The battle between DSLRs and mirrorless cameras

ik vind de grootte van de camera toch wel bepalend in mijn keuze en overweeg terug te gaan naar Canon dit ivm bedieningsgemak daar komt bij dat ik de lenzen van sony erg duur vind ben benieuwd hoe de reacties van anderen zijn

1 nadeel van system cameras is, ze moeten altijd aan staan wil je iets zien (dus meer stroom verbruik).
een spiegelreflex kan gewoon uitstaan als je een compositie wilt maken. Zeker als je dieren fotografeert in schuilhut is het makkelijk. Kan je gewoon beetje jijken en wachten, en pas aanzetten als je denkt dat het moment nadert.

Ik heb een a7iii met een 24-105 lens

I work with two DSLRs (Canon 1Dx MII) and a Fuji X-T2. I have the Canons primarily for my concert/festival/event work, but still also for portraits for magazines. Speed, sitting firmly in the hand and the whole arsenal of lenses are decisive for me in that regard.

The Fuji can I use mainly for reportage on location when I don't want to stand out. Especially now that events/concerts/festivals are on hold and I work more on the streets, the Fuji is a godsend.

One important player in this market segment has been forgotten here, namely Fuji. They do have a camera in their lineup that solves the problem for wildlife photographers in hides, namely a camera with a hybrid viewfinder.

I myself am completely convinced by my Nikon Z7. However, I do miss Fuji in this article. In the somewhat longer term, I think they have made a very strong strategic move by skipping the 'bloodbath' in the full-frame segment.
On the one hand, they offer a more compact solution around impressive cropped sensor technology, with an extensive range of high-performance lenses.
On the other hand, they are opening up the medium format segment with a very affordable camera.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Tuesday 12 May 2020 at 11:46  | reply

The Fuji T system indeed comes out very well in the tests! Strange indeed that they are not considered one of the ‘main players’. I’ll try to find out why that is!

I'm switching from Canon 5D3 to Fujifilm X-T4 because of the stabilization in the camera body.

@Michelle; Unfortunately, I can no longer remember that....
I found the buttons and the settings of the menu to be in inconvenient/illogical places at the time. Later the Sony A9 came out, in the photos the new menu looked more like Canon's. So more user-friendly for me. But what the buttons are like now... I don't know. For now, I'll stick with Canon out of laziness.

The Sony cameras are technically in good order (apart from the battery capacity at the time), if the user-friendliness had also been fine for me back then, I might have switched as well.

I find it very strange that Fuji is not mentioned in your article, but I find it even stranger that you have to ask how this comes about.
I assume that you wrote the article yourself and did the research yourself. To now completely ignore Fuji and moreover 'look into' how this comes about suddenly gives me a lot less confidence in your articles.

Unfortunately, not a word about Fuji. They still choose the aps-c format (and mid-frame, but that is too exotic for most people). Fuji makes fast, solid, relatively small (lightweight) and relatively reasonably priced mirrorless cameras (since the introduction of the X-T4 also with in-body stabilization) and excellent matching lenses. Wildlife photographers are happy with the aps-c format because of the crop factor. Firmware updates are regularly released that keep the camera up to date. I switched from a Canon 7d to the Fuji X-T3 two years ago and have not regretted it for a moment.

In analog photography I always worked with a canon SLR.
Later switched to digital photography .
I have already had various cameras from Panasonic and now own a Panasonic S1 with the 24-105 mm
This is a great camera for me because by using the accompanying kit lens you can do many kinds of photography.
also for filming this is an excellent camera.

Luckily, there are many who are already pointing to the cameras in Fujifilm's X-T series, especially the XT-4 makes me think about switching from Canon. I have also had Sony, but the user-friendliness was too much getting used to for me.

It's a shame that Olympus with its great OM-D cameras isn't mentioned at all. I've been a very satisfied user of them for years alongside my full-frame Nikon camera.

I find the electronic image of a mirrorless camera very restless. The size of the camera is important to me for a comfortable grip.
Currently I have a D500 and a Sony RX compact.

