[Solved] Mirrorless vs DSLR

Since all of the major players in the industry have moved to mirrorless I think it will last more than long enough to be worth adopting.  

For example, I can't imagine Nikon abandoning the Z system like it did CX.

Thay being said I would not be in a rush to drop DSLRs.

I agree with @pouncer - it would be a huge surprise if camera companies go back to primarily making DSLRs, or if an as-yet-unknown kind of camera takes over. Mirrorless appears to be a very long-term system.

I don't think we will ever again see the development of a new camera model with a mirror. Digital photographers have to get on the train or get left standing at the station. 

I agree - there are a lot of things that are very difficult to engineer with a DSLR and mirrorless provided the solution.  It's only going to get better over time.

Probably the one argument to make for a DSLR right now is the availability of some really great used gear at excellent prices.  You're probably seeing as much as a 75-80% discount off original cost for lenses, and good discounts on many cameras.

In the Nikon line, I've sold all my DSLR cameras but I still have a dozen or more lenses that can be used with the FTZ adapter.  A few of those are very expensive lenses that I still use.

I'm still sticking with DSLR for the near future partly because I'm such a cheapskate and the lenses are already here, and partly for one other reason that may or may not be an issue.  That is that in the last 9 years or so I've only had to do a thorough cleaning of my D7100's sensor a handful of times. A few dust specks, but blowing usually does enough.

When the D7100 packs up (which it's threatening to do as it heads into its second hundred thousand clicks) I'll probably go with something mirrorless, but have been reluctant to go with anything without a sensor cover.  I'm hoping that feature will trickle down into lower end Z's in the future.

The inherent drawback with a DSLR is that the distance from the lens to the sensor is not the same as the distance from the lens to the mirror and then to the sensor. Starting about 10 years ago the DSLR cameras allowed for the user to make micro adjustments to try to fix this problem that resulted in out of focus images - perceived as being "soft".

The problem is that one needs to set the adjustment for a specific camera to subject distance. Even with a 400mm prime lens I need to determine the AF adjustment based on a camera to subject distance at which I think I will be taking most of my pictures. With a 100-400mm zoom lens I would adjust based on a 400mm focal length and hope the shorter zoom amounts would be OK.

And with a teleconverter one needs to make a separate adjustment for every lens it will be used with in addition to the adjustment value for the lens alone. With multiple DSLR cameras one needs to make two sets of adjustments for every lens and teleconverter combination.

With a mirrorless camera this problem does not exist. The focus is through the lens and is exact. The problem with mirrorless cameras was that they were less stable when shooting and the electronic viewfinders would black out for a time as data was transferred to the memory card from the sensor.

With internal 5-axis optical stabilization added to most mirrorless cameras the stability was fixed. With many newer cameras the viewfinder blackout is much diminished with the newer electronics designs.

Nikon has stopped all new product development for its DSLR cameras and their f-mount lenses. The last f-mount lens from Nikon was the 500mm f/5.6 PF lens that was released in 2018.

Mirrorless is clearly here to stay. From a manufacturing point of view, there are no disadvantages. And they have caught up to the best DSLRs and even surpassed them in some ways, except for some small points like being able to use your camera as a spotting scope without draining the battery.

I am still using both systems - mirrorless and DSLR. I still use a D500 since it still works but I'm going to replace it soon with something like a Z8 or some future Nikon Z camera.

I stuck with Canon full frame film cameras for the longest time, growing up in the darkroom. I kept telling myself film was the ultimate raw, even when scanned and in lightroom/Photoshop,  until at some point full frame digital surpassed it, so I jumped from SLR with film to full frame mirrorless, skipping the dslr phase of evolution. I think the global sensor will be the next great leap forward and we will be reminiscing  about those quaint stacked BSI sensors. 

Global shutter would be *amazing*. Couple it with a stacked memory to rapidly pull the data off and now we're cooking with gas.

Mirrorless is the future for sure. But I wouldn't just upgrade for the sake of upgrade. If your DSLR still work fine for you then there is no reason why to jump to mirrorless. Mirrorless will not make you a better photographer. 

