CanadaMark Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I've tried to like mirrorless, but I haven't been able to get fully on board for the following reasons (keep in mind these are just my own reasons as they apply to my usage, not meant as blanket statements or absolutes):
1) I can't stand EVF's. They are still nowhere even close to as good as an OVF for visuals (yes I know they can do other things like focus peaking, etc.) Every one I have tried so far has visible pixels, horrible DR, and noticeable lag. They have also been borderline unusable in poor light and high contrast situations.
2) Tracking and low light AF isn't up to pro-DSLR levels. The Nikon 1 cameras probably come the closest, but the sensor is much too small to be my only camera. On paper, there are a handful of mirrorless cameras with amazing AF specs, but in practice a good DSLR would by my go-to almost every time. Most mirrorless cameras do not have PDAF at all, so their tracking AF leaves much to be desired. CDAF is also pretty bad in low light.
3) You still have to carry a camera bag, especially if you have much more than a pancake lens attached. If I need to carry a bag around with me anyway, it might as well be slightly larger and contain my D810.
4) Battery life on mirrorless is very weak compared to DSLRs, which often last me 2000+ shots and entire vacations. My mirrorless cameras are usually charged daily on vacation.
5) I have very large hands and it is much more comfortable for me to hold onto something like a DSLR, especially if there is a heavy lens attached. I have also yet to try a mirrorless camera that allows me to change settings as quickly and easily as a DSLR with hard buttons everywhere. I prefer real buttons to touch screens in all situations, and with a DSLR I can change every important setting without even taking my eye away from the viewfinder.
6) Large sensor mirrorless still means large lenses. Large lenses are much more comfortable to manipulate and balance when you have a DSLR-sized grip to hold onto. Also, if you are using something like a 70-200/2.8, your overall size/weight savings by using a mirrorless body vs a DSLR are negligible and not worth the sacrifices of using a mirrorless body (for me).
7) Need to use a good flash gun on-camera? Try putting a SB900/910-sized flash on top of a small mirrorless camera haha. It's not great.
8) Lens selection, at least for my usage, is far better for DSLRs. Most mirrorless systems have very limited lens selections compared to Nikon/Canon, or require the use of adapters to expand compatibility.
9) Sensor size is always a struggle for mirrorless cameras, because you need lenses to cover the image circle too, which no longer makes them compact in many cases. Sony is the only game in town for full-frame mirrorless, a few brands do APS-C, and then 1" or M4/3 is getting to be much too small for a primary camera (again, IMHO). Small sensors also start to limit megapixels if you want to retain decent ISO performance.
Now on to the positives (again, as I see them for my personal usage):
1) They make amazing back-up or travel cameras. DSLR-like responsiveness, high frame rate, and great AF in the PDAF bodies make them ideal for certain tasks where you may not be able to use a DSLR or simply want to be less conspicuous.
2) I love them for underwater cameras. Since they are the size of a P&S, you can get a dive-rated housing for many mirrorless cameras for around $140. Having 10+ FPS with PDAF and instant responsiveness under water beats the hell out of an "all weather" rugged P&S, or a P&S in a similar housing, and the cost is often the same or less.
3) They are cheap. I would never buy a mirrorless camera anywhere near full price. Many of them get steeply discounted, much more so than DSLRs usually do, since product life cycles are usually shorter compared to DSLRs. It's not unusual to pay half price or less 12-18 months after launch.
4) Mirrorless cameras can do some useful tricks that DSLRs can't, such as live exposure preview, focus peaking, advanced viewfinder overlays, etc.
5) No mirror means less moving parts, less dust (probably), no mirror slap vibrations, higher frame rate possibilities, and usually better AF during video. You usually get more information in the EVF as well (though the forced image-review in the Nikon V1 EVF makes me want to throw it off a cliff every time haha).
6) AF point coverage can be pretty much the entire sensor. There doesn't seem to be too many limitations with regard to putting CDAF and PDAF points on the sensors themselves as far as coverage goes.
7) They can be used in place of a TC. For example, a Nikon 1 and FT-1 is like putting a 2.7X TC on any lens with no aperture loss. Throw a 70-200/2.8 on a Nikon 1 V3, for example, and you get a 189-540mm F2.8 with 20 FPS, PDAF between frames, deep buffer, and instant response. For wildlife, sports, etc. that is a pretty attractive option compared to a 500/4 or 600/4 if cost or weight are concerns. The disadvantages there are obviously sensor size, EVF, and big-lens-small-body ergonomics.
8) Small sensor mirrorless usually does mean small bodies and small lenses. So long as you're OK with the trade-offs, you can build yourself a kit that really is a lot smaller & lighter than a DSLR equivalent. You lose a lot of this once you start getting into APS-C or FF mirrorless though, especially if you still want a complete kit with telephoto coverage.
I think mirrorless has a very bright future, but I also believe they are a long way from DSLR replacements, at least for my personal usage. Too many compromises at the moment for me to consider using them as a primary camera. I use a Nikon 1 V1 and Coolpix A alongside my D810, and everything has it's place. I couldn't imagine replacing something like a D810 altogether with any mirrorless camera currently on the market though.
Those are my reasons anyway, as they apply to my personal requirements - I'm sure it's different for others as we all have different priorities. Sorry that ended up being super long haha!
|