Why I'm keepng my D810 and not joining the flight to mirrorless ...

[billtils]

Before detailing the "why not" please understand that the reasons are personal to me and as they say these days, "YMMV", but here are my thoughts after about a month of research and procrastination.

The benchmark is the Nikon D810, which I use for wildlife (including BIF) and sports, macro, occasional portraits, occasional landscapes, and (pre-Covid but about to start up again) choir concert shots in the local cathedral.

The key elements are "Nikon D810" and "BIF". My default set up is the D810 in crop mode with the superb Nikkor 300mm PF + 1.4 TC to give the extra reach in birding, and in FX mode with a range of lenses for most other things. This set up can shoot 7 fps and I have never found it lacking, an impression that was cemented when I had a D500 for a few months; it was noisy (shutter sound on burst and IQ in low light) and didn't stay in the bag for long.

The Nikon mirrorless options are the Z6ii which doesn't have the MP to give the reach I want, and the Z7ii which certainly does but at £3099 for the body falls well short of value for money. The differences in weight (980g / 705g) and burst rate (7 /10fps) are not enough to matter to me, and although the Z appears to have an advantage for tracking I'm not convinced the real performance difference here matters (a qualification: if budget didn't matter and/or I were a pro I'd have a Z9 either in the bag or on order!).

I have a landscape enthusiast friend who has a Nikon Z and loves it because of the IBIS and the lighter weight but I have a nice Manfrotto tripod ...

If Nikon bring out a mirrorless D500 equivalent i may weaken but for now, yes mirrorless bodies have a lot of advantages, just not for me.

[Astro]

Hi Bill, I switched away from my Canon 5DsR about 18 months ago and went mirrorless.

You described 'procrastination' in respect of your research process. I took over a year,but I know me as they say. I tend to put off decisions to change/acquire new kit, kind of reaching a decision and then double thinking and hesitating until I seem to reach a point where it becomes 'Oh what the Hell!'.

What I do know is that if I go through all the doubt, review, vacillation, and the almost on a whim commit, that is when I do not, later have regrets.

As a much younger version of myself , I found that when I got enthusiastic and acquired without going through all the dithering, I usually found myself regretting or being in some way disappointed over someting about my new toy. On the purely personal note of going mirrorless part of the decision process was to bite the bullet and completely 'rekit myself'. (Even though I could have used Canon adaptors on all my lenses.)
I am certainly enjoying the significant weight reduction.....

[DanK]

For me, it boils down to a simple "it's not worth it." If a truck ran over my 5D Mark IV, I would buy a mirrorless camera. Many of the advantages of the R5 wouldn't matter to me, but a few would. The vastly better AF would give me a much better keeper rate for candids of kids, and the articulating screen would be helpful for some macro work. The first is more of an issue. However, these just aren't big enough advantages to warrant spending the $2500 needed to trade just the body, or $2850 to trade the body and walk-around 24-105 f/4.

And speaking personally, given what I shoot, I have real doubts about spending that $$, if I'm going to spend it on photography, on another FF camera. I lug mine on my back, usually with two other lenses and a tripod, and it's getting noticeably heavier with every year. I'd be more tempted to keep the 5D for times when I want FF and buy and OM-1 to carry around the rest of the time.

But this year, neither is going to happen.

[billtils]

For me, it boils down to a simple "it's not worth it." If a truck ran over my 5D Mark IV, I would buy a mirrorless camera. Many of the advantages of the R5 wouldn't matter to me, but a few would. The vastly better AF would give me a much better keeper rate for candids of kids, and the articulating screen would be helpful for some macro work. The first is more of an issue. However, these just aren't big enough advantages to warrant spending the $2500 needed to trade just the body, or $2850 to trade the body and walk-around 24-105 f/4.

And speaking personally, given what I shoot, I have real doubts about spending that $$, if I'm going to spend it on photography, on another FF camera. I lug mine on my back, usually with two other lenses and a tripod, and it's getting noticeably heavier with every year. I'd be more tempted to keep the 5D for times when I want FF and buy and OM-1 to carry around the rest of the time.

But this year, neither is going to happen.

Pretty well summarises how I feel too, the only difference being I'd stay in the Nikon ecosystem because of familiarity, as long as the thief didn't get hold of the 300mm PF. I'd spend the insurance money on a FF though, and if jumping ship it would be to the SS Sony.

