Home Forums Gear Photography Mirror vs Mirrorless ?

New to photography. Looking around and trying to figure out pro's / con's of mirror vs mirrorless for a non-professional photographer. Specifically, looking for something to take outdoor pictures. Something I can pack around and not need to worry excessively regarding use/abuse/dust/humidity. Thinking I want 70-200mm lens. And then either a doubler, or 400-600mm zoom. The kit that Big Sky just sold seems like it would have been a good set up to get started...

Thoughts for a duffer that likes to tinker ?

I have a Canon ML camera, the R6 and love it. Great AF. But for wildlife, I would maybe lean towards the crop body R7 for more reach. 70-200 is not likely enough reach for wildlife, unless maybe you pair it with one of the f11 600mm or 800mm primes

Ya know, probably being new to it you could pick up an entry level DSLR to learn on and not break the bank. Most people answering a question like this are going to tell you what it is they like and it simply can't be beat! Starting out that whay you'll probably find out what you like better. weather it really is or not depends on who you talk to. An entry lever body with a nice 55-300, or similar lens and a 150-500 say a Sigma would get you going. All really depends on who ya talk too!

I was wondering about the 70-200 versus something with more reach. Appreciate the input. Keep it coming.

I've been living with 3 lens and they pretty much cover all my needs. 85mm Macro, 18-105mm, and 55-300mm. Sometimes I wish I had a 500mm but I look at the prices for a quality lens that give edge to edge sharpness and I start thinking, I realty done need one.


That little Coolpix is a nice camera, it took the one picture.

A picture at 300mm

Pictures at 105mm

Cookie's been giving them some thought. She's presently packing a EOS-70D, a 5D and a 7D. Given the $$ in Canon glass, she'll likey stay with that brand. Criticisms from some Canon users she's chatted with are: the mirrorless are battery hogs, F11 600mm is weak early and late, and longer lenses don't focus close in.

Focus speed is great, images are sharp, eye tracking is good, 30 frame per second burst are possible, big lenses are compact and light, extremely quiet, and equal to about a 1200mm on a crop sensor. I suspect she will make the jump.

For wildlife, one wants the biggest glass he can afford. Doublers are a waste.

Cookie mostly relies on a 100 to 400 zoom as her bread-and-butter unit and a 500mm prime if she really wants to reach out.

Comparatively speaking, the new 600, 800 F11 Canon lenses are dirt cheap.

I think there may be two possibly three people that can actually see edge to edge sharpness but for most people I think it's overplayed. Of course if your a working pro it might mean something to you but most your customer's will be clueless about it. Thing newcommers should concentrate on IMO is focus, mettering and arangeing the photo in the frame. A perfectly exposed photo extremely sharp edge to edge lose's out to me every time, if I could even see those things, to a photo that tells a story. That is to me the difference between a really first class photographer and a new comer. My son's just getting going with it and one of the things he has a problem with it framing. He got a few photo's of a horse recently and there was more open space behind the horse than in front. Big mty nothing back there. I think a really important part is framing in the beginning. Give a really good photographer an entry level camera and after market lens and he'll take photo's to blow your mind. Give the bigginer a top of the line camera and high dollar lens and he somehow just can't quite get there. It's about like everything else the seceret to great photo's lies in the photographer, not the equipment. Read years aago in a photogrsphy magazine about those really expensive lens and never forgot it. Rather than the high dollar wide apperature lens get a much less expensive lens and put some light on the subect.

Lot of people rave about a 70-200 f2.8 lens but it's really an expensive lens. My own is a 70-210 Nikon f5.6. Much less expensive and if I add light to a photo that needs it serve's me much better for a lot less money. The 70-200 was at one time raved about as a walk around lens too, but I much prefer my 18-140 for walk around. Much lighter and wider at the low end and at the high end I can usually get closer.

Thing is I think starting out especially, get closer to entry level equipment and learn to shoot photo's then you can work your way along as you learn. Most under used camera I own any more is my Nikon F5. Film camera I paid about $1600 for years ago and it really was way over my head. Most used camera would be a good point and shoot but just haven't found one that holds up for me. They are small and light and stay out of the way well when not in use. When I want something special I have my Nikon D7000. And I don't believe the name on the camera actually matter's. I like Nikons for no other reason than they are what I started with, Nikon FG film, and I'm used to them. That D7000 is a step above entry level but takes better photo's than I can normally do. But then I don't photograph things for a living so how perfect does it really need to be.

Funny thing about camera's, there are actually people around that much prefer film even today yet digital has pretty much blown film away. I like film but don't like paying and waiting on processing so got my first computer and printer when I got my first digital camera. hard for me to find film processing today when I do get the wanna go backs!

Go look at camera's and find a mid range down to entry level that you think you like and get it! Use the money you save on a decent or less printer to process your own photo's and to go get them in the first place. Kinda like fishing rods. If I spent the money on a high dollar rod and reel, I couldn't afford the gas to go use it!

Well mentioned printer's. I started with an HP inexpensive one and it worked fine up to 8x10 for a long time. Today I have a Cannon Pro 9000 and a Cannon iP100, small printer. I can print pretty much any size photo I want. When I was printing a lot, I knew my 9000 well enough to print huge landscape photo's, like maybe 13x40! My iP100 I think it's up to 8x16 I've done with it. BTW, both of these are old printer's that were never top of the line but worked fine for me.

