[Samurai]

Originally Posted by blacksport

It might sound as blasphemy to photography purists but, does it make sense to buy DSLRs anymore? There are quite a few capable mirrorless cameras available with APS-C sensors and interchangeable lenses giving great image quality, so does it make sense to buy the DSLRs just for the pentamirror/prism and optical view finders (again a dying breed)?

Most Team-BHP official review photographs are now entirely shot using mirrorless cameras from Sony (APS-C & FF) and Olympus (m4/3) over two years now. I am already on my 3rd mirrorless camera, sold off my entire dSLR system in 2012.

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadge...ml#post3658693 (Mirrorless or EVIL Cameras)

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by blacksport

It might sound as blasphemy to photography purists but, does it make sense to buy DSLRs anymore?

ps: Please keep Full frame DSLRs out of the discussion.

Short answer: I would think that it makes more sense for you to go for a mirrorless. It would have helped if you had said what you shoot.

Now the long rant:
Who are these photography purists? Some exotic breed? MF or large format users? The entry barrier to photography was a lot higher earlier, so people could get away claiming to be part of an exclusive club. Now with 'good enough' cameras everywhere, and more disposable income, many more people are shooting and taking great photos. Many pros have difficulty in competing.

The counter question would be, what do you shoot?

For shooting action (wildlife and sports), DSLRs still rule. Mirrorless cameras are good for static subjects, but not that good for tracking moving subjects yet. Depending on what one shoots, the AF capabilities could be 'good enough'. Or not.

Any other genre, you might as well go with a mirrorless.

And why leave out full frames, or high end crop sensors such as such as the 7D Mark 2? It is there that the difference is most apparent. For low and mid level DSLRs, the difference is a lot less.

Originally Posted by R2D2

I use DSLRs and mirrorless cameras so here are the reasons why people buy DSLRs:

a) Better battery life
b) More comprehensive range of accessories especially lenses et al. For some shooting there's no mirrorless answer i.e. fast moving objects/birds/animals and of course long lenses
c) OVF better than EVF in low light. EVFs have a pronounced lag and characteristic flicker and the colours seem a bit off.
d) Better resale value
e) Wider support and availability, especially in India
f) Last but not the least much better ergonomics

When you buy a camera you buy into its system. None of the mirrorless manufacturers can match Canon & Nikon yet. But they may get there some day. But I believe C & N will also answer back with low weight lenses. The new Nikon 300 F/4 E PF is a new breed.

I would also add autofocus to your list. The Samsung NX1 is fantastic in terms of specs, but most field tests conclude that the AF of a 7D Mk 2 (say) works better for subject tracking in bad light. I would expect the D7200's AF capabilities to be pretty good also.

And when you add a bazooka in front of a camera, then the apparent weight advantage + small size of a mirrorless becomes a disadvantage. A heavy body helps in balancing a heavy lens. Yes you could get the same reach with a cropped sensor + smaller lens. But IQ difference will always be there, especially for non-controlled situations.

Ultimately, horses for courses. For street, portrait, landscapes, general photography, the mirrorless cameras are equally good and more convenient.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I would also add autofocus to your list.

Actually AF is precisely what I was referring to when I said fast moving subjects. No high end MLC can match a high end DSLR when it comes to focus speed and tracking.

And when you add a bazooka in front of a camera, then the apparent weight advantage + small size of a mirrorless becomes a disadvantage.

That's something owners of MLCs, especially FF models, very conveniently forget when they tack on adapters and use normal DSLR lenses. I don't need to tell you how a Fuji X mount camera like a XE1/2 will look with my 24-70 or even a 70-200 attached The larger FF prime lenses make the camera look like an oversized lens cap.

And yes, this is what makes ergonomics..the combination of shape, grip, comfort (even with larger lenses) and spacing of buttons which I find much, much better in DSLRs. I HATE the ergonomics of my MLCs even though I have medium sized hands. I can imagine a person with large hands would feel miffed.

A heavy body helps in balancing a heavy lens

+1

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Actually AF is precisely what I was referring to when I said fast moving subjects. No high end MLC can match a high end DSLR when it comes to focus speed and tracking.

Sorry, had missed that point of yours.

Btw, I feel that Samsung is the dark horse to watch out for, regarding mirrorless AF. Future iterations of their NX series cameras would be very interesting.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by R2D2

That's something owners of MLCs, especially FF models, very conveniently forget when they tack on adapters and use normal DSLR lenses.

I am very aware of this. That is why I didn't retain the excellent 4/3 lenses I had. Nor did I lust for sensors bigger than 4/3. And I don't carry lenses with FL longer than 45mm. I just have 12-40mm and 45mm in my bag. I do landscapes & portraits (people and cars). MLC works out great for my needs.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I am very aware of this. That is why I didn't retain the excellent 4/3 lenses I had. Nor did I lust for sensors bigger than 4/3. And I don't carry lenses with FL longer than 45mm. I just have 12-40mm and 45mm in my bag. I do landscapes & portraits (people and cars). MLC works out great for my needs.

I too believe in using native 'system' lenses for my MLCs. Attaching large lenses nullifies a key advantage of these small systems.

To me, MLCs are for those times when I value portability the most.

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Sorry, had missed that point of yours.

Btw, I feel that Samsung is the dark horse to watch out for, regarding mirrorless AF. Future iterations of their NX series cameras would be very interesting.

Agreed. Samsung could be a dark horse given their expertise in consumer electronics and their deep pockets.

[M35]

Poor available light + active subject = 1/1000 s ISO 3200 when shot @f6.3 / 500mm using Nikon D610.



EDIT: Looks over-sharpened here. Click on the image to view better.

[adimicra]

Originally Posted by gr8guzzler

What exactly are you missing out in your current lenses (18-55 / 55-250)? 18-135 is great if you shoot across that range and don't want the hassle of changing lenses, but quality wise it's not an upgrade.

The 18-55 is limiting in terms of range. Also, I am looking for better image quality. I miss the wide angle more than the telephoto though.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by adimicra

The 18-55 is limiting in terms of range. Also, I am looking for better image quality. I miss the wide angle more than the telephoto though.

In that case I would say look at 24-105 or 17-55 depending on choice. I find 24-105 to be extremely versatile. In my opinion its one of the best traveller's lens. You dont need anything else. May be a 50mm for lower apertures. But other wise its perfect travel lens. Some how I dont think one may need a higher zoom range for travel related purpose. I would any day pick the image quality and build of L of 24-105 over the range and image quality of 55-250 or 18-135.

I also find 24 mm giving me decent wide angle shots. (I know its not wide enough). But still gives quite decent wide shots and nice subject/landscape isolation. So if I go on a family trip, I would just take this.

But when on a photo drive, one pretty much carries what all is possible!

[gr8guzzler]

Originally Posted by adimicra

The 18-55 is limiting in terms of range. Also, I am looking for better image quality. I miss the wide angle more than the telephoto though.

1. If changing lens is not an issue, add the newly launched 10-18 to your kit. Your wide angle needs would be met.
2. 15-85 seems to be a good range for your needs then compared to 18-135 since you mentioned you were limited on the wide side.
3. Learn to stitch panorama's, then 24-105 is a good upgrade. You can get unbundled ff kits for as low as 35k from dealers.

Lastly, before buying try to rent them first and see if they suit your needs.

Good luck!

[ampere]

Originally Posted by adimicra

The 18-55 is limiting in terms of range. Also, I am looking for better image quality. I miss the wide angle more than the telephoto though.

Originally Posted by gr8guzzler

You can get unbundled ff kits for as low as 35k from dealers.

+1

@adimicra please note the above. Dealers do sell the full-frame kit lens separately at lower price. Do check the 24-105 as a separate part and what dealer offers you. You would be surprised. (24-105 is a kit lens for 5D series)

[navin]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Can you tell me where the 85-135 range might prove to useful?

I have a 55-250 and the 18-135 will be more of an overlap. That's why I was tempted for the 15-85.

Navin, can you tell me why the 15-85 did not impress you?
It is generally considered to the best walkaround lens for EF-S cameras.

The 17-55 from Canon is very good but out of my budget. Shall I consider anything from tamron or sigma?

I do not have any intention to buy a FF camera in the future. So, that's not a factor.

85-135 lets you get in close when you cant use your feet hence is useful for street photography.

The 15-85 AF speed was not in the same league as the 17-55, that said the 24-100 actually blows the 17-55 (in my experience, despite what the reviews say). For me AF speed is IT. I did not compare the 15-85 with the 18-135 so I cant give you a definite answer to that.

I have not been lucky with Sigma and Tamron. Many years ago I tried a Tamron 70-300VR (on a Nikon) and it was not as good as the Nikon version. I also tried a Sigma 30/1.8 on a Canon 40D and it was soft. So I have stayed away from 3rd party lenses since. Others have had better luck.

[adimicra]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

I understand that the 17-55 and the 24-105 are better options.
However, the 17-55 is out of my budget.
The 24-105 is available at a cheaper rate (sold separately from the kit bundle) around 40K which is within my budget. My only concern is that 24 mm on the wide side with crop sensor seems very limiting on the wide angle. It's perfect for FF camera.

I will stay away form 3rd party lenses as it seems there are QC issues.

I will try to get hold of a 15-85 and 24-105 and see which one suits me better.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by adimicra

My only concern is that 24 mm on the wide side with crop sensor seems very limiting on the wide angle. It's perfect for FF camera

I find the 24-105 extremely useful even for the APSC body. Do try it. If you want to go wider you always have your kit lens 18-55 or you can also look at the 10-18 STM.

EDIT: You will find the image quality of 24-105 way better than that extra reach of a lens going till 135/140mm.

[blacksport]

Thanks to all who replied. I posted the question half-expecting a brawl. Thanks for not getting there.

BTW, I am not a serious photographer, although I started the hobby about a quarter of a century ago with a film SLR. That's right, I wanted to become a serious photographer, but I didn't and it didn't take a long time for me to realize that the "art" is beyond me. But that didn't stop me from becoming a collector of equipment (:-)), so now that I realize it, I want to get something that I would really use. At this time, I just want to get something to shoot the family moments, mostly indoor stuff and a bit of outdoors (around the house, small vacations etc).

Currently, I own a D50 + 18-55 VR + 55-200 + 50/1.8 + SB400.

I am okay with the image quality, but I think 6MP is too obsolete, plus no video. But the biggest gripe is, it is heavy and bulky, so for most of my regular clicks, I reach for my Lumia.

I looked at the Sony RX100, then the Panasonic LX100 (liked the manual controls and 4K), then saw the Samsung NX500. Looked at the NX300 reviews and am impressed. It seems to match a entry/mid-range DSLR in a smaller form factor. That made me wonder why people invest in DSLRs at all and hence the question I posted.

I see that except the mirror and the prism, there is nothing much that is missing. And I feel that the mirror is so much legacy. The D50 didn't have live view, but with the advent of live view in DSLRs I've seen that most people don't use the view finders. I feel the view finder IS legacy. There are some advantages, but not enough to hold onto it.

So thanks again for the replies, so I am heading to the mirrorless thread to continue my quest there.