I am glad that Jeannette mentions Olympus first, the inventor of the system camera and more recently the introducer of micro 4/3. Olympus also has the best-performing stabilizers on the market. I own 2 E-M1s which I am very satisfied with (what a saving in weight, size and price, especially with the lenses). A few months ago I bought an E-M1X which is designated as top 5 in many reviews. A top camera for top sports photographers, travel, nature and landscape photographers. And printing photos with the now high-quality crop 2 sensors, it is impossible to see a quality difference up to A3 plus prints (I cannot print larger myself). And then to think that the vast majority of hobbyists present photos exclusively via the internet where you cannot even see a quality distinction with a good Smart- or iPhone ... Buying a Formula 2 to drive it around in the garden ... mind-boggling.

I switched from Canon to Sony years ago. I now have the A7r3, couldn't be better. Over time you get used to the menu structure. Lenses aren't cheap, but then you do have top class with the GMs

I bought a Canon EOS RP last year alongside my 7D Mk2. I really like the RP, but it is too slow for e.g. wildlife photography. But it is especially ideal for macro photography, among other things because of the focus stacking. Looking forward to the R5 with anticipation and yes, then the 7D will go.

Another Olympus fan here. I used to photograph with Nikon and Canon, with search dslr as compact cameras, eventually ended up with Olympus... and stayed there. Besides the fact that I personally find them very beautiful and stylish cameras, their choice for an MFT sensor also makes the cameras incredibly fast and very handy. And definitely compare their 300mm pro lens with a 600mm full frame equivalent from Nikon or Canon, not only in terms of size, but also the price. Especially if you're often on the road, the choice is quickly made...

As a serious hobbyist (turning photography into a side job is a serious option), I have a couple of Nikon D750s with the necessary f/2.8 zoom and F/1.8 prime lenses. These are perfectly adequate, but I cannot rule out that my next cameras will be mirrorless cameras. Because of the investment in lenses, a logical successor would again be a Nikon. Unfortunately, the current Nikon Z-series cameras only have one memory card slot, and it is also of an uncommon type. I focus on wedding and concert photography, and especially for wedding photography, having only one memory card slot is unacceptable in my view. My D750s can and should last for years yet, and I will see what is on the market by then. Reusing my lenses with Nikon F-mount would be a major plus.

To put it perhaps (too) bluntly:
Anyone who still buys a FF SLR as a hobbyist today ... isn't right in the head.
I know only one (and even then 'possible') exception. That is the portrait photographer who makes billboard photos in a properly equipped studio.
I don't wish to shock anyone and of course everyone chooses the camera and lenses that are closest to her/his heart. But all too often, 3 wrong decisions lie at the root:
- the vicious circle of already available expensive equipment
- ignorance
- fear of stepping outside the comfort zone.

Years ago I switched from the many Canons to Panasonics. had a GH5 then switched to the G9. Great cameras, very handy. Almost everywhere they write about those 3 brands. Other brands are probably better than those 3. They should write about those too!

@vera van wauwe. Besides the Photofacts course (which was excellent), there are also lots of informative videos on YouTube. I found a number of basic settings there at the time. Very handy. But still, a follow-up course is never a bad thing...

Dear Michelle,

You did not include a compact camera in your explanation. I have now set my sights on the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 MK IV. When you read broadly about this, it is quite a capable all-rounder. The camera will come along on walks and recreational bike rides. Of course also to photograph my (grand)children, on days out and actually everywhere and always. No changing lenses, always lots of zoom and, so to speak, macro up to 3 cm from the subject, excellent reviews overall and good in terms of weight. But when you go to shops, they all say something different. From acquaintances who take photographs you then hear, they need to get rid of their stock and they stand up for the brands they carry..... Who is objective? I am nothing more than a recreational photographer and take photos for fun. I now have a Panasonic DMC FZ-200. It takes very nice photos but light plays an important role and the photos (especially people/details/colour) could be better as far as I am concerned. I would like more.

Could you help me get started. I would greatly appreciate that and thank you very much in advance.

Kind regards,
Fred Ruitenbeek

I've been using the Sony 7m3 for more than a year now, and my girlfriend uses a Canon D7
In terms of handling but also technical photo quality, I only see advantages with the Sony.

I use both systems. Each has pros and cons, but as you get older, weight is also important. When cycling, I like to take an Olympus Pen with me, with a few extra lenses. For static photography; tripod work, landscapes, macro and portraits, I find Nikon DSLRs the better choice, with a preference for the older D200 and D90 models. Still, the system cameras are also well suited for evening shots on a tripod. You don't get overloaded quickly, do you.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Tuesday 12 May 2020 at 16:44  | reply

@Paul: I also don't think it's smart to switch from a familiar camera brand (in my case Canon). At least, I won't be doing it anytime soon! The differences are indeed very minimal and ease of use is also very important (I've experienced that myself and I also read it in the reactions to this article). I therefore think that marketing (and the budget for it) is largely why Sony, Canon and Nikon are still considered the three main players in the more expensive camera segment. The quality probably won't differ much between them.

