'Camera go click clack or camera go click';

'>>4291043
Shoot film, dumbass.';

'>>4291043
Only sonys offerings are actually more compact for FF milc so idk just buy a 15 year old dslr and spend rest of the money on glass';

'>>4291043
Mirror cams have mirrors and the mirrorless have no mirrors';

'Advantages of DSLRs
-cheaper
-better battery life
-some people prefer optical viewfinders

Advantages of mirrorless
-better sensors
-greater lens selection
-better AF, faster, more accurate, better tracking
-faster burst rates
-better video
-EVF has advantages like exposure simulation, more info, a brighter view in dark conditions, focus peaking
-smaller and lighter
-quieter
-mechanically less complex, theoretically more reliable and durable although the top level DSLRs may be better sealed than the best mirrorless bodies (not completely sure on this, either will be good enough for the majority of people)';

'>>4291050
kek so no real advantage to DSLR';

'>better sensors
Depends on camera, definitely not an inherent trait of mirrorless

>better AF, faster, more accurate, better tracking
Wrong, contrast detect is more accurate than phase detect but slower assuming same generation cameras. Besides, any good mirrorless or DSLR has both so it would make no difference';

'>>4291051
Well price can be a big factor to many people, a lot of people don't make much if any money from photography. So yeah if you're poor DSLRs have a big advantage.

>>4291052
>Depends on camera, definitely not an inherent trait of mirrorless
I'm talking about reality. The sensors in mirrorless are constantly being improved and will continue to do so. The most recent full frame DSLR is like 4 years old now.

>Wrong, contrast detect is more accurate than phase detect but slower assuming same generation cameras. Besides, any good mirrorless or DSLR has both so it would make no difference
Again I'm talking about reality and comparing the best to the best. No DSLR can use contrast and phase detect at the same time, their phase detect systems aren't as accurate because they're separate from the image sensor, they don't have as many points with as wide coverage, they're not as sensitive, and they don't track as well.';

'>>4291043

All you need to know is that DSLRs are a thing of the past while Mirrorless is the NEW tech.
Right now there isnt quite substantial enough tech gap between the two but since camera makers basically have given up on DSLRs it is on the road to obsoletion or rather novelty, like film cameras.';

'>>4291055
DSLR PD is so accurate they didn't need AI or contrast detect to make it work, despite the theoretical offset (which can be fixed with microadjustments).';

'>>4291061
Meant for >>4291053';

'>>4291052
>wrong
Incorrect cope. MILC autofocus is way faster and the newer motors they put in newer lenses boost it further.

You’re meant to cope like this:
REAL PHOTOGRAPHERS DUN NEED ;_;

>>4291061
DSLR autofocus is notoriously inaccurate';

'>>4291061
Mirrorless doesn't need those things either to make it work but having them makes it better. That's what this thread is about, which is best not which is adequate.';

'>>4291044
This. What is your budget and intended use of the camera?
>>4291050
Greater lens selection could be argued for both camera types. As a Canon snapshitter...';

'>>4291068
>Greater lens selection could be argued for both camera types. As a Canon snapshitter...
Actually it's THE one advantage mirrorless has, the lack of mirror box enables the use of rangefinder lenses and similar stuff (or short flange SLR lenses like Miranda).
Too bad about that vignetting doe :^)';

'>>4291064
>DSLR autofocus is notoriously inaccurate
Skill issue or shit gear, probably both. Learn to calibrate.';

'>>4291047
This. You should always aim to put 25% into body and 75% into your best piece of glass, regardless of budget.
>>4291050
>greater lens selection
This should go in the DSLRs section
>mechanically less complex
In practice mirrorless cameras have tons of shit that can break compared to DSLRs and are less reliable.';

'DSLR were a mistake, we should have gone from rangefinder to mirrorless.';

'>>4291091
Wrong.
https://blog.kasson.com/d850/nikon-d850-autofocus-accuracy-summary/

