Newbie: Finally upgrading from a Point & Shoot. Should I go DSLR or Mirrorless?
rachelmedina
Registered Users Posts: 27 Big grins
Hello all!
I'm fairly new to the photography world and currently only own a P&S camera. I've read up quite a bit on DSLRs & Mirrorless Cameras, but am still on the fence on which type of camera I should finally pull the trigger on, so to speak.
I currently love shooting landscapes & architecture, but also want to eventually start shooting portraits & street photography. I like the idea of how compact & lightweight Mirrorless cameras can be (I travel quite a bit) and that is what is making me pause at the thought of purchasing a DSLR. Given the fact that I've never owned either type of camera before, would I be sacrificing a great deal of image quality & performance if I opted for the more convenient route of a Mirrorless camera?
For anyone who has had experience with both type of cameras, if you were me and was starting from absolute scratch in obtaining gear, which route would you go with?
Thank you to anyone who could provide me with some insight!
Also, my apologies if this question has been asked before. If this is the case, please feel free to direct me to where this has been previously discussed and I will happily go dive there into further reading!
Again, thank you!
I'm fairly new to the photography world and currently only own a P&S camera. I've read up quite a bit on DSLRs & Mirrorless Cameras, but am still on the fence on which type of camera I should finally pull the trigger on, so to speak.
I currently love shooting landscapes & architecture, but also want to eventually start shooting portraits & street photography. I like the idea of how compact & lightweight Mirrorless cameras can be (I travel quite a bit) and that is what is making me pause at the thought of purchasing a DSLR. Given the fact that I've never owned either type of camera before, would I be sacrificing a great deal of image quality & performance if I opted for the more convenient route of a Mirrorless camera?
For anyone who has had experience with both type of cameras, if you were me and was starting from absolute scratch in obtaining gear, which route would you go with?
Thank you to anyone who could provide me with some insight!
Also, my apologies if this question has been asked before. If this is the case, please feel free to direct me to where this has been previously discussed and I will happily go dive there into further reading!
Again, thank you!
0
Comments
I use (as an amateur) a Nikon D800 (a DSLR) and a Sony NEX-7 (mirrorless), so I have a little experience with both worlds.
The size and weight advantage of the mirror less systems is significant. I never travel with my Nikon (even before I had an alternative).
As I see it, the primary disadvantages of mirror less cameras are speed of handling/focus acquisition (so they are less well suited to sports or maybe wildlife photography where you are relying on the camera to track a moving object), and they (typically) have smaller sensors - which means they are not able to create as shallow a depth-of-field as can be accomplished with a DSLR.
If limiting depth of field is sometimes important to you, this is a consideration.
The Sony NEX-7 sensor is the same size as the sensor in any Nikon entry-level DSLR (the same, or just a bit bigger than that of a Canon starter DSLR).
Sony has two new mirror-less models that have a "full frame" sensor (same size as 35mm film, same size as most expensive Nikon and Canon pro cameras).
I would recommend considering this issue before buying one of the Micro 4/3 cameras. Some of these are excellent cameras (the Olympus has many very happy owners), but the 4/3 sensor is smaller so will be at a disadvantage if very narrow depth of field is important to you (as it might be in your portraiture work).
Otherwise, I would not hesitate to go with a mirror-less system. There isn't any reason 'image quality' will suffer if your intended use of the camera doesn't include the items above - and the weight and size difference can mean you have your camera with you more often.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
Right now a DSLR is the best you can get but the kit tends to be heavy. It is also a safer investment when you start spending big money on lenses.
There are some really lovely mirrorless cameras around which will do a superb job in many situations - I would say almost everything you are currently promoting on your site. The DSLR starts to become necessary when you are pushing into extremes or need maximum productivity like shooting weddings professionally. If you can tell more about what you want to achieve it will help people give advice.
Thank you so much for your insight Bruce!
Being able to obtain an amazing bokeh for my future portraiture work is indeed important to me, therefore, you definitely gave me something to think about with the whole depth of field issue.
Thank you again!
Thank you for your kind words Chris!
As for where I want to go next with my photography, besides portraiture & street photography, I have dabbled with the idea of eventually shooting events and weddings as well. I've actually already been asked to shoot both as well as portraiture, but had to decline every single request due to my obvious lack of gear.
Based on what you said above though, a DSLR is really the only way to go when it comes to shooting weddings or anything professionally, therefore, I guess I really have to gauge how serious I am about getting into wedding photography & such before I pull the trigger on a new camera.
Thank you for your input!
Aww...thank you for your kind words as well divamum!
Good luck and let us know what you go with
http://kadvantage.smugmug.com/
Thank you for your kind words as well Chris!
