Seeking mirrorless advice

[marl]

Hello everybody, I'm new to the forum and actually just decided to join because I'm having some trouble deciding which mirrorless camera to purchase as a second body.
I'm a Nikon user and currently have a D810 and various lenses including a few Ai ones (24 f2.8, 35 f2, 105 f2.5, 135 f2.8 ...). Recently I was thinking about purchasing a mirrorless mainly due to size issues for those situations requiring something discrete and for some extremely lightweight walk-around fun with just a 24 or 35mm (FF equivalent) prime.
There obviously is a budget issue too since I wouldn't want to invest too much in a second body/system so I'm willing to buy everything used, the main options I have at the moment are (some more or less expensive):

-Fuji xe-2 or xt-1 and fujinon 23 f2 (is the f1.4 that much better?): this option is the one I'm more inclined to choose at the moment since every review I read seems to praise Fuji's excellent image quality

-Sony a6000 and samyang 24 f2.8 (?): better AF and dynamic range than fuji, maybe less expensive (?)

-Olympus OM-D mark ii and 17mm f2.8: what I like about it is the stabilized sensor but the crop factor of 2x limits heavily the use with my Ai lenses and investing on a very good 17mm prime would be too expensive

-Sony a7k and nikkor 35mm f2 Ai-s I already own: full frame, I'd use my primes on it with focus peaking (is it worth over a fuji body and lens in terms of image quality?) but bulky, expensive and maybe a little bit outdated.

What would you choose as a best compromise between IQ and price? Keeping in mind I'd shoot landscapes/cityscapes/portraits/street (casually) no sports but id like some good lowlight capabilities.
Hope this post results in some good advice for me and for others reading.
Thank you very much.

[rpcrowe]

Hi Marl...

I can't give you any definitive views on mirrorless so, I am just going to mention my experiences on this subject.

I wanted a mirrorless camera for the compactness that one would offer. I chose the Sony A6500 which I got at a good price from eBay along with a Sigma MC-11 adapter for Canon EF mount lenses to Sony E mount; an additional third party charger and two additional batteries; and a SmallRig video cage (that was the package that I purchased). I mainly shoot stills but, the 4K video capability of the A6500 is a bit interesting,

At first, I was going to rent an A6500 along with the Sigma MC-11 and Metabones Mk.V adapters. However, I got a good price on the above package with the MC-11 adapter and figured that this route would give me more time to learn the camera and capabilities. If I do not like the system, I could always sell the camera on eBay for not much less that I paid for it. I would consider the financial loss, if any, as rent for the use of the camera.

I had been researching the A6500 with Canon lenses on the Internet. There are some great differences in the capabilities of these lenses on the A6500 when adapted with the MC-11 adapter. I read that the MC-11 adapter would only function well with Sigma lenses, However, none of the reviews that I studied related that the MC-11 would only function seamlessly with selected lenses and then, with only certain versions of those lenses.

Here are the Sigma lenses that, as per Sigma, the MC-11 is compatible. Note: Most of these are Sigma lenses with A mounts, a few more Sigma lenses with Sigma mounts and even fewer are Sigma lenses with Canon mounts.

https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/mc-11-compatible

Note, there is very little selection of Sigma lenses with Canon mounts which are seamlessly compatible with the MC-11. I realize that you are coming from a Nikon background but, I suspect that the Nikon lenses which mesh seamlessly with an adapter are even fewer than Canon lenses. I hope to try a Metabones Mk.V adapter.

When I say "mesh seamlessly" I mean that the lens and adapter will allow all the AF functions of the A6500 to be active. This includes face detect and eye detect. I chose the A6500 because of its IBIS and because of the wonderful AF it is supposed to have. From what I have garnered by sifting through many Internet reviews and YouTube videos; the Sony A7iii and A6500 have the best AF in the Sony mirrorless line. But, since I don't have a native Sony lens, I cannot make any comments on how well or not well the AF functions with those lenses.

On the subject of Sony lenses for the 6xxx (series of cameras. They use the E mount (which is for crop sensor cameras) and, like many Canon and Nikon cameras, they can use the full frame Sony full frame FE lenses...

