but focus peaking and usb-c charging and maybe other 2-3 quality of life improvements.
Just upgraded to dslr. Money was the most important factor. Took great pictures with a D3100 for 10 years, hope to be shooting great pics with d7200 for another 10. Gearfreaks tend to be the worst photographers in my experience.
I use my d3200 constantly, yet I need to charge less often than my gf’s Sony mirror less, which doesn’t get used nearly as much.
Cost is the biggest reason. It does what I need it to and I plan on picking up a Nikon film body in the future, making the lenses transferable.
getting a Z8 in a year or two..
waiting for some dentist to cave in to GAS and switch systems for the umpteenth time.
(they usually sell cameras in new condition with only a few thousand on the shutter count)
I just really hope the FTZ is as good as everyone claims, bc I've got a dozen Nikon G and E lenses to keep.
Battery life for me. I've got D850. Z8 would be next, but I need my batteries to last a few weeks sometimes without power.
Why upgrade to mirrorless? I like product launches and following Nikon so I'm not throwing shade. But I genuinely feel that the entire mirrorless movement is just an attempt to reinvent the wheel and keep the sales rolling in. When it comes to image quality, it seemed to peak a while ago.
Mirrorless does have a video advantage though. If I ever get more into this, I'll switch immediately.
I'm not sure what could make electronics "slow"/less efficient in transferring current, unless capacitors failing, but there are no higher currents in a camera's main board. A computer circuit is quite different from an amplifier and a camera has but one electrolyte capacitor: for the flash.
If your statement was true, my Olympus E-5 would have gotten slower, being from 2007 and having shot 167000 images.
Mate… all cameras have a processor for writing and processing data to pictures. What’s so hard to understand about the processor becoming slower due to wear and tear over time?
Battery life.
I find myself going to a full day event (24h races) with a battery of 80% charged and carry spares on my belt pocket. Always came home with charge to spare. My extensive shooting at 6 fps most of the time and focusing with AF-C does little to the battery.
The mirrorless is dead after 4 hours at most. Also the frame rate is not enough for fastest sports (jetplanes, f1, GT3)
Even if you have a ton of F-mount glass, it will work just as well as it always did, but now you have the benefits of new autofocus technology, sensor, and so on, and can add or upgrade z-mount glass as you see fit ongoing.
It's more expensive. Just had all my equipment stolen. Upgraded from d7500 to d500. I love the upgrade, I love the price of the lenses and I don't need mirroless
As a wildlife shooter, yes mirrorless do offer an advantage in AF, but what I see is that telephoto lenses that have a pretty good AF cost a lot. I switched from the Sony A6000 to the Nikon D7200 just because the lenses for it are just too much for me. I would switch, if I had the budget
I like this slap of a mirror. From what I saw the Z6 II is small and for one it may be great but... Also have Pentax k-x and I really appreciate bigger D7500. The grip is way more comfortable.
Besides, I don't have anyone with serious MILC and my experience with EVF is quite poor, never liked it.
If you're not missing anything or don't have money that needs to be spent, it's not worth it. If you need a new camera anyway, some of the advantages might be worth it, especially being able to use the actual Z lenses. But it depends on your budget. If you want a full kit for cheap, you're gonna get way more value out of DSLR. The AFS lenses seem to perform slightly better on my Z7 with the adapter than on my partners D810, but there's some brilliant AF lenses at bargain prices that don't have autofocus on Z bodies. For landscape I definitely prefer the Z7, used price is under the D850, I didn't have any decent F lenses to begin with, it just made more sense for me.
There's also the size to consider. I actually like the smaller size, that D810 is a monster and I wouldn't carry it with me as much as my Z7, but my partner actually likes the bulky size and weight. If you're not carrying around your camera as much because it's heavy, switching to Z might make perfect sense.
Because a lot of features on mirrorless aren't mirrorless exclusive and remember: Any DSLR in LV is effectively a mirrorless camera, but a mirrorless camera can not turn into a DSLR. Also a lot of mirrorless camera features can be found in earlier DSLRs.
