What new camera? D-SLR or Mirrorless

I have been considering a new digital camera. My personal background is an A.S. Photography-Fine Arts from '08. Currently I am using my iPhone 6 as my everyday point and shoot, I consider it's only short coming to be a lack of optical zoom. My last "real" camera is a fuijifilm S700. Before that I shot film with a Cannon AE-1.

Now I want something new with interchangeable lenses. That brings me to D-SLR or mirrorless. From what I have seen, size, $, $ per pixel, ect. mirrorless looks better. The only clear advantage to D-SLR is lens options, but some mirrorless use the same lens system as the D-SLR's from the same brand.

As far as the brand consideration, I like Fuji and cannon, and have detested any nikon I have ever had the misfortune of using.

Unless you are selling your shots in some way, there is no reason to go D-SLR.

The Fuji X-series mirrorless seem to be the cat's ass.

I've been really enjoying Pentax-land, though. You can get a LOT of camera and lens for your money, since they all still use the K Mount. (Their compact mirrorless uses Q mount, though. But that also looks awesome.)

If SWMBO hadn't already been invested in Pentax when i started, i would have gone directly to the Fuji XT-1 and not looked back. Sony has some really awesome stuff in the mirrorless world too.

I have an older Olympus mirrorless, and it's basically a point & shoot with a fancier lens. It sucks for motorsports photography, as I can never seem to convince it to focus properly. I'd imagine that is the case for a lot of them. You might look at getting one of those add-on lenses for your iPhone?

So a DSLR usually gives easier access to controls, an optical view finder, possible in-body image stabilization, and a lens mount that opens up the option of using older 35mm-era glass without the need for adapters (although there have been a few small mirrorless cameras that haven't needed adapters but they seem rare). Those are the reasons I stuck with a DSLR when my last camera was stolen and I had some camera insurance money in my pocket. Micro 4/3rd's has come a long way and there's a lot of cool hardware out there for these cameras.

What's your budget and what do you like to shoot? Sometimes it's fun to put together a kit on paper to try and maximize usefulness and bang for the buck.

I love my new Olympus OM-D EM-10.

It's a micro 4/3 mirrorless and it's awesome.

My wife uses Nikon DSLRs and I've never really liked them. I still shoot film with my old Minolta gear and using my vintage glass on the Nikon body never really worked.

The Olympus works fantastic with vintage lenses. Just drop the adapter on and go. No need to change settings in the camera or anything, it just uses stop-down metering and manual focus.

It's been the best solution I've found because all I had to do was buy the camera with kit lens, a $30.00 adapter and all my gear works with the new body

Takes great pictures too!

In reply to MCarp22:

Time to shoot manual focus.

pres589 wrote: In reply to MCarp22: Time to shoot manual focus.

With what? The LCD is only suitable for framing at best.

In reply to MCarp22:

With the manual focus only lens I mount on my Pentax DSLR, it's rough adjust focus to about the right focal distance (it's just a guess, the lens in question is kind of broken), check in the optical view finder to get closer, then when I think I'm ready to shoot I hit Live View which brings up the view through the lens and displays it on the LCD on the back.

If I was using this lens at a track, say on a specific corner, I'd get my own physical placement figured out and start working on what focus to set for the middle of the corner and play slightly to get the inside or the outside, whatever looks good and conveys what I want to convey. Note the focal distance on the focusing ring (with this lens I'm probably at infinite since that's how it ends up being focused most of the time) and experiment.

The auto focus function of the camera will also indicate when the focus point that you've chosen is in-focus. Note that this is usually pin sharp focus; AF is usually an approximation and often not "perfect" but "good enough".

Note: I'm an amateur at this and I would really like feedback from, say, the GRM photo staff that are active on the forum to correct anything I've suggested.

Just so you know where my POV comes from, I'm still mostly a film shooter, but my one remaining digital is a Fuji X-E1. I only shoot legacy lenses via adapters, so manual focus only.

You don't mention your intended use, which is an important consideration. If you're primarily shooting fast-moving objects or people, you want an optical VF; it's the only thing I wish my X-E1 had. If you can live without that, than mirrorless is the way to go. The reason I went Fuji was that X-Trans sensor, which uses a non-Bayer array and thus produces photos that look very different (and more film-like) than any other manufacturer's. The Fuji X-line is very well-regarded, and I've found the X-E1 to be a pleasure to use. Used prices are quite reasonable now. Adapters for almost any other mount system are available (I use Leica Thread Mount and Pentax K-mount on mine).

