C'mon let's wake this forum up

[Lance B]

For God's sake, Arg, please stop with your incessant harping about trying to convince DSLR users that ML is the answer and we must all change. Your one man crusade is getting a little tiresome, like a religious fanatic, "repent and see the light, non believer!" (pun not intended). We will change when we want to or when we have to, not because you keep trying to convince us to simply because it works for you. We get it, you love your ML camera but it doesn't mean I have to or that any other DSLR users have to, just please get over it and move on.

There are many aspects to which camera system will eventually be the winner in a segment or market area and much of it has to do with production costs, not what is actually necessarily better for the user. This has been proved in many other scenario's.

[MissionMan]

I'm still a little unclear about why there is this push for people to go down the mirrorless path. At the end of the day, there is no real advantage of mirrorless other than size. Even cost isn't an advantage with the current lenses. The Olympus pro lenses are more expensive than the current third party pro lenses ($1400 vs $1000) with a smaller selection so I can't see a real reason for people to move if size isn't a criteria for them.

Mirrorless doesn't offer better performance and at the end of the day, people would need a substantial reason to change which doesn't include a downgrade or same performace. I.e. even if mirrorless is able to provide the same quality pictures as I currently take, why would I pay more money to go to a system that provides no advantage. To me personally (and I'm sure this is the same for other users), the current crop of EVF viewerfinders offer me no real advantage as I prefer OTF's.

If we compare this to switchers between Nikon and Canon, the reason Canon users were switching was primarily landscape photographers looking for the high MP camera combined with the 14-24 which at the time Canon had no alternative for. Now Canon has an alternative, I doubt many people will be switching. Even if Nikon provides a mirrorless full frame, there would be no compelling reason for me to change my D750 to a mirrorless full frame unless it provided me with a substantial improvement to justify it. If I was planning to replace my camera at the time, I may consider it, but I would carefully consider it based on trade offs.

So I stand by my previous comments. Mirrorless are probably more applicable to new people buying into photography who don't have an investment in a system (yet) but for anyone with an investment, you would be hard pressed to find a big reason to change unless camera size was one of the primary decisions in your selection criteria. In 1, 2 or 5 years time, that compelling reason may exist, but until that happens, I don't see the upper spectrum of DSLR users finding any reason to shift.

[ricktas]

All this..and in the end it is about size. Size of the camera, size of the sensor, size of the lenses.

I like my DSLR, and although the Nikon executives that apparently hold me hostage, do not float my boat, I kinda am in love with Freud!

[I @ M]

I kinda am in love with Freud!

And doesn't that sum it all up, pick a figure, throw a little spin on it to back up whether mirrorless or "traditional" mirrored cameras are the flavour of the decade, year, day and you can interpret Freud's view as either loving mirrors or seeing them as a distant memory -----

[MissionMan]

All this..and in the end it is about size. Size of the camera, size of the sensor, size of the lenses.

I like my DSLR, and although the Nikon executives that apparently hold me hostage, do not float my boat, I kinda am in love with Freud!

Wasn't it Freud that was in love with his mum?

I have some concerns about you Ricktas...

[ameerat42]

Gosh, MM! Where did you ever learn about Frued!? Oh, well

[MissionMan]

Gosh, MM! Where did you ever learn about Frued!? Oh, well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

[ameerat42]

...And it means what about Freud? That's a precis of his theory.

- - - Updated - - -

ANd I'll leave it there for my part.

[MissionMan]

...And it means what about Freud? That's a precis of his theory.

- - - Updated - - -

ANd I'll leave it there for my part.

its been a while since i last had to look at Freud but i remember many articles being written that surmised that he wrote it because of his own tendencies.

[Kym]

Who gives a rats behind?

Go and take photos with what gear you have - end of story! (almost)

PS: ML has no compelling reasons to change and the vast number of pros use DSLR thus the amateur hordes will follow suit

[swifty]

So I stand by my previous comments. Mirrorless are probably more applicable to new people buying into photography who don't have an investment in a system (yet) but for anyone with an investment, you would be hard pressed to find a big reason to change unless camera size was one of the primary decisions in your selection criteria. In 1, 2 or 5 years time, that compelling reason may exist, but until that happens, I don't see the upper spectrum of DSLR users finding any reason to shift.

I think you've summed it up quite well here. And I'll add that the size advantage is complemented by an accompanying drop in sensor size hence why I feel a sweet spot exists somewhere around the m43 sized format particularly when accompanied by the shorter focal length lenses.

But having said that, I keep having the same thoughts that the behemoth medium format cameras (except Leica S) would benefit greatly by removing the mirror. It'll likely make them handle more like current pro DSLRs.

