5 Reasons DSLR’s Are Obsolete In Today’s World By Martin Gillman

Mirrorless camera gear by Martin Gillman on InMyBag.net

OK, sure that’s a bold statement, and for me it just may be true. I believe that the mirrorless camera is and will continue push the DSLR as we know it aside. Its progress and its coming. If you do not agree you may just have to accept it, even the greats in Glass like Carl Zeiss are making lenses for the mirrorless systems, they see where photography is going too. So, let me tell you why I think so.

1. Because size does NOT matter

It doesn’t. We all know deep down that a great image is a great image no matter what camera was used to make it.

I don’t need to bang on about how the greats used tiny Leica’s and one lens, you will have read that a dozen times.

I was at the Photography show in March this year and recall being amazed by visitors wandering around with bent backs due to gripped DSLRs, 400mm lens attached waving around their chests like great glass phalluses. Just to catch a half snap of a model way up on stage.

Dear all, you just don’t need that anymore.

A mirrorless camera with a telephoto lens can almost be hidden in the hand and you get quality, discretion and a smaller bill from the osteopath. You think you need a full frame sensor right? Well you can get those in mirror less if you want but let me set you a challenge. Of my images here, some are 36 Mp full frame and some are made with the mirrorless cropped sensor.

You tell me which is which?

Why buy a DSLR? Mirrorless Options on InMyBag.net

2. Because you cannot afford not to go Mirrorless

So what did your DSLR system cost you? Well now halve that and you can still have a mirror less system and not sacrifice the quality of work you produce. Today you can buy two bodies, 3 primes and a pair of zoom lenses for a mirrorless system for about £6000.

That’s about half what my previous system was worth new, you can re invest into other areas of your business or if not professional how about a week in Iceland to use that lovely new kit? without the back ache. Sounds tempting, right?

5 reasons DSLR's are obsolete by Martin Gillman on InMyBag.net

3. Because you need discretion and practicality

Up until a year ago I was shooting high resolution DSLRs, I had the latest body and the latest back up.

I had 15 tons of lenses, OK I exaggerate but you get the picture. For street photography I was anything other than discreet, I may as well have had a rocket propelled grenade launcher on my shoulder such was the attention I would get. For Landscape I had a hefty tripod to mount the cameras with a monolith of a geared tripod head.

Now, I am an ex military man, I have yomped across Dartmoor many a time with a back breaking load and I can tell you it was getting to the point of similarity with my camera bag. Something had to change; I’m getting on a bit, so along came the mirrorless system.

Also, how many of you have used all of those options in your DSLR menu, the ones we need all that space inside the body for the electronics to hold for you. There seems to be thousands of them and most of them to be brutal are pure gimmickry. What we all need are cameras with great quality that do the basic brilliantly. Lets get back to craft.

5 reasons DSLR's are obsolete by Martin Gillman on InMyBag.net

4. Because you just don’t need a mirror anymore

Let’s be honest. The mirror is a pain really isn’t it? The cannon fire bang as it lifts and slaps back down.

The shake the mechanism produces even when secured on tripod. Having to mess about with mirror lock up and cleaning oil splashes from your sensor. Its old technology, it is no longer necessary and focusing directly onto the sensor gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside that things are more likely spot on when that focus locks.

5 reasons DSLR's are obsolete by Martin Gillman on InMyBag.net

5. Because the quality IS there

This was always going to be at the center of the argument. Resolution and how much we really need?

Well unless you are printing for the west face of K2 do you really need those 30+ megapixels? What you need is a camera system that inspires you to go and do better photography. A system that frees you up to create.

You need tools that are a pleasure to use, affordable and a little less intimidating. I am not even sure what resolution my mirrorless cameras are, It has not occurred to me because I am so happy with the output that it’s not a worry.

Then there is the party trick of the mirrorless, the EVF (electronic view finder). Oh what a joy it is to spot meter and lock exposure live in camera and see your image just as it will be before hitting the shutter. It’s a dream and the tonal range you can achieve by metering live with EVF in this way can be sublime with practice.