The big factor in the difference is the sensor size. A bigger sensor gives a larger area for photons to hit, which gives you more light, and more light == better pictures (all else being equal). This manifests in a bunch of different ways, such as lower image noise at the same ISO sensitivity, better sharpness when stopped down due to less diffraction effects. Larger sensors also give you a shallower depth of field, which is often considered to be a good thing when shooting certain types of photos.

Pretty much all of the disadvantages of a Canon SLR when compared to u-4/3 come from this bigger sensor. It's more expensive because bigger sensors are harder to make, it's physically larger because it needs to mount that larger sensor, and the lenses are bigger because they need to throw a larger image circle.

(This particular tradeoff isn't new, either. Ansel Adams hauled Large Format cameras into the wilderness because he wanted the image quality that he could only get from using 8x10 film.)

So, basically, decide what level of image quality you want, then build a system around it.

If you want amazing, easy to take photos in a small not-tweakable package that won't freak people out if you whip it out at the playground, get the latest Fuji X-100. It seriously violates your interchangeable lens request but it's really really easy to use.

Now that we've gotten easy to use out the way, you want a family of lenses. That means you have Canon, Nikon, and "weird stuff." I'm not doubting that you can get an amazing Sony or Pentax or Fuji or whatever but you'll have to hunt for your family of lenses and "trust" (pray) that they're really what you want.

Canon lenses are crazy compatible. In 1987 or so, Canon said screw this and introduced EOS. Any lens newer than 1987 will work on any camera newer than 1987: no autofocus or aperture caveats. If you're getting a very high-end Nikon FX camera with a built-in autofocus motor, you can use much older Nikon lenses and they'll work beautifully! However, a cheap Nikon can't use older lenses quite like a cheap Canon.

Canon has better bread and butter lenses for cheaper newer. Their 24 mm and 50 mm prime lenses are both excellent and $150 or less. If you get an APS-C camera (you probably are), they have a cheap and amazing wide zoom (the 10-18mm) for around $300! As much as I love Nikon, their cheapest wide zoom is over $800 new. If you're assembling a lens system from scratch and aren't a pro, you can't do it without compromising or breaking the bank on Nikon, but you can with Canon.

Nikon has cheaper camera buy-in. Refurb D3300 and D5300 cameras are available with the 18-55 VR II lens (cheap but excellent) for around $300-500 all the time. I really enjoy my refurb D3100 from Adorama and regularly take great pictures with it. Because of its low cost, I don't worry about using it, say, from the back of a snowmobile (yes, we wiped out a few times).

In terms of the best of the best, Nikon has the best super-pro lenses while Canon has the best super-pro camera. You probably don't want to spend Miata money on either.

Based on your dislike of Nikon, I'd grab a Canon Rebel SL1 and snag a 50 mm f/1.8, a 10-18 mm, and whatever telephoto you can afford (and only if you like fast moving birds or cars). If you're serious about lots of on-the-fly adjustments (ISO, white balance, etc., you know if you are), get a 70D instead.

One final observation, check Craigslist. Don't buy your camera there, but see if there's more Canon or Nikon lenses for sale locally. Craigslist is my favorite place to get a new lens to try out. In my area, the Nikon market is stagnant and expensive while Canon lenses move and are cheaper.

DSLR for Serious Business snobby photography, mirrorless for good "prosumer" shots.

GameboyRMH wrote: DSLR for Serious Business snobby photography, mirrorless for good "prosumer" shots.

Not that simple anymore. The line has been seriously blurred.

I have a hard time not having a viewfinder, personally.

DSLR for when I need speedy focus or to really dial in a long exposure.

600gazillion megapixel camera phone for everything else.

My mirrorless has a viewfinder.

The cheapo entry level ones don't.

You can have DSLR's that perform worse than mirrorless cameras.

It's all about sensor size now and most DSLR cameras still don't have a full frame sensor unless you start spending mega bucks.

Trans_Maro wrote: It's all about sensor size now and most DSLR cameras still don't have a full frame sensor unless you start spending mega bucks.

This is the biggest thing when comparing the two. If you put an amazing lens in front of a "good" sensor vs. a "great" one, they will both be the same photo but one will have less grain and more fine detail. This is why pros use FX over DX Nikons.

However, most lenses aren't amazing. Some can open up wider to let in more light (dark shooting); some are significantly sharper; some have no distortion. Your lens affects the composition, the focus, and the distribution of light in a given photo. The sensor simply makes it "better."

Digital photos from a decade ago were and are still amazing. They're in art galleries and they're on billboards. The sensors were both smaller and less sensitive, but it doesn't matter. The photos themselves are what matter.

You should buy whatever lets you take more and better photos. For me, that means having a very good f/1.8 or better lens for low light, a telephoto for capturing things without disrupting them, and enough money in my pocket to go places.