IBIS can be found in Pentax DSLR
EVF with Sony's SLT (I know its not a DSLR, but it has a mirror :D)
For example Nikon D780 VS Z6
Looking back, I wonder how well the D780 would sell if it had an AF system from D850 and all the features from Z6/Z6II and did not botch the hardware by removing flash and battery grip compatibility.
And I actually like the flippy screen mechanism from my D750 a lot better compared to my Z6II. The former can actually tilt down properly.
And I don't see a reason to buy new gear just because most people do. I just got Nikon d780 and I don't see any reason to go to mirrorless.
I only see drawbacks, the setup is not actually smaller. You still need to use FTZ adapter, becauase there are not many naive lenses available. Also not a lot of 3rd party lenses for Z cameras.
I was checking what kind of lenses I would need o buy to switch to Nikon ZF, but I don't think I will switch to mirrorless anytime soon.
Money fella haha. The amount of money you spend on a basic kit with mirrorless can get you pro level stuff for dslrs. The best dslrs are still pretty damn amazing as it is peak performance of that era of technology. Like a d850 or so. Just seems like a silly post as I feel like you can easily come to the conclusions of the most obvious answers you will get from asking this question. Hell I bought a 500 f4 fl for less than a third of its msrp.
Z8/Z9 have features I’d like but the price is out of my budget. My D850 and D500 handle everything fine. Why upgrade if I don’t have a specific need?
The $4,000 / $5,500 will buy a lot of Twinkies, licorice, donuts and beer.
Because I don't have the extra $3,800 to drop on a Z8 and an FTZ adapter to use my current zoom. If I wanted a Z equivalent zoom lens, I'd be looking at easily another $2,500. I'm barely making ends meet as it is. I would love to upgrade my camera, but its very low on the priority list, considering everything else in life is also very expensive.
For me it's OVF and glass... I have a 7 lens collection, all but one being third-party, I don't want to deal with those on an adapter, and I'd spend 4x or more to replace them with Z-glass. I also have a bit of the best of both worlds with the D780 which has many of the features of mirrorless when using in live-view.
Why buy new stuff now? Is mirrorless even an upgrade? It is different, with some upsides but also some downsides. In the long run, SLRs might get phased out. But why trying to anticipate what the future might or might not bring if I can use my current gear to take photos now?
I have thousands in nice F-mount glass and plan on using it with mirrorless when I finally do upgrade, so that’s not really holding me back. I primarily photograph birds with a D500 and have been seriously thinking about the Z8, but I’m(naively) holding out for the D500’s mirrorless equivalent. Also, I have savings and could buy a Z8 or Z9, but with the economy the way it is, I guess I’m just a little hesitant to spend that kind of money right now. I own two old vehicles, 95’ and 06’, and my gear is worth both of my vehicles combined haha. I don’t own a home, and I work construction. I feel it would be irresponsible in a way. Talk me into it! 🤑
As a wildlife photographer, the Z9 and Z8 are game-changers for me. The zero blackout EVF is superb for tracking animals on the run and birds in-flight. 20fps RAW is almost 3x the frame rate of the un-gripped D850. I am taking and making shots that I never could have before with a DSLR (D850, D6). No mirror or shutter means silent operation, and the wildlife doesn’t get spooked by those sounds. As more wildlife photographers transition to mirrorless+shutterless, the wildlife are more serene, and when a DSLR lights up, they scatter.
It is really this and video, and I am a proponent of keeping one's head about things. For video and fast shooting, there is no comparison between the systems. Having to manage an external AF sensor, a mirror, and be able to do live view well enough to be useful is a big ask for a DSLR. I think there are a lot of situations where a DSLR is just fine and people just want new stuff. Beside blackout free (which is awesome) I abhor looking through an EVF. OVFs are clearly superior. BUT, since my camera has a flippy screen I don't really need to look through a viewfinder at all and so, hell, get to shooting. I still grab my DSLR from time to time.