Now, get on with that challenge I gave you in reason 1.

5 reasons DSLR's are obsolete by Martin Gillman on InMyBag.net

So that’s it, convinced? Sure you could argue that what works for me won’t work for you, but have you tried?

You want shallow DOF? Have you tried the Fujifilm fast glass? You want fast tracking AF, have you tried the Olympus OMD EM1? You need weatherproofing, have you checked out the Fujifilm XT-1? You insist on Full Frame? Try a Sony A7.

So if your DSLR isn’t obsolete yet, it just may well be soon. In time all but the die hard will be walking straight backed and proud of their new release of creative energy inspired by perfectly formed little gem stone cameras that wont attack the Mortgage.

Oh and did I mention that mirrorless is making Photography cool again?

If you are not convinced, here is a look into Martin Gillman’s bag, as featured on InMyBag.

5 reasons DSLR's are obsolete by Martin Gillman on InMyBag.net

5 reasons DSLR's are obsolete by Martin Gillman on InMyBag.net

Martin Gillman’s Philosophy

The first advice I would give would be to educate yourselves. Skill and craft and learning how to see are elements that will always bode you better than any piece of fancy kit.

Practice, practice, practice and when you are weary of practice. Practice some more.

Print your work! In my opinion a digital image doesn’t exist and a photograph isn’t finished until it is printed.

Finally, its about focusing on your own work and not be drawn into the world of negative discussion around the art.

We would all fare far better if we were to reserve our critical eye for what we see through our own viewfinders rather than for what others are doing.

About The Author

Martin Gillman Is a professional photographer based in the UK, you can find more of his work on his site here, buy his prints here and follow him on facebook here. This article was originally published here.

  • catlett

    Nonsense. I own both and both have their place. Either you are using the word obsolete as clickbait or you don’t understand what it means.

  • John Havord

    I agree with you, to some extent, but the dslr is far from obsolete. Each to their own and everything has it’s place, but I still think mirrorless has some way to go, before making the dslr obsolete.

    Also, not really useful, to ask to choose between images on a 72dpi webpage!

    • Nitin Kapoor Art & Photography

      DSLR are still awesome when compared to Mirror-less, coz new systems have noise problems as i heard and images quality behind what you get from DSLR.

      Although Sony’s A7 system is bit close to or almost equal to Dslr.

  • Andrew Livelsberger

    Someone else who has drank the marketing department kool-aid.

    I’m almost 100% sure this is clickbait.

    Utter nonsense spewed to be “controversial”. I think what these “bloggers” forget is that not everyone has the same needs. What works for them may not work for others…but they sure like to try and make us think that.

  • http://www.mihaiilie.com Mihai Ilie

    You are right. And I hope that the mirrorless market will be developed more and more. I’m using M1 since January, after 20 years of Nikon. It is absolutely stunning. The feeling: I was married with the wrong lady so many years until mirrorless.

  • Jim Johnson

    Mirrorless works, possibly as well as my dslr. But…

    I already own the dslr and all the lenses. If I were considering throwing everything out and starting from scratch, I might consider it, but until that day mine is not obsolete.

  • RJMang

    Certainly when I comes to travel, my DSLR boat anchor now stays home. I only travel with a mirrorless camera. However, in the studio, I find the Canon 5Dm2 still a much better option…. for now.

  • ChrisBlizzard

    One of my first “upgrades” was actually a downgrade as far as all the technical specs were concerned. I moved to an older camera, with lower resolution, slower, noisier (in both uses of the word). What made it an upgrade to me, was the body size. Having a proper sized camera in my hand made things so much more comfortable than having some miniature in my hand. Being comfy in your hand is one of the most important factors in a new camera purchase.

  • chris

    I’m curious, Ive never heard anyone mention battery performance (good or bad) with a mirrorless. I know my phone battery discharges quickly the more I use phone screen. My dslr battery lasts forever.

