But that's almost the only thing they are superior in. Mirrorless cameras have ways to mitigate the problem somewhat, for example by having sensors to detect if your eye is actually looking through the viewfinder, and if not they will turn it off, saving battery.

Mirrorless has several advantages: no more mismatch between the focus sensor and the CMOS sensor, no more mirror lag, viewable area matches CMOS sensor area perfectly, electronic viewfinder can show the image as it would be after exposure (making over/underexposed areas easy to spot while composing the shot), and most importantly it allows for much more compact lens designs because the last optical element can be much closer to the sensor since there is no mirror in the way.

Viewfinder lag has not been an issue anymore since 10 years ago. And with recent CMOS sensors having phase-diversity elements, autofocus can be as fast as with DLSRs.

I was shopping for lenses the other day for my Sony and what stood out is a lot of lenses that are very small such as the Sony FE 35mm f/1.8 SEL35F18F that make for a very light kit combined with a mirrorless camera that is itself much lighter than a DSLR.

I got the opposite kind of lens, one at the upper end of what you can wrangle in your hands. If your lens is big you have a heavy pack, look like a dork, can't hold it steady, all that. There is a lot to say for a camera that is easy to handle.

The body can make a substantial difference but if you're using big lenses on your DSLR, you're probably going to be using big lenses on your mirrorless too. The weight of the lens is down to the optics and build rather than the mount. For me, the weight of the lenses is by far the bigger problem.

To take your SEL35F18F as an example, the lens weighs 280g. The Nikon DSLR equivalent, "AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED", weighs 300g.

To go to extremes, Sony's SEL600F40GM weighs 3kg and so does Canon's "EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM" (admittedly, Nikon's equivalent weighs 4kg).

I'm not saying this to prove you "wrong" or anything, a Sony A7RIV weighs 665g to a Nikon D850's 1kg or a Canon 1DX Mk3's 1.4kg but switching to Sony might just be the difference between a 5kg kit and a 4.7kg kit: it's still pretty heavy.

I'm just pointing this out because when I was starting out I heard a lot of people talking about how small and light mirrorless cameras were. I think at the time this idea was focused more on cameras like the Olympus OM-D series. Amateurs/enthusiasts (including myself, who owned an OM-D) often didn't realise that one of the major reasons an OM-D kit was much lighter than a DSLR kit was that it was optically less capable due to the differences in sensor size. A big part of the reason an 17mm f1.8 MFT lens is so small is that it isn't equivalent to a full-frame 35mm f1.8 the way many people thought it was. It's more accurately equivalent to a 35mm f3.5 which could be made similarly light for the larger sensor, if anybody wanted that (but few people want that).

Yeah, I read an article a while back that was complaining that the new mirrorless cameras were claiming to be saving space and weight by being smaller and allowing better lens designs closer to the sensor. But they weren't. In actual fact, the lenses were bigger in a way that more than makes up for the smaller lighter camera body.

What they didn't point out is that those bigger heavier lenses are bigger and heavier because they are more recent, and the camera sensors are so detailed that the cameras need fantastically sharp lenses, which means that they are bigger. Also, people's expectations of the quality of lenses has increased. So, they could make some small light lenses, but then someone would pixel peep and complain about how blurry they are, when in actual fact they would be just as sharp as the old DSLR lenses, but the cameras are more able to reveal their shortcomings.

I've used modern Fujifilm (X-Pro 1-2-3, XT-1-2-3-4, X100 series), Sony (A7s3), Nikon (Z7) and other mirrorless cameras and I still hate the experience. Battery life is not great. I don't need or want exposure preview. The refresh rate will never match a SLR. With every camera there was a feeling of being detached from the scene and subject because of the EVF and almost every EVF gives me a headache after a few minutes of using it. The user experience on the whole has been more frustrating and less reliable than something like a Nikon D3 which just kind of gets out of the way when I am making images.

The accurate autofocus is nice but I would rather have an older flagship DSLR than any modern mirrorless camera. The only exception I might make is for a more recent Leica M camera, but that's only because I've sold one and would like to use those nice tiny little lenses again.

> most importantly it allows for much more compact lens designs because the last optical element can be much closer to the sensor since there is no mirror in the way.