Here's my take on Sony glass. IT IS DAMNED EXPENSIVE. That starts from a humble 50mm f/1.8 lens. The Sony native 50mm f/1.8 will cost you about $250. While the Canon version costs anywhere from $100-125 USD new ($70-100 USD used) . I just priced these lenses today at a Best Buy store. Doubtlessly, you can get them less expensively but, the general 2:1 cost of the Sony over the Canon will apply in those cases also. I suspect that the same would ring true for Nikon glass vs. Sony.

There are really very few lenses for either Sony E or FE mounts available. The Sony 16-50mm kit lens for cropped cameras is the only inexpensive lens in the Sony lineup. Even the 28-70mm kit lens for the full frame a7*** (series) cameras is fairly expensive at $400 USD. The saving grace of this lens is that it has been dumped by many folks who bought it as a kit lens with the A7*** cameras. I got one for $200 USD from eBay. It should arrive Monday and I can give the camera a proper testing with at least one native lens.

Coming from a Canon background (and I think you coming from a Nikon background will agree as you research Sony glass) the Sony E mount lenses are disappointing in their prices and large size. The relatively inexpensive Sigma DN f/2.8 lenses ARE NOT fully compatible with the Sony mirrorless capabilities. They also do not have any stabilization so the owners of non-IBIS Sony cameras will be stuck with no stabilization at all...

If I like the 28-70mm kit lens on the A6500, I may purchase a wide angle fast lens. That might make a nice travel package.

The "NEW" Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens has everyone in the Sony world in a "tizzie". The reviews state that this is the best thing since sliced bread for the Sony mirrorless line of cameras. It is simply a remake of the venerable Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens which can be had new in Canon or Nikon mounts, new, for around $400 and you can get one on the used market dirt cheap. The NEW Sony mount version of this lens costs $700 and I suspect any available this early on the used market may be duds which were dumped by disappointed owners.

Take this for what it is worth. The A6500 is a nice camera and has great capabilities but, be careful and know what you are getting into. OTOH, there was a Canon crop sensor DSLR sitting next to the Sony in the Best Buy store and the form factor of that camera isn't greatly larger than the Sony A6500. Possibly, there are equally as small Nikon crop sensor cameras out there. Remember, to get good glass on the Sony, you have to often enlarge the size and weight of the total package to a great degree by buying a large and heavy lens.

[Manfred M]

About 4 years ago I picked up a mirrorless Panasonic GX7 to supplement my Nikon D800. I also had a Nikon D90.

The reason I went with the smaller camera was that we were about to head out on a 2-month long trip to South-Asia and everything had to fit in my backpack.

Mirrorless cameras have some advantages and some disadvantages; mostly with respect to battery life, a viewfinder that is not as good as a pentaprism in a DSLR and autofocus that is not as good in some circumstances than what is found on a DSLR. The other main issue deals with the limited real estate that the camera designer has for controls. I can shoot my D810 (which replaced the D800) without ever taking my eye off the viewfinder. The smaller mirrorless camera is far more challenging to operate than a full frame camera and many of the functions have to be buried in menus rather than being able to be controlled by buttons and other controls on the camera.

A mirrorless camera does have the advantage of not having a mirror chamber and mechanism, so the shutter is quieter than a DSLR. Using lenses not made for the camera through lens adapters is not always going to give you the usability of lenses made for the camera line; both OEM and third party offerings.

If size and cost are issues, a crop-frame Nikon DSLR would be compatible with all of your Nikon lenses and there are offerings that would definitely hit the price points and quality levels of the mirrorless cameras you have listed.

Having had a chance to shoot with a number current of Sony and Fuji mirrorless cameras, I would not rush out to get one right now. For my shooting needs, which seem to be similar to yours, I would not go mirrorless yet. The technology needs to mature a bit further.