[DanK]

Pretty well summarises how I feel too, the only difference being I'd stay in the Nikon ecosystem because of familiarity, as long as the thief didn't get hold of the 300mm PF. I'd spend the insurance money on a FF though, and if jumping ship it would be to the SS Sony.

Indeed, I'd rather stay with Canon for the same reason. If I were jumping ship, I'd wait to see whether the rumored Canon high-end APS-C camera materializes. However, unless they release a bunch of RF lenses designed for that format, which I doubt will happen, the weight savings wouldn't be large. The big weight savings from a smaller format is in the lenses, not the body. the difference between an R5 with the f/4 walk-around lens and the OM-1 with the roughly equivalent f/2.8 lens is about a pound (457g). But additional lenses are lighter because they are both shorter (for a given angle of view) and narrower. Also, some of the computational photography features of the OM-1 are standouts.

Still, it's a pipe dream at the moment.

[BobGilbody]

I have a a Canon 80D and a Canon 5Ds. The 80D cost me Aus $1000 new [ still can't figure out why it was so cheap ], the 5Ds I got from Hong Kong new for about Aus $1800.
Both are better cameras than I am a photographer. I can't come up with a reason to 'trade up'.
I rekon you are doing the right thing Bill. Enjoy taking photos and pretend you have somehow got 21st Century gear but it's the 1960's. Works for me.

Bob

[DanK]

Both are better cameras than I am a photographer.

I'd have to say the same.

What I often suggest to people is that they not buy new equipment unless they can say what it will allow them to do that they can't do without it, or can't do as well. In my case, there actually are a number of things I could do better with a newer camera. However, they don't justify the expense.

In general, I'm uninterested in computational photography--controlling things myself is part of the fun--but there are some computational photography functions in the OM-1 that I would find useful. I don't recall their names. One is that you can half-press the shutter and take a burst. When you fully depress the shutter, it will keep a certain number of shots before and after that instant. That would be very helpful with both wildlife and candids of kids (who migh be considered wildlife). It can merge multple shots into a single raw, which allows higher resolution images and synthetic ND filters. It has AF that is far better at tracking than what I have now, which again would be helpful with kids. It has an articulating screen. And it weighs a lot less, which would be increasingly helpful over time. So for me, this is not just a matter of Gear Acquisition Syndrome. It really would benefit me to upgrade.

However, the lack of these features isn't the biggest bottleneck. That is still, as Adams put it, the 12 inches behind the viewfinder. I can't at this point justify the expense of replacing a body and a bunch of lenses, despite those real advantages. What would help far more is if I got off my duff and took more photos.

[xpatUSA]

However, the lack of these features isn't the biggest bottleneck. That is still, as Adams put it, the 12 inches behind the viewfinder. I can't at this point justify the expense of replacing a body and a bunch of lenses, despite those real advantages. What would help far more is if I got off my duff and took more photos.

Well said. I am about to sell a Lumix DC-G9 because I barely use any of it's myriad features and remembering how to do anything with it is a pain in the butt at 82 yrs old. Plus, I need the money!

On the other hand, my beloved Sigma SD9 is distinctly User-hostile:

Raw-only output files.
Single non-crosspoint AF.
No spot metering.
Tiny LCD with not many dots and of course no live-view.
No IBIS.
Lots of resolution above Nyquist (55 lp/mm) = aliasing at the drop of a hat.
3.4MP with pixels even bigger than a D700.
Mirror action loud enough to scare wild-life.
Big and heavy enough to use as a door-stop.
Battery tray with four AAs lasts maybe 20 shots ...
... or no shots at all if left for a month or two.

[Manfred M]

I have not bought a new camera since 2012 when I purchased my D800. I would likely still be shooting it had Nikon's courier not lost it on its way back from being serviced and replaced it with a D810. This happened about 5 years ago, so I am still shooting with a camera that was replaced by the D850 about 2 weeks after I received the D810. With limited travel on my part over the past 3 years, I am just shy of 50,000 shutter actuations, so only about 20% of the 250,000 design life.

