Support NeoGAF

[jstripes]

OK, so, my current camera (a Nikon D40x DSLR) is seriously showing its age. It's horrible in low light, and I want something new bundled with a a stabilized lens. (I have unsteady hands, unfortunately.)

I'm having a horrible time deciding on what I want in a new camera. For my price range, I'm looking at two cameras: A Nikon D3100 (DSLR), or Sony α NEX-5R (Mirrorless).

Nikon DSLR points:
- I love using a viewfinder sometimes. It feels more intimate than an LCD screen.
- There's the existing ecosystem of lenses, and I have a few already.
- It's pretty damn big. No bigger than what I already have, but that's still biggish.

NEX-5R Mirrorless points:
- It's much smaller. One of the reasons I don't bring my DSLR with me so many places is because it's big and clunky and I don't feel like carrying it around.
- It apparently has built-in WiFi and can send photos straight to my iPhone.
- The UI is kinda annoying.

(Yes, my examples are kind of pointed towards specific models, but I'm also interested in DSLR vs Mirrorless in general, from people with experience.)

 

[entremet]

For hobbyist, I just think DSLRs are way too bulky as you mention. I've just seen so many people have their DSLR collect dust after the initial enthusiasm died down.

 

[KillGore]

Bought a NEX-3N and I'm loving it. I don't think the UI is bad, it could be better though. The size is what really matters. If you're worried about size as well, it seems the NEX 5 is the real answer. Wish I could've bought the NEX 5 but I'm only starting to use these types of cameras so it was best to start with something simpler/cheaper

 

[luoapp]

I genuinely believe a so-called enthusiast compact is enough for most people, even if you were attracted by mirrorless or dslr at first. Read some reviews of sony rx100 or rx100-ii if you haven't.

 

[aerts1js]

I love my Nex. It's small and pretty much the perfect camera to travel with and it takes some pretty great shots.


Bee by aerts1js, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[jstripes]

I genuinely believe a so-called enthusiast compact is enough for most people, even if you were attracted by mirrorless or dslr at first. Read some reviews of sony rx100 or rx100-ii if you haven't.

Nah, compacts aren't for me. I like fiddling with the controls when needed, and I love the quality offered by a large sensor.

When I need a quick photo from a small camera, I have my iPhone.

 

[Laguna X]

You can always purchase a viewfinder for the NEX if it is that important to you.

 

[BUNTING1243]

I don't know, I just like the versatility of a DSLR, size be damned. Why Nikon over Canon?

 

[jstripes]

I don't know, I just like the versatility of a DSLR, size be damned. Why Nikon over Canon?

My grandpa had Nikon, my dad has Nikon, I've had Nikon. (I have two film Nikons, which admittedly never get used these days, and one digital.) So, it's a name I trust.

Anyway, if I had the money, I'd buy DSLR and mirrorless, but that's not an option.

 

[f0lken]

Why not the best of both worlds? The Full Frame Sony A7 o A7R

 

[vivftp]

Would the newer Sony Alpha 6000 put you well outside your budget range? From everything I've heard about it and seen on Youtube videos, it seems like an amazing option.

I have the RX-100 and love it to death. I personally don't need anything more than that for my own uses, but if I were shopping around for something a bit better then the Alpha 6000 is probably where I'd be looking.


EDIT

Why not the best of both worlds? The Full Frame Sony A7 o A7R

*cough*price*cough*

 

[DERF]

I'm partial to M43 myself.

 

[diaspora]

Once you throw a standard or tele zoom lens on a mirrorless camera, the size advantages starts to diminish quickly. Instead, try both of them out at a camera shop and go with the one that's simply more comfortable to use.

 

[jstripes]

(For the record, my price is <$400 CDN.)

 

[f0lken]

Would the newer Sony Alpha 6000 put you well outside your budget range? From everything I've heard about it and seen on Youtube videos, it seems like an amazing option.

I have the RX-100 and love it to death. I personally don't need anything more than that for my own uses, but if I were shopping around for something a bit better then the Alpha 6000 is probably where I'd be looking.