    When you mention all the different features in mirrorless (dof -fuji, af-olympus, …) Does any system offer all? You make it sound like you need to have multiple systems to get features, that one system is not good at multiple things. (Not necessarily true, just the way you wrote it praising certain systems with 1 thing)

    • Michael

      Having a Sony NEX-5 and an a7R I can easily say the battery life is marginally decent. The grip for the a7R is a must get IMO and that really only gets you to the life of a 5D2 on a single battery.

    • Bones

      I own a Panasonic GH3 and 2 batteries to go with it. I have never encountered an empty battery. A full battery will go beyond what I can do with it in one day.

      As far as the features go it really is not that difficult. The sensor is smaller so less light per pixel. This means it is more prone to static (is that the word?) especially at higher ISO’s. Second the depth of field simply is larger. Not a problem when you shoot landscapes but definitely something to take into account when doing portraits or macro. It also is a matter of taste I guess. My 45mm 1.8 lens is often stopped down to F4. Simply because I like the whole of a face to be sharp. I do not see the need for ultra-small depth of field anyway.

      It is peculiar though to see the reaction of other “serious” photographers when I tell them I upgraded my DSLR to a m43. You can feel the hate starting to flow. Funny how much emotion this topic raises, especially with the full-frame-fanboys.
      The main reason for me to go small is just that, the size. I can walk a whole day holding my camera and add-ons without breaking my back. Perhaps if i would do studio work it would be different though… To each his own i guess. Its just that somehow the discussion about the size of a sensor is so much like the discussion about pixels. You can believe the marketing that says a bigger sensor / more pixels will improve your photo’s. Or you can buy a camera that suits your needs.

  • Matthew Green

    I shoot mostly fast paced indoor sports games like volleyball and I find that I need a fast lens with high shutter speed on a high ISO body. I have not found a mirror less camera that can handle this. Am I missing something?

    • SaulNunez

      Nixon released a 1/8000 in the V1 and Sony released a camera with an ISO of 409600 with the a7s, so it’s possible to do so

      • Matthew Green

        Yes but the auto focus, which I need, is way to slow.

        • SaulNunez

          That’s a bit of a problem, but I think that in the next year or two it will be equal or greater, the a6000 has a focus similar than the one on the D4S, so, either Sony or other companies, might just make your perfect combo.

    • Liam

      Clearly you haven’t heard of the Sony A7/S/R, the Fuji X-T1/x-Pro 1, etc.

      Noise performance is DSLR quality on mirrorless cameras.

  • http://wilcfry.com/ Wil Fry

    “So what did your DSLR system cost you? Well now halve that and you can still have a mirror less system and not sacrifice the quality of work you produce.”

    So I can get a mirrorless “system” for $1500 and still have the quality? My current DSLR kit cost a little under $3,000, accumulated over several years. I haven’t seen a mirrorless kit that’ll get me what I have now for that price.

    Also, if I made the switch today, I’ve still spent the $3,000 on top of whatever I spend on the new kit. So (let my check my grade school math)… That’s actually *more*, not less. ;-)

  • Rick Scheibner

    Hey you kids, get off my lawn.

  • Bokeh Monk

    This mirrorless craze is just that, early adopters justifying their purchases. I do most of my street photography with a D700, grip & 24-70 2.8 ( not a small system by any measure ) and hardly get notice! Unless that is, I want to… great ice breaker when approaching new portrait subjects. As for weight, it’s almost forgettable for any dedicated shooter ~ that’s simply the cost of dedication to one’s craft. Ask yourselves why digital medium format IS still king in the studio? Or why Ansel Adam’s hauled a 8×10 on top of his stationwagon when SLR’s were available? The answer is simple, needing the BEST tool for the job… Mirrorless is NOT there!

    • jakecarvey

      Mirrorless absolutely has its place. Despite its lack of an EVF, and it’s miserable low light focus capabilities, I use my Canon EOS M almost daily for social and street photography and videography, because of it’s unobtrusive size and it’s large sensor (relative to most mirrorless systems).

      It’s a great camera to get the crowd warmed up. It’s undercover, but with a fast lens attached, the photos always get people excited and relaxed once they see the first shots. After which I can haul out the DSLR for much more reliable focusing.