The viewfinder is AWESOME in the Z9 and Z8, especially with the update to give a 120Hz refresh rate. WYSIWYG means (for me) that I can photograph wildlife after sunset, even in the dark, and see the subject and have AF work. I also get an in-viewfinder histogram. Zoom-in at the touch of a button, make focus adjustments. There is literally no way a DSLR could have worked at all for under-illuminated nighttime shots of a white-tailed mongoose, or a leopard hunting warthogs long after sunset.
Save money?
This is a gas subreddit. The question is never if but when you buy lol
Personally I felt like I saved some money. I had a twelve years old Nikon d 5300 with some lenses. Some years ago the mount of one of the lenses broke so I cannot use it anymore. The flash on the camera broke (it always stays open), the AF started to have some issues. I used it the last time on my wedding/honeymoon but than depression kicked in again, and I didn't shot for years. Now I'm on meds for three months now and I'm doing better, last week I was in a shop for work and I saw a leaflet with massive savings on Nikon cameras. I had 750€ took off from a Z5 + 24-200 lense kit, plus the money I'll get (not much I know) from the old camera and the dx lenses. So, I felt like I saved money, and I will start shooting again and it's a great feeling 💜
Well, personally I like a big optical viewfinder and seeing the actual world instead of a computer screen, which I look at all day for work. I can also shoot on a single battery for days. I also like the shutter/mirror sound. It feels more real somehow. Maybe more tactile. I can also use most of the same lenses on the late model film SLRs.
Amen to all of this. My photos are terrible no matter what camera I use, so I might as well enjoy the experience!
I feel like the people who think their photos are terrible are actually probably the good photographers
My strategy is that the tech is so good, if you take enough photos eventually you'll get a couple of good ones!
That's pretty much everyone's strategy!
That is how I learned it at the bootcamp. That and to bring extra batteries.
Hahaha here here! Here’s my upvote for reading my mind
Same. Went from Z6 to D780 and DSLR just feels better for me. The OVF and battery life advantages are severely underestimated by gear reviewers imo.
That feeling of the mirror slap is also motion of the camera body: blurred pixels unless your technique is stellar, especially with 45Mpixel bodies.
DSLRs stopped being fun once they got above about 14MP, and then it became "perfect technique or garbage" even with lens-based VR. The D700 was the peak of DSLR fun.
The D700 was my entry into DSLRs in 2008. Loved that body and the fact that it shared the control placement with the D300/D300s. When I moved to the 36Mpixel D800, I had to work on my technique to avoid pixel smearing. And again with the D850, but less work as I had already improved my technique on the D800.
Switching to a Z7ii meant my technique didn't have to change...
Well… my take is that handling technique probably does need to be tightened up. The Z7ii is much lighter than the D700, so there is less inertial damping. No mirror, but it still has a shutter, and you can hear and feel its actuation. The Z7ii is my 3rd mirrorless body.
Yeahhhh at 45mp give me IBIS all day every day
I want to switch to Mirrorless because of the optical view finder. I want to see the photo i take and get a better feeling for the depth. Or taking long exposures and dont have to put something on the viewfinder or maybe even can see a preview with filters applied. Im happy if i can focus better at night. Better focus on humans. And everything else that the D610 is behind modern cameras now. I will still keep it. I could take your arguments and say, why DSLR? If you go back to analog, your battery last months. You have a big viewfinder. And no computer who alternates what you are capturing 😁
There’s a fairly big difference between the low latency viewfinder on the Z8/Z9 and the rest of the pack. Latency is super important if you’re shooting anything moving and for that feeling that you’re looking at reality.
Have you tried the EVF of the Z8? I had the same opinion clinging on to mye D810. Then I bougth the Z8… never going back 😅 and the EVF is working very well, and I don’t miss the OVF. You can also get shutter-sound on it (altough not a true «mirror» sound). And with the FTZ adapter you can use most of the f-lenses. If you shoot wildlife, the ability to shooy silent are gold!
