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

[Manfred M]

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.

That is one reason I am spending more and more time doing portraiture and still life work in a studio setting. On location portraiture is fun too, but more equipment has to come along, but once one has set up, it's not too bad.

[pnodrog]

I'm surprised that equipment weight seems to rank so highly on whether to go mirrorless or not.

My expectation is that the main benefit for me will be the brightness of the viewfinder in low light conditions and when using DOF preview. Also the improved autofocus options are another big attraction. For me the minor weight reduction (unless going to crop sensor) of the camera body does not justify the expenditure. As far as I can see there is no significant weight reduction when carrying equivalent lenses.

When I do go mirrorless the reduction in weight maybe a benefit but will not be a factor in my decision.

P.S. No Mirror, pentaprism or mechanical shutter should reduce the cost of manufacture, certainly for lower end cameras...

[rpcrowe]

I do a lot of shooting with my Sony APSC kit. I still like carrying a pair of bodies and the weight saving of the Sony gear allows me to do this with only minimal discomfit.

When I first began using Sony mirrorless gear, I purchased a used A6500 and planned to utilize my Canon lenses with adapters. I found however, that the auto focus of native e-mount lenses far surpassed any adapted lens. The problem was that Sony did not have a zoom lens which was equal t the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS in focal range. aperture and form factor. However, Sony did have some reasonably priced prime lenses. I shot people for about a year with the A6500 and the 50mm f/1.8 OSS lens along with the Canon 85mm f/1.8 (which I switched to the Sony 85mm f/1.8)

Then a plethora of very reasonably priced zoom lenses appeared. There are now three very good zooms for people shooting with the Sony APSC cameras: the relatively tiny Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, the Tamron 17-70mm f/2.8, and (believe it or not) the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 which I love for people shooting. Of course, Sony's own 17-55mm f/2.8 is a great lens but IMO quite over-priced.
I like carrying the A6400 and A6600 with the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and Sony 85mm f/1.8 when people shooting.
If I were younger, I think that I would get a Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 to carry with the Sigma 18-50mm for people and general purpose shooting.

However, if I were primarily a landscape photographer, I would still probably be shooting Canon full-frame.

[inkista]

... However, if I were primarily a landscape photographer, I would still probably be shooting Canon full-frame.

Probably a full-frame EOS R mirrorless body. Considerably smaller than the dSLR options. Though not as small as the A7 equivalent. EOS always had a wider throat mount than A-mount, too.

BTW, most Canon R-mount shooters report that using an EF->RF adapter on their EF glass loses no autofocus performance at all, and in come cases, even gains speed/accuracy. From what I gather, they're primarily passthrough electronics, since the electronic communication is nearly identical between the dSLR and mirrorless mounts. It's a different case from adapting EF lenses to non-Canon systems where the signalling has to be translated. Nikon Z folks are pretty much reporting similar identical AF performance with their F-mount-to-Z adapters for the lenses that are compatible with the adapter.

Unlike back when you swapped to Sony, Canon shooters now have an option that doesn't require swapping out all their lenses and primarily relying on 3rd-party lens makers for affordable glass . And as a cheap birder, lenses like the RF 600mm f/11 and RF 800mm f/11 primes both coming in with pricetags under $1k intrigues me.

And of course, this week, Canon announced their first APS-C EOS R bodies: the R7 (R-mount 7D analog) and R10 (xxD analog; just as the R5: 5D line; R6: 6D). Which probably signals the death of the EOS M system (although possibly not until an R100 and R1000 and a few more RF-S lenses are out) and Canon's EOS dSLRs.

[John 2]

I swopped from Nikon and invested in (no other word for it) the Fuji X series about 4 years ago. Originally purely on the basis of weight saving but since doing so I have progressed from the original X-T1 to my current X-T4 only because of frankly needed improvements in autofocus, viewfinder brightness and the internal processor capability as the range developed. Performance is now as much as I need and so my current set up is likely to be with me for some time. That is not to say BTW that Fuji is better than any other brand. The nature of the market place is such that development leapfrogging is constant and any way, you tries your camera and you makes your choice.

