DSLR vs Mirrorless

[redisburning]

the Fuji won't be an upgrade.

Nikon focuses faster and the flash system is better. Plus you'll take a hit to your pocketbook. In addition, ACR and Capture 1 do a poor job with raw conversion, so if you plan to use either of the most popular raw converter/cataloging softwares you may notice some of the so called "watercolor effect". you can see a comparison of different software here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1276395

your current lens lineup on a full frame camera would give you a resolution edge too. the 85/1.8 and 50/1.8 from Nikon, assuming you have the new G versions, will outperform the Fujis with the increase in real estate and megapixels.

rather than spending money on a new camera system without much upside, you might consider instead purchasing a nice macro lens. otherwise, I think staying put makes more sense.

 

[Rob-F]

Keep everything. Sell nothing. Just get one of the excellent P&S jobs when you don't want to use the D300. A Fuji X10 or X100. I use both, and they are great!

 

[YYV_146]

That's not such a good advice. My experience with electronic viewfinders is, that they look quite good IN the store. My problems with those viewfinders begin outside in daylight situations where I only see a contrast-less image without details.

Bought an X-E1 that way and was not content with the use outdoor, sold it after a short time. Two weeks ago I got the X-T1 for a testdrive and it was the same. Good indoor, outdoor not really usable for me.

The message: try to get the camera for a testdrive outside of the store for at least 30-60 Minutes.

The Fuji cameras start at iso 200 (XT1 not included). That's simply a horrible base iso level for daylight evf use - even with F4 lenses an ND filter is occasionally needed to keep speeds down.

In this regard a camera like the A7 can do much better (iso 50). The best EVF won't be of much use if you use it in daylight and overloads the sensor with light.

 

[jammcat]

I have nothing to say regarding fuji in specific, but..

I have a full 5DII kit and and OM-D for when I shoot digital work.
This work includes print/magazine, documentary, event coverage, et cetera.
I would say that I prefer the M43 rig to the full frame rig 85% of the time.
You really can't argue with the size, speed, convenience, and ease of use of the Micro Four Thirds system. The lenses are brilliant, as well.

The space I with the smaller body and tiny lenses leaves more room for speed lights, triggers, and whatever else.

 

[gavinlg]

In addition, ACR and Capture 1 do a poor job with raw conversion, so if you plan to use either of the most popular raw converter/cataloging softwares you may notice some of the so called "watercolor effect". you can see a comparison of different software here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1276395

Literally none of my files look like that.

 

[gavinlg]

Advantages of going with mirror less (fuji) kit:
- decently smaller all-round
- better ergonomics and controls if you like manual dials
- cameras and lenses built better (metal)
- lenses all top quality and work perfectly on x-trans sensor - for instance all the primes are sharp and usable wide open unlike some of the nikon primes.

Advantages of going FF nikon:
- You get that sweet FF sensor sweet spot in IQ
- Get to use your lenses you already have
- Get a more versatile system

 

[Keith]

I currently choose to use a DSLR for the control and precision it offers. I like the idea of mirrorless but in the real world I find the DSLR more effective ... this is more to do with my shooting style though I suspect.

 

[redisburning]

Literally none of my files look like that.

could you show examples under similar circumstances?

the person in question is a respectable and skilled member of the community, and a happy Fuji owner.

also, any proof of your claim wrt the quality of Fuji lenses v. Nikon primes? because you can quickly check photozone and see that the Nikkor primes the OP has on a D3x outperform their Fuji equivalents on an XF by about 30% quantitatively. Total system equivalents, of course, taking into account the larger sensor area and pixel count.

of course that doesn't do the OP much good if he intends to stick to APS-c, where the Fuji's average lenses have the advantage of being designed for a much smaller image circle. but, Nikon does make purpose built APS-c lenses too, some of them very high end, and they make high pixel density crop bodies like the D7100.

the OP could trade into them, if he wanted. or he could go the full frame route. there is a demonstrated difference in the level of image quality; anything else is down to handling or preference, which are nebulous concepts and ones that, for all of the anger around here at my posts, have not commented on except for stating a rather obvious fact that a 450 dollar AF prime isn't built to the same quality as a 4k one built in a cine housing.

 

[gavinlg]

could you show examples under similar circumstances?

the person in question is a respectable and skilled member of the community, and a happy Fuji owner.

also, any proof of your claim wrt the quality of Fuji lenses v. Nikon primes? because you can quickly check photozone and see that the Nikkor primes the OP has on a D3x outperform their Fuji equivalents on an XF by about 30% quantitatively. Total system equivalents, of course, taking into account the larger sensor area and pixel count.

Once I get home to my drives I'll find something with similar circumstances. The crops in that thread look like crap - not representative of what x-trans is capable of.
Resolution scores between systems in lens test sites like photo zone aren't cross-comparable.

