Top 10 Mirrorless Advantages

[Steve]

In the post, Are You Shooting Mirrorless Yet, I mentioned that I'm happily shooting both DSLRs and mirrorless at the moment, but in the not-so-distant future I can see myself shooting 100% mirrorless all the time.

This generated a great question - besides weight, what's the advantage to shooting mirrorless?

I think this is a question many people have, so I'm going to list the reasons I like mirrorless below.

Here's my top 10:

1. AF points all over the viewfinder.

This is a big one for me - I like to keep the AF point on my subject's eye and find myself compositionally restricted with the AF spread on full-frame DSLRs. With mirrorless, I can always find an AF point for any eye position.

2. Tracking all over the viewfinder.

OK, this is technically an extension of the first point, but it's useful nonetheless. The truth is, sometimes tracking doesn't go as planned and our subject falls outside the AF area of our DSLRs. With mirrorless, the system can follow all over the viewfinder while we get our "stuff" back together.

3. (Usually) No need for AF Fine Tuning.

Although it's technically possible that AF fine-tuning could, on the rarest of occasions, be necessary for mirrorless, that usually doesn't happen since AF is done right on the sensor. This also means focus tends to be more accurate overall, even at different distances and focal lengths (something that's not always true with a DSLR - even after tuning).

4. Better image quality due to wider lens mounts.

The wider lens mounts - especially on the Z cameras - allow for better "angles" as the light passes through the lens. This makes it easier to create lenses with fantastic corner to corner sharpness. (This is a big reason why so many users and critics shower the Z series lenses with praise.)

5. No blackout between frames.

OK, this only applies to the Sony a9 and a9ii at the moment, but I feel like it will become standard-issue in future mirrorless cameras. And I can tell you without reservation that it's a game-changer for tracking.

6. Live Exposure Information

Have you ever forgotten to check your settings before taking a photo and ended up with a grossly over or underexposed image? With mirrorless, you have the option of seeing precisely what the exposure looks like in real-time as soon as you put the camera to your eye. Many cameras offer in-viewfinder live histograms and even zebra stripes for blown highlights.

7. Less camera noise.

If you need silence, you can't beat mirrorless. Silent shutter mode allows you to shoot without a sound. Heck, even in normal shooting mode with a mechanical shutter, they're still considerably quieter than a DSLR and all that mirror slapping.

8. Less overall vibration

Since you can shoot without a mechanical shutter and there's no mirror slap, this means less overall vibration throughout the system and potentially sharper images (depending on the lens and shutter speed).

9. Potentially greater reliability

This one is trickier, but in theory, mirrorless should prove more reliable over time since they have less moving parts.

10. Easier to transport

This may seem minor, but when traveling overseas it's always (ALWAYS) a pain when it comes time to choose the gear that's coming along. What goes, what stays, what fits? The truth is, it's far easier to slide a pair of mirrorless cameras into my backpack than a D6 and a gripped D850! In fact, my current Africa setup is a pair of Sonys, the 600 F/4G and 100-400 - it all fits in my bag with room to spare (I'll probably add a 24-70). With my Nikon setup, I had to sneak lenses into my laptop bag!

That's my list - what's yours?


PS - Of course, DSLRs still hold some advantages (no lag for one, faster start-up for two, better battery life for three), but the gap is closing all the time. I don't think it will be long before we see mirrorless catch up to DSLRs in every category and that's probably when I'll make mirrorless my primary system.

 

[DavidT]

I agree 100%. For me when Nikon nails the first 2 and the zero black out view finder I would go all Z bodies.

1 thing that mirrorless does is eye tracking and for my photography specifically animal eye af. Once Nikon can get to the R5 animal eye AF I will buy new cameras. It is the one thing that is making me consider going with a different system. I haven't been in a rush to make that change but it is the only thing that is really making me look at other brands.

 

[Nick B.]

The major negative of mirrorless for me is the EVF. I want to see the real world through the viewfinder, not a TV image of the world. Even if lag times are eliminated, the image will still be artificial. I moved to DSLR from a basic compact digital to avoid things like shutter lag. I also prefer the larger size and weight of DSLRs as being more ergonomic for my hands. The advantages are interesting. But, for me, they can not override the negatives which will keep me on DSLR for the foreseeable future.

 

[ssheipel]

Since I gave up waiting (more like lacked the patience) for 'pro' Z (and invested in the D6 and big F glass) I'm sure Nikon will announce tomorrow the mirrorless pro cam is here LOL I am using the Z 6 for all my portrait work. I prefer the D6 in my hand over the Z6 despite of or maybe because of the weight, but that's just years upon years of expecting that heft when holding a camera. Also going to jump on the S version of the 14-24 expected to be announced tomorrow and give a much more serious look at landscape work now that I'm back to being in the back and high country again. I DO love that viewfinder WYSIWYG exposure on the mirrorless, that's for sure.