My current P&S is a Sony CyberShot DSC-HX9V. It was a great little camera to bring around Europe, especially since I practically walked everywhere. I can't even imagine having to lug around a DSLR with its kit all over the streets of Europe, not to mention up & down the copious amount of stairs that they have there. Again, this is one of the main reasons why I'm hesitating on a DSLR due to its weight and my amount of travel.
And yes, I have heard of these camera rental companies and am considering trying them out to get some hands-on experience with both types of cameras. Based on the fact though that I still want to shoot my landscape/architecture/street photography while traveling, but also want to dive into portraiture/events/weddings while in my hometown, it's starting to sound like I will eventually need to invest in both types of cameras to suit my needs. Hmm...now if only I could win the lottery...
I do have a question for you or anyone else that has experience and can chime in. Searching the internet, I'm coming across more & more pro photographers who have stated that they've sold their DSLR gear and now only shoot with Mirrorless. Even for portraits & weddings. Based on their images, it seems like an amazing bokeh & stunning images can still be obtained with a Mirrorless camera.
Therefore, my question is: Are lenses more important than the type of camera you have? Or in other words, can a similiar image be obtained with the right lens regardless of whether or not you have a DSLR or Mirrorless?
My apologies if this is an obvious or stupid question. I really am fairly new to the photography world. Please be patient with me.
The quality of the bokeh you seek for portraiture is determined in great part by the lenses you use. Good glass is paramount. Some mirrorless platforms have good glass. Not all. There is probably more choice from the DSLR folks Nikon and Canon and the investment will last through many camera updates.
Now for the dilemna: For travel and street photography a big old lunking DSLR is not as practical as smaller mirrorless. For portraiture and landscape, the benefits of the DSLR platform I think is better.
Does your budget allow for Leica? Arguably some of the finest lenses ever made. Perfect size for travel and street. Film versions are reasonable. Lenses are "dear" to say the least but you get what you pay for.
I shoot Nikon (D800) for landscapes, Leica film for street and have an Olympus Pen for travel when the backpack of Nikon stuff is impractical. There are pros and cons to all.
So... If you have to pick just one platform, look closely at the Sony and Olympus mirrorless platforms. If you can have two systems, go with small mirrorless (or Leica if $$ is not an object) for street and travel and DSLR for the more stationary work.
By the way: You could write the book on terrific images from a P&S. I can't wait to see what expanded technology will do for your creative eye. Excellent!
With the results you get from a Sony Cybershot you will do wonders with a mirrorless, or any system with good lenses. Lenses are very important. When you find a good lens you want to keep it forever. One of the big advantages of DSLR is that there is a big choice of lenses of all qualities for the main systems, Nikon and Canon. There is also a healthy second hand market, so lenses for Nikon and Canon tend to hold their value for many years, long after the camera body has depreciated entirely. In the mirrorless world there are several competing platforms and only one with a decent range of lenses. It is worth checking too what the weight is of the lens you want - someone wiser than me said here a few months ago that "if I have to carry it in a bag I had better take a DSLR" - very much how I feel about it.
Like Molsondog said, there is always Leica if you want to dream...
Aww...thank you for your kind words as well Molsondog!
In regards to what kind of budget I am working with, I really do not want to go over a couple thousand dollars to start unless absolutely necessary. I would absolutely LOVE a Leica (my dream camera), but, sadly, that is obviously way out of my budget at this point in time.
I will definitely look more in detail at the Sony & Olympus mirrorless cameras as well as the lens options available through Nikon & Canon, and see if that will help me narrow my decision further. I wish I could afford both systems, but we will see...
Thank you so much for all your input & for narrowing down some camera brands for me to look into! It makes it much easier!
Ah...you make a good point, Chris, about taking what these pros are saying about selling their DSLRs for Mirrorless cameras with a grain of salt. Thank you for reminding me of the possible marketing ploys out there!
Based on what you & Molsondog have said about the importance of lenses, I think I will focus my research on the lens options of both systems & try to finalize my decision from there.
Thank you so much for your valuable information!
And oh, if you don't mind, I have one more question for you or anyone else who can make a suggestion:
Which website or store would you recommend is the best place to get a good deal on a camera bundle?
Thank you so much again!
Barring that opportunity, the preferred web merchants are B&H Photovideo or Adorama. As a rule, the manufacturers set the retail pricing so there isn't much of a difference place to place other than customer service. These two are tops.
Your budget is realistic but plan to pay $500+ for any worthwhile DSLR lens. Example: The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 will run you around $500. Watch out for the "kit" lenses. Not all are worth it. That's where an objective voice in a good shop can guide you.
