I'm probably going back to the dslr. I've had a couple of mirrorless cameras, however for myself, I think I was just as happy and satisfied with my dslr's. Being old-school (or maybe just old) I really don't think I utilize all the tech in mirrorless cameras that some do. I also find the price of dslr gear to my liking. My advice is to find out what works for you and go with it.
I been going back and forth between DSLR and mirrorless.
With my hands and arms getting weaker every year, its the only thing holding me back to switching back to DSLR.
Carrying around my tiny GX1 with a 20mm is much more comfortable experience than carrying a DSLR body with a prime lens
I really have yet to see a true need to move on from my DLSR's. Heck I'm still currently shooting a lot still with an original 5D. Have a ton of adapted mf lenses I use on that. Then I have a 7D II that stays on my 600/4.0 for wildlife. An older 7D has been kept to use on my 70-200/2.8 and 400/5.6. I'll usually take both 7D bodies and lenses with me when I go out to shoot wildlife and birds.
My newest DSLR is a 5DSr which I plan to take out this morning to do some shooting.
I have recently picked up a used Leica SL and find it's EVF works better for me now to manually focus adapted lenses than the OV on my 5D. Even though I did swap out the focusing screen on the 5D a LONG time ago to help me with manually focusing it. Despite having the mirrorless camera now I don't see any reason to stop using my DSLR. I take pictures, the DSLRs still work, why waste money moving on to something else if they are not holding me back?
This was taken a month ago with the 7D II, no need to improve on this.
The 5DSr give me stuff like this, once again, I don't need more:
Even the old 5D paired with my Leica R 60/2.8 macro sees regular use as my bike shooting combo.
^^^
I enjoyed the convergence of (older) DSLR tech with the older (cycling) tech of the Suntour Superbe gear. It has been a while since I’ve seen that! ;-)
Just picked up a d700 with low shutter count (10k), figured i already have lenses so why not try it out. Family member also offered to give me their 5d classic. So i plan on experimenting with them both and seeing how the files feel compared to my more modern leicas.
EB-1 wrote:
Yet the IQ of many of my 2015 5DsR images is equal and or better to the 45MP cameras. Of course the old cameras were slower, but the end result was far less different that the specs would indicate. Of course I would not use it today, but from mid 2015 to mid 2017 it was my preferred body.
I loved the 5DS/SR line and I shoot Nikon. They did make great images. But cameras aren’t sensors and performance charts alone, handling and workflow is huge, and mirrorless is just another league in this regard.
EB-1 wrote:
Yet the IQ of many of my 2015 5DsR images is equal and or better to the 45MP cameras. Of course the old cameras were slower, but the end result was far less different that the specs would indicate. Of course I would not use it today, but from mid 2015 to mid 2017 it was my preferred body.
This morning I'm still loving my DSLRs as posted above. Then I spent around 5 hours today shooting both my 5DSr and my Leica SL at a local event. The Canon had my 70-200/2.8 zoom and the Leica had the 24-90/2.8-4.0 zoom. I took a lot more shots with the Canon and spent about 5 more hours processing them. Then I started working the files from the Leica. Wow, what a difference in files straight out of the camera. There is a serious richness to the Leica shots that is just missing from the Canon. So shocked to see this readily apparent difference, I was not expecting that. Today was the first time I used the two different camera's for the same shoot. I need to dig more into this when I have time, to actually see what's going on.
This morning I'm still loving my DSLRs as posted above. Then I spent around 5 hours today shooting both my 5DSr and my Leica SL at a local event. The Canon had my 70-200/2.8 zoom and the Leica had the 24-90/2.8-4.0 zoom. I took a lot more shots with the Canon and spent about 5 more hours processing them. Then I started working the files from the Leica. Wow, what a difference in files straight out of the camera. There is a serious richness to the Leica shots that is just missing from the Canon. So shocked to see this readily apparent difference, I was not expecting that. Today was the first time I used the two different camera's for the same shoot. I need to dig more into this when I have time, to actually see what's going on. ...Show more →
Have you ever compared your 5DSr files to Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Hasselblad or P1 ones?
bernardl wrote:
Have you ever compared your 5DSr files to Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Hasselblad or P1 ones?
Cheers,
Bernard
Nope, I'd need someone to "fund" me to do that, ! I did shoot a Nikon D300 years ago when I was using an old Nikon manual focus 800/5.6 for my wildlife work. So I could compare those files back then against the Canon's I had then. One for sure thing I've encountered with all my Canon's is how they handle reds. It's so easy with my very limited photoshop skills to blow out the reds in a Canon file. I've not encountered this with my old Nikon DSLR or the current Leica SL.