 

[redisburning]

well, yes they are actually.

see, you can't compare LENSES across systems. you can compare total system output, however, as measurements are in lp/wh, which is line pairs over the image height. which is what I said.

you can see Roger Cicala's work via Lens Rentals to see measurements comparing the same lenses on different systems, where they do get different scores. the point is that output quality is based on system resolution anyway, and as the photozone scores are comparable on the system level, you're going to see that difference in the final output.

photozone puts that caveat in because they are reviewing lenses, not system resolution. you are supposed to make lens purchasing decisions based solely on the quality of the lens because you may upgrade bodies later. that is fine. but that is not what we are talking about here. OP wants to change systems, not one lens vs. another on the same camera.

I'd very much be interested in seeing what you get out of ACR or Capture 1 at infinity with so much fine detail from your x-trans sensor.

 

[kanzlr]

for my digital work I moved from a D700 (and some stuff in between) to an Olympus OM-D E-M1 and I could not be happier.

Viewfinder is nice, ergonomics fit me like a glove, the E-M1 body is really awesome, the lenses are great, and I've never been a super shallow DoF guy anyways.

25/1.4, 45/1.8 and 75/1.8 do it for me.

Image quality is almost on par up to ISO 3200 I'd say.

 

[pixelatedscraps]

Hard to give advice without knowing what you perceive as the shortcomings of your current kit or what you see as the potential benefits of the proposed kit . . . .

Agreed. You also don't mention if this is for professional usage that is time and content critical for commercial or editorial clients (in which case: go for biggest, fastest, most responsive - and more often than not, most expensive you can afford).

If it's for home / amateur use to post online or for family albums, requirements are much looser and almost any DSLR or CSC manufacturer's midrange line will satisfy kids sports / travel / holiday snaps, though I still find Sony's AF lens lineup lacking compared to others. Technically cutting edge, lineup, not so solid.

Last but not least, are you printing for either scenario? And then: how big?

 

[hepcat]

There's a fundamental issue here. An optical viewfinder system operates at the speed of light, and a single-lens reflex system displays images at the speed of light gated by the flipping mirror—in shooting a sequence of images, you get to see an image between exposures in the brief flip of the mirror BEFORE the exposure is made, which is enough to predict subject movement and judge the peak of the action. An EVF can never be that fast, and its brief flicker of the subject has to necessarily FOLLOW the exposure, so it can never be used predictively. This is most visible in sequence shooting, but its impact can be felt in single frame exposures too.

Exactly what mix of equipment does the best job for your needs and desires ... I cannot say. But one thing is for certain: no one camera does everything best.

G

Godfrey's entire post is excellent, but these two paragraphs should be required reading for anyone who asks the questions you ask.

The fundamental differences between systems have to do with the operation of the viewfinder and the way you compose and interact with your image. Each method (SLR, mirrorless, and OVF) have their strengths. What YOU need to decide is which VF system works best for YOU for how you shoot, the lens lengths and apertures you use most often, and the size of the equipment you're willing to carry around. Any of the current VF/lens/sensor combinations will make perfectly acceptable images. What it boils down to is what kind of VF suits you the best. While there are other variables of course, the rest of the stuff is much less important than the reviewers/manufacturers/sales people would have you believe.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

For what it is worth, I am in the same and I decided to wait a bit. Of course, if you need a camera for a job today, then you need to buy now what you need for that job (I am using the word a bit freely, it could be for a trip or anything), but if you have a perfectly functioning kit probably you can wait a bit and I have the feeling that in a short time differences will become so small as to be negligible to all but a few specialized photographers taking picture of, I don't know, hockey or similar stuff.
I reached this conclusion after trying the Sony alpha 99 and seeing (cannot say I really tried them) the latest Olympus and Fujis. The Sony is already lighter than FF cameras with prism, for my feeling is just as fast (ok, I don't have the data, maybe there is some millisecond difference in favor of a large Canikon but I don't care) and has only a few problems, such as slow "wake up time" and short battery duration (who cares, one need to have a lot of battery always whatever the camera used, it is decent anyway, not like a Foevon Sigma). Olympus and Fuji are not FF and don't have the pelicle mirror so have the "problem" mentioned by Godfrey, but they are already very very closed in performance, I think that soon we won't even ask whether a camera has or not a mirror and/or a prism, unless of course we are really speed freaks working in certain specific areas.

Ah, I am waiting, but I can't get out the Alpha 99 from my mind...if only hadn't spent already so much money in Nikon gear...