But are these lenses and bodies actually designed that way, or do they keep the old dimensions because of backward compatibility?

It seems Nikon has introduced the Z-mount for its mirrorless cameras, and you have an adapter to go from Z to the F-series mount for older lenses. There will be Z-mount lenses specifically designed for mirrorless, but there might also be lenses (especially from third parties) that use an old design, and just modify the mount so it fits on mirrorless cameras without the need for an adapter.

Yes and no.

Battery life is much worse but when you go all in on next gen Mirrorless cameras there are gains that are just impossible otherwise in a DSLR. The thing that convinced me was using an A7RII 5 years ago in NYC at night. The simple fact of the matter was that the camera could focus and validate setup in the dark better than my own eye with my personal Canon DSLR, even with the wide open nifty 50. I think we are on the edge of major innovations in camera tech. The size advantage makes it easier to carry more batteries as well.

Really the biggest thing is that Nikon is just brutally behind in tech compared to Sony and even Canon. The market has moved past DSLRs. Sony showed up and showed how to do it and that was it.

> Really the biggest thing is that Nikon is just brutally behind in tech compared to Sony and even Canon.

I don't see how that is true in the slightest. The Z9 is a true flagship that stacks up well against the competition. Cameras lower down on the segment stack can also hold their own, albeit some would argue the autofocus is lacking. Autofocus is just one piece of the tech in a camera.

Almost went for the Z9 myself but a lot of people were complaining about the autofocus. Supposed to be a firmware update for the autofocus soon, if it hasn’t already been released. Anybody working with it that can talk about the improvements to the AF since the release?

I think you were getting trolled. The auto focus from day one has been excellent and has only gotten better as they have been releasing updates. I own one and don't really care to take part in forum mudslinging, but I would seriously question anyone who thinks that the autofocus is anything but good (for MILC).

There are issues with AF, but that goes for Sony and Canon flagships as well. Overall, Nikon probably still is third in AF performance, but it's a very, very close third with the Z9. You do however need to know how to use the camera. A lot of the complaints about the AF online are from people who pick it up after using a much simpler camera like a D850 and expect to be able to get the most out of it without reading the manual or conducting tests.

Excuse me, a much simpler camera like the D850? I have an ebook here explaining its auto focus system, it's 200 pages.

Yeah, not saying it's a simple camera, but the AF system is simpler.

"a lot of people were complaining about the autofocus"

A lot? This must mean you get your info from Youtube grifters. Every serious reviewer has praised the Z9 for having world class auto focus capabilities that defy belief. People are panning tiny birds in flights and it just keeps hitting it.

The only criticism is that Sony has a tiny notch up in very specific situations, yet that gap is rapidly shrinking. We're talking really marginal differences here.

> Sony showed up and showed how to do it and that was it.

The annoying thing is that Sony simply cannot do software. I love my A7S2, the hardware is excellent even years past its release, but the menus are confusing as fuck, why does it even ship with WiFi with the option to connect it to an existing network when their own software can't detect it there, or why does it need yet another piece of proprietary software to be used as a webcam instead of just implementing USB UVC...

A7IV has a new menu, and I have not needed any software for webcam use. Just plugged it in and it shows up in OBS.

Specifically when you are setting up your shot with the DSLR you are looking at a ground-glass screen and the sensor and screen can be turned off.

For a mirrorless camera the sensor and screen are on when you are setting up.

The flip side is that a mirrorless camera makes a great video camera with some caveats. For instance if you want to do a shot that smoothly zooms in or out you have a rocker control on a real video camera that you can hold steadily and it does just that. I can't do the same with a mirrorless lens because I can't turn the zoom ring on a lens very smoothly.

I'm confused by this - many mirrorless lenses setup for video work have a zoom switch rather than a zoom ring. An electronic motor ensures smooth zoom.

Furthermore, why are you unable to hold a mirrorless camera as steadily? Something like the Peak Design Clutch strap ought to remedy that I would think? Not to mention cameras like the X-T4 have quite good IBIS built-in to steady out the shot a bit.

This is the same complaint people had about, e.g., film cameras, and before that, electronically controlled shutters. Very few people are willing to live will all those sacrifices just to get better battery life from an older generation of camera. History repeats itself.

