Some Canon cameras (80D, 90D, 7D), have on dual pixel CMOS focus points that work in video mode. It is clear things are moving to mirrorless, but I feel we are still in the transition period for lens and focus technology. For certain type of photography either manual or traditional cross type focus points work best still. I think the biggest benefit of mirrorless cameras for amateurs is size and weight, the best camera is the one you have on you.

I'm a huge fan of the Olympus u4/3 range. The size is, for me, just right. Small enough to toss in a backpack with other things during travel and camping. Light enough to wear on a sling most of the day without discomfort. And still really nice photos.

About once a year, I consider moving to Fuji. Or to some other larger format mirrorless. But, the size and weight penalty just isn't worth it.

All that said, my wife's old Canon S90 compact is near the end of life. I thought about buying her a replacement, but I may just splurge on an iPhone XS instead.

I'll second the canon micro 4/3 cameras. Great for traveling, very small, and good selection of lenses.

On my last trip I think the weight/size of my dlsr equipment was cut in 1/3 with the same focal range.

(the picture in this article is comparison of camera/lens size..)

https://www.wildernessshots.com/why-you-dont-need-full-frame...

No doubt it was just a typo, but you mean Olympus and Panasonic, not Canon.

Glad to see some Olympus and micro four thirds fans in this thread. I also sold my Nikon D7100 and pro lenses (24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8) after realizing that I rarely take them out because of the bulk and weight. Got E-M1mII and E-M10mII and some nice lenses instead (12-40/2.8, 7-14/2.8, 45/1.8, 75/1.8, Panasonic 20/1.7). Love, love it. So glad I trusted this rather spontaneous decision. Initially I was thinking about getting the FF Nikon D850. Now I cannot imagine buying a DSLR.

I don't think micro 4/3ds gets enough credit for how convenient the smaller lenses are. I know full frame mirrorless is all the rage now, but even my dad's and brother's (respectively) APS-C gear is much larger and heavier when it comes to lenses.

Yup. The "cheap" primes from Olympus and Panasonic are fantastic. I have the Oly 17mm f.18 and 25mm f1.8 and one or the other lives on my second body.

Heck, even the "large" 12-40mm F2.8 Pro lens on my primary body is about the same size as a mediocre kit lens on a full-frame SLR.

And the best thing: these lenses are sharp wide open. On other systems you get 2.8 lens, but need to stop it down to 4.0 be useful. On u4/3 you get 45/1.2 and you can use it at 1.2.

The 45mm 1.8 is absolutely fantastic, too.

If you're going from mirror-based to mirrorless and stay with the manufacturer, there's always adapters meaning you can continue to use your existing lens collection without losing functionality such as auto-focus or stabilizers.

Switching manufacturers is a different beast however and you'll likely be limited to manual focus and a gimbal/in-sensor for stabilization.

My wife is a part-time pro photographer in her 40's. She's looking to go mirrorless because, on long shoots, the weight of traditional cameras takes a toll on her neck and shoulders.

The great news is that there are some awesome full-frame mirrorless bodies out there.

Of course, because they're full-frame cameras, the glass is still big, so you don't get the hyper-compact size of a micro-4/3 body+lens, but it's still waaay smaller than, say, a 5D + a lens.

Full-frame glass can get quite small, too. A 35mm f/2 for the Leica M system weighs in at 250g/0.55lbs.

I believe the equivalent APS-C Fuji 23mm f/2 is around 200g/0.45lbs.

Of course, with the Summicron you give up such new-fangled innovations as, say, autofocus.

Yeah, that's a hard stop for some folks -- me included. I'm sure the AF material is a big contributor.

The glass for my Sony A7ii is significantly larger than (most) lenses I had for my Olympus m4/3 body. The exception is the main prime on both systems -- I have the Sony 50mm/1.8, which is about the same size as the Panasonic/Leica 25mm/1.4 that filled the same role on my Olympus.

Mirrorless is only a weight advantage in the APS-C size. At full frame there is almost no advantage.

Sort of. Full-frame mirrorless bodies are most definitely smaller and lighter than their DSLR counterparts. The problem is the lenses, and those are a problem for two reasons.

One is that many manufacturers haven't taken advantage of how mirrorless changes lens design yet (the shorter flange distance enables a lot of design space), so you're still carrying a lens designed for a DSLR, but with a lot of hollow space between the back element and the mount. This is especially obvious with third-party lenses; e.g. it's well understood that a lot of Sigma lenses for Sony FE are functionally just their DSLR lenses with a built-in adapter.

The other reason why you don't see a big weight advantage with mirrorless lenses is that, where they are designed for mirrorless specifically, they tend to aim for "better" rather than "lighter. Lenses like the Canon 85mm f/1.2, the 50mm f/1.2, and the 28-70 f/2.0 are perfect examples of this.

However, lenses designed to take advantage of mirrorless can be smaller and lighter, when they have the same design goals — e.g. the latest (DSRL) Canon EF 24-105L f/4 weighs 795g vs the (Mirrorless) RF 24-105L f/4's 694g.

Most of Sony's fe zooms are around the same weight (with some small benefits at wider angles) as an equivalent canikon lens, but it's the wide angle primes that you'll get a big size and weight benefit over full frame glass. The comparisons are complex, and lining up equivalent lenses only works sometimes, because many DSLR wide angle lenses are just zooms, since the primes are large anyways. Mirrorless lens designers have also doubled down on wide primes (like laowa's 15mm f2, or voigtlanders FE ultrawide primes) some of which don't exist for DSLR because they wouldn't be a good value/weight. But the mirrorbox in a DSLR means that the lens can't get super close to the sensor. So a 24mm DSLR lens will actually be a 40mm or so, with reducers put over the front. This means you get a larger lens overall, with more elements. So if you are going to go 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, then you won't see much size benefit. But if you shoot wider/standard primes, there are a lot of compact options for full frame mirrorless.

My wife also, though late 30s. She went from a Canon 5D to Sony A7 III.

I still have a Canon 5D Miii and a lot of lenses for it. (I shot with EOS cameras pre-digital as well.) I do still use the 5D for certain types of shooting--mostly sports and anything that benefits from very wide or very long lenses.

However, assuming I'm taking photos with anything besides my smartphone (which I probably use a greater and greater percentage of the time), it's going to be my Fujifilm mirrorless camera. I think if I were starting over, I'd just go with mirrorless and just forgo the specialized cases that the DSLR and its lenses are better for.

The problem that I have with mirrorless is the inherent delay between what you see on the screen and the photo taken. I don't know if they have improved from the time I tried them.

The advantage of a mirror is that capturing the right instant is much easier when you're photographing subjects that aren't posing, such as children. You want to get that facial expression just right! Not a few hundreths of a second later.

That delay is much lower now than it was a few years ago. It’s now around 10-20ms for the best performing models.

Olympus has a feature they call Pro Capture. Camera takes a couple dozens of shots before you press the shutter, so you won't miss anything.