[marl]

Thank you very much for posting your experiences! As I thought there are still quite a few issues with ML cameras that require further evaluation. There’s just one thing I might not have clearly stated in my first post: this isn’t about substituting the d810, I’d like to have a ML camera as a second body for situations like Manfred’s trip.
AF is welcomed but not that necessary (I’d go with the d810) and the idea of using manual focus with focus peaking intreageues me. Are Ai lenses decent when adapted to ML bodies? Is it preferable to get a FF older model to use more of them effectively or it defies the purpose of having a less bulky setup? Should I concentrate on getting a decent body/lens combination from the same manufacturer (35mm prime FF equivalent) for better image quality instead (like Fuji xe2 + fujinon 23 f2)?
I wouldn’t want to spend too much on it/on the system since it’s a second body and currently I can’t see me switching to ML.
Thanks for replying and sorry for not being that clear in my first post!

[Manfred M]

Thank you very much for posting your experiences! As I thought there are still quite a few issues with ML cameras that require further evaluation. There’s just one thing I might not have clearly stated in my first post: this isn’t about substituting the d810, I’d like to have a ML camera as a second body for situations like Manfred’s trip.
AF is welcomed but not that necessary (I’d go with the d810) and the idea of using manual focus with focus peaking intreageues me. Are Ai lenses decent when adapted to ML bodies? Is it preferable to get a FF older model to use more of them effectively or it defies the purpose of having a less bulky setup? Should I concentrate on getting a decent body/lens combination from the same manufacturer (35mm prime FF equivalent) for better image quality instead (like Fuji xe2 + fujinon 23 f2)?
I wouldn’t want to spend too much on it/on the system since it’s a second body and currently I can’t see me switching to ML.
Thanks for replying and sorry for not being that clear in my first post!

Let me deal with some of the issues that you have raised.

Focus peaking has been around in video cameras as a focus assist device for quite a long time, so there is little wonder that camera manufacturers like Sony and Panasonic that started off as high end video camera makers well before they got into still cameras. Focus peaking is about as effective as AF Assist on your D810; it shows you where the camera thinks the AF plane should be rather where the photographer / videographer wants it to be. I can't think of any serious videographer who uses this feature in their work; they shoot tethered to a large screen and use that to focus their rig.

When I bought the Panasonic, I also bought a Nikon F mount to mFT and Leica R mount to mFT adapter. I use them very rarely because I am much happier using the native Panasonic lenses when use that camera. If I am travelling light, then I don't want to use the heavy lenses on those bodies; the lens mounts are not designed to take the weight, optical performance is not as good and the camera / lens balance is not ideal either. When Canon and Nikon announced their new line of mirrorless cameras, they went with a new lens mount and a new lens design to take advantage of the short flange to sensor plane distance.

Coming from a D800 / D810 the only time I bring along my mirrorless camera is when size and weight are the primary issue. Less than 5% of my shots are taken with the GX7. If you are looking at a new system, I suggest you do not go half way. Get a mirrorless body with lenses that are designed to go with it. Focus peaking is not a great reason to go mirrorless. The focus accuracy will be the same as with AF lenses designed for that camera body.

[Hanginon]

My feelings on mirrorless have not changed - if you find a great deal on a used one, fine. Otherwise, IMHO, if you can, wait at least a year until some of the dust in this market has settled.

If Panasonic enters the FF mirrorless market, that will put 4 players into a market previously dominated by two (Nikon Canon FF DSLR). That, plus marketplace erosion due to smart phones, means there is going to be a loser(s). Do not put serious money into anything right now.

[Manfred M]

If Panasonic enters the FF mirrorless market, that will put 4 players into a market previously dominated by two (Nikon Canon FF DSLR).

There are already five players in the full frame market; Canon, Leica, Nikon, Ricoh (Pentax) and Sony.

It will be interesting to see if Leica and Panasonic maintain their current licensing and technology relationship.

[rpcrowe]

If size and weight are a factor in your choices, I definitely would not restrict my choices to full frame cameras, either DSLR or mirrorless. I would look into a crop sensor camera. I have just pulled out an ancient Canon XT (350D) DSLR which I have in my photo gear locker. I have never sold this camera because for the money I get for it, I'd rather use it as a loaner camera when a rescue group member needs a camera. Anyway, I was pretty surprised just how small the XT was. Not as small as the A6500 but considerably smaller than either my Canon 7D2 or 6D2 cameras. I don't have one but, the 18-55mm kit lens would make a very small and reasonably capable package. The 40mm pancake lens would really decrease the size of the package but a prime lens is somewhat restrictive for travel photography.