>>4291092
Point one: WRONG! Lens sharpness does not matter. Most cheap lenses are overly adequate. Spare use RENDERING MICROCONTRAST schizophrenia, please. The history of photography is built on shit glass and it’s been dead since the rise of premium sharpness and computer designed cineslop lenses. Curious?
Point two: WRONG! A shorter flange distance with a wider throat can use more lenses.
Point three: WRONG! MILCs are mechanically simple. The most complex part is IBIS, which is just magnets. You can buy canon MILCs without it.';

'>>4291091
or just use a milc and occasionally look back and laugh at dslrinosaurus extinctus';

'>>4291092
Wow sure am glad i put a super sharp luxury brand lens on my $100 micro four thirds camera -you

Bodies matter more than lenses. You can get a prime better than anything used by the old masters for $350. Bodies are where you find all the technological capability that determines what you can do and how easily. Lenses just project an acceptable image.';

'>>4291099
>You can get a prime better than anything used by the old masters for $350
(X) doubt';

'>>4291047
Wrong. Rest of the money on lighting books and lights, then glass.';

'>>4291100
Yes, you can. Old lenses were garbage. Really fucking shit. Mitakon zhongyi tier trash. Super inconsistent too.

You don’t need more. If you’ll accept manual everything you can get the same lenses for <$100. Unless it’s leica branded, those are collectable despite being so fucking soft that even things that are in perfect focus start to blur and swirl away from the center third. Like a 75 dollar lomography effect lens shitter.';

'>>4291106
You only need one single plug in manual strobe, a sync cable, and a 3 in one umbrella (ie: photek softlighter).';

'>>4291097
>https://blog.kasson.com/d850/nikon-d850-autofocus-accuracy-summary/
https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7riii-autofocus-accuracy-summary/
Checkmate';

'>>4291099
>Bodies matter more than lenses.
kek';

'>>4291127
That is true. The days when most SLRslop glass was noticeably soft on the edges even at f/11 and you had to buy a zeiss-something are gone and dead. They have been gone for a long, long ass time especially for EF mount.

>>4291126
>In AF-S mode, the a7RIII focuses with the lens diaphragm wide open, or very close to that. That means that the images are prone to suffer from focus shift
>I should note that there is far less focus shift for these lenses than many of the Nikon ones that I tested on the D850.
>I don’t know of a workaround for this AF-S behavior other than using AF-C, which works because, in AF-C mode, the a7RIII focuses with the lens diaphragm at taking aperture, and focus shift is not a problem.
So it's still better?

IMHO this is a feature, not a bug, af-s is preferred in low light and DOF preview can be assigned to a press-and-hold custom button rather than it being a fully forced behavior.';

'>>4291141
>especially for EF mount.
Canon 40mm f2.8 pancake is dirt cheap and holds up really well.
EF ecosystem is full of your SLRslop glass, absolute gems and anything between.';

'>>4291172
>the need to buy premium glass has been gone for a long time especially on EF
yeah hes right and you agreed. /p/ will argue even when /p/ agrees.';

'>>4291050
>Advantages of mirrorless
>-better sensors
Not for stills. At least not yet. D850 matches anything out there, and the 5Ds/sR practically match anything out there unless you're shooting extreme ISO or completely blowing your exposures.

>-greater lens selection
You can accomplish anything you want photographically in EF and F mount.

>-better AF, faster, more accurate, better tracking
Mirrorless has better AI subject tracking (though some DSLRs do have this). DSLRs have faster/better depth tracking under a selected point (cross and double cross AF points). If you can keep a point on the subject, then top tier DSLRs have an edge.

>-EVF has advantages like exposure simulation, more info, a brighter view in dark conditions, focus peaking
They can also be difficult to see in bright daylight (i.e. sun at your side), have worse DR/color, and have lag under continuous shooting. Dark conditions really depends on the camera. An R6/R6ii or A7sIII can gain up more than your eye can see. But a lot of mirrorless cameras are worse at night than a DSLR with a fast prime. It also needs to be said that all EVFs lag hard under dark conditions. They can't use a shutter speed that supports 60 or 120 Hz refresh.';

'>>4291053
>No DSLR can use contrast and phase detect at the same time, their phase detect systems aren't as accurate because they're separate from the image sensor,
This is FUD. Yes you should test/verify new lenses and if necessary micro adjust. Once you've done that they're just as accurate.