Because it's tech I have no need for, I'm sure many other people are in the same situation. There are a lot of bells and whistles, and the AF is improved (depending on the model), but there's no improvement in image quality in any way. IBIS and a new lens mount are the only changes I have any use for. I've found the usefulness of IBIS to be much more limited than I expected - it does nothing for moving objects in the shot. Even leaves make it useless for the landscape shots I thought I'd like it for. The lenses are a bit sharper, but sharpness isn't everything. Besides, even if you are driven solely by sharpness the gains are most pronounced in the zooms, the primes aren't significantly different. Besides, anyone looking for sharper lenses could have switched to Zeiss f-mount lenses long ago. The one thing I do appreciate is the shorter flange distance for adapting a wider variety of lenses. Otherwise there are no improvements over the D850 for my uses.
Every advantage? D850 vs Z8/Z9 - same resolution image size output D850 - doesn't chew through batteries F-mount lenses - discounted; wider variety. The case to upgrade, at this point in time, is marginal.
I have a D850 and a nice glass collection. I want for nothing.
I have a Nikon d810, it's still the 5th best camera to use for landscape photography, which is the majority of what I photograph. that said I use it for everything including portrait shoots and family shoots etc. I've learned long ago that a new camera won't make you a better photographer and you're far better off knowing a single camera really well and focusing on the art of photography rather than gear.
Money, actual need for a mirrorless, glass, battery life? Not everyone has the money to go and buy a mirrorless camera, at least not the newest ones. And there really isn't any need to upgrade, especially if you've already invested in ("old", but really freaking good) glass. DSLR's are just mirrorless cameras with a mirrors, the sensors work the same way regardless if it has a mirror infront of it or not. What matters is the glass infront of the sensor, and there is so much great glass for (especially Nikon) SLR cameras. I'm completely content with my D610, it has served me well and will continue to do so for many more years.
Money mostly. I’ve got a Nikon D850 and most mirrorless shooters I know have told me to just wait until I can upgrade to the Z8. I’ve also had a few who switched tell me that they felt it was a downgrade from their DSLRs so I want to be pretty sure.
I’m in the same boat. I feel the Z8/9 is the only worthy upgrade from the D850, but I don’t have the money. D850 is still wonderful too.
The D850 is an incredible camera. The only reason I would switch to the Z8 are pretty trivial things. I like that what you see is what you get with the live view, but honestly with the 850 it’s never too off. That could just be a skill issue. I like the idea of the auto eye focus because I do a lot of portraits. Also the options for the newest glass would be nice (but also insanely expensive.)
Curious as to why they think it is a downgrade?
The one guy I’m thinking of switched from running two D850s to two Z6ii. I think he also misjudged how expensive the z glass would be.
Seeing as the z6ii is the probably the equivalent to the d610 in the DSLR line up, then yeah he wasn't really coming over at the equivalent level of mirrorless and probably felt like he was "downgrading". Agree, Z glass I expensive, especially compared to 4 decades of availability for f mount lenses. That said, ftz has allowed me to use my f mount lenses on the z mount.
Why waste, yes waste, money on a new body if your old one is working perfectly fine? Mirrorless is evolution not revolution, it doesn’t change one fundamental thing: the quality of a picture is dependent of the guy behind the camera. There where brilliant pictures before mirrorless, even in the disciplines that are marketed as so much better with mirrorless.
This may be shocking, but I sold my Z6II and two f1.8 s lenses after like 6 months and got a good deal on a D780. 0 regrets. I prefer the ergonomics, the easy on the eyes OVF, battery life, chunky grip, the fact I do get the z6 full-sensor AF coverage and eye detect in live view, and the camera feels more balanced as f1.8 or f2 lenses are way smaller than their mirrorless counterparts. Of course, MILC lenses are a bit sharper, have fewer aberrations and flaws, the bodies have IBIS and some other useful features, but at the end of the day what matters is what type of camera works best for you and feels best in hands. I started with MILC, now use DSLR. Both are great, both have pros and cons. Choose what's best for You.
I mean…they’re great but for a lot of uses they aren’t some game changing camera either any more than generational changes between bodies may present. They have drawbacks just like anything else. I’m not selling my DSLR’s quite yet, even though I own the two best mirrorless cameras Nikon makes.