I chose the Sony A6500 because of the size and weight factor as well as the auto focus that was touted as being great. I specifically wanted eye AF which Is available on some selected Sony mirrorless cameras. I also "thought" that I would have more success using my Canon EF lenses with the Sigma MC-11 adapter. I purchased the used 6500 with this adapter for about the same price as other cameras of that type were selling for, so I figured, "why not?" However, I really need a native Sony e mount lens to get a baseline on what the AF capabilities of the A6500 really are.

I purchased a used 28-70mm kit lens (originally sold as part of a kit with the A7 (series line of cameras and I am awaiting delivery which is scheduled for monday.. As part of a kit, this lens was really no that expensive but, buying it new as a stand alone lens it runs $400. I was able to purchase one from a guy who bought an A7 kit and who didn't want the kit lens. This lens gets mixed reviews but, as a kit lens it seems relatively good. The one thing it has going for it that I need is seamless integration with the A6500 auto focusing system. The 28mm short side is fairly tight on a crop format camera but, my intention is to get a fast wider lens to supplement the A6500 as a travel camera kit.

This video is interesting regarding using Canon glass with the MC-11 and A6500.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz7Lw9kOxVU&t=311s

I am happy that I have the camera for an unrestricted amount of time to really give it a fair shake.

Here's a video that indicates the MC-11 A6500 combination works fairly well with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM lens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZgaXcUflzA&t=291s

Here is a series of videos which might interest you more that the Canon centered videos. These are about using Nikon glass on the A6000.

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+on+sony+a6000

If a small form factor at a low price is what you are looking for, the A6000 and the 16-50mm kit lens should fill your needs. The 16-50mm is really miniscule when the camera is shut down and the lens folded back. It is virtually a pancake lens. You should easily be able to find a camera/lens combination for $400-$500 USD on eBay if you live in the USA.

If I am not happy with the A6500 after I get the native lens, I will sell it. I should not lose a great deal of money doing so. The next camera that I will consider is the Canon M-50. This tiny camera "should" have better compatability with my Canon EF lenses through the OEM adapter. The M-50 is not quite as fully featured as the A6500 but, AF is my main consideration...

[Hanginon]

I purchased a used 28-70mm kit lens (originally sold as part of a kit with the A7 (series line of cameras and I am awaiting delivery which is scheduled for monday.. As part of a kit, this lens was really no that expensive but, buying it new as a stand alone lens it runs $400. I was able to purchase one from a guy who bought an A7 kit and who didn't want the kit lens. This lens gets mixed reviews but, as a kit lens it seems relatively good. The one thing it has going for it that I need is seamless integration with the A6500 auto focusing system. The 28mm short side is fairly tight on a crop format camera but, my intention is to get a fast wider lens to supplement the A6500 as a travel camera kit.

This has been the major complaint with Sony crop sensor cameras - too few high quality Sony crop sensor lenses. Once you start hanging good Sony FF glass on it, it looses much of it's weight/size advantage.

[DanK]

Coming from a Canon background (and I think you coming from a Nikon background will agree as you research Sony glass) the Sony E mount lenses are disappointing in their prices and large size.

I think this is something that people routinely miss when they compare the size of mirrorless cameras and DSLRs. The optically necessary distance from the rearmost lens element to the sensor doesn't magically shrink when one removes a mirror from the light path. If you make the camera body narrower, bringing the front closer to the sensor, you have to make the back end of the lens longer by the same amount to compensate.

This is one reason that at this time I have no interest in a mirrorless FF camera. I do occasionally think about one with a smaller sensor, but I don't yet see enough benefit--or enough evidence of good performance with my canon lenses--to lead me to pull the plug.