I still use my D850 along side a Z50 and a Z6II. Love all three cameras but my D850 is still my main camera. I'm kinda attached to that camera...

Heck, who knows in a few years time, DSLR's might just make a comeback. Just like film is doing today... 😀 

I'd even say that DSLRs were kind of a "transitional technology". Mirrorless is just the logic last step of digital interchangeable lens camera evolution, especially those without a mechanical shutter. Because of the innate ability of the sensor to capture and transmit images at all times, and to electronically adjust exposure time, it totally makes sense to omit the mirror and mechanical shutter.

From that perspective, DSLRs were just neccessary because processor capacity and sensor readout speeds were not sufficent for mirror- and shutterless technology for about two decades.

I've been a shutterbug either pro or semi-pro for the better part of 40 years. What I can tell you from that experience is that nothing is set in stone.

Everyone thought film would last forever (that might prove to be true! lol). Everyone thought DSLR's would last forever (some are still being produced, but not developed). And now everyone thinks that mirrorless will last forever now. That said, we know what happened to film and dslr mounts, even some mirrorless mounts have been dropped.

See a trend?

Manufacturers drop mounts, the cameras go on the used market, and new development ceases. By that yardstick, you can bet at some point mirrorless will see the same fate. What will replace it is the question, who the heck knows. But just because we can't envision it happening now, doesn't make a difference for the future.

I think the price of entry into an established DSLR system makes it too good to ignore. Even pro level bodies are totally affordable and your choices for lenses are first rate compared to anything else out there. You won't risk much at all trying out a camera you want and you can get some awesome bodies for next to nothing (lenses hold value well though). 

Since there is an advantage to both DSLR's and Mirrorless, I suggest trying both to see what you like. Experience is king, it will tell you more about what you need or want than any forum reply or endless window shopping the internet will ever do.

Trust me when I tell you that.

I know guys that go back to DSLR's, some go to mirrorless, some have both. The only right answer is what you need, and the only way to know that, is to try different bodies and lenses.

But don't let a popular trend dictate your personal needs. Ever. :)

Mirrorless with DSLR lenses for the time being, in my opinion.

The reason is that DSLR lenses and vintage glass are easily adaptable to mirrorless bodies and the focus peaking option on mirrorless makes it easy to use on manual focus when needed. DSLR glass is quite good and vintage when you want a different look, then you can bring the glass from system to system without a problem, just an adapter.

Specially handy for hybrid and video shooters, for photographers alone less so.

I am getting rid of my canons 5D and using Lumix on adapted glass, autofocus works well and manual focus when requiered is easy with focus peaking so I am also using vintage lenses and creative lenses at easy now. ISO performance for low light is also improved greatly in my case.

Sure there are drawbacks, missing the optical viewfinder on real time will be missed.

Marry the lenses and date the bodies right?

And now everyone thinks that mirrorless will last forever now. That said, we know what happened to film and dslr mounts, even some mirrorless mounts have been dropped.

Yes and no. I feel like the basic form factor of the camera is now more or less solved and is tied to the size of the sensor. Have we seen any real developments now that the gripped body with a viewfinder and a monitor on the back is out? Aside from that there are the narrow bodies for size purposes but those are also less comfortable to hold for a long time unless they have very light lenses.

The size of the sensor implies the size and weight of the lens, and that in turn puts requirements on the body size to both balance the lenses and to have batteries with enough time on them to keep the sensor and associated electronics fed.

The Go-pro style cameras are useful for action cameras but less so for careful composition so that's not really a fair comparison.

Global shutter is the next major advance for MILCs and that doesn't change the form factor or mirrorless or not.

I feel like the real innovation is in cellphones, much as I dislike using them for photography. There are some interesting patents out there for periscope-like optical designs in order to get longer focal lengths crammed into the tiny form factors available to them. Their IBIS is getting more effective. Stacking their ridiculously high resolution sensors for their tiny crappy plastic optics + a good dose of AI, denoise, and sharpening is producing good pictures for the average Joe.

And cellphones are, after all, mirrorless cameras.  They're just not interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras. ;)