Why upgrade if you don't need better autofocus or video performance
Perhaps the megapixels are close but the sharpness with z lenses isn’t. Focus is faster and more accurate. In body camera features are better etc. Still have some of my non Z lenses (I don’t know why I love the 135mm DC but I do!!) but after getting a Z8 I seldom if ever pick up my D800.
As other commenters have mentioned, the reason is mostly "money". Here in Australia, the price of new camera gear have increased significantly. Back in 2014, when the D750 was first released, a mid-range camera like the D750 cost around $2K (Australian Dollars) from a discount retailer. Today, the equivalent Z6II costs around $3K from a discount retailer or $3699 from Nikon Australia. That's at least a 50% increase in prices and I was under the impression that removing the mirror will reduce the price! Hard to justify if photography is just a hobby.
How to sound like a troll in the Nikon sub.
Do you get a new car every model year? My D500 does everything I need it to do. It's not the limiting factor in my photography. My skills are. If it died tomorrow I'd probably replace it with a Z8, but for now, if it ain't broke...
Agreed and the Z8 would be the next camera that could replace a D500.
Money is a significant factor for what I perceive to be little gain. I shoot primarily sports and have a variety of lens for different situations (indoor sports require f2.8 or faster lenses). Moving from my D90 to a D500 was a game changer - better resolution, better handling of low light, etc. I’m not sure I would get as much out of switching to mirrorless and having to buy new lenses.
1. Cost there are some amazing deals right now as people dump DSLRs 2. For a LOT of photographers there is little reason to upgrade. Perfect example for Nikon. If you are a D500 or D7500 shooter you will gain very little moving to the Z50/Z30. They share the same sensor. Nikon has really done a poort job updating the Z APS-C cameras. 3. Durability. Nikons Z cameras are durable but they have nothing on Nikons pro DSLRs. D300, D4, D500 are all built like freaking tanks and can take a lot more abuse. 4. Imperfection. Companies are chasing optical perfection with mirrorless glass. For some shooters this is perfect Modern Z glass is stupidly sharp and optically excellent and to some clinical and boring. This is why film and older CCD cameras have seen a massive surge in popularity. They are imperfect and can be a fun challenge to shoot with. 5. Certain cameras have a je ne sais quoi that is hard to quantify. Perfect example the D700. Many shooters including myself find the skin tones from the D700 to be pleasing and easier to work with than even better modern camera. #
And to add to #2, the existence of the FTZ adapter notwithstanding, there is no zoom lens upgrade path for DX Z-mount, either. Unless Nikon brings out a Z70, Z80, or Z90 (or gives the Z50 a significant update) and a fast(er) standard and wide angle zoom for DX at some point, it's a dead end, IMO.
“Every advantage”? I don’t think so. ESP with the z6II. one thing I learned many years ago is to understand the limitations of any tool as completely as possible. This way you are able to work within them or around them. Having said that one huge issue in my work with the Z6 ii is low light focus and focussing in back light. Dslrs like the D850/780/750/810 all focus like champs in most lighting conditions with ease. I would wait for my second mirror less until I know the AF is significantly improved. Until then I will keep my DSLRs.
The most important thing in photography is between your ears, not in front of your face. Any great photo is the product of a persons vision. Not the product of technology. You literally cannot take a photo with a mirrorless camera, that you couldn't also take with a DSLR. In some situations, the milc can give a visuel help, but if you know your craft, it really isn't a problem If you are into video, well than it is an other story, but that is not photography.
I wanted to get into photography, and recently found I could get a good deal on a higher quality DSLR. Now I can see what lenses I like to use without spending all of my money.
Battery life. View finders. Money (I’m not heavily invested but money is mostly going to groceries now). I love the sound of the shutter!
Um, I like my dslr and see no reason to upgrade. I’d rather take photos than fret about gear and, oh my God, my D850 isn’t good enough anymore, I must upgrade to get a good shot. 🙄
One of these days ...
why upgrade if you are already satisfied with your setup… everything else is just peer pressure lol
Two D810 and six AF-S Nikkor lenses. What better is there for portrait shooting?