[Shadowman]

If I were you I'd start out with output, what have other photographers been able to produce with a specific camera/lens combo. If downloadable RAW images are available, do so and edit per your style and see if it matches or nears the quality you've been able to achieve with your DSLR. I understand that you are going by the expertise of the photographer who captured the image, their technique (camera settings, use of flash or filters) may not match your technique and I've seen and downloaded some images from pros that did not seem to meet my standards, but overall output should be your final consideration in choosing a camera.

[davidedric]

I'm finding this whole dslr vs. mirrorless debate (not just this thread) a bit worrisome. I do understand the dilemma of someone heavily invested in current lenses in particular, but..

How do the two differ? Having or not having a mirror. Having an OVF or an EVF. Of course these two differences lead to performance and operational differences, but that's down to personal preference and needs - neither is inherently better or worse.

I would suggest that a full frame dslr and a Sony, for example, have more in common with each other than the Sony has with Manfred's gx7.

Of course different systems have different lens line ups from OEM and third party, but that's to do to do with maturity and market share - not a flippy mirror.

In my own case, I've opted for Panasonic micro four thirds. For me, I prefer the capabilities that the system brings, and the smaller, lighter lenses made possible by the smaller sensor work for me. On my G80 I have as much real estate as a mid level dslr, and probably greater configurability. I have zero interest in a crusade to persuade others to follow.

Let's just concentrate on how the different offerings suit our needs.

Dave

[Manfred M]

Dave - I think the debate is good, but right now there is a "fashion" to move to mirrorless cameras if for no other reason than that they are new and pretty well everyone likes being at the front of the fashion wave.

I've had a chance to use some of the new high end Fuji and Sony models that members of my photo club own. I look forward to getting my hands on both the new Nikon and Canon mirrorless cameras, once someone buys them as well. I've always felt that the market will be moving in this direction, but the advantages of the mirrorless cameras are always touted, but people tend to ignore the downsides of the current technology as well. This is something I said to a friend on his website; he is considering switching to the new Canon mirrorless:

" I bought a mirrorless camera before my first trip to India about 4 years ago, so the technology has moved on a bit, but not as much as I would have hoped. Some of the people that I shoot with regularly have the latest Sony and Fuji cameras, so I have been able to check them out.

The mirrorless cameras have five main problems, from my standpoint.

1. They go through batteries very quickly. In a DSLR, the sensor and image processor are only turned on just before the picture is taken. With a mirrorless camera, it is on the full time that the camera is turned on. The electronic display and electronic viewfinder also chew through batteries. As the camera body is smaller, often so are the batteries, which exasperates the problem.

I find that I rarely go through more than 2 batteries in a day with my DSLR. With my mirrorless camera, I've gone through 5 and could have used more, but only own 5 batteries...

2. The electronic viewfinder display is simply no where even close to what a DSLR with a pentaprism shows. Quality, resolution, tearing, etc. are all well documented issues with a EVF.

3. A smaller camera body means there is less space on the body for the buttons and controls. With my full-frame DSLR I can adjust any of the controls without ever taking my eye off the viewfinder. With the mirrorless camera, the buttons and wheels tend to be smaller and closer together. A lot of the functionality I normally access with controls on my DSLR have to be implemented as a menu selection. That slows me down and I have definitely missed shots that I would have gotten on my full-frame camera.

4. Contrast detect autofocus cannot match the speed of phase detect. This comes down to basic math and physics. With phase detect both the direction and amount that the focus has to move can be measured. With Contrast Detect, it's more of a trial and error approach. Camera manufacturers have tried to create work arounds, but when I ask my wildlife, bird and action photographer friends, they tell me that the technology is simply not there yet. These are the people that hike long distances into the woods to take pictures and would dearly love lighter weight gear.

5. Lens size and weight - While the camera body might be smaller and lighter, that is only part of the story. The lenses are a significant part of the weight one is carrying around. Building a fast, high quality lens is going to have the same physics constraints on a mirrorless body as on a DLSR (almost; the shorter flange to sensor distance does work in the mirrorless camera's favour a bit). That being said, the input aperture diameter still dictates the f-stop. The lens designer can reduce weight by using lighter weight materials (plastic versus metal) , use less materials (glass is heavy so fewer lens elements reduces weight, but decreases image correction issues = image quality will suffer) or reduce overall robustness in the lens (more susceptible to damage).