Despite all the electronics, people are no longer learning to take photographs. With all those system cameras, they no longer learn the basics that a real photographer really has to know. Real photographers will always keep choosing between the top models from Nikon,Canon or Hasselblad.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Tuesday 12 May 2020 at 17:00  | reply

@PixelDude: a more expensive camera often ensures that you can still take good photos in (very) difficult (lighting) conditions. I think that is the big distinction.

@Lauran: but that has actually been going on for quite some time already, right? The days of separate light meters and manually focusing and exposures lasting minutes have been behind us for ages. And it still takes quite a bit of technical insight to be able to deal with all that built-in artificial intelligence!

Hi Michelle 16:26

Are you also talking about the 5DM5 then.

Regards
Hans.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Tuesday 12 May 2020 at 17:06  | reply

@Hans: it will undoubtedly have this on board! Even the EOS 90D (an aps-c dslr) already has it!

Michelle Peeters wrote on Tuesday 12 May 2020 at 17:10  | reply

@Wouter: that's right, the weight of your own lenses remains... I recently tested the Canon EOS R with a 24-240mm RF lens (very versatile, then) and the quality was anything but disappointing! On top of that, for the first time in ages I didn't have to lug a ton of gear around, what a relief, especially during a strenuous hike! And then you do start weighing things up..

AdelheidSPhotography wrote on Tuesday 12 May 2020 at 17:21  | reply

Last year all my camera gear was stolen (cameras, lenses, tripods, filters...everything). So I could make a fresh start and wasn't tied to certain lenses that had to fit again. And given all the advertising Sony does, I seriously considered them. In the end I stayed loyal to Canon, and bought the R. I'm very happy with it. The 24-105 mm lens that comes with it is great. It's just a shame that there are still so few (affordable) lenses with the new RF mount. I also have a Canon G1X as a smaller camera, but one that can shoot RAW. I'm very happy with that one too. I still find the jpgs from the latest smartphones many times worse, especially on a large screen. The limitation remains the small sensor.

@Lauran, all the electronics 'notwithstanding'?? You don't count on your fingers to 1000 anymore when you have a calculator, do you?

I worked with (Nikon) SLRs for years, always good photos, but a bit of appearance came with it too. Especially when it came to wedding reports, you were literally more in the picture than when you showed up with a system (Fuji).
But still did it for a period.

Then I boldly bought a Fuji X100F... What a peace there was in that... The zoom is your legs and what you don't have with you means that you have to make an effort to make it work after all.

The point is, less is more.

I myself use Nikon's D750 DSLR
I chose this precisely for the convenience of the menuand the ease of use of the system. I also find the telephoto lenses from Nikon as well as Sigma and Sony more manageable than those big long lenses from Canon when you have the same apertures, for example.
The Sony is a beautiful camera but it also just depends on what you yourself grew up with or what your preference is.
Personally, I wouldn't quickly choose a system camera because of the light weight, but also because of my own feeling of still having a little more control myself, but I think that is also a matter of taste.

Even so, I think the Sony, Canon and Nikon are top-class cameras.

I let my Nikon D750 hang calmly by my side with an extra battery, even with a telephoto lens. I usually bring two cameras and the second is also a Nikon but then the D7000.
I use the heavier classes because of the grip and less shaking than the lightweight cameras I tried it for a while with a lighter one but for me a heavier one is more stable but that could just be me haha

Of course I mean: I don't see the electronic viewfinder working for me....

Tanja Thomas wrote on Tuesday 12 May 2020 at 22:05  | reply

Current issue and as you know certainly an issue I was pondering. Nice to read this article then and especially all the reactions to it.Technology is advancing in very big steps and so big even that keeping up with these steps with the accompanying financial steps is very difficult.I am a Nikon fan and the only reason for that is because these cameras sit nicely in my hand, feel good so to speak, my father gave me a Nikon when I was young. With Nikon I don't have to think about where all the controls are and even with newer version cameras I know almost immediately where everything is without looking in the instructions. So probably laziness and getting used to it. Yet Nikon, despite appreciated and indicated rankings with Nikon in third place, always gave me exactly what I wanted in a camera and image too. I am personally happy with it.Probably a matter of taste too. I see 'something' in the results of system cameras with enormous range. Difficult to describe what, but it often gives a kind of edge around the subject.Not really strange if you read the technical aspect of these cameras. But that too will soon disappear or has already disappeared in the more expensive new system cameras. So no cheap and lightweight system camera for me, because these don't feel right for me. Perhaps the more expensive and "heavier" versions with good sensors are something for me, but for now too expensive for me. Also still too 'expensive' to simply trade in my old, so nice "equipment" for a camera with everything on it and on it. A bit the opposite perhaps of what most people want. Photography is painting with light and that is how I like to keep seeing it. Painting with pleasure and with the means I have available and/or choose. Not disturbed by the consumer market and the newest of the new on the market. Yes, I will probably keep trailing behind the crowd and or go in a totally different direction, but figuring out for myself how to make a beautiful photo in my experience with the sometimes 'insufficient' technical means I have available to me at that moment, remains the greatest pleasure in photography for me. so I will stick with the Nikon DSLR cameras for a while longer.

Thanks Michelle for the article and all the additions! What I miss in many personal reactions is some "own filtering" because around everyone's preference there are also factors such as, what is your current camera used for and how open or flexible are you yourself to another user menu of another brand/type/technology in order to make it your own?! I am conservative and I see that reflected in my choice of PC and tools too, and because I know my 7D well when it is properly set up, I can work with it super well. Change makes you uncertain, is risky for the quality of your photos...; when will they be just as good or better?... But that mirrorless cameras are gaining a strongly growing position (compared to my DSLR) seems evident to me. and I may prepare myself for that among other things by reading and following these articles. Thanks again! And you know, there are deep reasons for our brand loyalty!!!

Michelle Peeters wrote on Wednesday 13 May 2020 at 00:07  | reply

@Tanja and Gerard: being familiar with your camera and its settings is indeed something that keeps coming back in the comments. And it has also become clear to me that you become more creative and resourceful because of the lack of possibilities on your (old and robust) camera that you know inside out and can improvise with. But having to discover the possibilities and new functions on a new and modern camera also makes you more creative. You are often forced to try everything out in order to achieve the desired result. And once you have figured that out, you don't want it any other way. The investment is a different story and something that of course isn't within everyone's reach.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Wednesday 13 May 2020 at 09:38  | reply

@Jose: that's indeed correct (that's also my experience), that it's difficult to go back to a DSLR once you've worked with a mirrorless camera. But Canon's DSLRs are also making headway when it comes to Eye-tracking AF capabilities, so who knows..

Sony has indeed been working with mirrorless cameras only for years (no DSLRs) and they spend quite a bit of money on marketing, which is paying off! But whether the quality differs all that much from other mirrorless cameras is of course the question... And I read a lot in the comments that the user-friendliness is somewhat less than, for example, Canon's.

@Michelle
You say: “A mirrorless camera has an electronic viewfinder that displays the world with a very slight delay (0.005 to 0.11 seconds, depending on the type of camera). This could be essential, for example, for a sports photographer.”

A lot of progress has already been made in this latter area as well, by Olympus among others.
The newer E-M1X has a Pro Capture photography function for this. Capturing begins when the shutter button is half-pressed. At the moment the button is fully pressed, the camera starts saving the last n captured photos to the memory card, where n stands for the number that was selected ‘before’ recording. If the button remains fully pressed, recording continues until the selected number of photos has been recorded. In other words, recording already begins ‘back’ in time before the moment the button is fully pressed.
There is a Pro Capture Low mode with shooting at 18 frames per second with up to 35 frames per second of pre-capture.
With the Pro Capture High setting, the camera records at 60 frames per second, with up to 35 frames per second of ‘pre-capture’ taking place as well.
Of inestimable value for sports and wildlife photographers.

Well, the next one will simply be another DSLR, namely the successor to the already fantastic 1DX-Mk2, the 1DX-Mk3. I don't see the point of those electronic viewfinders, they perform poorly or hardly at all in the dark, and saving battery power is of secondary importance with these cameras anyway.