EDIT



*cough*price*cough*

well yes

i'd say then go for a DSLR, as someone already said, one you start adding lenses (and you will) the size advantage of the mirrorless matters less and less

 

[zeopower6]

Got a NEX-3N here with the kit lens and a 50mm 1.8~

I love itttt!

I got my 3N used for about 300 or so.

 

[345triangle]

don't get a DSLR unless you're planning to spend over $3000 all-in. entry-level models make no sense for anyone &#8212; the viewfinders are tiny, live view sucks, and they're super bulky with no image quality advantage over mirrorless. the SLR is an antiquated design that was an amazing innovation for film cameras but is now largely an anachronism for digital.

mirrorless cameras are easy to use and usually offer equal-or-better image quality than APS-C DSLRs. and at this point, the advantages of electronic viewfinders more than outweigh the disadvantages.

the only areas where mirrorless hasn't caught up is in pro-level use cases like sports and fashion photography, mostly because the ones with good enough image quality don't have good enough autofocus/speed and vice versa.

 

[Baci]

I'm selling my Nex-5N now with 16-50mm kit lens.
I'm asking $380.00 Canadian.
Anyone interested PM me.

But I would go mirror-less(ML). There are so many benefit and few drawbacks.
If you really want the usability of more adjustment dials and a larger grip and an optical viewfinder then a DSLR might be for you.

If you really want to have a camera that can do all the things a DSLR can do but small enough that you can pretty much take it anywhere then a ML might be for you.

I have 2 ML cameras for my general purpose photography, but also have a Nikon full frame camera for my more pro work.

 

[vivftp]

(For the record, my price is <$400 CDN.)

Just out of curiousity, if you do decide to go with the NEX do you think at a later time you'd shell out extra $$$ for a viewfinder attachment? I've heard they can be pricey and a quick look on the Sony Canada website shows one at a price of $399. Dunno if they have any cheaper ones that'd work.

Might be worth taking into consideration if you really like shooting with a viewfinder rather than the screen. A camera like the Alpha 6000 would require a larger investment on its own, but it's basically the same price as the camera + viewfinder if you ever plan to buy it. And of course it has its own build in viewfinder.

 

[Husker86]

Bought a NEX-3N and I'm loving it. I don't think the UI is bad, it could be better though. The size is what really matters. If you're worried about size as well, it seems the NEX 5 is the real answer. Wish I could've bought the NEX 5 but I'm only starting to use these types of cameras so it was best to start with something simpler/cheaper

Just got a NEX-3N a month ago. I did a lot of research between DSLRs and Compact Interchangeable Lense cameras and eventually settled on that.

It was my first "real" camera so I didn't want to go too crazy. I'm really happy with it so far.

 

[jstripes]

Just out of curiousity, if you do decide to go with the NEX do you think at a later time you'd shell out extra $$$ for a viewfinder attachment? I've heard they can be pricey and a quick look on the Sony Canada website shows one at a price of $399. Dunno if they have any cheaper ones that'd work.

Might be worth taking into consideration if you really like shooting with a viewfinder rather than the screen. A camera like the Alpha 6000 would require a larger investment on its own, but it's basically the same price as the camera + viewfinder if you ever plan to buy it. And of course it has its own build in viewfinder.

Nah, I wouldn't go to that expense for a viewfinder. It's nice to use at night when an LCD would put your night vision out of whack, but I could always bring out my old DSLR (on a tripod) for those occasions.

 

[sweetvar26]

Sony has been nailing on cameras recently, be it the RX100, RX10, RX1 and the A7.

Quite expensive on each of their fronts, yes but I think they are worth it. Different price points for everyones needs.

 

[East Lake]

don't get a DSLR unless you're planning to spend over $3000 all-in. entry-level models make no sense for anyone — the viewfinders are tiny, live view sucks, and they're super bulky with no image quality advantage over mirrorless. the SLR is an antiquated design that was an amazing innovation for film cameras but is now largely an anachronism for digital.

mirrorless cameras are easy to use and usually offer equal-or-better image quality than APS-C DSLRs. and at this point, the advantages of electronic viewfinders more than outweigh the disadvantages.

the only areas where mirrorless hasn't caught up is in pro-level use cases like sports and fashion photography, mostly because the ones with good enough image quality don't have good enough autofocus/speed and vice versa.