[Arg]

Plenty of' 'upper echelon' DSLR owners are going mirrorless. The idea that it's all about size is misplaced and has been clarified earlier. That's only one valid reason. People who *haven't* made the change aren't really the ones to say why people who *have* made the change did it, are they?

Any decision making text will explain that sunk costs need to be ignored in considering the next spend. The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake. Not having money to spare is of course different and must be taken into account.

[ricktas]

Plenty of' 'upper echelon' DSLR owners are going mirrorless. The idea that it's all about size is misplaced and has been clarified earlier. That's only one valid reason. People who *haven't* made the change aren't really the ones to say why people who *have* made the change did it, are they?

Any decision making text will explain that sunk costs need to be ignored in considering the next spend. The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake. Not having money to spare is of course different and must be taken into account.

Plenty of upper echelon DSLR owners are also NOT going mirrorless. I am not sure what your purpose on this site is, other than to try and create ARGuments? We do not get to see any of your photography and all you seem to do is harp on about how great mirrorless is and why we should all change, and if we do not change, then we are making a mistake, in your opinion. Well lots of others have just as valid opinions and disagree entirely with you. I do not understand your desire to constantly deride those who have not swapped to, or are not intending to swap to mirrorless. You have been told over and over why a lot of us are not changing, but that has not stopped your relentless pursuit of ARGument and stupid statements like "The 'upper echelon' DSLR owners who get it, will not make that mistake". Again trying to insinuate that those who do not get it (and move to mirrorless) are making some kind of mistake.

Show me an advanced level DSLR photographer who cannot take brilliant photos with their DSLR? And then explain to me how having a DSLR is a mistake.

[swifty]

Arg, there are plenty of photographers shooting with plenty of different types of gear. And there are plenty of people changing brand/types/formats but it really proves very little other than people are free to make up their minds.

A DSLRs shooter who chooses to shoot DSLRs because it is superior for him/her is correct in their statement.
A mirrorless shooter who chooses to shoot with a mirrorless because it is superior for him/her is also correct.
A mixed gear photographer who chooses a range of gear because he/she feels there are advantages to different gear is also correct.

[ameerat42]

This is the long-winded way of clicking on the "Thank for this useful post" button.

[bconolly]

Arg, there are plenty of photographers shooting with plenty of different types of gear. And there are plenty of people changing brand/types/formats but it really proves very little other than people are free to make up their minds.

A DSLRs shooter who chooses to shoot DSLRs because it is superior for him/her is correct in their statement.
A mirrorless shooter who chooses to shoot with a mirrorless because it is superior for him/her is also correct.
A mixed gear photographer who chooses a range of gear because he/she feels there are advantages to different gear is also correct.

This is the crux of it isn't it? That freedom of choice and such a wide variety of options is a good thing and we should all be dancing a happy dance because we have that choice.

One thing I did want to comment on though is that switching isn't just about size (for me at least). It's also about features. So things I wanted that I couldn't afford in a dslr that mirrorless provided sub 2k with a "pro" level 24-70mm f2.8 equivalent lens are:
- toughness which consists of weather sealing, drop resistance and operating temperature
- excellent wireless integration and supporting iPhone app
- quiet normal shutter operation
- EVF
- articulating touch screen

I could get some of those but not all in a crop sensor camera. Then if you add in size / weight it was a no brainer move for me. But that's just me and me alone.

Looking at some of the amazing shots that Lance, Athol and Rick produce it's pretty clear that their dslr's aren't holding them back in anyway :-)

Brenden


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

As for quoting DPReview as the basis for any discussion, it has to be remember that DPRreview is owned by Amazon and what do Amazon do? Sell stuff! DPRreview is just another way for Amazon to get people looking at product and buying it. Yes DPReview does have some good articles etc, but you always have to remember it is now an advertising site, since Amazon purchased it. It is all about making sure the site is profitable and one way to do that is push product, promoting it as being 'great, new, better, easier'.

There is a world of difference between a good research article and an article written with marketing in mind! And some people get suckered into that.

[bconolly]

I think this article from Thom Hogan is a reasonable summary:

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/...eally-buy.html

[Arg]

Are we now going to get a lecture on why Thom Hogan writes articles? And what a 'sucker' one would be to believe him? I wonder.

[Lance B]

Are we now going to get a lecture on why Thom Hogan writes articles? And what a 'sucker' one would be to believe him? I wonder.

I think you're mixing up a person's opinion with fact. Something that seems to be happening quite a lot in this thread.