 

[Steve]

I agree 100%. For me when Nikon nails the first 2 and the zero black out view finder I would go all Z bodies.

1 thing that mirrorless does is eye tracking and for my photography specifically animal eye af. Once Nikon can get to the R5 animal eye AF I will buy new cameras. It is the one thing that is making me consider going with a different system. I haven't been in a rush to make that change but it is the only thing that is really making me look at other brands.

Dang, forgot about eye tracking - there's #11

 

[ssheipel]

Dang, forgot about eye tracking - there's #11

I've had spot on performance with human eye detect in the Z6 (so confused me that the haters suggest compared to Sony's and Canon's, Nikon human eye tracking sucks); be pretty cool to get the same results for animal eye detect -- and a firmware update to bring it to the D6

 

[Charlie Lasswell]

What I really, really want is that animal eye AF and what I really, really don't want is to buy all new glass; so I sit and wait for Nikon to catch up.

 

[Woodpecker]

Of course, DSLRs still hold some advantages (no lag for one, faster start-up for two, better battery life for three), but the gap is closing all the time. I don't think it will be long before we see mirrorless catch up to DSLRs in every category and that's probably when I'll make mirrorless my primary system.

Dang, forgot about eye tracking - there's #11

It would be a shame having herds of engineers working on technical and technological developments without coming up with results showing considerable improvements compared with established technology and cameras are not an exception in this respect .

However, most non-pro's among us who cannot just buy new gear, declare it as business expenses and deduct that from taxable income, will be hit in a different spot.

• The central point will not be missing a keeper because of being slower with focussing on the animal's eye, that I am not getting payed for anyway.
• The major question is about the investment rat race that follows after the decision for a different camera generation.
• The demand for expensive DSLR glass will decline so you will not get reasonable money back when retrading, especially for your big guns.
• At the same time for corresponding type of lens you still have to wait if you are a Nikon shooter (Don't know when you will see serious replacements for 400, 600 or 800mm lenses with Z mount) and if not you have to pay the same astrononic price tags again for a 600mm like you do with Sony.

Looking at it from the end user perspective first:
Nikon has proved that it is possible to build lenses giving very good corner sharpness with F mount and considering that the Z series still uses a FX format sensor this "bigger mount" in combination with the FTZ adapter to me is nothing but a marketing strategy blooper. If Nikon really gets into trouble one key reason will be driving a shim between millions of photographers and their lens collections they have paid lots of money for - to Nikon.

But you can also look at it from the other side:
You can observe something that happens regularly these days and started already some time ago together with digitalization getting up to speed - and it happens across all kinds of industrial sectors. Innovation cycles get shorter and shorter and parallel to this it becomes more and more easy for new companies to jump on running trains in terms of adapting to technologies that have been developped and established by others. Looking at photography Nikon is a dinosaur in this area - in the positive sense of the word. When they started to be top notch in photography not even the names of some other companies have been invented and older companies dealing with similar technologies haven't even considered going towards photography. Nikon has a history and used to live from tradiditions and unwritten laws behind their brand. One of it was the investment protection of users by keeping lens mount backward compatible for ages. My statement above is what I think as an individual worried about its investment. But maybe the market dynamics force them in this direction. Companies that started going towards photography with mirrorless straight away have developped everything just for this stage of technology, while other companies - like Nikon - have to cope with the burden of the past lke the long term backward compatibility and have to break with this past to be able to survive.

I don't know yet whether or when I will change to mirrorless, but if I don't - or keep some DSLR gear - I would certainly be more happy with a company

• that still exists, because it is making money with mirrorless cameras
• and is still able to provide service for DSLR equipment,

rather than sitting there with gear from a manufacturer that doens't exist anymore and having to discard it once it has a failure, because there is nobody left being able to fix it.

Finally some thoughts about picture quality:

What is the point of chasing for lenses with 3000+ results in Imatest for the corners of your picture in times, where probably more than 99% of the pictures are looked at on small and uncalibrated screens while waiting for the bus ?
Looking at the trends in web design shows how most brains work today. Even websites for complex topics like Industrial Automation Software, MES, Lifecycle Management Systems, a.s.o. degenerate towards comic-strip type playfields for graphic sequences while keeping written content - in terms of usable information versus marketing bullshit bingo - to an absolute minimum or avoid it whereever possible.
If you work on a website the experts for online marketing tell you to keep everything (stupid) simple, because the average time you have to catch a person's attention is already less 30 seconds.
In times like this anyone can be happy to find a community caring for quality in a way that your attempt to achieve more of it is appreciated by more people than just yourself.
In the end many - if not most - of us have to be honest and accept that 80% of the quality we put in our pictures is just for ourselves and the remaining 20% would probably be enough to keep the outside world reasonably happy.