Having read the article and all the comments so far, I have come to the conclusion for myself that the discussion about the future of mirror vs. mirrorless cameras should therefore not really be based solely on the actions of Canon, Sony and Nikon. Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic apparently play at least as big a role. Which brand is the best (the biggest in the figurative sense) seems to be different for everyone, just like the preferences for mft, dslr, ff and mf. The 2 basic systems and all the brands have their own following, differ in certain respects, but nowadays they are all incredibly good and in that sense can all be described as "big". If "big" meant market share, then I'm out. I don't know those shares (but it would be interesting to include them). The preferences for mirror or mirrorless are apparently very personal and have less to do with the brands and much more with a preference for a lot or little weight, big or small, and the typical (but increasingly smaller) differences between the viewfinders of the different concepts. Battery life, being familiar with a concept used for years, not being able to say goodbye to glass and last but not least budget also play a role. If there is a battle going on between "mirror" and "mirrorless", then the general opinion nevertheless increasingly seems to be that "mirrorless" will emerge as the winner. Given the still large group of mirror enthusiasts, this will take quite a while and perhaps never happen. Maybe we will see a revival one day (just like with vinyl records, which seemed dead after the arrival of CDs, but are now experiencing a strong resurgence because they have "something" that digital stuff cannot offer). It seems a little too early to conclude that "mirrorless" automatically means full frame. Dslr (aps-c) and m4/3 have their own advantages and supporters. Weight and crop will always remain an important factor in the choice for many (hobby) photographers. I hope that the industry (the brands) will not push us into the straitjacket of "mirrorless" and full frame, but instead preserve the diversity (niches) and continue to meet all the different wishes and preferences among us. So I also hope that the battle will not be decided by the party with the biggest marketing budget.
And no matter how good smartphone cameras become, they will never be able to imitate the feeling and experience of fiddling around with a real device, with or without a mirror, with buttons and dials, with a real lens that you can really "shoot" with and where you "play" with light, time, movement, (un)sharpness in the foreground/background, etc. etc. And as enthusiasts, we also find that many times more fun, don't we?!

# Peter van Dinther, I completely agree with you. I haven't even mentioned the advantage " what you see is what you get" especially with backlit shots you can beautifully adjust your composition. And also with e.g. spot metering you see exactly what the focus point is.

From what I read, the title of the article is very well chosen, especially amusing. Nice that it also proceeded respectfully for the most part.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Wednesday 13 May 2020 at 23:22  | reply

@Job: that is not what is being said, that Canon, Nikon and Sony would be the only suppliers of mirrorless cameras. But the focus is on the more expensive camera segment with large sensors, which are expected to ultimately remain in the future. But these are only expectations, you can never say this with certainty.

Canon and Nikon were superior brands for decades, and rightly so. Unfortunately, they continued to rest on the laurels of their elan for too long and missed the train of rapidly improving technology. Today we see that many other brands are emerging from their wake and sprinting to the front as well. Sony is the most striking example of this by joining the front within 5 years … and the others continue to approach just as intensely. Can Canon and Nikon remain at the top? Then they will have to take a very sharp turn and that requires quite a lot of manoeuvring skill, with the additional danger of completely capsizing. In my opinion, they will lose further ground for at least the next 5 years, in the hope that by then, by abandoning their stubbornness, they can climb out of the pit to once again belong among the top brands as before. I have nothing against Canon or Nikon, they may be more than welcome, but why should I declare my love for them when more beautiful, better, faster and more intelligent specimens are walking around?

@Michelle: I have a crystal ball ... for photography. Madame Blanche's was too expensive. )
It was and still is a very interesting discussion with many different opinions. What strikes me, however, and what has already been acknowledged by some, are the following characteristics that I myself mentioned earlier in this discussion:
- being financially stuck: already having too much other equipment to switch over.
- ignorance: once you own a camera with accessories, you don't read about newer equipment all that often.
- agoraphobia, hydrophobia ... or whatever you want to call it: many are struggling with the following concern 'I know my camera ... how long will it take me to master a newer one (and a very extensive electronic one at that)?' In other words, they no longer dare to step outside their comfort zone.

Michelle Peeters wrote on Thursday 14 May 2020 at 11:51  | reply

@pixeldude: and then we haven't even thought about what impact the coronavirus crisis will have on the camera market! It could well be that camera sales will move more towards the cheaper (mirrorless) cameras again as a result..

