Why mirrorless over dslr?

Started Jul 14, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 13,253
Re: each has its pros and cons
In reply to T3, Jul 15, 2013

T3 wrote:

vjk2 wrote:

T3 wrote:

Ubilam wrote:

Or, vice versa? Please educate me. State the benefits/cons of both ONLY if you have used both types to compare. Thanks!

Now that I'm using both types, I really appreciate having both. When I'm working, I go with my DSLR gear. When I'm going around town, seeing friends, doing personal shooting, doing casual shooting, I go with my more compact mirrorless gear.

It's like having different pairs of shoes. You wouldn't wear the same pair of shoes to a nice restaurant as you would to go hiking in the woods. I guess that's why I use both DSLR and mirrorless.

Meh, the thing about mirrorless to me is that it is still too bulky. For casual shooting, an iphone or android camera is more than enough, and is also pocketable plus can perform multiple other functions.

When I mean "casual shooting", I mean I still want all the flexibility, versatility, and lens-changeability of a DSLR, but I'm just not being paid for my shooting, and therefore I'm not being paid to carry around the size/weight/bulk of DSLR gear. For me, "casual" is the opposite of "professional". It does not mean I want to drop all the way down to the level of a phone camera for my photography. Yes, I still do have my smart phone with me. But it certainly doesn't deliver DSLR-level image quality like a mirrorless system can.

I mean, if you look at like the Sony NEX system, the lenses are still pretty humongous because of the sensor size. Probably the same size as 18-55 DSLR lenses. So you're still carrying around this bulky non-pocketable camera, but is more expensive, doesn't have OVF, has compromises in the lens b/c it is mirrorless. But by the looks of it, the Sony NEX will have largely the same size lenses and the body saves you like 1-2 inches over a DSLR. Which is nice, but when the lens is the bulk of the length, saving size in the body seems foolish.

I think this "pocketability" criteria is just very narrow-minded. If cost were no object, then would you also carry a Pentax 645D instead of a DSLR? After all, by your criteria, any size/weight/bulk difference is inconsequential since the only criteria you seem to think matters is pocketability/non-pocketability! Or to tone it down a bit, would you carry a Canon 1DX around with you everywhere instead of a more modestly sized DSLR like a 60D? Most people would not, because they know that a 1DX is quite a bit bigger and heavier than a 60D. But again, by your standard, there is no significant difference because your only differentiating criteria is pocketability/non-pocketability. My point is that, even without pocketability, mirrorless gear STILL provides considerable and noticeable size/weight/bulk differences. This is obviously looking at pictures of them on the web, and they are even more obvious when used in real life (which you probably have not done).

Consider, for example, how many people have moved from carrying around bulky laptops, to slimmer/lighter/less bulky ultrabooks and tablets. Obviously, an ultrabook or tablet still doesn't pocketable. But people still see the advantages of carrying the slimmer/lighter/less bulky ultrabooks and tablets. I used to carry around a laptop with me, especially when meeting clients to show them my portfolio. No more. I now carry around an iPad. Obviously, an iPad still isn't pocketable. But I'm not dumb enough to just ignore the size/weight/bulk difference simply because it isn't pocketable.

But when you add a tele the size advantage disappears and becomes an ergonomical disadvantage (using the same sensor size)



-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow