If you shoot a dSLR

[Brian500au]

So how do you reckon any mirrorless would perform over the 80D with my 600mm lens?

Mark I am not as harsh as Tony, but I will say in my limited time I have used the mirrorless it is not a replacement for a sports / wildlife camera. I bought this camera for a specific reason - as a back up camera to my 1Dx for static wild life and a lighter rig for when I go hiking in Africa next year.

I needed a second body, and had the choice of investing in a second DSLR or make the move to mirrorless. There are some aspects of this body I really like (the articulated rear screen) and I am not against the EVF. In honesty if time was on my side then I would have waited for the second generation of canon mirrorless, but I wanted to get as much practice in as practically possible before I travelled next year. What made the decision easy for me was the flawless adaptor allowing my existing range of lenses to work on the mirrorless body. I have canon, zeiss and sigma lenses and all seem to work as well if not better on the mirrorless body.

As with the change from SLR to DSLR, I think the future is moving towards mirrorless now that canon has made the move, they will force that move (as that is where most of the newer lenses are being developed).

For the work you are doing I do not see any advantage in moving over to mirrorless just yet - wait for the next generation of bodies, and see if Canon release a crop sensor version (equivalent to the 90D+).

[William W]

If you shoot a dSLR do you see it (or another dSLR) seeing you right through your photography journey or do you think you will ever go to a mirrorless body? If you do go mirrorless, will you go native lenses or use your current lenses via an adaptor?

I've had a Canon DSLR system since 2004, immediately prior to that, my 135 Format was Nikon SLR.

I bought a Fuji x100s a few years ago to test the water - I loved the ideas of: leaf shutter, compact size and silent action. Got hooked on the Prime Lens 'feature' of this neat little camera.

Bought an EOS M5 about 18 months ago - of course I bought the EF-M to EF/EF-S adapter for the M5, thinking I'd use all my nice Canon EF Lenses - I've used that adapter once or twice. All out of balance -totally.

I liked the M5 camera and I switched my thinking and bought a neat little kit of very fast (manual) Prime Lenses for it.

My thinking is that they're different camera systems.

Certainly Canon didn't get their act together with the EF-M lens offerings - and I doubt that they will now, but I don't mind. The compact size and weight of the M5 and the small Prime Lenses are great to use, easy to carry, and for want of a better word, a bit 'nostalgic'.

If I ever buy into the Canon "R" Series Cameras - I'd buy RF Lenses.

Nikon's path has been different, not so sure it will be different enough that plonking legacy lenses on Nikon Mirrorless will be the best choice for everyone.

WW

[swifty]

Hi Bear,
I'm currently a dual system DSLR and mirrorless user and have been for many years.
I think you should largely ignore the DSLR/mirrorless distinction and focus just on your needs and whatever system fulfill it the best is your answer. If your needs/wants span quite a large gamut of uses, then you may end up like me and having multiple systems catering for different uses.
My biggest problem is my two systems are essentially mutually exclusive so that reduces their versatility so if there's one wish I have is to consolidate my mirrorless and DSLR system into something that is largely compatible.

The current main reasons I have chosen to maintain a second system is to have a smaller kit that is also able to shoot silently. That naturally meant I needed to look at both mirrorless options as well as a smaller sensor format.
But looking towards the future, since Nikon FF is my main system I'll naturally be looking at whether Z mount (including with adapters) can combine both my needs. So whilst I'm still happy with my DSLR I think my natural progression may be towards a full mirrorless transition.

*Note: I'm down to only G and E lenses on my Nikon F-mount and so they mostly work well with FTZ. But if you own many non-AFS lenses then I'd probably just stick to DSLRs.

[ameerat42]

...I think you should largely ignore the DSLR/mirrorless distinction and focus just on your needs and whatever system fulfill it the best is your answer...

Good point, among other like ones, including the rationale on lenses.

[the scientist]

If I replace my entry-level dSLR, I'll want something with a stronger and more satisfying click-cluck of the mirror, not do away with it altogether

I can see advantage of the smaller and lighter body, but I also like having a big comfy body to hold.

[ameerat42]

^The conversation is supposed to be mainly about lenses, per this reminder.

[Lance B]

AM reading some reviews about using Nikon F mount lenses on the Z6 & Z7 bodies via the Nikon FTZ adaptor some people have said that the AF isn't as good and a few other niggles.

I have both the D850 and the Z7 and there is no issue whatsoever with the FTZ adaptor and my current crop of F mount lenses being used on the Z7. They focus basically just as fast and generally more accurately on the Z7 - no AF fine tune woes nor focus shift woes. Having said that, none of my F mount lenses require any AF fine tune on my D850 either, but there are sometimes issues that can probably be attributed to focus shift. The other thing with requiring AF fine tune is that it you can only adjust for one camera to subject distance and one aperture and with a zoom, one focal length. This is not to say that there will be huge differences of AF fine tune required for different camera to subject distances or different apertures and with a zoom, different focal lengths. However, there may be slight anomalies that may just take the edge of absolute sharpness. The thing is, generally images from the Z7 are crisper more of the time than they are from the D850 and this may be attributed to these slight anomalies. I am not saying they always are, but there may be issue sometimes. I have basically rarely used the D850 since getting my Z7 in October last year, only using the D850 for tracking BIF. All other duties are the realm of the Z7 simply because I love using it so much. Don't get me wrong, the D850 is still arguably the best FF camera you can use as it is good at nearly all aspects of photography, but that doesn't mean it's the best to use.

The other benefit of the Z mount is the promise of better overall IQ and the new mount has delivered with the new native lenses. Every new Z mount lens is an improvement over it's F mount counterpart and I can safely say this because I have had the F mount versions of these new Z mount lenses, except for the 50 f1.8G. However, from the reviews and reports from users I have seen, the Z mount is vastly superior. Also, the benefits have to be taken in context of their design parameters and a case in point is the diminutive 14-30 f4S compared to say the 14-24 f2.8 or the 16-35 f4 VR. The context of design for the 14-30 f4S is a *very* compact size and this was it's main criteria for travel users. Here we have a lens that is not only small and light, but it at least matches the 14-24 f2.8 for overall IQ yest is smaller and lighter and only misses out in the large maximum f2.8 aperture. The 24-30 clearly outshines the 16-35 f4 VR yet is half the size and still much smaller. The 14-30 f4S is possibly the "perfect" travel ultra wide angle zoom due to it's diminutive size and light weight. The 24-70 f4S is also diminutive, giving a brilliant 2 lens lightweight travel package along with the 14-30 f4S yet with excellent overall IQ from both. Even the 24-70 f2.8S is much smaller and lighter than it's F mount counterparts yet also delivers better IQ, in fact outstanding IQ rivaling F mount primes.

The other benefit is IBIS, this also helps very much with getting the most from your lenses. All my F mount lenses are now image stabilized even if they do not have VR!

[Bear Dale]

Thanks Lance a very good review from someone who owns a D850 and a Z7.

[John King]

Agree about the IBIS and no focus adjustment Lance.

My E-M1 MkI and MkII used with my 12-100 (24-200 in 35mm terms) both have what Olympus calls "sync-IS" - combined IBIS and in-lens optical stabilization. They claim something like 6.5 stops! Every bit helps as I become less steady by the day.