Fuji won't catch up? Nikon and Canon need to catch up.
In 2013 I traded in my Nikon D800 for the Fuji X-Pro1. Even then I thought Nikon and Canon weren't keeping up with the times.
In the meantime, after the X-Pro1 and the X-Pro2, I have the new X-Pro3.
So I already knew it 7 years ago.
Compare the speed of the AF, startup, etc. with the old-fashioned DSLR.
Besides the electronic viewfinder, the Pro series also has an optical viewfinder.
Using the optical viewfinder saves a lot of power.
The X-T4 is also a powerhouse that can take on any camera.
I miss the knowledge about this in the above story.

@ Michelle: You really can't see any difference in a print up to 60x40 cm between a FF and a 4/3 that is only 1/4 of a FF. Perhaps not even with an even larger print, but I haven't had one that large printed yet. The idea that you need more detail than what a good 4/3 provides is simply not true.
- Most hobby photographers just put their photos on FB, Instagram, Flickr, … and they are only viewed on a Smart- or iPhone and in the very best case on an expensive computer screen. For these applications, even a mini sensor from the better Smart- or iPhones is sufficient.
- How many do you think print larger than 60x40 cm? A 4/3 is more than sufficient for that too.
- When a wall is covered with a photo you are not going to stand with your nose against the wall. Then you can't see what you are looking at, after all. So detail isn't the most important thing there either.
A FF becomes more important when you are going to make very strong crops, e.g. 1/10 of the image. But who does that? Either you are not a good photographer or you need it professionally for sports (damn, where exactly is the ball) or a flock of ducks flies over (and you only want one of them in the photo).
‘More detail’ is absolutely not an argument.
As for noise … that is something slightly different. But you don't have to use a high ISO when, for example, you can use a tripod for dark scenes in combination with long shutter speeds. Or apply a good flash technique.
Or use the more expensive 4/3 such as my Olympus E-M1X. It takes a series of photos in rapid succession while the image sensor moves (high-resolution shooting) to convert them into a single photo of 80 megapixels. Noise? Gone. Detail, unbelievable (so far too much).

@Michelle: For a bird photographer who ‘wants to photograph birds in flight’, or a wildlife photographer who wants a fight between 2 tigers or water buffaloes (preferably then ... from a great distance) to be completely sharp, or the football photographer who still wants the ball kicked extremely hard to be sharp under stadium lighting … there a FF will undoubtedly have an advantage by having to choose a lower ISO. But, how many hobbyists are involved in that? Those are more often professionals who take that on. And … motion blur can sometimes evoke more ‘feelings’ than that ultra-sharp dead photo, especially for the photography-loving artist.
A 4/3 sensor that therefore has a crop factor of 2 compared to a FF, with an F2.8 300 mm lens, immediately gives you the equivalent of an F2.8 600 mm FF in your hands. That also gives you a considerably lower ISO choice. Moreover, my micro 4/3 is much nimbler at following subjects because of its much smaller size and much lower weight. That too should not be underestimated.
When you really need a FF I will be the first to agree and say ‘don’t hesitate, do it’. But forcing it on the vast majority as a ‘must’ is wrong. Why carry around that big heavy gear for 99% of your photos? But yes, far too many hobbyists still fall for it.

Not that I have that much trouble with noise with my Sony A7R3...🤓 but I can recommend Topaz. I've been using this noise reduction tool for a while now with amazing results. It costs a bit but is well worth it.

@Michelle: usable up to about ISO 64000 (at 100%) magnification, I just tried it. I could do a proper test sometime.

@Michelle: I'll make one over the next few days. I'll get back to you about it. I'll take photos at different ISOs and include a 100% enlargement. Without Topaz's noise reduction, of course...🤓

It is shocking to read how many “photographers” are not up to date, and so easily believe the stories in the big photo shop.
The former comparison with full frame and APS-C has long since stopped being accurate, and a mirror in a camera is a component that no longer has a future. Any investment in a DSLR is money destruction.
As early as 2013, I (after 45 years of Nikon) switched to a Fuji X-Pro1. Together with a photography friend, I did a job in very dark conditions. Using flash was not possible. My buddy had a Canon full frame 5D II, but he couldn't take any photos because of the noise. I photographed with my Fuji at 6400 ISO, handheld at 1/6 second, 10-24 lens. Sharp photos without visible noise.
I can show the series, they are on Flickr with EXIF data.
My buddy traded in the Canon immediately.
If everyone would just take the trouble to see what my current new Fuji X-Pro3 and the new X-T4 can do, then you can see how times have changed.
When I read what is written above, then I don't understand that so many “photographers” let themselves be kept ignorant. The article above too is as if it were from years ago. So then I wonder what is behind that. It is sad.

