[biz-engineer]

Mirrorless are currently built for children. Camera bodies, excluding GFX-system and Panasonic S1 + some other exotics, are still way too small. They slowly gather more dimensions though. Sony started with something suitable for 6yr old while CaNikon aimed the 1st gen models for pre-teens.

Mirrorless was discovered by accident. After they designed the camera body they tried to fit the mirror box inside and they realized the mirror would fit, so they just left the mirror out.
BTW, I think the 645z was designed to fit the hands of Arnold Schwarzenegger or Silvester Stallone, the magnesium alloy box is bullet proof like a Panzer.

[Dan Rentea]

I'm with you. All of this involves tradeoffs as I don't know of any camera that can be all things to all photographers at a price that all of them can afford to pay. Dan is a professional who is accustomed to paying well for features that help him get from A to B more quickly and paid. Most of us here don't shoot horses (do they still shoot horses ) for pay and it may never come up that we even want to photograph jumping horses in the first place. 12+ frame burst shooting is not something we necessarily want to pay extra for. Landscape and citywalk guys are happy with great single shots, an area where the image quality of the K1/KP etc is regularly praised.

To expand on the platform choices I've watched too many mirrorless guys take way too long to frame and capture a shot, and this past weekend disappointed to note two very good and experienced photographers I know well, shooting very recent pro(sumer?)-level MILC's, struggling with eye focus on a relatively static model in an outdoor setting while I happily shot away with spot-on AF images on a K1. How does that happen for a $2K-plus camera with a modern lens whose highlighted selling point is Eye-focus? So I don't consider MILC or DSLR to be inherently "better", just a different way for getting to the same destination.

I totally get the attraction of mirrorless cameras, size, weight, and the improved autofocus features they bring to the table. For those of us not struggling with focus or size now, and especially those using manual lenses anyway (including a whole lot of mirrorless owners using simple adapters for our Pentax glass), it's not something that would be economically worth changing systems for IMO. It wouldn't be put to good use. Changing simply because "new' doesn't make sense to me so it better serve a really important purpose if I need to change out a camera I'm familiar with for it. Plus I have trouble enough composing a shot on my camera phone screen and it has smart features for the dumb in me. I can fire off 4 or 5 on any of my Pentax's in the time it takes me using a screen. Heck I don't even want to use the screen on my K1 or K70's for composing, which is why I don't really care if the new K3III has a ... Nevermind but you know. I'd rather use the window view as someone above mentioned.

But not everyone is me, and those guys choosing mirrorless are using their own money to buy 'em and not mine. In fact if I were to start out fresh today with no prior experience it might even have been an MILC in my hands instead of a DSLR.

There's cameras and lenses and assorted gear for all of us and we are each and every one a photographer. We're more family than not IMO, and judging another among us based solely on them not making the same camera choice we did is pretty silly isn't it? It's a given that what works for Norm or works for Dan may not work for any other specific person. But it works for them, and knowledge-wise I'm better off for it when they each explain why. I appreciate their experience.

If I recognize a point of struggle with my existing cameras I'm not so stubborn as to not look around for a better tool. I'm not struggling. That's not to say there are not those Pentax owners among us who are. At the same time there are probably a whole lot of MILC owners who might have been better served with a DSLR from both a real-world use and budget perspective, but just don't know it. Pentax would have been the better selection if only they had known, which is another issue altogether.

IMHO Mirrorless just gets all the press now, because that's where the ad dollars are. New systems mean new lenses and lots of dollars changing hands.

Let's put this differently. Let's say I'm a 20 or a 24 years old guy who doesn't have any kind of problems with EVFs, e-books or any kind of screens. I want a camera better than the one from my modern smartphone. Why would I choose a DSLR (Nikon, Pentax, Canon) over a mirrorless? That's I would like to know from DSLRs photographers. Someone said ergonomics but this is different from person to person. What other reasons are?

I'm asking because most people talk only about EVFs and I can't find any other reason why a DSLR is a better choice.