I find that I shoot my mirrorless camera for less than 5% of my images. When light weight or quiet operation are important factors, I use it. Otherwise it stays at home."

[Shadowman]

I'm finding this whole dslr vs. mirrorless debate (not just this thread) a bit worrisome. I do understand the dilemma of someone heavily invested in current lenses in particular, but..

How do the two differ? Having or not having a mirror. Having an OVF or an EVF. Of course these two differences lead to performance and operational differences, but that's down to personal preference and needs - neither is inherently better or worse.

I would suggest that a full frame dslr and a Sony, for example, have more in common with each other than the Sony has with Manfred's gx7.

Of course different systems have different lens line ups from OEM and third party, but that's to do to do with maturity and market share - not a flippy mirror.

In my own case, I've opted for Panasonic micro four thirds. For me, I prefer the capabilities that the system brings, and the smaller, lighter lenses made possible by the smaller sensor work for me. On my G80 I have as much real estate as a mid level dslr, and probably greater configurability. I have zero interest in a crusade to persuade others to follow.

Let's just concentrate on how the different offerings suit our needs.

Dave

Hi David,

Unless you are new to photography, which the OP isn't; it does come down to DSLR vs mirrorless when it comes to output, ergonomics is a totally different parameter in the capture gain. If a lighter system makes it easier for you to stop the moment in time then of course it doesn't matter which system, but if the output doesn't give you equal or better quality then you either have to accept the limitations of the system (and I'm not giving a nod to either system) or find a post capture method that gets you where you want to be and if you have to rely solely on the editing tools then you may not be happy with either system. And when I saw relying on the editing tools I'm talking about noise reduction, CA correction, depth of field, and other aesthetics that can make or break an image.

[DanK]

noise, CA, DOF, and the like have no bearing on mirrorless/mirror debate; they are a function of optics, user settings, sensor quality, and internal electronics.

I agree with Manfred: this is in part a fad. I've been in digital photography long enough to see a number come and go. Way back when it was megapixels. Then there was the 'avoid small photosites because of noise' counterrevolution. Then there was the "it's time for me to upgrade to FF from APS-C," often stated by people who couldn't tell you why they would upgrade or what the pros and cons of the change would be. Then it was MFT, despite the fact that MFT sensors are considerably smaller than APS-C sensors. The next fad kind of skipped over APS-C mirrorless, which I think is a pity, and now the fad is FF mirrorless.

This may make me sound like a grumpy old man, but even though I'm a bit of a gearhead, a lot of this seems like brownian motion to me. The fact of the matter is that when I look at images taken by other people, if they are competent, I often have no clue what camera they used. I don't ooh and ah when someone walks in with a D800 or a D850, and I see no more reason to ooh and ah when they walk in with a FF Sony. If it works for them, fine.

My own interest in mirrorless came about because I am beginning to feel my age. I'm hankering for something that is easier for me to carry. That pretty much rules out FF mirrorless because when you factor in lenses, they aren't much lighter than what I have now. To save weight, at least with current technology, I'll have to go with a smaller sensor. I do have a relatively inexpensive MFT, and I don't like a sensor that small. Maybe APS-C is the answer, or perhaps sensor technology will improve enough that I'll be happy with a newer MFT. Meanwhile, I have a cupboard full of excellent equipment; my problem is more often, to paraphrase Ansel Adams, the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.

[Manfred M]

Hi David,

Unless you are new to photography, which the OP isn't; it does come down to DSLR vs mirrorless when it comes to output, ergonomics is a totally different parameter in the capture gain. If a lighter system makes it easier for you to stop the moment in time then of course it doesn't matter which system, but if the output doesn't give you equal or better quality then you either have to accept the limitations of the system (and I'm not giving a nod to either system) or find a post capture method that gets you where you want to be and if you have to rely solely on the editing tools then you may not be happy with either system. And when I saw relying on the editing tools I'm talking about noise reduction, CA correction, depth of field, and other aesthetics that can make or break an image.