I still want to set a few things straight and/or emphasize a few things.
Of course many photo shops (not all of them) recommend the ‘more expensive range’ to the uninformed and sell it to them as well. It is their job to achieve higher turnover figures.
There were 5 photographers on the Veluwe with enormous bazookas. Then a 5th person sits down next to them with a little camera. He is immediately looked at pityingly by the other 5. Damn, that won’t happen to me next time … a bazooka too. And that just kept growing.
Now let us suppose that there are, say, 50 people sitting in a row on the Veluwe with such Cannons (Nikon is also allowed). Then I ask myself the following questions:
1. What does the figure of 50 mean compared to the tens of thousands of others?
2. How are they going to show their photos to the public?
3. Will they stay sitting (lying, standing) there for the rest of their lives or do they also want to photograph other subjects?
I find the wording … ‘who apparently do take the profession fairly seriously’ rather disturbing. Because then you are implicitly saying that the tens of thousands of others do ‘not’ do that. But that probably wasn’t meant that way.
10 years ago you could still reasonably compare a FF with an APS-C sensor. Today there are still microscopic differences to be found between the two, with a FF coming out better. But what about when you view them with the best screens or print them with the best printers … no difference. Today you can quite reasonably look for the possible quality differences between the FF and the current 4/3 sensor. And there, once again, the screen and the printer are the weakest link.
What is given far too little attention is finding an answer to the question “What am I going to do with my camera and how do I want to show the photos?” There are more and more professional travel, nature and wildlife photographers choosing smaller equipment because they found a satisfactory answer to questions such as:
- how do I take it with me when travelling (by plane)?
- how do I move around in a mountain landscape?
- how do I stand out less in the poorer cities (so as not to get robbed)?
- how differently does the local population behave when I walk around with a camera the size of a tower?
- …
And one more word about Topaz Denoiser. I myself do not use the program but I did get the following feedback from a semi-professional photographer who teaches at institutes and is also an artist. He bought his first bundle in 2007 for €99 with lifetime updates, but gradually the various filters were integrated into PS or were even improved in NIK. There are still 3 filters in it that he still finds useful from time to time. At the moment he no longer uses the program for noise because in the newer RAW editors it does not work better at all. However, when you photograph in JEPG, it is still relevant.
And finally I would like to add that besides PS there are also other (at least equally good) editors that require a one-time ‘small’ fee and do not require an ongoing subscription, including Affinity Photo. But there too there are stubborn people who keep claiming that PS is better … because they only know ‘that’ program.
Everything is moving so fast these days that when you write something now, it is already outdated tomorrow. People remain stuck in the more familiar and trusted cozy environment for them. But that does not mean that the other environments are worse … perhaps they are actually better.

I would do a little test with the Sony A7R3. I did that in low light (indoors) At both f 2.8 and 8.0, noise becomes visible at ISO 25600 and higher.
Seen in Lightroom and fully zoomed in.

By the way: at 102000 there is of course some noise, but you can completely filter that out with Topaz.

You never need ISO 102000 on an Olympus or Panasonic.
The bodies have built-in image stabilization that offers an extra 6.5 or even 7.5 EV.
Shutter speeds of 1 or 2 seconds really aren't a problem anymore!
Noise? What noise?

Michelle Peeters wrote on Friday 15 May 2020 at 21:19  | reply

@Henk: with bird photography you sometimes do have to use shutter speeds as fast as 1/8000, so that built-in image stabilization is nice, but not always applicable if you don't want to have to increase your ISO value...

I can't agree with the final conclusion. There are also very good mirrorless cameras to be found in the cheaper segment, such as the Fuji X-T200 and X-T30. These are cheaper than € 1000,- and produce fantastic photos (the X-T30 has the same sensor as Fujifilm's new flagship, the X-T4). I find the focus on full-frame, especially (but not only) for amateurs, completely unnecessary, the primes Fuji offers (35mm F1.4 and 56mm F1.2, for example) provide more than enough possibilities to work with a shallow depth of field. Sony also has nice (APS-C) cameras under € 1000,-, by the way.