[gatorguy]

Let's put this differently. Let's say I'm a 20 or a 24 years old guy who doesn't have any kind of problems with EVFs, e-books or any kind of screens. I want a camera better than the one from my modern smartphone. Why would I choose a DSLR (Nikon, Pentax, Canon) over a mirrorless? That's I would like to know from DSLRs photographers. Someone said ergonomics but this is different from person to person. What other reasons are?

I'm asking because most people talk only about EVFs and I can't find any other reason why a DSLR is a better choice.

In effect I already said that Dan. In fact IMO those moving over from a smartphone, in large part that same 20-30 group, would be more likely to prefer a rangefinder style, ie Fuji, as opposed to one of the quite capable but bulkier DSLR styled cameras like the latest Canon R5/R6.

As for why a DSLR might be a better choice for a new shooter I would have thought it obvious to you and it probably is: Besides the EVF's issues you've raised, which for some which is a real biggie, there's simple economics. Starting with a DSLR can potentially be less expensive. A LOT less expensive.

A far larger stable of DSLR ready lenses available used and a very nice selection of recent and very capable cameras both new and used. It's a significant monetary investment to buy into the most recent Canon and Nokia MILC's and the lenses intended for them.
Then add in the advantages you yourself have mentioned with regard to your own DSLR's for certain tasks. Then add in improved balance with larger and heavier lenses (which seems to be the trend), better battery life in general, a far greater selection of very good and proven glass...

As for some of the advantages of MILC mentioned much of that is crossing over to the newest Nikon and Canon DSLR's too isn't it, particularly the focus features, and more recently both of those companies have recognized that a smaller body is not necessarily a better one. Without room for buttons and controls the pay for play photogs like you would would be inconvenienced

Surely you didn't need to have that explained Dan, so I'm assume you were just throwing it out for comment.

As I said earlier we don't all shoot the same or have the same budgets, or shoot with the same frequency. The best camera for you may not be a good match at all for me at all. Even in your own case you find that a particular type of camera is better for the task at hand don't you, and it might not be a mirrorless.? At the end of the day we're all still a family of photographers even if we make different gear choices for what we consider valid reasons.

[MJKoski]

Yes, average mirrorless camera body is ridiculously small. Just give A7R2 to 5-year old and (s)he can effortlessly handle it (like getting hand on the grip). No further reasoning or logic needed.

Funny to see that n-lvl iteration is needed to get standard year 2012 level IQ from modern mirrorless cameras. They are stuffed with artificial features, a h*ll lot of useless buttons while basic image forming pipeline is ruined by all forms of mangling and coooking the RAW. The end result is that old used D8x0 bodies or K-1 gives the exactly same, or better, pictures for a fraction of the cost of modern MILC setup.

[BigMackCam]

Let's put this differently. Let's say I'm a 20 or a 24 years old guy who doesn't have any kind of problems with EVFs, e-books or any kind of screens. I want a camera better than the one from my modern smartphone. Why would I choose a DSLR (Nikon, Pentax, Canon) over a mirrorless? That's I would like to know from DSLRs photographers. Someone said ergonomics but this is different from person to person. What other reasons are?

I'm asking because most people talk only about EVFs and I can't find any other reason why a DSLR is a better choice.

I don't think it matters how young or old you are. If you're developing a serious interest in photography, you're going to come across both DSLRs with their OVFs, and mirrorless cameras with EVFs (or perhaps just the rear screen). Some folks, regardless of age, are going to appreciate a largely unobstructed optical view, rather than an electronic one. For them, the optical view will sit better with their approach to photography, the "connection" they get when composing and viewing a scene.

So, yes, the OVF is the key difference, since a DSLR is basically a mirrorless camera with the addition of mirror, OVF and PDAF assemblies. Of course, since DSLRs generally tend to be larger overall because of the extra room needed for these assemblies, there's more real estate on which to position and space out control knobs and buttons.

What other reasons would you expect, given that DSLRs and mirrorless are both digital cameras, except that one has a mirror and optical viewfinder, and is typically a bit bigger as a result?