      I also use it as a B camera for video shoots, and its easier to mount on sliders and jibs because of it low weight, and nearly identical video performance to the 60D.

      Re: the Ansel Adams example – I agree that we should always use the best tool for the job. But just as he used a large format camera to minimize grain and clarity, the number of award-winning photos taken over time with small, reliable, unobtrusive Leica’s and Fuji cameras by journalists and Nat Geo photographers is mind boggling.

      Sometimes the small, unobtrusive, small sensor / film camera IS the best tool for the job. That said, cameras which are well maintained can have a very long practical life. We already have far more resolving power than we need.

    • Liam

      Medium format is the king of studio as it rarely leaves the studio because of how stupidly large and heavy it is, and maybe Ansel Adams would use a mirrorless camera if he was alive for them to be invented.

      Please explain to me why so many top-class photographers are Fuji X-Photographers.

  • joe_average

    disagree. mirrorless is just another tool in a toolbox. dslr will not go out with a bang. small sensors are crap in low light, always will be. and what about focus lock speed/accuracy? I’d love to see a sports photo shootout between mirrorless and dslr!

    • Michael Chastain

      “crap in low light”

      Mirrorless cameras don’t necessitate small sensors though. The Sony Alpha A7S has crazy good low light performance and is mirrorless.

      • joe_average

        i never said all mirrorless = small sensor. most mirrorless systems, however, are micro 4/3 which is 1/4 of the area (-2 stops) compared to full-frame. the a7s is full-frame; not very relevant to low light performance of small sensors.

        • Michael Chastain

          And sensor size isn’t very relevant to a discussion of whether mirrorless cameras will ultimately prevail. They are two separate issues, there’s no reason to muddle the discussion.

          • joe_average

            Yes it is, no they won’t, and you brought it up… shesh

          • Michael Chastain

            Sensor size discussion IS irrelevant, because there are absolutely no technical limitations to putting larger sensors in mirrorless cameras, as evidenced by the fact there ARE mirrorless cameras with full frame sensors. In fact you could just as easily make a medium format mirrorless sensor.

            You seem to be intent on dismissing mirrorless cameras because there haven’t been many mirrorless full frame cameras. This is just because there haven’t been many high end mirrorless cameras period. The reason for THAT is because EVF technology is only just beginning to match what you could get from a big, bright OVF on a full frame dSLR. EVF technology should continue to evolve rapidly for the foreseeable future, so it’s hard to see that as a future drawback.

            Given the fact that it’s entirely possible to build mirrorless cameras that sport all the features and image quality of high end dSLR cameras, and that mirrorless technology also brings along additional benefits, I’m curious why you think anybody would prefer a dSLR over these hypothetical cameras.

          • joe_average

            haha, um, because I like real cameras with real results. keep your hypothetical camera; i’ll be shooting pictures with my 6d. and for the record, I never said I’m dismissing mirrorless cameras. I said that they’re an OPTION for shooters, they won’t ever be the ONLY option, as the article so boldly claims. chill out, move on.

          • Michael Chastain

            “because I like real cameras with real results”

            So justify your position. Let’s look at a hypothetical, which is the only way to do it as we’re talking about what will happen to the market in the future.

            Assume Canon is developing two new cameras; the Canon EOS 6D Mark II (a traditional dSLR) and a Canon Eos 5D Mark IIm (a mirrorless version targeting the same market). Also assume that they’re planning to re-use as many parts including the sensor between models to keep the cost down, and they’re targeting the same users, the same image quality, etc..

            What differences will there be between the two cameras and which will be preferable? Justify your claim that makes the dSLR a “real camera with real results”. Because it seems to me that you either don’t understand the technology or you’re a luddite opposed to anything that’s different from what you’re used to.

          • jakecarvey

            I don’t think there’s an actual debate on the table here – you guys agree on the actual points, you’re getting hung up on the semantics.

          • joe_average

            lol. I enjoy calm, rational discussions; not entertaining YELLING or name-calling. well, I’m off to other articles =D

          • Michael Chastain

            @disqus_3LjiIzPw4c:disqus

            Who here is yelling or name calling? Please give an example of such.