GLF

 

[Godfrey]

Thanks Roger. I wondered if anyone even read it from the lack of any response or comment. :-\

With today's digital cameras all being at such a high level of sophistication with regards to sensitivity and resolution, and most having more controls/capabilities than most people ever really need, the bottom line has returned to what it was with film cameras in days of yore. For the most part, my choice of camera has to pass these four questions:

- How good is the viewfinder for my needs?
- What format suits what I want to do best?
- What lenses are available?
- How much do I want to carry?

The answer changes based on my mood, the subject matter I want to photograph, and what kind of photographs I want to make.

One nice thing about the mirrorless world is that if you pick the right one, you don't need to give up any of your investment in DSLR lenses (as long as you're willing to accept some differences in operation), at which point you can keep a DSLR body around for when it is the best tool for the job.

Now I'm off to the office, with my Polaroid 350 Land Camera in hand, to see what might be available to photograph on the way ... 🙂

G

 

[GaryLH]

The Fuji cameras start at iso 200 (XT1 not included). That's simply a horrible base iso level for daylight evf use - even with F4 lenses an ND filter is occasionally needed to keep speeds down.

In this regard a camera like the A7 can do much better (iso 50). The best EVF won't be of much use if you use it in daylight and overloads the sensor with light.

Never had a problem shooting at the Fuji base iso.. The shutter speed is fast enough and there is enough f stop available..

I don't understand your assertion of horrible evf usage at base iso? Never had a problem in daylight in some pretty bright sunlight.. If u are using something like a xp1, then u also have the ovf to use anyway.

The only time I can c base iso of 200 an issue is if are shooting wide open in extremely bright sunlight. Which is something I am not sure how many people would really do that often or at all.

Gary

 

[redisburning]

the end game of lens design is to have lenses where stopping down changes only the depth of field, not contrast.

selective focus is quite a powerful effect, even in landscapes. that is the design philosophy behind Leica's ASPH lenses, the new Otus line as well as the Sony FE primes.

a good fastest shutter speed like 1/8000 helps. so too does a quality ND filter. but a low base ISO is still going to be the best solution since shutter speed is part of the creative control process and ND filters are a bit fiddly.

 

[f16sunshine]

DSLR vs Mirrorless is a similar question as SLR vs RF from the film era.

What you plan to do is the deciding factor over which to use.

Personally I can not give up an SLR because I use long lenses (85mm and up). The EVF systems improved as they are can not compare to a full bright through the lens optical system.

If I could only choose one it would be DSLR. Fortunately I don't have to choose one and presently use both a 5Dii and Fuji systems as well as x100.

If I was in your position I would pick up a D610 or D800 to replace the D300 if you feel it needs an upgrade. Then consider a complimentary mirror less apsc fixed lens such as the x100 for times you want to stay lightweight.
Chasing kids with a long lens is much easier and rewarding using a DSLR.

Cheers!

 

[GaryLH]

the end game of lens design is to have lenses where stopping down changes only the depth of field, not contrast.

selective focus is quite a powerful effect, even in landscapes. that is the design philosophy behind Leica's ASPH lenses, the new Otus line as well as the Sony FE primes.

a good fastest shutter speed like 1/8000 helps. so too does a quality ND filter. but a low base ISO is still going to be the best solution since shutter speed is part of the creative control process and ND filters are a bit fiddly.

True.. I am in the not very often camp.. But I am aware of enough people that I know that never use it.. But the times I haved it has always been in portrait work and never in harsh bright light.. So I have never really needed the ND filter. Never felt the nd filters were fiddly. Just something I got used to back in the days of film when u were stuck w/ one body and fast film in your camera.

My other uses for fast lenses shot wide open is really for dim light conditions to get decent shutter speed.

Gary

 

[GaryLH]

DSLR vs Mirrorless is a similar question as SLR vs RF from the film era.

What you plan to do is the deciding factor over which to use.

Personally I can not give up an SLR because I use long lenses (85mm and up). The EVF systems improved as they are can not compare to a full bright through the lens optical system.

If I could only choose one it would be DSLR. Fortunately I don't have to choose one and presently use both a 5Dii and Fuji systems as well as x100.

If I was in your position I would pick up a D610 or D800 to replace the D300 if you feel it needs an upgrade. Then consider a complimentary mirror less apsc fixed lens such as the x100 for times you want to stay lightweight.
Chasing kids with a long lens is much easier and rewarding using a DSLR.

Cheers!

Agreed.. I still shoot w/ dslrs as well. Not Nikon as much any longer, mainly the sigma sd1m currently.

As Godfrey and others have said...Right now for me there is no perfect, do everything single camera system. The dslr comes close for most people. I think I might be 25% dslr and rest mirrorless w/ foveon based sensor cameras being what I prefer to use the most. The Fuji comes into play for me when I think I will need high iso color work.

Gary