This summer both Nikon and Cannon have introduced full-frame pro mirrorless cameras that can still utilize your current lenses. Very tempting but crazy money.

Question:
Will this be the end of the SLR or do you think the two styles will coexist in the market?

Choices:
The days of the SLR are coming to an end.
SLR and mirrorless both have something to offer and will coexist for years to come.

 

I voted both, but with the Z6 coming out of gate at $2K I'd expect it to be nearing half of that in a few years and be much more reachable by the serious hobbyist.

When you said "crazy money" I was expecting $5-8K.

Nikon 42MP Z7 - $3400
Nikon 24MP Z6 - $2000

Canon 30MP EOSR - $2300

Maybe not so bad compared to pro F series.

I have a mirrorless 4/3 camera and a DX (Nikon) crop-frame camera. They both take excellent photographs.

From my perspective, the advantage of mirrorless is less shake when taking photos. The disadvantage is the need for an electronic viewfinder.

A few weeks ago I researched both options and went with a Nikon D7500 and 16-80mm f2.8-4 lens. I want an optical viewfinder and do only still photography. In a few years I might revisit my decision.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mikeyspizza,

I am a Canon fan. Currently have 5D Mark IV, 80D, and EOS-M5 (mirrorless aps-c) bodies along with lots of lenses.

Their newly announced EOS R is probably not going to be their “Pro” level mirrorless body. It is essentially a 6D Mark II minus the mirror. The 6D was their “entry level” FF body when released in 2013 and the Mark II is the updated version released last year.

Given the also announced new RF lenses, especially the $3000, 28-70mm f/2 (constant!) “RF” lens, they are making a big play on their entry to the FF mirrorless market. I expect the “R” will be their “prosumer” mirrorless body and we will soon see a second FF mirrorless join it with true “pro” features (such as dual card slots, higher frame rate, etc.) with a higher pixel count.

With that commitment to a new lens mount and L quality glass with specs like those, I don’t think they are going to pin their hopes on a mid-performance body to make it worthwhile.

Canon has a long history of clearly dividing consumer/prosumer/professional bodies and limiting features/performance between the classes to preserve sales across their product lines.

The EOS-M cameras are primarily higher end consumer grade with native EF-M lenses or a bridge between P&S cameras and DSLR. With an adapter and better quality EF lenses, the M5 gets close to prosumer.

The new R body and native RF lenses are squarely prosumer+ but if they want to compete with Nikon and (more importantly) Sony in FF mirrorless, they will need a body with more resolution and a higher feature set.

They may have been slow to the FF mirrorless game, but I doubt the R will be the body they hang their hopes on, my guess is it is just the opening act.

The days of the mirror are numbered. Mirrorless is a simpler and more reliable mechanism. EVFs will get better and better, by Moore’s law. Lenses will improve too, as a result, with less restriction on the depth of the rearmost lens element.

Do the mirrors lock up as they did on the Nikkormat bodies of the film era?
This was great if you were using a tripod, prefocus and then use a shutter release.

quote:

Originally posted by walkinghorse:
Do the mirrors lock up as they did on the Nikkormat bodies of the film era?
This was great if you were using a tripod, prefocus and then use a shutter release.

Mirror lockup has been a feature on SLRs for a long time.

I don't know that SLRs will die out, but their market will probably get smaller and smaller.

The big benefits of mirrorless cameras are:

1. The body can be smaller, since you don't have the mirror taking up a ton of space.
2. The lenses can be mounted closer to the sensor (because the mirror isn't in the way), which means the lenses can be made more compact.

The drawbacks of mirrorless cameras have been getting smaller and smaller.

1. No optical viewfinders. Electronic viewfinders, in most conditions, are not as good as optical viewfinders, although the gap has narrowed over the years. In some conditions, like when lighting is dim, an EVF can be better than optical.

2. In the past, mirrorless cameras all used contrast detection autofocus, which is inferior to the phase-detection autofocus used in SLR cameras in several important ways (although CDAF has a few benefits over PDAF, too). Over the last few years, camera companies have figured out how to put PDAF sensors in the image sensor, so now some mirrorless cameras use PDAF.

I just traded in my Nikon DSLR and lenses for a Sony Alpha a7RII, and I can't be happier. Sony doesn't have large selection of lenses at this time, but the ones they do have are really good.

Also, with an adapter, you can use your Nikon or Canon lenses.

I was VERY hesitant at first going mirrorless, but the electronic view finder is GREAT! It shows you what your image will look like with your current settings so you know how your image will be before you press the shutter button.

Also, I like how it zooms in when you use manual focus so that you can get perfect focus.

Also, it has a feature where it tracks the eye of your subject and not just the face so you get great focus of your subject's eyes.

It doesn't have a flash, but the low light capability makes it where you rarely need one.


It was over $3k when knew, but they are a hair under $2k right now. I got the Sony FE 85mm 1.8, and again, I just can't be happier.

Here is my test subject. I was messing around with different focus features, but this one didn't get the best. Still, it isn't bad.

https://i.imgur.com/6ZxQgkb.jpg

This one had the better focus.

https://i.imgur.com/FJJsbch.jpg

I just bought a Canon M50. For $699 I got into a great mirrorless camera that produces very good 24MP. The lenses are affordable (more so than Sony's), and there is an adaptor that will allow use of other Canon DSLR lenses that are tried and true. I bought it for mostly wildlife and nature pictures.

The downside of this camera was known before I bought it - it does not have internal image stabilization, and is lens based.

I'm really close to pulling the trigger on a 6d mk2 to replace my 5d.

Wondering if I should wait and get the EOS-R instead.

Any word on the cost of the ef mount adapter?

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:
I'm really close to pulling the trigger on a 6d mk2 to replace my 5d.

Wondering if I should wait and get the EOS-R instead.

Any word on the cost of the ef mount adapter?

Canon adaptors are typically $200-300, but I just missed the "buy a Canon M50, get the adaptor for $50 deal". They do that from time to time to increase sales.

$400 when available

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c...t_adapter_ef_rf.html

Mirrorless won't kill SLR, not anytime soon. The number of lenses that can be used on Nikons with an F mount, for instances, is mind-numbing. Nikon lenses made decades ago can be used on the newest DSLRs, albeit with some functional limitations, usually. Hell, DSLRs (and digital in general) haven't even killed film yet, and there are some really diehard, serious photographers that swear by film.

It wasn't too long ago that people were wondering if full framed DSLRs would kill crop sensor DSLRs. Wildlife photographers figured out that if your are going to photograph something that doesn't fill your frame and your image needs to be cropped, you can generally get a better final result with a crop sensor DSLR than a full frame DSLR if the megapixels of the snesor are roughly the same.

Mirrorless is neat and has some advantages. But right now, if you want to get into photography, it's hard to beat a high end crop sensor DSLR. You'll save a lot of money you can use on accessories and lenses.

There are many options in photography so to each their own. Even so, I believe the shift will be mirrorless cameras due to what I brought up above.

With the electronic view finder, you see what your image will look like in real time. If you adjust aperture or shutter speed, you can see it through the finder instead of taking different images first and then making setting adjustments.

Again, I love how when I turn my lens focus wheel which makes the camera zoom in to allow you to make fine focus.

Another big bonus is you can see where focus is with in-focus areas being highlighted in one of 3 colors you can pick between. You can also get zebra lines to show areas where the highlights are blown out.

The dealer was in his 60s and had been in photography for many years, and I thought he'd be a film or DSLR fanboy, but I was amazed he was fully into mirrorless, especially with electronic view finders.

I'll never go back to a DSLR.

Also, my Sony a7RII is a full frame 42 megapixel camera, and they are also known for their great video capability.

Mirrorless.

Electronic viewfinder for the win. In-viewfinder focus peaking and focus assist is freaking awesome.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
Mirrorless won't kill SLR, not anytime soon. The number of lenses that can be used on Nikons with an F mount, for instances, is mind-numbing.

You can use pretty much any DSLR lens with pretty much any mirrorless camera using what is essentially a spacer to move the lens the correct distance from the sensor.

With some of those adapters and different lens and camera systems, using the electronic features of the lenses isn't always possible.

In the case of the new full-frame mirrorless Nikon Z6 and Z7, Nikon makes a spacer that preserves all the functionality of F-mount DSLR lenses. So you can use your existing Nikon lenses or buy the new mirrorless mount lenses that can be made more compact because of the smaller lens-to-filter distance.

quote:

Originally posted by Micropterus:
Wildlife photographers figured out that if your are going to photograph something that doesn't fill your frame and your image needs to be cropped, you can generally get a better final result with a crop sensor DSLR than a full frame DSLR if the megapixels of the snesor are roughly the same.

The problem is, full frame and crop sensors of similar quality and technology levels DON'T generally have the same number of pixels. They will have similar pixel sizes - which means a crop from a FF sensor will be about the same resolution and image quality as the full image from the crop sensor.

In Nikon's lineup, the top crop cameras are 20-25 megapixels. The top full frame camera is 45 megapixels.

The full frame cameras that are similar resolution to the crop cameras have substantially better low light performance (because more light hits each larger pixel).