This is a bit too one sided don't you think? What mirrorless system doesn't sacrifice something in exchange for its small size?

 

[RuGalz]

It just depends on what you typically shoot. If you use long lens or do action shots, mirrorless have no advantage. Otherwise, mirrorless can be good. You already have glasses. Keep DSLR for when DSLRs are good for. Get mirrorless for when you only need wide to normal lenses. Use the right tool for the right job.

Besides OVF vs EVF, the battery life for mirrorless are so crappy due to more electronics to power and smaller size body/battery it kind of annoys me.

 

[AJLma]

I've been in the market for a above-average quality camera and just did a ton of research about this exact subject. More specifically I've been looking at the Sony NEX-3N, the Pentax K-500 and the Nikon D3200.

All can be had new with all you need to start shooting for about $350-$450.

What I found(read) was that the NEX-3N and other mirrorless cameras were very feature limited compared to the dSLR's. They also performed slower, had slightly worse photo quality plus a few other negatives that I can't recall. Is this not true?

EDIT: I'm asking because I literally JUST dropped $370 on the K-500 with a 16GB memory card about 10 minutes ago, lol. So if I can save $50-$100 more by canceling the order, I might consider going with the 3N.

 

[Daria]

don't get a DSLR unless you're planning to spend over $3000 all-in. entry-level models make no sense for anyone — the viewfinders are tiny, live view sucks, and they're super bulky with no image quality advantage over mirrorless. the SLR is an antiquated design that was an amazing innovation for film cameras but is now largely an anachronism for digital.

mirrorless cameras are easy to use and usually offer equal-or-better image quality than APS-C DSLRs. and at this point, the advantages of electronic viewfinders more than outweigh the disadvantages.

the only areas where mirrorless hasn't caught up is in pro-level use cases like sports and fashion photography, mostly because the ones with good enough image quality don't have good enough autofocus/speed and vice versa.

you can get so many great DSLRs for under $3k. unless you're shooting sports or professionally, there is no point in spending that much and anything over $1k will be a waste.

first off, don't just look at the megapixels and make a judgement call on that. they rarely mean anything nowadays unless you plan on doing giant prints. do you want used or new? canon or nikon?

Used Canon: 5D Classic (full-frame) and a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Professional body (top LCD screen) but no video. This whole combo can be had for <$900.

If you want more a bigger and more pro body that shoots faster frames, go for a 1D Mark II and newer. If you want to shoot video, go for a 5D Mark II or newer. If you want to go cheaper with a still pro body but just for stills, get a 40D (can be had used with low shutter count for <~$300).

Used Nikon: D90 and Sigma/Nikon 50mm f/1.4.
New Nikon: A good pro body: D7000 with a zoom lens. <$1k brand new.

 

[dhlt25]

Def. get a mirrorless at this point. As a long time DSLR user I'd switch to mirrorless in a heartbeat if possible, the size advantage is huge especially if you like to bring your camera everywhere and into street photography. Electronic view finder is getting to a point where it's at parity with optical view finder on cropped body for me.

 

[diaspora]

Def. get a mirrorless at this point. As a long time DSLR user I'd switch to mirrorless in a heartbeat if possible, the size advantage is huge especially if you like to bring your camera everywhere and into street photography. Electronic view finder is getting to a point where it's at parity with optical view finder on cropped body for me.

Having used the a6000 and A7 series this morning I hugely disagree.

 

[345triangle]

you can get so many great DSLRs for under $3k. unless you're shooting sports or professionally, there is no point in spending that much and anything over $1k will be a waste.

of course you can get great DSLRs for under $3000 &#8212; i'm saying that there are more sensible options in the same price range for most people. you really think a D7000 makes more sense for someone's first camera than an E-M10/X-M1/NEX-5N/etc? that thing's a hulking dinosaur, and the image quality is more or less identical.