---------- Post added 19-01-21 at 19:26 ----------

Yes, average mirrorless camera body is ridiculously small.

To you, Matti, perhaps. It's highly subjective. If you'd said the average mirrorless camera body is too small for your personal liking, I buy that... but, with respect, you don't speak for everyone.

Just give A7R2 to 5-year old and (s)he can effortlessly handle it (like getting hand on the grip). No further reasoning or logic needed.

I can give a 5-year-old my Mont Blanc rollerball pen and she can effortlessly handle that too. It doesn't mean it's designed for kids or too small. I'm not following your reasoning or logic...

[surfar]

Let's put this differently. Let's say I'm a 20 or a 24 years old guy who doesn't have any kind of problems with EVFs, e-books or any kind of screens. I want a camera better than the one from my modern smartphone. Why would I choose a DSLR (Nikon, Pentax, Canon) over a mirrorless?

It would depend on a number of factors.

1/Price the guy wanted to pay.A entry level CaNik is a touch cheaper than an entry level Fuji/Olympus.

2/ The intended use of said camera.

3/How much knowledge of what's available.

[normhead]

It's always an issue when people speak for others, not for themselves. Some might think they know what 20-24 year olds think, but bottom line, people are individuals. They don't neatly fit into the little boxes propagandists try and squeeze them into. They aren't a majority of the camera buying public, they aren't majority of the camera owning public.

[surfar]

A LOT less expensive.

Not sure how you define lot?

From what Ive seen, its a little from the point of view of entry level.When you look at high level, its not substantial,but you get a lot more from M/L.

[Dan Rentea]

In effect I already said that Dan. In fact IMO those moving over from a smartphone, in large part that same 20-30 group, would be more likely to prefer a rangefinder style, ie Fuji, as opposed to one of the quite capable but bulkier DSLR styled cameras like the latest Canon R5/R6.

As for why a DSLR might be a better choice for a new shooter I would have thought it obvious to you and it probably is: Besides the EVF's issues you've raised, which for some which is a real biggie, there's simple economics. Starting with a DSLR can potentially be less expensive. A LOT less expensive.

A far larger stable of DSLR ready lenses available used and a very nice selection of recent and very capable cameras both new and used. It's a significant monetary investment to buy into the most recent Canon and Nokia MILC's and the lenses intended for them.
Then add in the advantages you yourself have mentioned with regard to your own DSLR's for certain tasks. Then add in improved balance with larger and heavier lenses (which seems to be the trend), better battery life in general, a far greater selection of very good and proven glass...

As for some of the advantages of MILC mentioned much of that is crossing over to the newest Nikon and Canon DSLR's too isn't it, particularly the focus features, and more recently both of those companies have recognized that a smaller body is not necessarily a better one. Without room for buttons and controls the pay for play photogs like you would would be inconvenienced

Surely you didn't need to have that explained Dan, so I'm assume you were just throwing it out for comment.

As I said earlier we don't all shoot the same or have the same budgets, or shoot with the same frequency. The best camera for you may not be a good match at all for me at all. Even in your own case you find that a particular type of camera is better for the task at hand don't you, and it might not be a mirrorless.? At the end of the day we're all still a family of photographers even if we make different gear choices for what we consider valid reasons.

That's the answer I was looking for because it's different than the 95% of comments where only EVFs are are pushed forward.

A mirrorless system can be or not expensive, depending on what you're looking for.

[gatorguy]

Not sure how you define lot?

From what Ive seen, its a little from the point of view of entry level.When you look at high level, its not substantial,but you get a lot more from M/L.

You can put together a darn nice and extremely capable Pentax DSLR system for a $1000. K70 plus 18-55 plus 55-300 PLM. Chip in another $150 and get the Sigma 17-50 2.8 instead with the 55-300PLM. Or go budget with a selection of really good manual lenses, or F or FA series with AF. That's pretty inexpensive isn't it?

Heck just look at the 2 camera's mentioned in the thread title. I'll assume there's a reason you always spell Sony with a dollar sign. If I were to try replace the lenses for my K1 in the Sony ecosystem could I do it for the same price or even similar using Sony glass?