>they're not as sensitive, and they don't track as well.
If you are keeping an AF point on the subject instead of relying on animal butthole detect, then top tier DSLRs have faster/better depth tracking under certain conditions, and equal the rest of the time. No mirrorless has cross or double cross AF points because the AF sensors can't be larger than an imaging pixel. Top tier DSLRs have mostly cross sensors and the center group is usually double cross.';

'>>4291043
>Trying to buy a camera and I'm lost in the autism
Not as lost as you're going to be. I hope this thread is bait because you won't get anything useful out of it. Go watch some youtube videos because this board is too mired in the autism to be of any real help.';

'>>4291191
>they're just as accurate
Provably wrong just because of focus shift in AF-C
>Keep the smallest possible single point on a moving subject's eye
Now that's why boomers all go for the D850 - gotta crop rather than balance composition, AF points, and joystick use like photography is a video game

This is why with film we just prefocused and waited for the subject to be in place. You did not have as much run and gun freedom but at least it did not blend photography and call of duty.';

'>>4291068
I know Sony can use pretty much any A mount lens, can't Canon's mirrorless also use EF lenses and Nikon's use F mount? And then there's also interbrand compatibility. There are very few DSLR lenses you can't use on mirrorless while there are all the native mirrorless lenses as well as all the adapted manual glass you can get (some of which won't work on a DSLR). And they're easier to focus with an EVF too.';

'>>4291207
Sony can adapt A, F, EF, KAF, and basically every film mount, with AF adapters for leica M
Nikon can adapt F, EF, and Sony FE and every manual film mount, also with AF adapters for leica M
Canon RF can only adapt EF and manual mounts
No idea about L mount, nobody takes it seriously unless they are 100% a leica man anyways';

'>>4291106
Depends';

'>>4291106
>lighting books
strobist.com is free
>lights
You don't need powerful pro lights and high end lighting modifiers as a hobbyist unless you have an "i paid for ISO 50" attitude or shoot film.
>then glass
Should unironically cost less than your body. Shoot <36mp FF and it seems every lens is amazing.';

'>>4291227
>Glass should cost less than the body
Considering one can buy used dslr pro lenses for 200 bucks or less nowadays, ez pz lol';

'>>4291228
ja it's unironically more important to invest in a better screen for viewing and editing
especially to print, don't even need raw to fix colors slightly (but shoot raw anyways, storage is cheap, computers are fast, and just opening stuff in capture one looks better than sooc jpegs)

why do people buy cameras and not print?';

'>>4291232
>why do people buy cameras and not print?
Print them for who?';

'>>4291232
Its more fun to just shoot oh god im gonna shoot!!!! Im shootinggg!!!';

'>>4291233
My wall. Plenty of space to fill.';

'>>4291238
why do boomers feel uncomfortable if their house isn't filled floor to ceiling with garbage and nik-naks?';

'>>4291228
>tfw want 135 f/2 but am pure hobbyist and too stingy even for the bargain price it's going for';

'>>4291243
just spend the money, you will never retire or own a home, you'll never have a wife or children. So just blow it on camera gear as a cope and to push back the suicide date a couple months, that's what I do anyway';

'>>4291043
>DSLR
big body, smol lens
>Mirrorless
small body, big lens';

'>>4291241
It's a really useful habit. A lot of stuff that boomers stacked is really useful, everyone tends to get a set tools, guns, appliances, cars and I'd say camera gear goes there as well. Minimalism is a dumb meme. Unless it's something that can spoil over time, there is really no downside to keeping an artifact that sees little use. Don't let fungus eat your lens, and don't let yourself reach insolvency to the point that you need to start selling off things like lenses and guns, and you are good, basically. Your preserved "stuff" will be reused after your death, anyway.';

'>>4291273
Electronic focus and electronic aperture lenses have a 10-20 year lifespan depending on use. Shorter for VR and power zoom. IBIS sleds last 15-20 years before wearing out of spec which is detected as a failure. Shutters last ~10 years of regular use.';

'>>4291099
>Lenses just project an acceptable image.
You are likely very inexperienced or potentially not very perceptive, or most likely both. Perhaps this isn't the hobby for you.';