- yes, go to a store and handle and figure out what feels great in YOUR hand
- B&H, Adorama and Amazon are your best online bets for new gear - once you find what you want, watch for flash sales and rebates (probably some after the holidays)
- KEH for used. I've bought from them many times, and just had my first experience selling to them - have never been disappointed
- others can offer nikon suggestions, but for Canon, def look at the 70d and def budget for great lenses - for your skill level, don't even bother with the kit lenses but jump straight to something like the 24-105is for a single lens kit to get you started, with maybe the 40mm 2.8 pancake as a fast prime that is also a GREAT small lens for street photography. You can add other great lenses as you go (ones to look at are the 17-55is and the 70-200 f4). If the 70d is out of your budget, look at the 60d - fabulous closeout deals on it all over the place. It's not as "wow" as the 70d, but it's a decent body that will get you started.
This is not true
You can do everything you're looking to do, even with mirrorless cameras. And for travel/street, you can't beat the advantages of smaller system.
You mentioned also that you want good bokeh, and that is also possible. You just need good glass. On m4/3s system, there is a ton of really good fast glass. I'm talking f/.95 fast (Voigtlander has three amazing f/.95 lenses)... and there are system-made (Pana, oly) fast primes (f/2, f/1.7) and pro-quality zooms (24-70, 70-200 equiv and f/2.8). Worth a look.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
There are a lot of pros making the switch, and succeeding rather well
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Your ability to create pleasing bokeh will be determined by sensor size, aperture, distance to subject, and focal length (depending on how you want to talk about framing). Great lenses are always better than less-than-great lenses, but a great lens on a larger sensor body will give you better bokeh than on a smaller sensor body. The notion that lenses are more important than cameras usually crops up when the discussion is about budgeting for a better lens or a better camera when the 'better camera' has a simlar sensor (at least same sensor size) as the lower cost alternative. In that scenario, the better lens is often where money should go.
You can play with an online depth-of-field calculator to get a sense for what is possible with various camera/lens combinations.
Of course, absolutely everything about photography involves compromise. Using a larger sensor body makes your lenses 'shorter' (wider angle of view), so wide angle lenses will 'seem wider' (maybe good?) but telephoto lenses will have less 'reach' (maybe bad?).
I would not agree with the assertion that mirror-less cameras are somehow less serious or less professional (though clients may well think smaller implies a lack of something). What makes it a professional tool is whether it supports your workflow, not whether it is shaped like professional gear from prior years.
In fact, mirror-less cameras achieve accurate focus more often than dSLRs, especially if you are focusing manually and using a very large aperture (f2.8 or wider). They are typically slower to accomplish this, and don't track moving subjects as well, but by their nature (focusing is done at the image sensor) they are more precise. A traditional dSLR uses another sensor for focus (because the image sensor is hidden behind the mirror and shutter when the optical viewfinder is in use).
Two issues exist with dSLR focusing:
1) Because the lens is focused before the imaging sensor is exposed, there is more opportunity for manufacturing tolerances to result in less-than-perfect lens/camera combinations. You will often hear people talk about getting a 'great copy' of a lens, or a lemon, when what is really happening is they did (or did not) get a lens whose imperfect manufacturing did (or did not) tend to offset imperfection in the distances built into their camera body. To mitigate this issue, pro level cameras have an auto-focus fine-tuning feature. An entry level dSLR does not have this feature, so people sometimes buy/return/exchange lenses looking for a 'good copy' when that isn't quite reality. Others of us live with a bad combination for a long time before we discover those fuzzy photos weren't our fault.
2) Modern dSLRs (i can only speak for Nikons, but I think this holds true for other brands) use a focusing screen that, in an effort to improve visibility, actually limits the user's ability to see what is out of focus at apertures wider than approx f2.8. Ever see a bundle of fiber optic threads clumped together in such a way that you could see around a corner? The viewing screen in a dSLR is essentially a very thin slice of such a material (not made the same way, but the result has a physical similarity). Anyway, the upshot is that the way light is sent to your eye is not entirely the same as with a film SLR, even though a prism is still involved. This means manual focusing at wide apertures is a bit of a trial-and-error game (you just can't tell from the viewfinder), so you depend on the auto-focus system (which has the possible errors discussed above) or you use 'live view' on the back of the camera (using your dSLR as a mirror-less). Mirror-less cameras do not suffer from this issue.
So it is possible that you may be better served by a mirror-less system.
When you buy into a system, you want to give serious thought to where that system is headed. In recent history it has been true that Nikon and Canon were relatively safe bets on a system that would continue to offer an excellent upgrade path. That may still be true, but they no longer have a lock on it.