"nuff said.

[surfar]

You can put together a darn nice and extremely capable Pentax DSLR system for a $1000. K70 plus 18-55 plus 55-300 PLM.

USED,I'll assume?....throw those 18-55s away(btw).yes they come as a kit but I wouldn't recommend them to anyone.

I meant NEW....entry level CaNik Dslrs are cheap, the entry level Fujis are cheap too but much more capable.

---------- Post added 01-20-21 at 07:19 AM ----------

That's pretty inexpensive isn't it?

No,its not.

---------- Post added 01-20-21 at 07:21 AM ----------

I'll assume there's a reason you always spell Sony with a dollar sign

Ancient hi$tory!

[Dan Rentea]

I don't think it matters how young or old you are. If you're developing a serious interest in photography, you're going to come across both DSLRs with their OVFs, and mirrorless cameras with EVFs (or perhaps just the rear screen). Some folks, regardless of age, are going to appreciate a largely unobstructed optical view, rather than an electronic one. For them, the optical view will sit better with their approach to photography, the "connection" they get when composing and viewing a scene.

So, yes, the OVF is the key difference, since a DSLR is basically a mirrorless camera with the addition of mirror, OVF and PDAF assemblies. Of course, since DSLRs generally tend to be larger overall because of the extra room needed for these assemblies, there's more real estate on which to position and space out control knobs and buttons.

What other reasons would you expect, given that DSLRs and mirrorless are both digital cameras, except that one has a mirror and optical viewfinder, and is typically a bit bigger as a result?

If we remove the subjective things like EVF or ergonomics from the equation, with mirrorless you have all the features from DSLRs and you also have some aditional features (silent shutter, eye af for people and animals, af points sensitive up to f11 and spreaded all over the sensor, no front/back focus). What I don't understand is why if someone ask which camera to buy, most comments are related to the subjective features (ergonomics and EVFs). I know we have personal preferences, I also know that some haven't got the chance to shoot with new generation of mirrorless and yet, the discussions always move to EVFs or ergonomics.

When comes to ergonomics, for K-5 II and K-3 II, I had to use a grip because my pinky finger was under the camera. So, in terms of ergonomics both Pentax models aren't ideal for me, but I don't make a case of it because it's different from person to person. K-1 II on the other hand has better ergonomics for me than the other 2 I mentioned.

What I'm trying to say it's that we seem to fill pages talking about EVFs but we don't talk about which may be a better option starting from the future use of the camera (vacations, landscapes, events, action, etc.).

Also, mirrorless can be heavy or light, depending on the lenses used.

[BigMackCam]

If we remove the subjective things like EVF or ergonomics from the equation, with mirrorless you have all the features from DSLRs and you also have some aditional features (silent shutter, eye af for people and animals, af points sensitive up to f11 and spreaded all over the sensor). What I don't understand is why if someone ask which camera to buy, most comments are related to the subjective features (ergonomics and EVFs). I know we have personal preferences, I also know that some haven't got the chance to shoot with new generation of mirrorless and yet, the discussions always move to EVFs or ergonomics.

When comes to ergonomics, for K-5 II and K-3 II, I had to use a grip because my pinky finger was under the camera. So, in terms of ergonomics both Pentax models aren't ideal for me, but I don't make a case of it because it's different from person to person. K-1 II on the other hand has better ergonomics for me than the other 2 I mentioned.

What I'm trying to say it's that we seem to fill pages talking about EVFs but we don't talk about which may be a better option starting from the future use of the camera (vacations, landscapes, events, action, etc.).

Also, mirrorless can be heavy or light, depending on the lenses used.

All good points, Dan. I will say, though, the extra functionality you mention in mirrorless cameras is as subjective as ergonomics and the benefits of one viewfinder type over the other...