Given how well my images have done in local, national and international competitions, it is hard to justify buying a new camera body as a means of getting better images... The only reasons I can justify right now for a new body is that my backup body is my ancient APS-C, 12 MP D90. I would dearly love to have the focus stacking capabilities of some of the newer bodies.

At this point I will probably wait until Nikon releases a Z7ii replacement, which could happen next year?

[pnodrog]

I have not bought a new camera since 2012 when I purchased my D800. I would likely still be shooting it had Nikon's courier not lost it on its way back from being serviced and replaced it with a D810. This happened about 5 years ago, so I am still shooting with a camera that was replaced by the D850 about 2 weeks after I received the D810. With limited travel on my part over the past 3 years, I am just shy of 50,000 shutter actuations, so only about 20% of the 250,000 design life.

Given how well my images have done in local, national and international competitions, it is hard to justify buying a new camera body as a means of getting better images... The only reasons I can justify right now for a new body is that my backup body is my ancient APS-C, 12 MP D90. I would dearly love to have the focus stacking capabilities of some of the newer bodies.

At this point I will probably wait until Nikon releases a Z7ii replacement, which could happen next year?

My situation is very similar to Manfred's. However I never managed to get a free replacement for the D800 and my backup camera is an 18 year old D200. The D800 still functions well and with a DX0 mark of 95 remains in the top performing sensors. Actually I think it's 36.3 Mpix is a great size. Big enough for either large prints or generous crop but not too demanding on storage.

I see advantages for me with a mirrorless camera in terms of ease of use but do not expect any major gain in quality of image. A Z7II upgrade or a Z8 will probably tempt me to part with my precious money.

[DanK]

This raises an interesting question. Image quality isn't even on my list of temptations. My 5D mark IV produces superb images, the DR is pretty good, and I have no real need for more than 30 MP. The factors that tempt me are all improvements in capturing the image, not improvements in sensor quality: much improved AF, an articulated screen, and a few other things.

[billtils]

I have not bought a new camera since 2012 when I purchased my D800. I would likely still be shooting it had Nikon's courier not lost it on its way back from being serviced and replaced it with a D810. This happened about 5 years ago, so I am still shooting with a camera that was replaced by the D850 about 2 weeks after I received the D810. With limited travel on my part over the past 3 years, I am just shy of 50,000 shutter actuations, so only about 20% of the 250,000 design life.

Given how well my images have done in local, national and international competitions, it is hard to justify buying a new camera body as a means of getting better images... The only reasons I can justify right now for a new body is that my backup body is my ancient APS-C, 12 MP D90. I would dearly love to have the focus stacking capabilities of some of the newer bodies.

Thanks for posting this Manfred - yes the D810 is a very good camera indeed and every time I explore changing it the conclusion is there is nothing avaiable that represents value for money (although I did look at a D850 and was sorely tempted).

I have not done any focus stacking for a couple of years and when I did it was by shooting tethered in CaptureOne in the home "studio". However I puchased a Helicon adapter (https://www.heliconsoft.com/helicon-fb-tube-purchase/) and the good news is it worked. There are two bad news items: the first is personal - I simply found it easier just to use a smaller aperture; the second is that the gear is made in Ukraine and not currently available new.

[Donald]

Thank goodness that I'm now experienced enough and confident of my abilities that I no longer need to look at the latest offering as a 'must have' and feeling that I 'need' the latest offering to stay up-to-date. My Canon 5DMkIV (converted for infrared shooting) and my 5DS are both superb tools and will last me for many, many years, particularly given my low shutter usage (Remember that the adage that Digital shooting must lead to much higher shooting rates than Analogue shooting, is rubbish. It's not down to the camera. It's down to the shooter.)

[LenR]

Perhaps apropos to this thread.........

[Chataignier]

Good for you !
I made the change fairly early for reasons of weight and dont regret it at all, but will probably keep the Fuji X-T3 and associated lenses for 10 yrs or more. What do I want to do that it cant do ? Nothing.

.....well OK, perhaps even lower noise in low light conditions, but that will never change, there will always be something better and I dont need it, only sort of want it. I can resist.