            You were asked to justify your position in the context of a reasonable example. You have been unwilling or unable to address that question, so the discussion stopped. No drama; no temper; you just chose to end the discussion.

            @jakecarvey:disqus

            I’d argue semantics are important here. Without defining what we’re talking about the discussion drifts into all kinds of irrelevant debates such as sensor size and other factors which are better addressed separately.

          • Michael Chastain

            And just to make it clear, I want to know what benefits you believe there are to a dSLR that CAN NOT BE DUPLICATED by mirrorless technology.

            Barring any distinct benefits, the market will always gravitate towards devices with fewer moving parts that are less complicated, more reliable, less expensive, etc..

      • jakecarvey

        It’s a good point. The video mode in most DSLRs is acting as a mirrorless camera anyway (at least while shooting video). I could foresee manufacturers possibly offering a “mirrorless” mode first an optional shooting mode – although, again, the viewfinder is such an important part of many photographers style, that a mirrorless model with a high quality viewfinder does see much more likely.

  • Jake_Speed

    Will National Geographic accept a photo from a current mirrorless camera?

    • http://www.dalydose.com/ Jeff Daly

      NatGeo featured pics from a Nokia phone, so I would assume a great mirror less image would make the cut.

  • blockfort

    Is there a mirrorless cameras that will shoot the equivalent of a full frame sensor with a 14mm non-fisheye lens? Because that’s what I use for all of my Architectural work.

    • Michael

      Sony’s a7 series, full frame sensor and I use it all the time with a Rokinon 14mm.

      • blockfort

        But that’s no cheaper than my Nikon. I have the Samyang labeled version of that Rokinon. Once you unwarp it in Lightroom, it’s quite a beauty.

        • Michael

          IMO this post is mostly rubbish, mirrorless cameras are nice and getting better (and I love my a7R) but I’m not giving up my dSLR anytime soon. AF speed is still superior in that realm.

        • jakecarvey

          Not cheaper, but I imagine a lot lighter, and with an inherently longer life span / less maintenance as there is no mechanical shutter

  • William Nicholls

    You should learn how and where to use an apostrophe.

  • David Addams

    My response is far too long for the comments section.

    (You can read it on my blog if you want.)

    I think “Oh and did I mention that mirrorless is making Photography cool again?” says all you really need to know.

    • catlett

      That last statement of yours says it all when it comes to not reading your blog. I won’t be. I don’t care in the slightest about cool. It is about functionality.

  • David A.

    TEHO!

  • Kris

    Architecture photography where one needs a tilt-shift. Now what? Lost field of view and looks off when used with an adapter on any of my Fuji X cameras. Soon you may be able to make a statement as you have but for now, there are still many places my D600 is needed due to technical aspects. But I could be wrong. I’d like to be. :)

    • SaulNunez

      Maybe a7r? :)

    • jakecarvey

      A properly engineered adapter on the right mirrorless body should be able place the focal point at EXACTLY the same depth. I am not sure if they are enginnering them that way – but from a casual glance, it does seem that my Canon EF > EOS-M adapter seems to put the lens at pretty much the exact same FD. I’ll have to do a test (if no one has already)

  • Michael Chastain

    The only intrinsic difference with a mirrorless camera is that you don’t have an optical viewfinder. There are many advantages to EVFs, but in some cases they may not yet match the best optical systems. They will continue to improve though.

    Any other shortcomings are do to *choices* camera makers have made. By and large they’ve focused on the low end and amateur market first, but that’s changing too. The technology is finally starting to filter into high end cameras, and there’s no reason they can’t function as well in low light or any other factor you want to imagine as a dSLR.

    The only other factor is time. Obviously everybody isn’t going to dump all their high end dSLRs and glass overnight and rush to mirrorless. But really, over time, it seems inevitable. I’ve been saying this for at least 10 years and everybody used to think I was crazy, but finally people are becoming believers.

    • Michael

      IMO the beauty of a mirrorless system is you don’t have to scrap all your existing lenses; just about any lens can be adapted to work. I regularly use old Pentax K mount, Canon EF and Mamiya 645 lenses with my Sony a7R.

      • SaulNunez

        Plus, the support for old lenses with no automatic focus is fantastic

    • Fred Smith

      I have to agree. Except for the viewfinder issue (particularly in bright light), the newest EVFs provide more than enough for almost everyone. DOF, hot pixels, tilt-shift and other issues will someday–in fact, very soon– be a thing of the past due to rapid improvements in both software and hardware. The real issue is that DSLRs are a “badge of honor” for professionals and serious amateurs. Without two DSLRs complete with different lenses and heavy battery packs strapped around a neck, a professional would look like amateur. God forbid.

      Don’t get me wrong. I would never think of shooting action sports using EVL today. In a couple of years when the viewing and rapid autofocus issues are worked out, why not?

  • Ralph Hightower

    If “Size Doesn’t Matter”, then 110 film cameras would still be around.

    • Justin_C

      110 film cameras ARE still around.

  • Tom Bicknell

    Obsolete as a term is obsolete. The only time any form of photography becomes obsolete is when it becomes impossible or at least unfeasible to continue using it. I would say many things made The Polaroid 100 Land Camera obsolete but it’s still taking pictures for me. And I know professional portrait photographers who refuse to use anything other than 5×7 or larger film. *shrugs* Everything has a place as long as you can use it.

  • edd

    Clickbait.

  • Greg

    Unfortunately I think DIYPhotography.net may be becoming obsolete with these highly opinionated, useless articles becoming more and more commonplace.

    • jakecarvey

      the Huffington Post of photoblogs?

  • ColinB

    Clickbait or not, I agree with the author. DSLR die-hards will continue to cite areas where mirrorless cameras can’t do what a DSLR can but those areas are getting fewer and fewer by the month. Do you really think that the industry giants – Sony, Panasonic, Fuji etc. – aren’t capable of solving the problems of mirrorless (continuous AF, low light performance etc.) Take a look at the balance sheets of those companies. They have plenty of cash to throw at R&D and they will get there sooner rather than later. Meanwhile you have just 2 serious DSLR manufacturers and the new cameras they are pushing out show that the technological development of the mirrored cameras has pretty much reached the end of the road. Is the Nikon D810 a meaningful upgrade over the D810? For some, maybe. For the vast majority, no. And what about video? Like it or not, more and more people expect usable video in their cameras. Purists will howl but it’s inevitable. And mirrorless is vastly superior here. I’ve tried to use my D7000 for video and it’s a miserable experience. The one area in which innovation would allow DSLRs to fight back against mirrorless – size and weight of bodies and lenses – is the area in which, thanks to the laws of physics, they can’t do much. That is their Achilles Heel and it will likely prove fatal.

    I own DSLRs. I like DSLRs. But the industry is clearly shifting and it’s away from them. One day soon we will wake up and find that the reasons to use them over mirrorless have disappeared. Maybe you’re the one guy who needs to use his legacy 1959 fisheye and only a DSLR will do. But that ain’t going to sustain an industry.

    • Dam Spahn

      Fad chasers will no longer bring their high-end DSLR’s to the breakfast table to impress other vacationers, but if one needs a real camera to do real photography ….

  • Jules Vandenplas

    Well, when you see the kind of tripod he is using, you are entitled to ask many questions about his credibility

  • Gunter Beer

    Hi Martin, interesting point. As a food photographer, I don’t care much the body. More important for me are the lenses. I use tilt-shift lenses a lot – my standard lens is a 90TS. Is there a mirror less system for this kind of lenses?

  • jakecarvey

    The big boys (Canon and Nikon) are still crippling focus capability in mirrorless camera to try and extend DSLR life. But as Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji, and Sony continue to push mirrorless capability, that will change. The ability to focus quickly and accurately, and switch focusing modes intuitively, remains one of the most important technical aspects of any pro or serious amateur. In order to truly mature, mirrorless cameras will need to rise at least to the focus capabilities of the D800 or 70D.

    But the primary obstacle will remain the EVF. The ability to look through a crisp sharp viewfinder and block out the world while composing the shot is as important as it ever was. ‘Chimping’ will never replace it. EVF technology is ready (and in many cases adds a massive amount of additional capability), but Canon and Nikon continue to be reluctant about empowering affordable mirrorless cameras with viable EVF viewfinders. Until that happens, those of us already invested in Canon or Nikon glass and workflow will likely keep our N1 and Eos M’s as secondary units.

  • Liam

    If you haven’t switched to mirrorless by now, you’re simply afraid of change and you’re too reliant on the quality of your gear. If you’re unable to get the same quality shots with a smaller camera, e.g. a Fujifilm X-T1, then maybe you need to work on being a better photographer.

    Source: an experienced photographer who has used various Canon 1D models until switching to mirrorless.

    • Bones

      thumbs up!

  • http://www.engdahlphotography.com/ enghellphoto

    DSLR’s are not obsolete, that’s pretty dumb. We’re not all hipsters buying into the latest trends…
    The last bit wasn’t that serious (well, a little bit), but mirrorless cameras are starting to get really great when it comes to image quality, look at the Sony A7R. What I think is not so great about them is that they’re all going for the 70′s retro-look which definitely is a trend. And they are too small and too non-ergonomic. I don’t have large hands but I wouldn’t use my Canon 5D MkIII without the battery-grip on since it feels too small. And EVF’s just don’t cut it for me either. I’m not against progress, only if it comes with a price which I believe it does with the things I’ve mentioned, and if Canon (since I’m a Canon user) made a mirrorless fullframe, with an actually good EVF that could match an OVF and with a body like the 5D MkIII or even better, like the 1D-series I would definitely consider it. At the end though, we all have different needs and different preferences. For now it’s not for me, but might be in the future.

  • Paul

    Know many photojournalists, event shooters, wedding shooters or sports shooters who are looking to shift to mirrorless because they read stuff like this? No me either. Stop blaming the gear and following the trend. If you’re good enough it doesn’t matter what camera you use, however, what camera you use is important to the people buying your images.

  • Truman Lewis

    Looks like this author has gored your bull!! Not much difference in the old argument “Film or Digital” it’s all in the hands and eye of the pro photographer. how many times have you heard “hey that camera takes good pictures, what kind is it” never giving credit to the photographer. I’m not a pro, but it looks like a moot issue, the times are a changin and we can’t or won’t stop it. thanks to all for letting me see both sides.

  • J. Dennis Thomas

    Following this ridiculous assumption one could say that the mirrorless camera is going to be obsolete due to the Sony QX1. I mean why do you need a whole camera when you can attach a sensor and a lens to your phone?

  • jpcreative

    Won’t break the mortgage? How much marketing crap have you been smoking? That is complete bull, the lenses for mirrorless are insanely overpriced for inferior garbage imo. The bodies mask all the technical design problems with the lenses with tons of autocorrection. The manufacturers are getting away with outputting inferior low grade glass designs and charging you same or even more compared to the DSLR equivalents which are much more demanding quality wise because they don’t have all the in-body correction gimmicks and house considerably larger sensors. As much as I’ve thought about switching, the lenses are still far to costly for inferior glass. I still view it as the one of the biggest marketing scams going. Quality affordable fast lenses are also basically non-existent in the mirrorless space. DSLR is still the best bang for the buck with better IQ.

    The other biggest problem with mirrorless is inherent in it’s design…if you’re a wide-angle shooter, your going to spend a small fortune getting a wide-angle lens for that system due to the smaller sensor size and once again, I can’t think of single wide-angle lens under $2k on that system that will compete IQ wise with the many far more cost effective options for DSLR.

    • jpcreative

      and no, I don’t consider Sony’s A7 a full frame competitor due to various quirks with the sony system, sucky lenses on the low end and horribly crappy menu system/interface which i refuse to put up with.

  • Dam Spahn

    The only advantage the toy cameras have is stealth. But I sometimes use my cell phone since it’s in my hand, and the DSLR is in its case tucked away somewhere.