Lachlan Bailey -- routinely shoots for Vogue, Bizarre, just did a shoot of Gizelle -- uses the D850...I talked with him about it over IG and he mentioned a few other mega photogs who will not "upgrade" to the Z..their reasoning: the lenses...And, for me, that's also true. I use the Z, but I adapt Sony Sigma lenses on there...the 1.2 glass is too sharp. It's a lot.
Cliff L. wrote:
Says the same guy who claimed he couldn't see a difference between miniature format and medium format...
I never said that. What I have said is that you won’t see a difference unless you work with great care and make quite large prints and that even then the difference is quite small.
I also never compared medium format (film) or miniMF (digital) to anything called “miniature format.” Not sure what that is? Instamatic?
Some months ago I sold my last Nikon DSLR thinking that I'd come around to enjoying using my Zeiss ZF.2 lenses just as much on a mirrorless camera. Nope. There is something about using manual focus lenses with an optical viewfinder that I really like.
So, I recently bought a D780 to rectify the situation. This will probably be my last DSLR, but then again, I thought that some months ago and was wrong.
EB-1 wrote:
What single lens would be used to compare all those different bodies?
EBH
Sigma or Zeiss? They have native versions for Canon and Nikon DSLRs and there are excellent adapters for Sony and Fuji GFX.
The Sigma 105mm f1.4 or Otus 100mm f1.4 are probably the best performers.
But DR comparisons are widely available demonstrating the large superiority of Sony sensors, even more so when considering the 33x44mm sensor of the GFX. There is probably a 3 stop real world gap btwn the 5DRs and the GFX-100II. Which is nothing short of huge.
It’s of course possible to limit one’s shooting to situations where this won’t make any difference, or to let one’s post processing style be limited by what the sensor can tolerate. And there is of course affordability also. New equipment becoming more pricy due to tariffs, the weakening US$, etc,… So it’s fine to continue shooting with the 5Drs of course. But I would personally still want to be objective about what I am missing out on.
And btw the GFX-100II is a great solution to scan large format negatives thanks to its multishot capabilities. I have created a dedicated set up for this that also allows for flat stitching with a dedicated continuous source used for heritage applications (very high color fidelity leds), Arca tech camera and Rodenstock macro lens. Way better than my former Imacon and it can do 8x10. But there is probably no need to do to these extremes. I am a nerd. 😂
bernardl wrote:
Sigma or Zeiss? They have native versions for Canon and Nikon DSLRs and there are excellent adapters for Sony and Fuji GFX.
The Sigma 105mm f1.4 or Otus 100mm f1.4 are probably the best performers.
But DR comparisons are widely available demonstrating the large superiority of Sony sensors, even more so when considering the 33x44mm sensor of the GFX. There is probably a 3 stop real world gap btwn the 5DRs and the GFX-100II. Which is nothing short of huge.
Rewriting history is fashionable in some parts these days but nothing has changed in reality.
It’s of course possible to limit one’s shooting to situations where this won’t make any difference, or to let one’s post processing style be limited by what the sensor can tolerate. And there is of course affordability also. New equipment becoming more pricy due to tariffs etc,… So it’s fine to continue shooting with the 5Drs of course. But I would personally still want to be objective about what I am missing out on.
And btw the GFX-100II is a great solution to scan large format negatives thanks to its multishot capabilities. I have created a dedicated set up for this that also allows for flat stitching with a dedicated continuous source, Arca tech camera and Rodenstock macro lens. Way better than my former Imacon and it can do 8x10.
Except that's not true, the 5DsR basically beats the A9III on Bill Claff's site, no noise reduction. And honestly Z6III isn't that hot, either, neither is the original A9. The aps D7200 beats all of them
So if we're back to the DR above all used to trash Canon DSLR'S, there are current mirrorless camera you need to avoid
It was kinda stupid, in the midst of the DR push Sony released A9, not having it, really
! I did shoot a Nikon D300 years ago when I was using an old Nikon manual focus 800/5.6 for my wildlife work. So I could compare those files back then against the Canon's I had then. One for sure thing I've encountered with all my Canon's is how they handle reds. It's so easy with my very limited photoshop skills to blow out the reds in a Canon file. I've not encountered this with my old Nikon DSLR or the current Leica SL. 