[rpcrowe]

I switched from Canon to Sony not because I thought that I could shoot "better pictures" with Sony gear but, because the Sony APSC gear was far lighter in weight than my Canon APSC equipment. As an example, my Canon 7D and 17-55mm f/2.8 lens (which I carried all over the world) weighed a total of 1,464 grams while my Sony A6600 with Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 lens weighs only a total of 793 grams! This is an important factor for me since my 82nd birthday will be popping up early next month.

I also switched to Sony because of the eye auto focus capability of Sony when shooting both humans and dogs. Did I absolutely "need" eye AF - heck no! I had been shooting without it for well over 50-years and did pretty darn well, thank you! Strangely enough, I found that I liked face AF when using my Canon 6D2 but, that camera could only take advantage of face detect AF when in live-view mode. Eye detect is not a necessity but is a step above face detect. The eye AF makes shooting more enjoyable for me since people and dogs are the greater part of my photography.

When I shoot full frame. the Sony F/F gear is still lighter in weight than my Canon full frame equipment was AND, I can throw an older Sony APSC camera converted to full-time Infrared at only about 450 or so grams into my kit. Additionally I can use all of my APSC and full-frame Sony lenses with the tiny Sony camera. I had an older Canon APSC camera (the D60) converted to IR which was a lot heavier and which could not utilize many of my Canon lenses.

BTW: I just purchased a gimbal for video work. The light weight of my Sony APSC gear allows me to use a lighter weight (and less expensive gimbal) while the combination of IBIS and OSS really helps stabilization with or without the gimbal!

[DanK]

Richard,

I hear you. I'm 9 years younger, but I have to admit that I'm beginning to feel it. I was just out in a park for about an hour and a half, carrying my usual gear, and I came home annoyed by how heavy it seemed. I was appalled to weigh it and find that it only weighs about 17 lb, or 7.7 kg. I would have guessed far more. 15 years ago, I would have happily hiked up mountains with that same equipment on my back.

Here's what was in the bag:

1. a lightweight carbon fiber tripod with a lightweight head (Markins)
2. 5D Mark IV with an L-plate
3. 24-15 L f/4 II
4. 70-200 L f/4 II
5. 100mm L macro (a lightweight lens)
6. a few odds and ends: some filters, one extra battery, and lighter stuff (gray card, remote release, lens pen).

I really love this equipment. The body and lenses are all excellent, and the ergonomics are both superb in general and extremely familiar to me. However, I am increasingly thinking I would do more photography if I had lighter kit.

It's now very likely that Canon is about to release an APS-C R-series body (probably two), but rumor is that the initial lens offering will be very limited, so this wouldn't be as large a reduction in weight as I would like. I'm still playing with the idea of the new OM-1. However, while I think that would be great most of the time, i think there will still be times when I want FF, and switching to FF mirrorless just doesn't save much weight.

[Stagecoach]

I used my D800 for the first time in ages the other day and compared to my regularly used Z6 it felt like a brick in my hand. In a way a good thing as I find the Z6 feels too small with larger lenses.

At one time I'd considered selling it but have become aware that getting camera batteries in or to this country is almost impossible but the D800 has the ability to work with 8 AA batteries

[billtils]

Reading Richard and Dan's posts (and a refresher read of this from Thom Hogan leaves me with 3 thoughts:

1: If you are getting into "serious" equipment then your choice comes down to which mirrorless system you buy into
2: The only compelling reason to switch from a higher end DLSR to mirrorless is weight
3: For me if I did feel like shelling out a 4-figure sum for a gear upgrade (which I don't) a low shutter count D850 would be well in front of any of the current crop of mirrorless (as long as #2 continues not to be a factor).

[DanK]

Reading Richard and Dan's posts (and a refresher read of this from Thom Hogan leaves me with 3 thoughts:

1: If you are getting into "serious" equipment then your choice comes down to which mirrorless system you buy into
2: The only compelling reason to switch from a higher end DLSR to mirrorless is weight
3: For me if I did feel like shelling out a 4-figure sum for a gear upgrade (which I don't) a low shutter count D850 would be well in front of any of the current crop of mirrorless (as long as #2 continues not to be a factor).

I think much the same way. My 5D IV is the Canon analog of the D850, although lower res. The current crop of mirrorless cameras have a few things that I would find helpful, but not $4000 helpful. For me, the issue is increasingly weight. It's rather demoralizing that 7.7 kg now feels like a nuisance, but the clock only runs in one direction.