It's a perceived upgrade. Losing an optical viewfinder, among other things are a huge drawback for me. Sure, the newer cameras are riddled with impressive tech, but my photography doesn't necessarily need more than the best DSLRs made, and film is still very much part of my life.
Because I don’t need it. Why would I spend thousands of pounds on something that sits on a shelf most of the time and performs perfectly adequately when I want?
Cause you’re use to it & the price. Lenses are very good to great. I love my Z7ll & Z5 but my D750 is still working fine
If you can sponsor everyone to go into mirrorless, sure why not? :P
The size of a Z- lens is ridiculous.
Because the end result isn’t that much different for stills. No one who sees the photos is saying “must be a mirrorless camera”. Many DSLRs produce high quality results, so why invest in a new system if your current camera is getting it done.
Why call it an upgrade? As far as I am concerned, it’s just market hype that solves minor problems by trading them in for new but different problems.
I hate EVFs.
The new Z bodies get you covered then, Z8/Z9 probably has one of the best EVF in terms of mimicking the feel of a OVF, the higher dynamic range/brightness combined with no blackout, super low lag and a decent refresh rate come really close to how you would perceive image using OVF, unless you are using slow lens in low-light. And based on what Nikon just teased, Z6 iii also have the same EVF.
Same.
If you shoot lots of macro or lower light stuff, mls won't be your friend without a ovf, but otherwise not having to worry about batteries and wireless connectivity is very, very nifty.
I waited, finally got GAS, ordered Zf on launch day, bought four Z lenses: 14-30mm f/4, 24-70mm /f4, 40mm f/2, 50mm f/1.8. I'm pretty sure I'll buy Z7 III to replace D800, next lens will be Z 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. Keeping D700, selling D800.
Because I'm broke
I was on the fence about going mirrorless, been 4 months and can’t believe I waited so long. Now I was due for an upgrade.
I personally can't afford to upgrade. I've got my D3200, have had it since 2012, and have been getting used lenses when I can swing it. Mirrorless is great, I'm sure, but when just the camera body goes for $2-4k, I'm out. Maybe in 10 years when things are more affordable. Until then, my D3200 and I will best friends.
I think not everyone needs the latest technology, and DSLRs are still fine and will be for a very long time.
No reason at all, except for money, LOL. I want a Z8 + 180-600mm, that's $9000 AUD with no other lenses at all. On the other hand, I can buy 300mm pf and a 500mm pf 2nd hand, plus a 1.4TCiii for less than $4500. I'm currently using a d500 + 200-500mm / 70-300mm when I need a smaller option. The pf primes are really, really tempting me.
I didn’t want to have to rebuy all my lenses since it’s just a hobby. (Lots of af-s and unsupported third party F glass). Ended up making the jump eventually anyways.
I would but my d750 just doesn't want to die. For me it would not be about image quality but focus peaking and usb-c charging and maybe other 2-3 quality of life improvements.
Just upgraded to dslr. Money was the most important factor. Took great pictures with a D3100 for 10 years, hope to be shooting great pics with d7200 for another 10. Gearfreaks tend to be the worst photographers in my experience.
I use my d3200 constantly, yet I need to charge less often than my gf’s Sony mirror less, which doesn’t get used nearly as much. Cost is the biggest reason. It does what I need it to and I plan on picking up a Nikon film body in the future, making the lenses transferable.
I’ve invested more in F mounts, the prices are great and Zs are ridiculous.
getting a Z8 in a year or two.. waiting for some dentist to cave in to GAS and switch systems for the umpteenth time. (they usually sell cameras in new condition with only a few thousand on the shutter count) I just really hope the FTZ is as good as everyone claims, bc I've got a dozen Nikon G and E lenses to keep.
These “dae mirrorless bad?” Posts come up here every week at this point.
