The DSLR is dead, long live the mirrorless camera!

Dear Elja,
Especially for the crop factor, I decided to get a Canon 90D as well.
The mirrorless cameras do mount EF-S lenses, but you then lose half of your pixels, with the 90D telephoto lenses have a reach factor
of 1.6, while retaining the number of pixels. That may come in handy for me.

Luckily, I switched a year ago already from Canon 5D III Canon 7D II to Sony A9 and Sony A7RIII. At that moment the DSLR could still be resold reasonably well, because the prices will quickly start to drop second-hand now. I haven't regretted it for a moment, the Sony can handle extremely high ISO values and still deliver beautiful photos. The settings are countless, allowing you to completely customize the camera to your liking. Seeing under or overexposure directly is a huge advantage, especially in nature photography where one moment you focus on a forest edge and the next moment you want to capture a bird of prey in the air. You immediately notice that the exposure is too low and can correct it lightning-fast to still photograph that bird of prey properly exposed as well. I kept my macro and wide-angle lenses in combination with a good Metabones adapter. These lenses and their subjects don't require super-fast focusing times anyway and buying new lenses for this and selling the old ones would cost many times the investment in a good adapter.

A few years ago I switched from Canon to Fujifilm. I haven't regretted it for a moment. The autofocus of the latest cameras is also lightning fast.

the old ones are still doing pretty well.
I’ll keep going for a bit longer.

I find the buttons on system cameras fiddly.
Using the lenses I have, I find the balance is off.

Still, given my age, I’ll have to choose a bit more what to take with me.
So no more full backpacks.
The 50 mm is still a lovely lens for me and nice and light.
Put extension rings on it and you have macro.
In short:
Time will tell if I’ll switch after all.
Then this stuff will join the Analogue collection 😊

When I bought my first mirrorless camera 5 years ago, as a nature, landscape and macro amateur my preference immediately went to micro 4/3 (crop 2). A lot lighter and cheaper, especially the lenses. I actually have a quiet chuckle when I notice that I’m usually too quick for the mirror fans and almost never have to lug a tripod around.
I started with 2 Olympus E-M1s. Why 2? To have 2 cameras with a different mounted lens 'immediately available' with the same weight of photographic equipment as a DSLR. No hassle with changing lenses in nature.
About a year ago I bought myself an Olympus E-M1X, reasonably pricey, but what a camera. To name one very remarkable fact: 7.5 stops of image stabilization, which, besides sharpness at much longer shutter speeds handheld, also gives me the advantage of always having a lower ISO for darker environments.
The advantages of a mirrorless camera are meanwhile overwhelming.

scoot-shooter wrote on Tuesday 13 October 2020 at 14:48  | reply

The whole article clearly shows the advantage of a mirrorless camera (I use one myself too), and yet.. to your question whether I would ever want to buy a DSLR again : Yes
I still miss my Olympus E-volt-410, whose colors were really much more beautiful than what I have seen with my mirrorless camera. It's just that I no longer have its lenses, ( sold them to be able to buy the mirrorless lenses) but otherwise I would really go looking for a DSLR from Olympus

I use both of them now (Canon 5DIII and Sony A7RIII), but given the recent developments my next one will be a Canon R6...

Donald Willemsen wrote on Tuesday 13 October 2020 at 16:15  | reply

I don't read anything anywhere about the additional heat generated by an image sensor, because it is constantly switched on in a mirrorless camera. I don't rule out that such a sensor could then overheat. Once that happens, you're left with a broken camera. The sensor and the image processor seem to me to be the 2 most expensive parts of the camera. The sensor of a mirrorless camera will also be more likely to get dirty. After all, there is no mirror and curtain/slit shutter in front of it that offers the sensor any protection. So that means extra costs for those who don't dare to clean the sensor themselves. After all, the chance is high that the sensor will get dirty sooner.
I am really not against a mirrorless camera, but to immediately sing hosanna now goes a bit too far for me. You should not only mention the advantages but also all the disadvantages. If you don't, you give the impression that economic interests are an important motivation for writing such an article.

@Donald.
I've already shot more than 50,000 'kept' photos, so certainly quite a few more clicks. And still not a single speck of dirt on the sensor. Modern cameras often have a 'vibration function' to shake off dust particles, should they nevertheless happen to get on there.
I know, you can hardly make old monkeys pull different faces. Mirrorless cameras have undeniably become better than DSLRs, in 'all' respects. What you do have to take into account is whether you can continue to use all the lenses you own, because that's where the 'real' cost lies.
And that you prefer working with a DSLR, that's a very good and rightly defensible choice ... but that they would still be technically better than a mirrorless camera in one area???

Various disadvantages attributed to a mirrorless camera are now really outdated. For example, I hear that the Canon eos R5 is a power guzzler, but as a user you can do a lot about that by selecting the right settings. For example, I have my R5 go into sleep mode after just one minute, and then it no longer uses any power. If I want to take a photo quickly, I press the AF-on button and my camera is immediately ready to take a photo. My battery lasts much longer than stated. When the camera is "off", a little curtain comes in front of the sensor. So the sensor is protected when changing lenses. I could go on for a long time with new features that recent mirrorless cameras have been given. Competition is fierce among camera manufacturers and as users we can only be very happy about that, regardless of the brand we have.

As early as 2015 I switched from a DSLR to a Sony Alpha 7R, On the DSLR I only had the kit lens, so changing lenses was no problem. The first version of the 7R did have quite a lot of teething problems. Half a year ago I bought the 7R III (I thought the 7R IV was a bit over the top after all), and what a camera. Fast autofocus, long battery life, wide ISO range, eye autofocus for people and animals etc. etc. I mainly do landscape, nature, architecture, macro and astrophotography and find that prime lenses are better suited for that than zoom lenses.(I even still use the Minolta lenses from the early 70s with an adapter.)
I therefore have to change lenses regularly and indeed, if you change lenses outside in the wind, you still get dirt on your sensor. That is a disadvantage.
In the dark, you still get sharp photos with focus peaking.
With an L bracket you have a better grip on the smaller camera.
I also keep saying it at the photo club: the end of the DSLR is near....

It doesn't surprise me that in none of the postings does it say that people regret the (too) expensive purchase because very often "average" users buy devices with lots of bells and whistles, only to establish after a while that they only use a small percentage of the device's capabilities. But who dares to admit that ???

No need to worry though ... there will soon be a newer version for them and it is not only much more expensive but also much more convenient (they think).

All too often people think that you can only take perfect photos with the latest new super-expensive camera.
I find that I don't manage to take such beautiful photos with my Nikon D7200 as my mate does with his Nikon D3200 (sometimes he still goes out with his old Olympus OM40 - still with a roll of film).
In other words, it is the photographer who determines what the final image will look like.

And so, to answer the question:
YES, I will certainly buy at least one more DSLR.
Apparently there will be enough for sale soon and then at bargain prices

@ Mikko
You are right that in the end it is the photographer who makes it work or not, and not the camera.
You are right that there are very many users who have models that are far too expensive and far too complex for them in their hands to take family photos.
You are right to still buy a DSLR for budgetary reasons, knowing that the market will be flooded with used DSLRs within the foreseeable future.
You are right to have a particular preference and not deviate from it.
You are right to be right, who does not have that right?

But that is not what this article is about. It is about the fact that the end of the former top generation, 'the DSLR', is practically dead, overtaken and surpassed by better technology.
And just as there are people who prefer to drive around in a vintage car and there will undoubtedly still be people who swear by a two-stroke engine, there will be and remain enthusiasts of analogue photography and of a DSLR. In the past, the transition was made from analogue to digital. Today, the transition is being made from DSLR to mirrorless. And there is nothing you can say against that. That is called 'progress'.

I have always been told for years by your photographers, photojournalists, camera testers and photography magazines that the final result of a photo is mainly determined by (of course) the photographer and the quality of the lenses. The camera is merely an instrument (read: tool). And that is why I see no reason whatsoever to switch to such a mirrorless camera system in the short term, quite apart from the financial loss when trading in your still very good (top-of-the-range) DSLR. The differences are still too small for me at present. Especially if you have always been satisfied with your DSLR, why would you suddenly switch? For those few extras? Maybe you won't even notice them!

@ Donald
I think the wallet is a perfectly good motivation. For this reason, I would also have a lot of difficulty switching. Moreover, switching bodies often has consequences for a lot of other hardware, with a greater financial impact than the body. In other words, it is not exclusively the cost of a new body that should be taken into account.
I do want to prevent 'newcomers' from buying a mirror camera, that is passé. Mirror cameras were a top technology, just as steam trains once were.
To the 'oldies' (forgive me the word, but I may say that because I am an oldie myself) who own a mirror camera that still functions well and who still have sufficient physical strength to handle heavy equipment ... why switch? I also wouldn't know why.

@ PixelDude

thank you for confirming my point of view on all points.
That is nice to read but it is not about me trying to "prove I'm right".
It is about the principle that people want to tempt consumers into buying something faster and more often and you should not need to do so or wait until it is defective.
It is enough that it is old-fashioned and that otherwise you cannot keep up with modern times or as you so beautifully put it "progress"
Hopefully we can resume our normal lives soon and then go to a photo exhibition
Would you be able to say which photo was taken with a DSLR or with a mirrorless camera ? I don't think so
So my conclusion is that the new system will indeed be an improvement but whether I will immediately go along with it ???

We, most of us, once switched from analogue to digital and soon we will indeed be more or less obliged to photograph with a mirrorless camera simply because DSLRs will no longer be made

You can compare it well with the evolution of TVs
Go to an electronics shop and try to buy a modern TV with a cathode-ray tube there .... ? I fear that will no longer work.
From the point of view of consumption, safety, ease of use, ... that was also a great improvement
Just as you can no longer buy a TV with a cathode-ray tube now, people predicted back then that film rolls would no longer be made ...

So over the past 15 years I have bought about 5 new digital cameras (on average one every three years)
Not because they were defective but each time because the specifications and ease of use were much better (especially in the early years of digital cameras I often bought myself a better camera)
Only, in the previous 35 years that I had been doing photography I had managed with 2 semi-professional cameras (one every 17.5 years) and they still did their job perfectly when I sold them

It is not that I am attached to my DSLR, do not dare to step out of my comfort zone or do not want to switch to a mirrorless camera out of stubbornness
For me, the "gadget hunters" - as I call them - are the ideal people to get all the teething problems out of those first designs so that the ordinary photographer can later go out with an improved version (upgrade) of that camera

ps. do you remember the article in which it said that the smartphone camera on mobile phones would drive out compact cameras?
That is a similar evolution and there too we see that someone who likes taking photos now and then will sooner opt for a mobile phone with a very good camera than for a compact camera. Same for yours truly )

That is progress and it indeed cannot be stopped (only slowed down as by the coronavirus, from which hopefully everyone may be spared)
Oh yes, I am not jealous of those who are going to buy the latest new camera, I wish them lots of photographic enjoyment and many nice photos with it
I am simply satisfied with the camera I have and which does what I expect of it

The statement: "the DSLR is dead, long live the mirrorless camera" goes a bit too far. Except if money is no object.

I do see various advantages of a mirrorless camera but also the disadvantages; and in particular the costs.
As a hobby photographer, I have been working with Sony DSLRs for a long time (I have had the A68 for a while now) and over the years I have acquired a number of lenses that are (to me) nice and acceptable. If all of that has to be replaced, I could easily be a few thousand Euros poorer and that is not worth it to me (right now).

As a hobby photographer, I can get by perfectly well with the DSLR, so for me it will still be around for a while....

Agreed, Elja. If I had to buy now, I would go for a mirrorless system.
But I have so many regular lenses now. So I'm not going to trade them in for another brand.
At most, if the D800 gives up the ghost, I'll replace the body.

The performance of current mirrorless cameras is indeed impressive. I am tempted to add a mirrorless camera alongside my two DSLRs. Quite a hefty purchase price. And I am attached to my 5D.
Started back then with a second-hand one, the first version, then used the 5D mark3 for years and almost from the day it was released a 5D mark 4. A sublime camera that can be used in all circumstances. You do need to upgrade your lenses. But a great and reliable camera together with Canon's excellent L lenses, this is the top for me.
For me, the DSLR is still number 1.

Dear Elja,
I am still very happy with my Canon 1Dx and the Canon 6d markII. I am also certain that my next camera will be a mirrorless camera. But as long as these two cameras function well, I am not thinking about replacing them.

peterheins wrote on Sunday 11 April 2021 at 14:25  | reply

2 years ago I traded in my 2 Canons 760 D for the Canon M5. Haven't regretted it for a moment. As far as battery consumption is concerned, I recently did a family shoot, took 318 photos and the battery still wasn't empty. Shhoot was about an hour. What is true is that for good lenses you still fall back on the EF-S lenses and then the weight advantage is nullified again. It seems as if Canon is straddling two minds with the M series. If there were comparable lenses in that series then you would actually benefit from the weight and size. I use the 11-22 and 55-200 EOS-m. And furthermore I have EF-S lenses. Sigma100-400 11-24mm Tamron Sigma 17-70mm Contemporary. Quality is fine and so is the speed. Very detailed photos.