Today's cameras - even DSLRs - are packed with so much functionality, it can be pretty overwhelming. I'm sure the additional mirrorless features you mention are of real value to a relatively small percentage of photographers, but I'd like to bet a good number (in fact, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest the majority) of owners barely use them beyond initial testing of their new toy. Heck, I don't even use all the features on my 2013-vintage K-3... Giving me a bunch of extra features in any camera, DSLR or mirrorless, is "gilding the lily". Now, I might be in my 50s, but I'm a technically competent chap... more so than many young folk, no matter that they grew up in the digital age. It's not that I'm incapable of learning and using new features, it's just that I see little need for them in my shooting. Given how many young folks choose to shoot with old film SLR and rangefinder cameras these days - the functionality of which is almost laughably basic compared to our digital bodies - I like to think that a person's age isn't the defining factor here. Rather, it's that person's interest in - and love of - the process. Most of us photographers, whether we're 20 or 80, just want to take photos. In fact, I'd like to see how many 20 - 25 year olds would have the attention span these days to learn how to use all this grand functionality properly. It takes some dedication, wouldn't you agree?

You know where I stand on this already from previous posts in this and other threads... I see advantages and disadvantages to both DSLR and mirrorless cameras, and gladly use both for different applications. I'm fortunate that I have no problem using EVFs - even the older ones. I get no eye strain, no headaches, no sickness, I don't mind a little lag and I can put up with a digitised scene when I need to... but I prefer to use an OVF when I can. I feel more connected to the scene... I can't explain it any better than that. I think a number of young folks, given the opportunity to try both types, might also like an optical viewfinder. Perhaps not the majority, but that's OK. At the very least, I think everyone regardless of age should try both so that they can understand the differences and assess the benefits and downsides in relation to their own needs and preferences...

[gatorguy]

USED,I'll assume?!

Nope. Brand new, but total of $1093.

Both from B&H at todays' price.

Could you check to see what an equivalent Fuji APS-C with a similar range would price out at? $1000, well OK $1100, seems reasonable to me for a MILC or DSLR two-lens kit. Finding an equivalent new mirrorless kit may not be impossible but it's not easy.

[Dan Rentea]

All good points, Dan. I will say, though, the extra functionality you mention in mirrorless cameras is as subjective as ergonomics and the benefits of one viewfinder type over the other...

Today's cameras - even DSLRs - are packed with so much functionality, it can be pretty overwhelming. I'm sure the additional mirrorless features you mention are of real value to a relatively small percentage of photographers, but I'd like to bet a good number (in fact, I'll go out on a limb here and suggest the majority) of owners barely use them beyond initial testing of their new toy. Heck, I don't even use all the features on my 2013-vintage K-3... Giving me a bunch of extra features in any camera, DSLR or mirrorless, is "gilding the lily". Now, I might be in my 50s, but I'm a technically competent chap... more so than many young folk, no matter that they grew up in the digital age. It's not that I'm incapable of learning and using new features, it's just that I see little need for them in my shooting. Given how many young folks choose to shoot with old film SLR and rangefinder cameras these days - the functionality of which is almost laughably basic compared to our digital bodies - I like to think that a person's age isn't the defining factor here. Rather, it's that person's interest in - and love of - the process. Most of us photographers, whether we're 20 or 80, just want to take photos. In fact, I'd like to see how many 20 - 25 year olds would have the attention span these days to learn how to use all this grand functionality properly. It takes some dedication, wouldn't you agree?

You know where I stand on this already... I see advantages and disadvantages to both DSLR and mirrorless cameras, and I gladly use both for different applications. I'm fortunate that I have no problem using EVFs - even the older ones. I get no eye strain, no headaches, no sickness, I don't mind a little lag and I can put up with a digitised scene when I need to... but I prefer to use an OVF when I can. I feel more connected to the scene... I can't explain it any better than that. I think a number of young folks, given the opportunity to try both types, might also like an optical viewfinder. Perhaps not the majority, but that's OK. At the very least, I think everyone regardless of age should try both so that they can understand the differences and assess the benefits and downsides in relation to their own needs and preferences...

One of the very best answers I had the pleasure reading lately on internet.