Fortunately, there are two product lines with lots of overlap and unique qualifications that the vast majority of individuals can choose from and be happy with.

Nobody is forced to make a sacrifice they don't want to. This is a complete win/win for the consumer.

For now. DSLR sales have been declining since 2012. It's just a matter of time--it's not like Nikon still manufactures film SLRs, for example.

I have 4 batteries at all times. two are official nikon ones. I've never gone past two. maybe if you're spending several days out in the middle of nowhere it makes a difference but a single battery is sufficient for most people that aren't shooting video.

The battery in my AE-1 lasted about 25 years. Battery life has been totally downhill from there.

Yes, battery life takes some hit, but is it really relevant in practical situations, especially with the availability of USB-C power banks?

High-end cameras have removable batteries. Instead of using a power bank, you'd normally pop the battery out and swap in a charged one.

This is assuming that you're taking pictures for a living.

Well, yes. Basically all mirrorless cameras have removable batteries. And changing them is obviously the direct way of keeping your camera operating continuously. But the one situation in which I can assume you would notice the difference in battery consumption is, if you are waiting for hours in a single spot to shoot rare wild life. This is where you might be watching for hours without taking any shots. But in these situation, you could add external power supply to not even have to exchange batteries.

Yeah, external power is the play. On current-gen cameras, you can run with USB-PD. I have a 256000mAh Anker bank and you can shoot 4K60 for a very, very long time on a Panasonic GH6. M43 isn't the best wildlife body, but I have to assume you can get some pretty staggering runtimes in idle on something full-frame.

Why would you say that µFT isn't the best wildlife body? There the long range lenses shine (do I need to say 150-400/4.5?). Also wildlife often means hiking through the wild, where µFT also has big advantages.

I mean, I shoot only M43, so I'd do it because I wouldn't have anything else on hand, but the smaller sensor does present quality challenges a full-frame doesn't and modern full-frames can get pretty small while still being able to pack a pretty long lens (though as you say, the long M43 lenses are pretty tiny!). If money's no object, I would think most folks would pick a Nikon Z9 or the like over an M43 option. You can totally get fine pictures out of the M43 in a wildlife/outdoors setting for sure.

(The smaller M43 lenses are a big part of why I use it, though, as I am a video-first shooter and Panasonic's video-friendly, silent-motor lenses are pretty ridiculous.)

Smaller sensor sizes, generally, work better with high zooms (with the exception of astrophotography). Look at broadcast TV cameras as an extreme example; those use sensor sizes even smaller than M4/3. It simply becomes impractical to build a very long focal length lens for a large size sensor that isn't telescope-sized.

And even when people are shooting with full-frame lenses (e.g. on Sony), they often use an APS-C camera body because it has more pixels in the very middle of the captured image, with the assumption being that you're going to be doing a lot of digital cropping anyway to get more effective zoom.

Huh. TIL. I am very much a video-not-film shooter and photography is a weird art I do not understand, so thank you for setting me straight!

I am also a µFT-shooter, e.g. OM-1 with the 300/4. I named the 150-400, a lens which certainly doesn't have a 35mm counterpart. At which point the "quality" advantage of a 35mm sensor becomes moot. And of course also, if one doesn't have a lens to match my more affordable 300/4. Assuming the 35mm shooter is even willing to carry the equipment :p. The camera body size of course does no longer make a difference, but the lens size still does.

Long exposure and video are an issue. One Nikon solved with second gen mirroless bodies which can be charged while on through usb-c and second gen battery handles that can do the same. Other than that, battery swaps are fast enough.

Considering with only one mirrorless camera and one DSLR I have to lug around 10+ batteries in my camera bag...yeah. Running out of batteries at a wedding isn't an option.

Plus I keep backups just in case my camera bag is stolen, and first party Nikon batteries are $70 per. I hadn't considered keeping a battery bank and a long USB-C cable as a backup though, so I'll need to look into that.

If you want to use an optical viewfinder, then yes it's relevant. If you spend more time framing than shooting, it could be very relevant.

I was referring to the battery life. If you want to use an optical viewfinder, that is a different argument. The question just is: how often is it really making a significant difference in battery life? One which you cannot reasonably compensate for with more batteries or external power supply.