Looking back in times where my father did industrial photography in mines, high bay warehouses etc. with 18 x 24 cm (!) film format to get ultimate quality for print brochures, big adverts or presentation walls, I have actually whitnessed this being replaced by tweaked smartphone photos today ... because 90% of the people just don't care about quality and appreciation for detail anymore and spending time to gain quality is simply too slow for today's world in many cases. Most of the people don't pay for quality, they pay for quick benefit and quality is usually not considered as being a benefit because they think very short term.

Where this will lead to I don't know, but I believe our DSLR equipment should be able to keep us happy for quite some time from now. It might just be a bit more complicated to use. But it can be great fun to get results with gear that other people consider as being inappropriate or outdated .

The question "Are we too gear-centric ?" asked in another thread here implicitely includes the question "Does it make sense to go mirrorless ?" and the answer will be different for each of us.

 

[Nikondale]

I cannot put my D5 to rest. It is my favorite DSLR Next to my D850 which I consider Nikon's masterful creation. I am trying mirror-less but in the Olympus line as my daughter likes her Oly so I purchased an M1X. It is a pretty nice unit and an animal-eye detection software upgrade is coming along with some of their new lenses. The Oly pro series glass are pretty impressive as is their stabilization system. Keep shooting

 

[fcotterill]

I agree with all the positives in Steve's list. I used a Z7 with the FTZ for wildlife with mixed successes. The bonuses have been silent-shooting on smaller carnivores especially (mongooses and caracal). Strangely, the small antelopes don't seem that perturbed by the clatter of a D850; presumably Grey duiker don't link the sound to danger (yet this has been stalking downwind). My frustration was 1. the AFC grabbing grabbing background clutter and discombobulating as it delayed refocusing on foreground. So manual needed manual refocus on the foreground/subject, 2. Nikon's failure to follow up with meaningful firmware fixes to the Menus (the list compiled by late 2018 on Photography Life is still largely undone); 3. no vertical grip, and then delayed release of an excuse-of-a-battery holder at high price.

Criticisms aside, the Z system with 14-30 f4S and/or FTZ adapter is excellent for landscapes (with truly excellent optics arriving in the Z-Nikkor stable) . I have some excellent images of larger mammal subjects taken in less challenging conditions, and some birds. There is also no better system for closeup photography with all the MILC positives. So it's really only the Action genres where it's found wanting. In all other circumstances a mixed Zed and DSLR works seamlessly. Anyway, on the assumption Nikon is pending with upgraded cameras (ie Z6s, Z7s) I traded in the Z7 for a D780. The intro special at Orms, Cape Town helped this decision Besides better AFC, I need the better performance in lowlight (one valuable lesson gained from screening many images under lockdown!). One has the best of Z6 in L'view with the DSLR OVF, very capable AFC and AFD support for a couple of old favorites etc.

 

[pfinfante]

2. Nikon's failure to follow up with meaningful firmware fixes to the Menus (the list compiled by late 2018 on Photography Life is still largely undone);

What's wrong with the menus?

 

[fcotterill]

Unlike D500, D850 and D5, no options to assign AFOn+AF Mode to Pv or Fn. Usually it's Single-point allowing near-instant switching from say a72 to more precise focus on a bird's eye for example.
EDIT: Take a look at the long list compiled by Nasim Mansurov, with reader feedback etc. Not unreasonable demands, and fixes which can only have helped Nikon sell more of these mirrorless cameras, and above all lenses https://photographylife.com/nikon-z7-firmware-update-wishlist

 

[Palouse]

For me it's having 2 cameras, the Z7 and the Z6, which I use for different subjects, have identical menus and controls. My 70-year old brain thanks me.
Also, EVF let's me see the world in B&W!

 

[pfinfante]

For me it's having 2 cameras, the Z7 and the Z6, which I use for different subjects, have identical menus and controls. My 70-year old brain thanks me.
Also, EVF let's me see the world in B&W!

It's smart to have the menus and controls set exactly the same on both. I agree. That is why when I upgraded to my Z7, it was a bit of a hassle making sure that I mirrored everything I had set on the Z6. There's a ton of things to check, including making sure the U1, U2, U3 settings match the other camera. I try to keep a list.

 

[fcotterill]

If we consider the timeline, Nikon has had over 20 years to refine their DSLRs and they've done these rather well. After all, they'd been refining their F system over the previous 40 years through the SLRs preceding the D1! It's just 2 years since we saw the first Z MILCs - now 4 models, with the unknown preparing period for Nikon R&D. They also must have learnt a great deal from Nikon 1 mirrorless. They presumably refined the tech and also waited for a optimum time to announce an entirely new system (they probably also leveraged lessons off the many iterations and prototypes of competitors). Nevertheless as far as AFC stands, as we keep lamenting.... the Z cameras are indeed a work in progress for action genres. More than anyone, however, Nikon must know they have to get out a Zed with AFC matching that in the D5 AF engine (ie D5 and D500, D850). This upgrade is urgent for prestige, as much as for real photographers like many here shooting action sports and wildlife on the move....

Since Z-day, Aug 2018, the investments in new optics and explicit statements by their executives in interviews, it's clear Nikon is moving steadily, in fact relentlessly, toward prioritizing the Z mount. A recent thread in the NikonGear forum notes Nikon have discontinued all AFD as well as F-Nikkors as Current Products. Sites such as Grays of Westminster have listed new prices for several AIS Nikkors as well as about a dozen AFD models
they list some of the older classics : https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/discontinue_fmount/

Nevertheless, with reference to this forum, it will be a few years before any main brand has a full stable of telephotos for their respective MILC mounts. So for Nikon shooters the G and E telephotos still have years of action ahead of them - let the massive Used inventories of F-Nikkors.

Another arena to watch are Hybrid DSLRs. The first version in this arena was arguably the D850 (focus-peaking etc and much improved video via Liveview). The D780 probably points to future hybrid DSLRs that will merge in even more MILC attributes; hence rumours of a D880. Nikon also registered a patent in April for a detachable EVF on the flashmount (they did one in the N1 system). Sure, these companies patent designs as a competitive strategy, but it's timely to release such a device: so a possibility. It will be really great if it works to enable silent-shooting in Liveview with a DSLR.

 

[GG1]

The biggest negative to mirrorless is the cost among a lot of the negatives already listed. I'm 70 now and am apprehensive about trying another "new technology ". I was finally able to move up to a full frame DSLR and am delighted with the results I am getting. True new stuff is usually better but always more expensive. If some one were to give me a mirrorless camera I might use it but I'm fine right now and who knows what's coming down the pike.

 

[SMB]

For me DSLR to mirrorless was almost as eye opening as film to DSLR.
The biggest difference has been real time exposure. It definitely has changed my ability to work with wildlife on the fly.
The system I have now is more compact, easier to travel with and lighter by a considerable amount.
I often see complaints about smaller camera body ergonomics, "my large hand doesn't fit". The switch from a D5 to a smaller camera body, while I don't have huge hands, took some time, but it was more an issue of muscle memory as opposed to fit.
My experience pretty much fits Steve's check list. I too am in my 70's and the new technology has been a refreshing challenge.

 

[SMB]

In fact, my current Africa setup is a pair of Sonys, the 600 F/4G and 100-400 - it all fits in my bag with room to spare (I'll probably add a 24-70). With my Nikon setup, I had to sneak lenses into my laptop bag!

And you can get by with one battery grip if need be, since it fits both the a9II and a7RIV!

 

[Rodamu]

I can't afford several cameras. I am completely satisfied with the D850 and lens except for their weight and size. Sometimes I want to travel with something compact and light and that is why I bought a Z camera knowing that it also takes high quality photos and can use the DSLR lenses too.

 

[EricBowles]

Steve started us with a good list, but the value of the EVF is underestimated.

I program my Fn1 button on the Z6 to zoom to 100%. This is probably one of my most used features and is unique to mirrorless.

• check for focus before making the shot.
• invoke focus peaking to help with manually tweaking focus through the EVF
• watch for precise positioning through the EVF - head position, action, etc.
• identify small birds and concurrently capture an image - better than binoculars or a spotting scope for birders
• manually focus through obstructions such as grasses or small branches
• review images after taking the shot to check for sharpness and position

The EVF does a lot more - all without your eye ever leaving the viewfinder:

• use the iMenu to change most camera settings not controlled by a Fn button or other custom control
• check level and histogram
• see your image and reduced missed exposures
• brighten low light subjects by viewing the exposure as it will be created
• improved viewing in low light conditions - particularly in dark overcast or around sunrise and dusk

We're just getting started on the capabilities of the EVF.