'>>4291304
Absolute horseshit, there are plenty of EF lenses about well over 20 years old including those with IS. IBIS may wear out in that amount of time but who gives a shit about a 15 year old body.';

'>>4291306
>who gives a shit about a 15 year old body.
man i fucking hate this gay earth';

'>>4291273
I told my parents I'm just going to have their house demolished with everything inside after they die. I'm not spending 3 weeks of my life sorting through novelty cups and stacks of old copies of hunting magazines';

'>>4291305
It's true. A lens just projects an acceptable image. "rendering" "3d pop" "microcontrast" forum gearfaggotry terms are irrelevant. Most historically and artistically significant photographd were taken through lenses truly best described as "acceptable". All the BS like "depth rendering" was added by internet masturbators later. What they were actually seeing was skillful use of light, shadow, vignetting ,focus, and color (yes, color is part of depth illusions) on the part of better photographers than they.';

'>>4291243
Lol ikr? Im the same way. Rn im on the edge of spending 3 hundo on an F5 but I keep putting it off even tho its the best deal ive seen in a long while.';

'>>4291333
would you say that you've been edging?';

'>>4291334
oh yah! plenty of edging oh man';

'>>4291243
It’s not an expensive lens. That amount of money isn’t going to make a difference in your life. Just get it.';

'>>4291046
After wasting 1k on just buying films less than a half year, you'll be the dumbass.';

'Do the needful and shoot a mirrorful camera sir';

'>>4291043
I personally prefer the clarity and crispness of a optical viewfinder but then when i go to use an electronic viewfinder the clarity doesnt matter cause im reminded I get to see my exposure in real time and the magnification is so much better.';

'>>4291046
the cost of film keeps going up to the point that digital is the current affordable option lol. its almost $20 a roll for portra 800';

'>>4292173
>almost $20
>cries in scandi';

'>poor as fuck but saving for a starter camera
>canon sony and nikon starters are around the same price,
>i have my eyes on the z30 mirrorles or the canon dslr any advice?';

'>>4292495
Define price range, size tolerance, how important quality is to you, how important having lots of lenses to choose from is to you, and what you want pictures of';

'>>4292495
Canon all the way. Not because it's Canon, but because it's a DSLR. The Z30 isn't a real camera, it's more of a camera module. It doesn't even have a viewfinder!
My advice is if you're poor skip new cameras and get a higher end used one instead. Cameras like the EOS T7 are scameras meant to make you spend more in the long run.';

'>>4292503
Warning: This poster is not a photographer. He just pretends to be one because he thinks its funny. Ever read the xkcd comic about the fake expert and the grad students?';

'>>4292504
I'm a published photographer and you are a failed troll. Go pester someone else, ankle biter.';

'>>4292506
>I'm published!
>you're a failed troll!
At least I don't exploit grieving mothers of conscripts for profit and fame.';

'>>4292507
published photographer: 1
not published nonphotoposting nonphotographer: 0';

'>>4292507
I didn't exploit anyone, schizo.';

'>>4292506
Prove it';

'>>4291046
Why the fuck would I do that?';

'>>4292565
It's one of those things that can't be explained, only experienced and once you do it completely changes your perception of photography.';

'>>4292566
I was shooting Kodachrome thirty years ago -- Velvia 20 years ago. Batch slide scanners, the whole nine. Started transitioning to digital in 2004. Film is bullshit and belongs with all the other hipster analog nonsense.';

'>>4292567
>I was shooting Kodachrome thirty years ago
Post a single timestamped photo from the 90s';

'>>4292569
Lol. Everything from that era is in storage, miles from here, but I'll see what I can do. Would a page of slides work for you? I think there's a bunch of Velvia 120 in rolls too.';

'>>4292571
Would a page of slides work for you?
That would be even better.';

'>>4292567
damn you gotta be like at least 50 then';

'>>4292574
48. My first camera was a Yashica Electro-35 I inherited from a relative. Then a Minolta Maxxum 5000i, then a long series of Nikons, FE, FM, F4s. Used a Leica M6 for years, and a bunch of 6cm cameras including the Mamiya RB67. Print film, color reversal film, B&W, infrared... Some drum scanned, some imported on a LS-2000. I was using Photoshop before it had provisions for layers.