Here ya go. Looked on B&H Photo and found this, might work for you. Canon EOS Rebel DSLR with18-55 and 75-300 lens kit and carrying case for $549! I would think it would make a good starter kit. Fairly simple and inexpensive. Now, DSLR or mirror. I don't have a clue about mirrorless cameras other than it seem's they are pretty expensive! I think point and shoot are mirrorless and many much less expensive. Money you save is gas money to go take pictures! Oh yea, don't forget to get some type photo printer also! If your anything like me you'll tire of 8x10's and want a 13x19 printer and if you have the money a 17" printer or who knows, maybe more. My nephew got a pro model Canon 24" printer! He has more money than I do and more space in the house!

I use a Nikon D7100 and have been good with it. I wanted to upgrade to a full frame once and called CL but the guy just said forget it you need to go mirrorless. For me that's not a good option because I'd have to essentially start all over. There's nothing wrong with a decent DSLR either Canon or Nikon. I chose Nikon because the lens are interchangeable from many years back.

I use two Nikon FX DSLR's (D600 & D810) with a variety of lens. If I was buying another camera it would be a good secondhand Nikon D850, simply because I already have the lenses to suit. However, if I was new to photography and starting from scratch I'd probably go mirrorless. In the end, it doesn't really matter which you choose because image quality between mirrorless and DSLR is virtually the same.

Problem with the 70-200 lens. Not wide enough on the low side or long enought on the high side.

As I recall this was done at a field trial break away with my D7000 and Nikon 55-300 lens. Set iso up around 900, gives more shutter speed at lower light and seems to better stop motion without blur. These dogs were really hauling the mail! Dogs were centered in the view finder and cropped in photo edit.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/hUboHJuh.jpg?2[/img]

Both digital camera platforms have their pros and cons. But, just because all the marketing, sales, and even manufacturing efforts are going toward mirrorless doesn't mean that a good DSLR is no longer a good DSLR. The biggest advantage I see in mirrorless is the weight. That's me, though - I don't shoot video so whatever bonuses mirrorless cameras have in the space are moot. Most mirrorless cameras are much lighter and quieter than DSLRs, but those aren't issues with me.

IMO, all recent DSLRs are capable of all the image quality one could want. You need to figure out what features you want vs. what features you are willing to pay for. After you've narrowed it down, put those bodies in you hand and figure out what feels best to you.

For bodies, I can only speak from my personal experience and my personal needs. I shoot for fun, but also get paid to shoot portraits and cover events. I shoot 100% manual, so I need to be able to quickly change aperture and shutter speed setting, and sometimes ISO settings too. That rules those bodies where you can do one or the other, but not both. I don't have time to go into menus to changes settings - I need dedicated wheels and buttons for everything. Also, I need a body that has an autofocus fine tune feature (what Nikon calls it) so I can tweak the AF of a particular lens to the body. Not all have that. If you are going to shoot in Auto most of the time or have time to make changes in the menu, even the most basic DSLR will work.

I like full frame bodies because I don't like to deal with the crop factor during events. Also, full frame bodies handle low light and high ISOs a little better. For 90% of most everything, either will get the job done.

Looking at some of the longer lenses you mention in the Nikon line-up, I have the 70-200 2.8, 70-300 VR, 200-500, and an older 300mm f4. The 70-200 is a great range for tighter spaces - events come to mind, and especially with the 2.8 version vs. the f4 version. When outdoors 200mm at the longer end is often not enough reach, but that 2.8 aperture is appreciated when the sun drops low. The 70-300 VR is simply superb. It's incredibly small and light compared to the others, and when the light is decent it really holds its own. It's my choice for "walking around." The 200-500 is a different category of reach (obviously). It's great as long as you're willing to carry it. The 300mm f4 has it's own set of limitations, but working within those can produce great images for a fraction of the cost (used).

In a nutshell, if you're going to shoot in Auto, just grab what feels good and invest in some decent lenses. Or, if you're not even really sure you want to keep changing lenses, Google some of the "superzoom" cameras that are out there. They have great reach, can focus crazy close, have decent image quality as long as the light is good, and no changing lenses. And, some of the older versions like the Canon SX30 or the Nikon equivalent can be had for around $50 on Ebay.

awesome, nice shot!!!

I think the choices will depend on your budget, amount of usage, and end use. The tracking, face/eye recognition seems to be better with the new mirrorless bodies. The Canon R7 on a lower budget looks interesting for wildlife. I do not know how well the 600/800 mm lenses will focus at f/11 in low light when critters are active.

This photo was taken with an S 6900 Nikon point and shoot, about $300. Only bad part is I've been having mechanical problems I think far to soon but I also think the photo quality is fine. Have a Canon point and shoot I got at about $300 also and it didn't last either but took really nice photo's while it did. My grand daughter wanted to get going in photogrophy and was going nuts with her cell phone. gave her a Nikon D5000 I had and she never used it the first time, kept using her phone. I think don't spend much on a camera for a kid. Get them a cell phone and when they are ready to move up they will. In the mean time if they are really serious they can go with you and borrow your DSLR!

[Linked Image]

The R7 with 32 MP sensor allows for a lot of pixels on target and will tolerate a fair amount of cropping. With the new ML cameras, most folks can get by just fine with the 70-200 f4 version. The RF 100-400 is a really good lens and will take a TC

Canon R6 with RF 800mm F11

Taken with Canon R6 and RF24-240