I recommend you look carefully at what the mirror-less manufacturers are producing and what is available for lenses for those cameras (by other manufacturers also). Nikon and Canon make some nice lenses, and lots of lenses that are unimpressive. The very finest lenses are made by others, and are available with mounts for mirror-less cameras.
The Nikon F mount has remained unchanged for what, 50 years? There are loads of lenses out there that will fit. That doesn't guarantee that Nikon will be around in 10 to sell you a new body to go with a collection of lenses you might have amassed by then. There is risk in whatever you choose, and it can't all be mitigated.
Two photographers whose opinions I value are Thom Hogan and Lloyd Chambers. Thom's website is now split into several. His websites are nothing special to look at, but his thoughts on what makes a useful camera are sensible (and he has worked with most everything). His sans mirror.com site might be a good place to start.
http://www.bythom.com www.sansmirror.com http://www.dslrbodies.com
Lloyd's site is mostly behind a pay wall. It might be something you want to subscribe to briefly, if these topics interest you enough. The guy tests lenses extensively, and has a well-developed sense of why a lens does/does not give the results desired (there is a ton about how lenses behave that the typical photographer isn't aware of).
http://diglloyd.com
Good Luck! Keep us posted on your progress.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
Thank you for your suggestions Molsondog!
I live in Vegas and, surprisingly, I believe there is really only one independent camera store in town. However, the store and its employees have gotten mixed reviews when it comes to helping newbies, therefore, I may or may not check them out. I was actually thinking of taking a quick drive down to LA instead since the independent camera store options are more plentiful there & a few of them are known to be extremely helpful.
And yes, I have heard of B&H Photo, but not Adorama. So thank you for that additional option!
And thank you for informing me of what I should expect to pay for a good lens. It should help me work out my budget quite a bit!
Thank you for all the information divamum!
I was not aware of KEH! I will definitely look into them as an option as well!
And yes, with all the flash sales & rebates that will most likely be coming in the next couple weeks, the pressure is on for me to really figure out which system I really want to go with. I definitely don't want to miss out on a good deal!
And thank you for the DSLR & lens suggestions! I will definitely look into everything you mentioned!
Thank you so much for your input & information Andy!
Sounds like your vote is for me to go Mirrorless!
With that said, do you have any suggestions on which Mirrorless cameras you prefer that I can throw into the mix as I comparison shop the 2 systems?
Wow Bruce! Thank you so much for providing me with such detailed & plentiful information! I definitely learned quite a bit reading your post and I will definitely take a lot of what you said with me as I narrow my search down.
Thank you so much for the links to Thom & Lloyd's websites as well! I will have to check them out this weekend for further insight!
And yes, I will keep you all posted when I finally decide what to go with! Hopefully it won't come down to me just flipping a coin! Just kidding!
Thank you for the Fuji suggestion Chris!
I will definitely add it to my list of cameras to check out!
The Sony a7 and a7r are game changers in the many departments, being full frame and thus giving smaller dof's than smaller sensor cameras, but with 24-36mp. For landscape, architecture and portraits this is a fantastic system.
With an adapter you can hook on a Canon 17tse and have a world class architecture camera. Or a Canon 85/1.2 and now you've got the dream portrait camera. The Sony / Zeiss 35/2.8 resolves more lpm than just about anything on the market.
I've been using the a7r for a while now and it is truly amazing. Love it. More than the Nex-7, more than the Leica M9, more than the GH3.
However, if I'm shooting action - be it kids, a wedding, sports, wildlife I will always always preferentially pick up my 1Dx. The AF is unbelievably good. At 12-14 fps I always get shots that I would not have gotten otherwise.
From what you've described and looking at your photos I'd definately go mirrorless, but when you find yourself missing opportunities because of AF speed or framerate add in a dlsr body.
That's my two cents.
www.finesart.com
Sports, running/flying wildlife = DSLR
Printing huge = DSLR or FF Mirrorless.
Thinnest DOF = DSLR or FF Mirrorless.
All else = Mirrorless.
And I find the Fuji XF lens lineup to be fairly comprehensive, not limited.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I'm following this thread with interest, as my next point and shoot will probably be mirrorless; I adore my s95 and happliy use it when I need to travel small and light, but when it dies and it's time to replace it clearly I will have far more choices than I did in 2010!!
PS I think Rachel should be nominated for "Best New Poster" - thanks for stimulating some great conversation with intelligent questions (and answers)
Running/flying wildlife?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Can't agree with this. Sony are making full frame mirror less cameras (others will no doubt follow). They can achieve the same shallow depth of field that dSLRs enjoy.
Chooka chooka hoo la ley
Looka looka koo la ley
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Give me a month - I'm heading to Tanzania on Jan 21.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter