I think equipment mattters, but the shooter is more important.

For me, the high cost of mirrorless remains a barrier.

I would rather shoot DSLR full frame with old fashioned viewfinder at a much lower cost.

At the same time, I would agree that more modern cameras are better. But, within a recent time frame, DSLR will be more than functional. Artistry is still possible.

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
I think equipment mattters, but the shooter is more important.

***

Artistry is still possible.

Possible with just about anything, really.

quote:

I went Olympus/MicroFourThirds years ago - the newest OM-1 is stellar. Here's a review. The viewfinder is great, and you can have it display a bunch of useful info (or not, as you choose.)

I've been with Olympus OM-D's for quite a while. E-M5 Mark I, II, then III. Last year I sprung for the OM-1 and have been extremely impressed. I mentioned earlier high-tech features; didn't mention that is highly water-resistant; has unbelievable image stabilization built into the body; much higher available ISO; much faster focusing and burst speeds; and the Zuiko lenses, especially the Pro models of which I own a couple, get rave reviews.
All this in a system that is much lighter and easier to carry than a full-frame camera, yet image quality is still excellent.

First off let me state that I am currently invested in lenses for my current DSLR's. My cameras are a Nikon D500, and a D5600, both are "crop sensor" cameras, and the majority of my lenses are DX (crop sensor). At my age (69), I am married to the APC crop sensor system and can't see myself going mirrorless unless something catastrophic happens such as a break in when everything is stolen, or worse yet a devastating house fire takes it all from me. Nikon mirrorless camera system lacks a APC sensor equivalent to my D500.