Let me disagree a bit with you here John. I have seen the output from quite a number of cameras, both DSLR and mirrorless. I would have to say that when looking at output on a computer screen, I generally have no idea as to what type of camera the image was captured with. I can sometimes guess when I look at a large print, but even there good technique with a smaller sensor camera can produce a better print than one taken with a larger camera that was not handled well.

A modern sensor will perform the same whether it is in a DSLR or mirrorless camera, so noise, CA (which is comes from the lens, not camera body), DoF, etc are factors that are not really going to be something that one type of camera will be better at than the other. A skilled user should be able to get the maximum out of either type of camera body and one would expect a mirrorless camera to outperform a DSLR in situations where camera shake (from mirror slap) or shutter noise are primary issues. In LiveView mode a DSLR emulates a mirrorless camera reasonably well; shutter noise and battery life being the issues here.

Ultimately ergonomics and operator proficiency are the key to success. One cannot get a grasp of the first without handling the camera. The reason I ended up moving to Nikon rather than Canon when I bought my first DSLR was ergonomics. Nikon finish and control locations worked better in my hands than Canon did. Something similar happened when I chose Panasonic over Olympus when I bought my mFT camera, although the second factor also played a part. I owned two high end Panasonic video cameras and while the layout is completely different from a still camera, there was still enough "familial" similarity for me to find the Panny a better fit for me.

[Shadowman]

noise, CA, DOF, and the like have no bearing on mirrorless/mirror debate; they are a function of optics, user settings, sensor quality, and internal electronics.

If quality of capture has no bearing then there wouldn't be a debate.

[Shadowman]

Manfred,

I wouldn't base my assessment of a system on images posted online which is why in post #11 I suggested downloading available RAW images; which again I mentioned the competence of the photographer as to whether or not the RAW images are representative samples of the camera's capability. My point overall is that the debate shouldn't be decided solely on a few YouTube reviews, the potential user should use additional criteria to make a choice and for those new to photography who've never used a DSLR there shouldn't and couldn't be a debate on mirrorless vs mirrored.

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

I wouldn't base my assessment of a system on images posted online which is why in post #11 I suggested downloading available RAW images; which again I mentioned the competence of the photographer as to whether or not the RAW images are representative samples of the camera's capability. My point overall is that the debate shouldn't be decided solely on a few YouTube reviews, the potential user should use additional criteria to make a choice and for those new to photography who've never used a DSLR there shouldn't and couldn't be a debate on mirrorless vs mirrored.

Again, I don't think so, because looking at someone else's raw capture is actually quite meaningless. Competence of the photographer is only one aspect of what is being evaluated.

I was asked to edit a raw image out of a medium format Hasselblad camera about 8 years ago. It clearly demonstrated the skill of the photographer as well as the capabilities of the camera. It was also an image I could never imagine taking myself, so I really did not care how good the photographer was as the image was technically well done but completely uninteresting.

I would never buy a camera or lens based solely on what a YouTube video says, as much of what we find in that medium is not particularly good information. There is some good, solid information out there, but there is also a lot of questionable information out there. This includes some reviewers that are viewed as "highly regarded" who post a lot of questionable information and often confuse their opinion with fact.

Absolutely nothing beats heading over to a bricks & mortar camera store and actually handling the camera and lenses.

[rpcrowe]

The 28-70mm Sony Kit Lens arrived today. We have to go to our daughter's house for a dinner this afternoon so I don't have time to play with it. I did mount it on my A6500 and have one piece of advice for anyone contemplating a Sony mirrorless camera.

I recommend the purchase at least one native Sony lens with the camera! The difference between viewing an image with one of my Canon lenses adapted for the Sony and viewing it with the kit lens attached is night and day; and that's just a kit lens!

I can't wait until tomorrow when I can have the time to thoroughly work out my A6500.

As opposed to earlier posts when I considered dumping the Sony, I am now considering the purchase of another lens or two and a second body - possibly full frame somewhere in the future. This could be a wonderful travel kit...

I have also time to wait for the next Sony Crop camera to come out! That is supposed to be an A9 in a reduced form factor!