 

[Pics6x6]

I not only moved to mirrorless because of health issues as I needed a smaller, lighter camera outfit, but also because I shoot portraits and the eye AF and VR intrigued me. I started with a Z6 just to test the waters but moved to the Z7 not because of the number of focus points. With the Z6 half the time I didn't have a focus point over the eye so I changed to the Z7 to double the number of focus points. Learning curve was a *****, still can't get used to having to "wake-up" the camera when I put it to my eye. Would much rather stick with my D850 but don't think that is possible. If they fix a number of issues I think DSLR will go the way of the dodo bird.

 

[Roaring 40s]

I shot the A9 and D500 side by side for a year on birds and BIF and for AF reliability I'll take the Nikon thanks.

With BIF the A9 is regularly just a bit off. This has been evident from using one rig in the morning of a day pelagic cruise and the other in the afternoon with about 1500 shots from each.

With a static bird in mid ground the A9 (and A7R III) will regularly simply fail to lock (defaulting to infinity). This has been reported by others too on FB and other forums.

If with BIF burst shooting I set the R III to focus priority the frame rate drops noticeably. The factory default is 'balanced'.

These bodies have line-type PD sensors only.

I believe that they use PD first to get focus in the ball park and then CD to get an accurate lock. That appears to take too long to sustain focus priority at the high burst rate on the R III - I've yet to try this on the 9. The balanced setting appears to be programmed to settle for 'near enough' focus. I expect the A9 is the same.

There may not be enough light for CD to work well given the 100-400 and 200-600mm tele zooms are at f6.5 max at full reach.

In terms of failure to focus at all, I find this with the 400mm/f2.8 + 1.4TC too on both bodies.

 

[Woodpecker]

7. Less camera noise.

If you need silence, you can't beat mirrorless. Silent shutter mode allows you to shoot without a sound. Heck, even in normal shooting mode with a mechanical shutter, they're still considerably quieter than a DSLR and all that mirror slapping.

Well, this one really is an issue. My friend uses a D4S and when we went out for shooting cranes in a national park in Germany one day I realized that he took another camera. He probably saw the question in my face and told me that he had made the experience of having negative influence on the birds due to the noise created by shooting bursts. And as @Steve showed in one of his reviews the Q mode of the pro bodies is more are marketing gag than anything else...

 

[Steve]

I shot the A9 and D500 side by side for a year on birds and BIF and for AF reliability I'll take the Nikon thanks.

With BIF the A9 is regularly just a bit off. This has been evident from using one rig in the morning of a day pelagic cruise and the other in the afternoon with about 1500 shots from each.

With a static bird in mid ground the A9 (and A7R III) will regularly simply fail to lock (defaulting to infinity). This has been reported by others too on FB and other forums.

If with BIF burst shooting I set the R III to focus priority the frame rate drops noticeably. The factory default is 'balanced'.

These bodies have line-type PD sensors only.

I believe that they use PD first to get focus in the ball park and then CD to get an accurate lock. That appears to take too long to sustain focus priority at the high burst rate on the R III - I've yet to try this on the 9. The balanced setting appears to be programmed to settle for 'near enough' focus. I expect the A9 is the same.

There may not be enough light for CD to work well given the 100-400 and 200-600mm tele zooms are at f6.5 max at full reach.

In terms of failure to focus at all, I find this with the 400mm/f2.8 + 1.4TC too on both bodies.

I think it depends on the situation which is better. The line sensors aren't doing us any favors for some subjects, that's for sure (they hate black bear cubs too in case anyone was wondering ). However, my overall hit rates are about the same with Nikon's best DSLRs and the a9ii. There are times the DSLRs are better, times the a9ii is better, and times where either setup gets the shot (most times, in fact).

To give you an example, I was in Badlands SD taking photos of barn swallows as they took off from a foot bridge. Try as I might, I just couldn't coax a sharp photo out of the D6 - it missed EVERY time. I tweaked every AF mode / setting and no luck. The Sony a9ii on the other hand did much better. While it didn't nail every shot, it did get an acceptable keeper rate. Here's one (it's not finished, but you get the idea).

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Of course, this only applies to this particular subject. There are other times I think the DSLRs do a better job. Still, I think eventually mirrorless will be the best bet. If they could come up with a way to do cross-type AF it would really out mirrorless over the top. (I mean, it's possible since we're just using masked pixels, I think it's just expensive to implement - and processor intensive too.)

 

[JimW]

So, for those of you using your Nikon glass with z6 or z7 body: are you using the FTZ converter? Do you find that it interferes with tripod mounting, or is otherwise bothersome?