[Sportback]

I'm a bit late joining this discussion - forgive me - I've been away a while...

@billtils I'm a little confused - the original title to this thread was regarding the fact that you were convinced that keeping your DSLR was the only way to go...however your signature tells a different story...?

My 'change' moment came in 2018 when the Z6 came out - it looked like it would solve a certain number of problems involved with the kind of photography I do.

My DSLR evolution followed a predictable route - D700, D800, D850, D3s but one of the things that was consistently annoying was the shutter noise. I've rarely had a problem with IQ, but in a circus environment, a clicking shutter is really something the performers do not want.

Then the Z6 came out with the possibility to 'turn off' the mechanical shutter and my world changed! Artists often commented on the fact that I had sadly not taken any photographs, only to find out that I had 400 or 500 shots in the bag!

I have recently unloaded pretty much all of my DSLR/AF-S material - it's served me well for a number of years, and will go on serving someone else now. Yes, there's a financial aspect to all this obviously, but the Z9 I received a couple of weeks ago (after only 1 months wait - thank you NPS France) is very exciting (particularly the 3D tracking) and I'm starting to put it through it's paces now - and so far it's really very promising.

[billtils]

I'm a bit late joining this discussion - forgive me - I've been away a while...

@billtils I'm a little confused - the original title to this thread was regarding the fact that you were convinced that keeping your DSLR was the only way to go...however your signature tells a different story...?

Absolutely correct! I'm at an age where my finger joints are getting to be more and more affected by arthritis and wielding my much loved D810 got to be a burden. Moving to mirrorless was an obvious thing to do but my personal experience (using my son's Sony) put me off as it was too small and light. However, I met up with a member of my local club who has a D850 but had to switch to somethng lighter for medical reasons and purchased a Z5. That changed my mind - lighter but not too light, smaller but not too small - and after a serious look at the Z range I bought a Z6ii. Problem solved and I love it; great IQ with my 2 'S' series lenses and my 300mm PF on an FTZ adapter.

There are other unexpected benefits from the switch, mainly the WYSIWYG viewfinder that shows actual DoF and a live histogram.

[pnodrog]

Absolutely correct! I'm at an age where my finger joints are getting to be more and more affected by arthritis and wielding my much loved D810 got to be a burden. Moving to mirrorless was an obvious thing to do but my personal experience (using my son's Sony) put me off as it was too small and light. However, I met up with a member of my local club who has a D850 but had to switch to somethng lighter for medical reasons and purchased a Z5. That changed my mind - lighter but not too light, smaller but not too small - and after a serious look at the Z range I bought a Z6ii. Problem solved and I love it; great IQ with my 2 'S' series lenses and my 300mm PF on an FTZ adapter.

There are other unexpected benefits from the switch, mainly the WYSIWYG viewfinder that shows actual DoF and a live histogram.

Has the drop in resolution had much impact on your enjoyment of the Z6ii? I am on the verge of making the same change and I'm hoping Nikon are about to release a Z6iii to match the Sony A7 iv.

[billtils]

I think it may have made me a better technician Paul .

I moved from a D750 to a D810 for the same reason as the 810 to Z move - weight. I was able to ditch the heavy 150-600 zoom for the light (and higher quality) 300 PF =/- 1.4 TC and by shooting in DX mode lost nothing of note in reach. Now that I'm back in the D750 MP range I just have to use better glass (as in the Z mount 'S' lenses) and pay more attention to framing, and of course resort to the foot zoom.

Bottom line: I have yet to have any cause to miss those extra 12 MP.

[pnodrog]

I think it may have made me a better technician Paul .

I moved from a D750 to a D810 for the same reason as the 810 to Z move - weight. I was able to ditch the heavy 150-600 zoom for the light (and higher quality) 300 PF =/- 1.4 TC and by shooting in DX mode lost nothing of note in reach. Now that I'm back in the D750 MP range I just have to use better glass (as in the Z mount 'S' lenses) and pay more attention to framing, and of course resort to the foot zoom.