Point being, I've shot thousands of rolls of film. I get that for the younger generations it's retro and cool, but I'm just not the least bit nostalgic about it, nor do I think it has any appreciable technical benefits, certainly none that outweigh the cost and inconvenience.';

'>>4291248
Phew, just realized that I have virtually no need for such bokewhoring and spending the money would be fucking dumb.';

'this thread got me curious: to my best understanding, DSLRs had phase detection units under a mirror, and mirrorless have partially masked pixels on sensor for phase detection. Is this still the case in 2024? For example, say I buy some latest and greatest canon DSLR, and then I also buy latest and greatest canon mirrorless camera, will those two have different sensor designs? I can imagine how having a sensor full of pixels would bring some marginal benefit over having a sensor where some pixels are used for phase detection, but I find it hard to believe that any company would bother building entirely different sensor type just to keep DSLRs at peak performance';

'>>4292588
Well Canon and Nikon haven't made a DSLR in nearly 4 years, so a lot of the current mirrorless will have new sensors. Back when they were making them there could have been some commonality, for example people say the 90D and R7 have the same sensor, but I'm not sure. The DSLRs would be able to use the on sensor phase detect in live view and video so it wouldn't be a complete waste, but it's also an added cost that they could have done without.

As for which is better the on sensor phase detect of mirrorless is going to be more accurate and probably offer more points and wider coverage (depends on which specific models you're comparing of course) and probably better tracking too. Having a separate focus sensor assembly can potential result in them being more sensitive in lower light conditions as they can be larger, minus the light lost to the mirror.';

'>>4292588
>and mirrorless have partially masked pixels
Unless it's Canon which has DPAF (dual pixel AF) then they have some fully masked pixels
>I can imagine how having a sensor full of pixels would bring some marginal benefit over having a sensor where some pixels are used for phase detection, but I find it hard to believe that any company would bother building entirely different sensor type just to keep DSLRs at peak performance
With DPAF there's no sacrifice and in fact it came to DSLRs way before any mirrorless got it. Regular PDAF is another matter and would need checking the specsheets.
>>4292599
>phase detect of mirrorless is going to be more accurate and probably offer more points and wider coverage (depends on which specific models you're comparing of course)
Not always, because DSLR sensors have cross and double cross focus points.';

'>>4292617
Not true. All measurements indicate the following:
On sensor PDAF does not affect resolution. It CAN affect pattern noise and flare, but these are solved problems, only old poorfag cameras have them.
ALL DSLRs have less accurate autofocus than a mirrorless operating in its worse focus mode.';

'>>4292617
>Not always, because DSLR sensors have cross and double cross focus points.
I did say depending on the particular models, so not always, but I don't see how the type of points has any correlation to their amount or coverage. If we're comparing best to best then mirrorless can get you many thousands of points with 100% coverage, while DSLRs top out at a couple hundred points and probably 25-50% coverage focussed on the centre of the frame (I couldn't find an exact number from a quick search so just estimating).';

'>>4292624
its true, giga autist kasson tested it and his least favorite mirrorless (sony a7riii, focuses near wide open for speed over accuracy) was still more accurate than a properly adjusted d850.';

'>>4291928
Lmfao how many of your 70,000 photos a year are any good? maybe you should slow down hoss';

'>>4291099
>Bodies matter more than lenses
That’s like saying the car matters more than the tires. Without good tires, your supercar isn’t going to perform well unless you’re fine with doing burnouts in a parking lot.';

'>>4291043
dslr: old tech
mirrorless: new tech
if you're a seething and coping teenager just get a dslr and cope with "superior optical viewfinder, no AF point smear" or whatever else helps you not feel like the failure you are
otherwise just get a mirrorless. it's the current tech and has only upsides';

'>>4292843
put those tires on a shitty toyota and you're still a retard';

'>>4292843
That holds up if you’re buying a “supercar” body with very high resolution or high FPS that needs faster AF motors. But, I don’t think people buying $3000+ cameras like the R5, A7RV, and Z8 need lens shopping advice.

Your average camera will be just fine with anything you can fit to it. Just be smart and don’t pay extra for worse lenses.';

'>>4292846
>Just be smart and don’t pay extra for worse lenses.
but how else is he going to get a lens with SOUL and CHARACTER if not by overpaying for inferior glass?';

'>>4292845
>I have no idea what I am talking about
If offered a shitty toyota with good wet weather tires or a shitty toyota with shit tires in a downpour rain, which would you pick?
>inb4 a retard cop out response';

'>>4292854
you're still a retard simple as';

'>>4292854
Cameras are not cars. If you want to stretch into retard analogy territory, fine.

Racing at a high level = pixel peeping 200% zoom
driving to work at the speed limit, well rested and sober, maintaining a safe following distance and being wary around intersections and pedestrians = downsampling, prints, realistic viewing conditions';

'>>4292857
comparing car stats on /o/ while not having a driver's license = /p/';

'>>4292864
You mean while having a shitty VW and almost drifting off a cliff, and then you start talking about equivalence and boost';

'>>4292645
Point type affects accuracy';

'>>4292867
nah most /p/osters dont even have a camera';

'Simple as';

'>>4291043
Looking through the lens vs. looking at a fucking screen. I prefer the former.';

'>>4295270
You’re looking at the focusing screen';

'>>4295270
>looking at unrealistic representation of scene being captured
>guessing at exposure based on metering
vs
>exact representation of scene being captured
>exact exposure- what you see is what you get';

'>>4291209
>No idea about L mount
Sigma makes EF and SA adapters.
Leica makes R and M adapters.';

'>>4291273
>there is really no downside to keeping an artifact that sees little use
Be sure to check your ceilings, lest you lose them in the deluge.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4295317
The extension tube and the copper wiring are the only things in this photo that are still as useful as when you hoarded them.';

'>>4295321
I get good performance with the 16-35mm';

'>>4291206
>Provably wrong just because of something that is a lens artifact
kek

>>noooo it's impossible to keep an af point on a 5yo's eye after feeding him caffeine and crack
Fortunately for most subjects it's relatively simple, especially when you're using expanded/assist points.';

'>>4295867
>muh udontneedmore doesntmatter nooooo cope post when confronted with superior equipment thats out of his price range
DSLRs are worse than mirrorless in every single way and your shitty nikon z6 underperforming has little to do with that. Shoulda bought a canon r6ii or sony a7iv.';

'>>4295876
dslrs are better in the optical viewfinder department because mirrorleast have none ha chequemaet MORON :)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4295884
Mirrorless is superior in the EVF department because DSLRs don't have one

ha';

'>>4295892
Live view.
Ownid!!!!!!!!!!';

'>>4295893
The highest resolution display tops out at about 2.3mp, the best EVF is close to 10mp and most are between 3 and 6 and 2.6 is considered low end. Also the majority are OLED and 120Hz.

ownd';

'>>4295897
And how does that compare to the resolution of the OVF?';

'>>4295907
What’s the mtf curve of your mirror fresnel prism loupe path aka ovf. Also stops of light loss?

Can’t be better than 4k sensor readout';

'pick two cameras from similar price points, one mirrorless one dslr
google a comparison between them and decide which features you feel you would need more, thats it.';

'>>4295897
yeah well can a mirrorless camera do this????';

'>>4296131
Can a DSLR do this?

https://youtu.be/_ZXFI-eIXk8?si=DZmQ4QqugNOIWlvS';

'>>4296142
>a sony user snapshits at 30fps with no blackout
truly wingogrand died too soon';

'>>4296142
yeah lmao';

'>>4296146
With the Canon 1DC you literally can because of the MJPG video codec.';

'>>4296146
Rekt, kek
>>4296148
Or with any EOS that can record MLV';

'>>4291043
it's 2024, no reason to consider DSLR anymore.';

'>>4296769
except they are better in almost every single way';

'notice its always the nophotos on team DSLR

DSLRs are good cheap beginners cameras but if you can afford something better, don't hold back

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296778
I hope your shitty little dog gets ran over';

'>>4296772
This desu';

'>>4296780
>le angry posting
Automatic L

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296772
>battery life
>cheap
>OVF - personal preference, has good and bad points
Anything else I'm missing? Basically DSLRs are for poorfag snapshitters';

'>>4296772
yeah and Nokia 3310 is better than an iPhone 16';

'>>4296787
>off sensor PDAF
>true dof preview
>less cluttered menus
>better ergonomics
>lenses are not focus by wire
probably more I'm forgetting but that's just off the top of my head in addition to the things you said';

'>>4296789
>off sensor PDAF
No one has ever measured a disadvantage to on-sensor PDAF, but off sensor PDAF is strongly associated with less accurate autofocus.
>true DOF preview
This is a firmware feature - arguably more useful on mirrorless because you probably cant see shit through an OVF at f/11.
>better ergonomics
Debatable. I think it ranges from DSLRs being worse to DSLRs being the same.
>lenses are not focus by wire
Most DSLR lenses are. Many MILC lenses are not.';

'>>4296790
This is so wrong I don't even know where to start
>>4296787
EVIL is cheaper than DSLR';

'>>4296799
Post photos tripfag';

'>>4296789
>off sensor PDAF
Less accurate, fewer points, less coverage
>true dof preview
I don't know what could be more true than seeing the exact depth of field as the image is projected on the sensor and being able to zoom in on that image, compared with looking at a small approximation from a projection of a focusing screen. Also have fun holding the button down and trying to make anything out with your dim view';

'>>4296820
The dimmest thing here are the 12 inches behind your camera';

'>>4296820
Maybe u shud try to use a dslr outside of ur musky goon cave with a single philips hue rog strix gaming rgb LED strip stuck behind your monitor as a single source of illumination for your entire room

>inb4 "thats why i use mirrorless"
>mirrorless confirmed sexual predator equipment for deviants and freaks
>Inb4 "i dont even have a camera"

Dont reply to me i gotta sleep goodnight

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4296799
>>4296822
>>4296827
Post photo';

'>>4296840
Sure.';

'>>4291043
how does SLR manage to mog both

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4291043
>mirrorless is compact
lol, lmao

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4291043
dslr were really fun to use. i love looking through glass, especially the lens, rather than at a tiny screen.';

'the pen f had a mirror that sat sideways and the camera was compact as fuck. it would be really cool to have a digital camera that did something like this. (D)SLR viewfinders are satisfying to look through and fun to shoot';

'>>4301644
bonus points if it has a mechanical shutter operated by a film-camera-like winding lever';

'>>4301641
You do realise an EVF also looks through the lens? Also the largest optical viewfinder I could find is 0.76x magnification, most EVFs on full frame bodies are that or greater up to 0.9x.';

'>>4301644
Panasonic L1 and Olympus E330';

'>>4298054
No circuit boards card slots battery ibis etc

>>4299051
>soft as fuck lens is smaller than sharp lens
Now compare rf 28mm f2.8 to ef 28mm. Compare zooms.';

'>>4296769
I'd you're a professional, or a schizo hobbyist who throws tons of money into it all yea mirrorless is the way, otherwise I'll stick with my d60 and d7000 and my 300mm and 500mm lens for taking pictures of birds and raccoons.

In todays world, and the rate ar which technology for cameras is going we are in the stage of what tablets, smart phones and video cards , etc are going through, rapid small incremental changes that don't mean fuck all to the average user because the technology has pretty much plateaued.

The next step in camera technology is just making them smaller and more durable and battery tech. Like power tools. That's when I'll consider replacing my boomer cameras.';

'>>4301661
DSLRs are so miserable ill take being called a schizo by some poorfag over using that crap
>every dslr ever: minolta maxxum but not film
Worst of all worlds.';

'>>4301662
>The dim hazy focusing screen of an AF SLR
>twice the size because dinosaur electronics
>blob styling from trying to cram in even more dinosaur electronics that no one actually asked for
>most dont even have tilting screens, requiring "the embarrassing-tryhard-tourist squat" for composition
yeah there's a reason phones killed these shits
>THE LENS ON FF MIRRORLESS STILL STICKS OUT THO!
yes, if you are a pixel peeper gearfag who "needed" the "sharp" one.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

'>>4301651
>You do realise an EVF also looks through the lens?
no i had no idea thanks for clearing that up 4chan anon';

'>>4301662
I'm not poor, I'm just not buying into the clear path that camera company's are going through right now. The technology has been around for the mainstream for about five years and it was a meme before then and it has peaked already, which means there's going to be a big leap soon which will take the technology for the long haul again.

Smart phones took that leap finally when even the most sub par phone is better than a flag ship from five years ago.';

'>>4301668
Phones are stuck in the HDR/sharpening ken rockwell hole that only normoids think looks good
>no i meant this obscure chinese android phone with a 1" sensor
Mirrorless is just way better than DSLRs at this point. Chuck a 40mm or 24mm on an a7iii, beats any DSLR any day for about the same amount of money it costs to buy a post-"plateau" DSLR (there was no plateau unless you exclusively look at charts of the SNR of downscaled photos of lens caps)';

'>>4301689
I'm not talking about the cameras anon... I'm talking about the overall technology that is the smart phone.

And DSLRs did peak, hence why Canon and Nikon still make the exact same model and won't stop until mirrorless gets its next big leap forward.';

'>>4301693
>The overall technology
Taking simultaneous exposures through quad bayer to produce smeary looking shit and go "WOW, NO NOISE, SO MUCH DR", yeah no it looks like shit. I prefer real photographs. Even film > phones.

>DSLRs did peak
Because you exclusively look at noise charts and not the overall capability package.';

'>>4301695
Stop this.';

'>>4301698
Nah. I've actually used both, not just looked at charts. I will take an a7iii over a d750 any day. Yeah sure, noise is the same. Everything else is better, and equally good lenses are normally smaller on mirrorless.';

'>>4291051
show me a dslr that has evf which shows focus peaking and exposure simulation';

'>>4301699
No. Stop nerding out over cameras. The whole point of what I said went right over your head.';

'>>4301703
What's your point again? If you use a giant ugly blob it takes a similar picture with some more bullshit in the process?

I will take an a7iii over "the best DSLR ever" any day.';

'>>4301706
Mirrorless cameras coming out are cash cows with the exception of the top of the line models.

Once those top of the line models get out matched and the technology becomes common place for the entry levels that's when it's time to make the final switch from DSLR to mirrorless.

Like I said, tablets and smart phones went through this phase a few years ago. Now even a budget tablet can do what a top of the line was doing five years ago.';

'>>4301711
So the big deal for you is.... you can't afford a brand new one? Sorry bud this just makes no sense. Besides, this is the 2020s and beyond, entry level gear will never be allowed to be good again. Just buy a flagship from 5 years ago like a normal person.';

'>>4301714
No, what I'm saying is that entry level are over priced for what they are.

Like I said earlier, personally I don't have a need for a good camera. My d7000 is good enough for me.
Don't fall for consumerism or be a wise consumerist.';

'>>4301717
The entire point of entry level is and always has been to be a scam. In capitalism, it exists to drive consumers towards a more expensive product and get retards to basically pay for the same service several times. It only gets better if you're going full boomer and saying
>back in my day this woulda been ten grand
Until you find out it's only that good for like 3 years then it breaks

Buy twice cry twice. More accurate AF, better everything are also nice. As long as it lasts 10 years I get my moneys worth.';

'>>4301718
In three years mid and entry level cameras will be thr same tech as top cameras right now. And it will peak in technology. You watch.';

'>>4301723
Cameras are a mature technology. They're already very much figured out. The market is specialists who already know what they want.

Inflation will continue, and so will the cost cutting and market stratification scams. Impressive new tech will only reach $5000+ bodies. Maybe 10 years from now, a slightly above entry level camera might support C2PA (an arbitrary firmware decision) and the second rate prosumer bodies will get mediocre global shutter sensors.';

'>>4291050
>Great lens selection

Nice bait.';

'>>4301890
Pretty much any lens you can use on a DSLR you can use on a mirrorless body, plus all the native lenses';