This is what I shot with my refurb D3100 (around $250), a used 35 mm f/1.8 (around $100), and a refurb 70-300 mm VR (around $500). They're not great photos but I know my lenses, not the camera sensor, are what mattered. I also know my camera didn't hinder my shots (just my lack of creativity!).

APS-C or DX won't limit you. Spend your money on better glass and a compatible camera. The camera is the "disposable" element in the equation.

In reply to kylini:

Why would I have to pray that a Pentax, Sony, Tokina, Sigma, etc lens is what I want any more that I'd have to pray that a Canon or Nikon lens is what I want?

It's figure out what your intention for the lens is, look at what's available, read reviews & find shots taken by others, maybe rent a copy if available, and if you're still good you buy. What's the lens mount / brand relationship have to do with this?

pres589 wrote: In reply to kylini: Why would I have to pray that a Pentax, Sony, Tokina, Sigma, etc lens is what I want any more that I'd have to pray that a Canon or Nikon lens is what I want? It's figure out what your intention for the lens is, look at what's available, read reviews & find shots taken by others, maybe rent a copy if available, and if you're still good you buy. What's the lens mount / brand relationship have to do with this?

I just worry more about other brands long term than I worry about Nikon/Canon. Every maker has great lenses and good cameras. With Nikon or Canon, I'm more comfortable knowing that my gear will remain compatible with newer stuff and hold its value better. The larger user base also contributes quite a bit to the depth of reviews. That said, I did go a bit off the fanboy deep end making that statement!

Figure out what cameras and lenses you'd want to buy now and in the distant future. If I planned better, I wouldn't have gotten a Nikon and snagged a Canon instead (I really want a wide zoom). As long as there's room to grow, any brand is good.

I've got an Olympus PEN OL3 (or something like that) mirror less 4/3 camera for travel and a full body DSLR for work. I've been pretty happy with the little Olympus as I hike around. Olympus also makes a high quality wide angle adapter that bayonets on to the standard lens, so it's really got a good range of lengths in a small package - something like 18mm to 300mm. It replaced a DSLR as my home camera.

I did find that I really missed a proper viewfinder on a recent trip to Yellowstone. The amount of ambient light meant that even framing was difficult with the LCD. When I got home, I ordered a digital viewfinder but it's not the same as looking through the glass. Plus it bulks up the camera. I much prefer a proper through the lens viewfinder.

The camera you have is much better than the camera you don't, and the size of the Olympus is the strongest point. I can carry the camera with wide angle adapter and kit lens plus a telephoto zoom easily in my pockets, and that lets me be ready for just about anything. I can manual focus via the LCD using the tools built into the camera quite effectively - assuming I can see the LCD. I do have to carry spare batteries, it's a real power hog and has small batteries.

But I like working with my DSLR better. It's more tactile, I can see everything through the lens and I can use the LCD on the back for awkward shots if needed. The battery lasts for weeks and weeks. I prefer it for everything but carrying it around.

This:

Fixes the viewfinder issue and has an LCD for the awkward stuff.

I love mine.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympus-om-d-e-m10

In reply to kylini:

Ok, so, not trying to rattle you, just curious; what were you hoping to find in a wide zoom? What's in your lens collection now? My biggest issue with the Pentax stuff is that a lot of it is somewhat f-stop limited OR the base numbers are only available in a discontinued lens. The raw f-stop numbers aren't all that they're made out to be, though, but focal distance isn't something that can be debated. The best wide-zoom they offer is the 16-50 f2.8 which is a decent lens but doesn't seem "special" really and they're expensive.

If I had to do it over again I might have gone Canon as well (the couple Nikon's I've picked up just didn't fit my hands well) but there's so much classic Pentax / K-mount glass out there that I never second guess going the way I did. That said, I'm really interested in getting Sigma's updated 30mm F1.4 prime which is available in a bunch of mounts. I've had a lot of fun / teeth nashing with a 28mm Kalt prime lately but there's days where I just want something that isn't sorta junk.

In reply to Trans_Maro:

Aside from not steadying it with your face, what's the difference (in your estimation) between an electronic viewfinder and using the LCD on the back? This isn't the same as an optical viewfinder.

Ambient light. You can see an electronic viewfinder even in strong sun.

My old Minolta X570 and X700 are known for having very bright viewfinders.

The viewfinder in my Olympus is much brighter and I find focusing is very easy. The olympus is great in low light and when using legacy glass the added brightness means seeing your DOF with the lens stopped down is much easier than through an optical viewfinder.

I find the viewfinder clearer and easier to focus than the LCD on the back.

This is all in my amateur, hobbyist opinion.