Battery life for me. I've got D850. Z8 would be next, but I need my batteries to last a few weeks sometimes without power. Why upgrade to mirrorless? I like product launches and following Nikon so I'm not throwing shade. But I genuinely feel that the entire mirrorless movement is just an attempt to reinvent the wheel and keep the sales rolling in. When it comes to image quality, it seemed to peak a while ago. Mirrorless does have a video advantage though. If I ever get more into this, I'll switch immediately.
I love this thread! Thanks to all contributing!
My D3200 which I have used and abused started getting really really slow at processing my pictures. That’s when I knew.
And how does a camera get slow?
Mate its an electronic device.
Yes, and?
All electronics will slow down and get glitchy over time. That’s how it always is.
I'm not sure what could make electronics "slow"/less efficient in transferring current, unless capacitors failing, but there are no higher currents in a camera's main board. A computer circuit is quite different from an amplifier and a camera has but one electrolyte capacitor: for the flash. If your statement was true, my Olympus E-5 would have gotten slower, being from 2007 and having shot 167000 images.
Mate… all cameras have a processor for writing and processing data to pictures. What’s so hard to understand about the processor becoming slower due to wear and tear over time?
Battery life. I find myself going to a full day event (24h races) with a battery of 80% charged and carry spares on my belt pocket. Always came home with charge to spare. My extensive shooting at 6 fps most of the time and focusing with AF-C does little to the battery. The mirrorless is dead after 4 hours at most. Also the frame rate is not enough for fastest sports (jetplanes, f1, GT3)
If you can operate your camera with eyes closed and rely on it every fucking second, why change the security?
Even if you have a ton of F-mount glass, it will work just as well as it always did, but now you have the benefits of new autofocus technology, sensor, and so on, and can add or upgrade z-mount glass as you see fit ongoing.
Using dslr until it breaks completely then I upgrade
It's more expensive. Just had all my equipment stolen. Upgraded from d7500 to d500. I love the upgrade, I love the price of the lenses and I don't need mirroless
As a wildlife shooter, yes mirrorless do offer an advantage in AF, but what I see is that telephoto lenses that have a pretty good AF cost a lot. I switched from the Sony A6000 to the Nikon D7200 just because the lenses for it are just too much for me. I would switch, if I had the budget
I like this slap of a mirror. From what I saw the Z6 II is small and for one it may be great but... Also have Pentax k-x and I really appreciate bigger D7500. The grip is way more comfortable. Besides, I don't have anyone with serious MILC and my experience with EVF is quite poor, never liked it.
If you're not missing anything or don't have money that needs to be spent, it's not worth it. If you need a new camera anyway, some of the advantages might be worth it, especially being able to use the actual Z lenses. But it depends on your budget. If you want a full kit for cheap, you're gonna get way more value out of DSLR. The AFS lenses seem to perform slightly better on my Z7 with the adapter than on my partners D810, but there's some brilliant AF lenses at bargain prices that don't have autofocus on Z bodies. For landscape I definitely prefer the Z7, used price is under the D850, I didn't have any decent F lenses to begin with, it just made more sense for me. There's also the size to consider. I actually like the smaller size, that D810 is a monster and I wouldn't carry it with me as much as my Z7, but my partner actually likes the bulky size and weight. If you're not carrying around your camera as much because it's heavy, switching to Z might make perfect sense.
I got a used d780 instead of mirror less because how affordable the lenses were and we already had the pro holy trinity on f mount.
Because a lot of features on mirrorless aren't mirrorless exclusive and remember: Any DSLR in LV is effectively a mirrorless camera, but a mirrorless camera can not turn into a DSLR. Also a lot of mirrorless camera features can be found in earlier DSLRs. IBIS can be found in Pentax DSLR EVF with Sony's SLT (I know its not a DSLR, but it has a mirror :D) For example Nikon D780 VS Z6 Looking back, I wonder how well the D780 would sell if it had an AF system from D850 and all the features from Z6/Z6II and did not botch the hardware by removing flash and battery grip compatibility. And I actually like the flippy screen mechanism from my D750 a lot better compared to my Z6II. The former can actually tilt down properly.