This is a bit too one sided don't you think? What mirrorless system doesn't sacrifice something in exchange for its small size?

well, they pretty much all sacrifice constant phase detection autofocus and an optical viewfinder, of course. my argument is that those two things are not important to the vast majority of normal people, and that mirrorless benefits are too huge to ignore. EVFs/live view are how people take photos these days, and mirrorless autofocus has caught up to the point where it's fine for everything except sports.

mirrorless cameras just don't sell in the US because people have the idea that bigger is better.

Having used the a6000 and A7 series this morning I hugely disagree.

try the fuji X-T1 first.

EVF still doesn't look like OVF and never really will, but the benefits are still huge.

 

[diaspora]

try the fuji X-T1 first.

I did days ago, still not particularly good.

 

[345triangle]

I did days ago, still not particularly good.

if by "good" you mean reflects the dynamic range of daytime reality itself, i agree, it's not great &#8212; and it'll take a long time before EVFs catch up there. but in terms of accurately representing the exposure of the photo that you're actually going to take, or helping you see in low light, or assisting in manual focus, it blows away every optical viewfinder ever made. even just being able to view the photo you've captured without taking your eye away is a massive feature.

i think OVFs are more pleasant to look through, but EVFs are far more useful at this point.

 

[diaspora]

if by "good" you mean reflects the dynamic range of daytime reality itself, i agree, it's not great — and it'll take a long time before EVFs catch up there. but in terms of accurately representing the exposure of the photo that you're actually going to take, or helping you see in low light, it blows away every optical viewfinder ever made.

i think OVFs are more pleasant to look through, but EVFs are far more useful at this point.

If by that you mean lags like a motherfucker, sure.

 

[345triangle]

If by that you mean lags like a motherfucker, sure.

the refresh rate drops a bit, sure, but dude, the thing lets you see in the dark. it's sure going to get you further than any optical finder would in that situation.

and you don't think the other stated benefits count for anything?

 

[diaspora]

the refresh rate drops a bit, sure, but dude, the thing lets you see in the dark. it's sure going to get you further than any optical finder would in that situation.

My eyes can see in the dark too, through the OVF. And the refresh rate visibly tanks.

and you don't think the other stated benefits count for anything?

No.

 

[kronose]

I'm no professional photographer by any means, but we did a lot of research and bought a Sony Nex 6, for just under $500. Its basically new, hardly used and in mint condition (I'll see when it comes in the mail). So I hope it was a good buy and seems to be. Excited at the quality of pictures I saw this camera could take, considering we only want to use it for traveling pictures, and when we have kids coming up this next year for taking good stills and everyday shots. Anyone have a Nex 6??

 

[dhlt25]

if by "good" you mean reflects the dynamic range of daytime reality itself, i agree, it's not great — and it'll take a long time before EVFs catch up there. but in terms of accurately representing the exposure of the photo that you're actually going to take, or helping you see in low light, or assisting in manual focus, it blows away every optical viewfinder ever made. even just being able to view the photo you've captured without taking your eye away is a massive feature.

i think OVFs are more pleasant to look through, but EVFs are far more useful at this point.

thank you for putting it in words better than I could have. Manual focus on bright lens is really challenging with cropped DSLR especially nikon one, the focus confirmation dot is inferior to the focus peaking that mirrorless has. The only time OVF is better for me is when I use it on full frame

 

[mrklaw]

I've had both, and bounced back and forth a few times. Currently have a DSLR.

I tried a NEX-5 when they first came out for the size, but I missed the viewfinder too much. The rest of it was pretty great, especially after the firmware update to make the UI more flexible.

Next I tried a m4/3 - specifically the G3. Liked this a lot - DSLR like chassis but smaller overall volume. EVF was fantastic, definitely on par with OVFs and even better in some situations like size of view. But I found the lens range a little limiting, and once you had a zoom lens on a lot of the benefits of size started to be reduced.

So now I'm back with a canon 700d. Overall volume is bigger, and it is heavier. and the OVF is small, and not fantastically bright - but then I can't justify the cost of something like a 5D. But it just feels 'right'. Fits in the hand nicely, has a great range of lenses from both canon and 3rd parties, plus I don't feel like I'm compromising for the sake of size.

By that I mean that I almost felt guilty having a zoom lens on the NEX or G3. The sweet spot for mirrorless - to me at least - seems to be something like a NEX or Panasonic GF, or Olympus Pen, with a nice fixed length pancake lens. If that is something that would fit your shooting style, then I'd definitely recommend trying it.

 

[Ty4on]

EDIT: I'm asking because I literally JUST dropped $370 on the K-500 with a 16GB memory card about 10 minutes ago, lol. So if I can save $50-$100 more by canceling the order, I might consider going with the 3N.

The K500 has some strange features missing like accelerometer so it won't rotate images automatically and only comes with a holder for AA batteries, but for a budget DSLR it has a 100% viewfinder and dual control dials. The K50 is the same camera, but with a lithium battery (you can buy the AA adapter separately), an accelerometer, weather sealing (WR kit lens is also sealed) and a million colors if that is worth it for you.

K500 looks awesome for the price worth almost all of the K50s features.

 

[verbum]

By that I mean that I almost felt guilty having a zoom lens on the NEX or G3. The sweet spot for mirrorless - to me at least - seems to be something like a NEX or Panasonic GF, or Olympus Pen, with a nice fixed length pancake lens. If that is something that would fit your shooting style, then I'd definitely recommend trying it.

As you say, a mirrorless with a pancake lens is perfect for getting random shots while traveling, hiking, or just walking around. A nice small package.
For setups where you know what you will be shooting, I'd go with a DSLR.
I would check out ebay,etc for used Nikon DSLR's. It seems a lot of folks are switching to the mirrorless and are selling the big camera.

 

[elfinke]

Went through a similar set of decision making last year. Ended up buying a Pentax K30 (would have bought the outgoing Sony SLT-A57 but I couldn't find one for cheap at the time) - best decision ever. Stabilisation is in the body and not the lens, which may or may not be of benefit to you. I've used it at car races, sporting events, new years' fireworks, astrophotography, birthdays, formal functions, while gardening or mucking around in the yard and many other events: it's a fucking great little thing that isn't a huge, full frame thing that looks ridiculous on most people. The K30 is also capable of far better than I can give it (I'm often too shy or modest to take it and use it!)

I too was considering a NEX system (the 5R or N, if I recall correctly), but I was able to have a go with one with a kit lens and didn't like it much. Didn't fit in my hand comfortably, the weight balance was off due to not having a viewfinder to provide a third support for balance (hand on body, hand on lens, eyes on viewfinder). However it was otherwise a fantastic bit of kit.

Since added a Sony RX100 to the mix and now I'm set to take any photo in any situation I'll ever find myself in. Perfect setup, I think.

Not sure if that helps clarify your thoughts at all, OP. The only advice I can give is don't agonise over the decision too much - it's not worth it

 

[zomgbbqftw]

If you don't mind saving a bit longer and waiting, in your place I would get the A6000.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I8BICB2/?tag=neogaf0e-20

It is probably the best mirrorless camera available on the market, and the E-mount lens ecosystem is maturing quite nicely now. Combines size, an EVF, superb sensor and a solid lens line up into a relatively decent price. Plus with Sony you get access to Zeiss lenses and a whole bunch of second hand lenses that can be used with cheap $20 adapters from ebay.

I am a firm believer in "you get what you pay for" in your price range you will get a headache inducing pentamirror OVF in the Nikon and a massive body while the best lenses will not be available because they are reserved for full frame. For DSLR, it is full frame or don't bother. Even the 7D was justifiable at one point, but not any more. If you are going with a cropped sensor a DSLR doesn't make sense.

 

[GlamFM]

I own a D800, 24-70Nikkor and the 35mm Sigma.

I never use it - especially since I have a child. Too big, too heavy etc...

Picket up the FUJI XT-1 last week.

I´m selling my D800...

 

[Ty4on]

Edit: ^^^^^^^ME ME ME! I want that full frame goodness for shooting at night

Spoiler

I just cry a bit inside when I look at full frame lens prices...