Bottom line: I have yet to have any cause to miss those extra 12 MP.

I hate walking...suspect I would miss the extra 12 MP. If december comes and Nikon have not released a 30-40 MP model I will either go for a Z7ii or more likely opt for the 33 MP Sony A7iv. I will need a converter either way for my F mount lenses so switching brands will make little difference. However I have always liked Nikons approach to ergonomics and menu.

[Manfred M]

I hate walking...suspect I would miss the extra 12 MP. If december comes and Nikon have not released a 30-40 MP model I will either go for a Z7ii or more likely opt for the 33 MP Sony A7iv. I will need a converter either way for my F mount lenses so switching brands will make little difference. However I have always liked Nikons approach to ergonomics and menu.

Paul - A little caution is advised. I know a Canon shooter who bought a Sony for much the same reason as you had mentioned. While his Canon lenses focus on the Sony body, the autofocus is very, painfully slow. I would look into this. My understanding is that Nikon F to Nikon Z has good autofocus speed.

[billtils]

My understanding is that Nikon F to Nikon Z has good autofocus speed.

Yes it does indeed.

[pnodrog]

Manfred and Bill - My preference is to remain with Nikon and I will certainly take your comments into consideration.

[billtils]

I hate walking...suspect I would miss the extra 12 MP. If december comes and Nikon have not released a 30-40 MP model I will either go for a Z7ii or more likely opt for the 33 MP Sony A7iv. I will need a converter either way for my F mount lenses so switching brands will make little difference. However I have always liked Nikons approach to ergonomics and menu.

Paul, what do you mostly shoot? I made the Z6/7 decision mainly based on habits/preferences in that area and in the end the better burst performance of the 6 beat the extra MP of the 7.

As far as switching to Sony goes, I have no first hand knowledge of how well Nikon glass will migrate to the Sony but (a) I personally decided not to risk it and (b) the FTZ does a flawless job with F-mount lenses. In case you are looking at my signature line and the lensware there, yes I only kept the one F-mount lens but did give the others a run. In the end it came down to avoiding mounting and demounting the FTZ on different lenses outdoors, and how well the 'S' line ones performed. I convinced myself I only needed the 3 (the macro and 300PF primes and the 24-70) but may well give in and add a 70-200 'S' one of these days (as in when there are good quality and kindly priced ones on the used market).

Bill

PS: One surprise: i do 2 or 3 low light concert shoots each year and the silent shutter in the Z body was, as expected, very welcome. Not expected was that the noise in the Z6 images was better that what I got from the D810 (but since the one concert under the Z6's belt was at a venue I had not encounted before this should be regarded as anecdotal at this stage).

[Chataignier]

I can add my experience to your PS : Canon 5DIV to Fuji X-T3 which is not FF, I was delighted to find an improvement in low light shots for concerts and the like. However now that DXO Pure RAW and LR De-Noise are so powerful, the low light performance is less of an issue.

[JDW in Oz]

A Nikon D810 is admittedly somewhat dated, but still a magnificent camera. Used with care, it will go on serving you well.

I write as someone who sold his Nikon D800, which did everything I expected and wanted from it to my entire satisfaction, to change to another brand (if you must know, it was Fuji), but then realized the error of my ways and returned to Nikon. At a ridiculous cost.

I have written about this in another post today. Many lessons were learned, in my case quite expensively.

If I had found a D800 as good as the one I sold (which had about 20,000 actuations), I would have bought it. Alas, here in Australia they seem to be as rare as diamonds in the sand on Bondi Beach. I looked at several, which to me seemed more clapped out than useable and/or the asking prices were too high, and assed

In the end I went, yes, you guessed it, mirrorless. With a good secondhand Nikon Z6ii, ne lens (16-50, the kit one) and a Z to D lens adapter. Which serves me just fine. .

I enjoy the Z and the results it gives me, but I still believe I could have done just as well with my D800.

So yes, as I see it, your decision to stay with the D610 s a good one.

May it go on doing the good work it does for you, for a very long while.