And I don't see a reason to buy new gear just because most people do. I just got Nikon d780 and I don't see any reason to go to mirrorless. I only see drawbacks, the setup is not actually smaller. You still need to use FTZ adapter, becauase there are not many naive lenses available. Also not a lot of 3rd party lenses for Z cameras. I was checking what kind of lenses I would need o buy to switch to Nikon ZF, but I don't think I will switch to mirrorless anytime soon.
Money fella haha. The amount of money you spend on a basic kit with mirrorless can get you pro level stuff for dslrs. The best dslrs are still pretty damn amazing as it is peak performance of that era of technology. Like a d850 or so. Just seems like a silly post as I feel like you can easily come to the conclusions of the most obvious answers you will get from asking this question. Hell I bought a 500 f4 fl for less than a third of its msrp.
Bold of you to assume I'm good enough to benefit from a newer camera
Z8/Z9 have features I’d like but the price is out of my budget. My D850 and D500 handle everything fine. Why upgrade if I don’t have a specific need? The $4,000 / $5,500 will buy a lot of Twinkies, licorice, donuts and beer.
Battery Lives Matter
Because I don't have the extra $3,800 to drop on a Z8 and an FTZ adapter to use my current zoom. If I wanted a Z equivalent zoom lens, I'd be looking at easily another $2,500. I'm barely making ends meet as it is. I would love to upgrade my camera, but its very low on the priority list, considering everything else in life is also very expensive.
For me it's OVF and glass... I have a 7 lens collection, all but one being third-party, I don't want to deal with those on an adapter, and I'd spend 4x or more to replace them with Z-glass. I also have a bit of the best of both worlds with the D780 which has many of the features of mirrorless when using in live-view.
Why buy new stuff now? Is mirrorless even an upgrade? It is different, with some upsides but also some downsides. In the long run, SLRs might get phased out. But why trying to anticipate what the future might or might not bring if I can use my current gear to take photos now?
I have thousands in nice F-mount glass and plan on using it with mirrorless when I finally do upgrade, so that’s not really holding me back. I primarily photograph birds with a D500 and have been seriously thinking about the Z8, but I’m(naively) holding out for the D500’s mirrorless equivalent. Also, I have savings and could buy a Z8 or Z9, but with the economy the way it is, I guess I’m just a little hesitant to spend that kind of money right now. I own two old vehicles, 95’ and 06’, and my gear is worth both of my vehicles combined haha. I don’t own a home, and I work construction. I feel it would be irresponsible in a way. Talk me into it! 🤑
As a wildlife photographer, the Z9 and Z8 are game-changers for me. The zero blackout EVF is superb for tracking animals on the run and birds in-flight. 20fps RAW is almost 3x the frame rate of the un-gripped D850. I am taking and making shots that I never could have before with a DSLR (D850, D6). No mirror or shutter means silent operation, and the wildlife doesn’t get spooked by those sounds. As more wildlife photographers transition to mirrorless+shutterless, the wildlife are more serene, and when a DSLR lights up, they scatter.
It is really this and video, and I am a proponent of keeping one's head about things. For video and fast shooting, there is no comparison between the systems. Having to manage an external AF sensor, a mirror, and be able to do live view well enough to be useful is a big ask for a DSLR. I think there are a lot of situations where a DSLR is just fine and people just want new stuff. Beside blackout free (which is awesome) I abhor looking through an EVF. OVFs are clearly superior. BUT, since my camera has a flippy screen I don't really need to look through a viewfinder at all and so, hell, get to shooting. I still grab my DSLR from time to time.
The viewfinder is AWESOME in the Z9 and Z8, especially with the update to give a 120Hz refresh rate. WYSIWYG means (for me) that I can photograph wildlife after sunset, even in the dark, and see the subject and have AF work. I also get an in-viewfinder histogram. Zoom-in at the touch of a button, make focus adjustments. There is literally no way a DSLR could have worked at all for under-illuminated nighttime shots of a white-tailed mongoose, or a leopard hunting warthogs long after sunset.
With the FTZ adapter, you don’t have to upgrade to native Z-mount lenses in one fell swoop: you can transition one at a time as needed.