Went through a similar set of decision making last year. Ended up buying a Pentax K30 (would have bought the outgoing Sony SLT-A57 but I couldn't find one for cheap at the time) - best decision ever. Stabilisation is in the body and not the lens, which may or may not be of benefit to you. I've used it at car races, sporting events, new years' fireworks, astrophotography, birthdays, formal functions, while gardening or mucking around in the yard and many other events: it's a fucking great little thing that isn't a huge, full frame thing that looks ridiculous on most people. The K30 is also capable of far better than I can give it (I'm often too shy or modest to take it and use it!)

Did you get an orange one?

I wish those colors were more accepted in public so I could go for a beige K50.

I wonder why the A77 hasn't been mentioned yet. It's as big as a DSLR, but the mirror is only used for phase detect focus and doesn't move because it's transparent. The result is a 12fps burst, an electronic viewfinder that will tell you how level you are, what the exposure and DOF is, face detection and phase detect autofocus at the same time so you don't have to recompose when shooting portraits and insanely good autofocus when shooting video.

One of the kit lenses is also weather sealed (like the body) and has a constant f2.8. It still has the same downsides as other mirrorless cameras, but especially for portraits it sounds awesome with the autofocus. Pentax and Sony both use in body stabilization as well and Sony has a clever autofocus clutch that gives full time manual autofocus on ancient screw drive lenses.

 

[elfinke]

Did you get an orange one?

I wish those colors were more accepted in public so I could go for a beige K50.

Haha, I wish those colours had been available here in Australia when I went shopping! Only the blue, red and black were around and the red/blue ones carried a hefty price premium. So I had to settle for a black one

 

[Ty4on]

Haha, I wish those colours had been available here in Australia when I went shopping! Only the blue, red and black were around and the red/blue ones carried a hefty price premium. So I had to settle for a black one

I thought it was like that with the K50 as I live in northern Europe, but then I saw that the stored said you could make one on Pentax' site and enter the product code in your order and just had to wait for some weeks. I then realized I'd rather want a boring, black DSLR than for everyone to look at me when I took it up...
Red and white are available for the same price as black with no extra waiting time and a matching kit lens.

 

[Maninthemirror]

If you don't mind saving a bit longer and waiting, in your place I would get the A6000.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I8BICB2/?tag=neogaf0e-20

It is probably the best mirrorless camera available on the market, and the E-mount lens ecosystem is maturing quite nicely now. Combines size, an EVF, superb sensor and a solid lens line up into a relatively decent price. Plus with Sony you get access to Zeiss lenses and a whole bunch of second hand lenses that can be used with cheap $20 adapters from ebay.

I am a firm believer in "you get what you pay for" in your price range you will get a headache inducing pentamirror OVF in the Nikon and a massive body while the best lenses will not be available because they are reserved for full frame. For DSLR, it is full frame or don't bother. Even the 7D was justifiable at one point, but not any more. If you are going with a cropped sensor a DSLR doesn't make sense.

Did you get an advanced copy because it says its not even out yet

 

[John Kowalski]

a real man would buy a miranda sensormat

 

[thesoapster]

Some of the mirrorless cameras have OVF, but some really do have good EVF included now (like Fujifilm). Sensors in the nicer DSLRs do tend to be better in a few circumstances and still have better autofocus (especially if the subject is in motion...mirrorless tend to lock focus, exposure etc.). Honestly, though, if I was buying a camera now I'd probably Get a Fujifilm X-E2 (I have been using a Canon 50D now for a few years and had a cheaper DSLR before that). The size can make all the difference. And really, I want a full frame DSLR at some point, but the sensor in that Fuji is better than the one in my Canon. The Canon still takes great shots.

 

[Sickbean]

I'm thinking of splitting the difference and getting a Sony RX10 -

I'm no pro photographer, if I bought a DSLR I'd likely never buy any more lenses, so I'm thinking this will do me for any situation where I want something better than a smartphone pic.

 

[HappyBivouac]

I love my NEX-5N. I'm just a hobbyist. I shoot for fun. It's still a very capable camera though and the thing never collects dust because it's so easy to take wherever I go. That's the reason I bought it over a bulky dslr. I just simply wouldn't want to carry that thing places.