It’s been common knowledge for a while now that Mirrorless is the WAVE OF THE FUTURE. This culminated a few months back when Canon announced that they were discontinuing DSLR production.
So the question is; should you buy a Mirrorless Camera? The reality is, is that it is your money so it’s not really my place to tell you what to spend it on but here is what I’ve been experiencing.
With everyone jumping ship to Mirrorless I found myself in a position to buy a Canon 5D mkIII refurbished with low shutter count for a song. I’m so satisfied with my 5D3 that I’m hard pressed to justify jumping to mirrorless (there’s a caveat) but I have been looking.
So what would seem to be a logical pivot for me would be the Canon R5 as those appear to be the mirrorless equivalent of the 5D line.
The R5 is a $3400 investment* just for the body not including the RF-EF adapter. (*brand new, used prices are maybe $200 less) or any new RF mount lenses.
There are some functions and upgrades that might make the R5 seem attractive but with all things in engineering, its a game of balancing compromises.
At 45MP the Full Frame sensor is about 2x my 5D3’s sensor resolution (5D is also a full frame camera). This becomes relevant if I want to make prints. Currently I max out at 16×20-ish (no zooming or cropping, which I try to avoid having to do that anyway, my goal is to get composition right in camera) if I want to maintain 300dpi. Note that there is wiggle room here if I’m willing to make compromises on resolution, recognizing that some prints; especially large ones, aren’t gonna be viewed up close.
A 45MP sensor would allow me to make larger prints at 300dpi (If I understand correctly) but the files are also larger and may take more time to write to the camera card. This also means you need strong enough processors in your computers as well as robust data storage to handle these files. ($3400)
If I didn’t care about making prints (which I do care) at that high a resolution there’s no point for me to upgrade. The 5D3’s 22mp sensor is really good. A marked improvement of APS-C sensors I’ve used in the past.
Okay so; the RF has a faster and more accurate AF and subject/eye tracking. That might have merit but is it worth $3400? Or maybe I could get better at focusing? Or do a deep dive in the different AF modes on my 5D3 (which I have done).
Faster FPS on continuous shooting. I don’t shoot sports so this is moot to me ($3400).
8K video. How many people here have 8K TVs? 8K Computer Monitors? Or are you watching YouTube on your phone? ($3400) Honestly I’d rather have a dedicated video camera anyway.
Okay I think I might be willing to concede that mirrorless is lighter weight and less bulky, but I put battery grips on my DSLRs and I’ve never once lamented how heavy they were. Maybe I don’t know what I don’t know. ($3400) I once lugged a bulky Sinar 4×5 film camera and tripod down a muddy embankment to take a picture of graffiti. You do what you gotta do.
I watched an accomplished photographer get frustrated with a Mirrorless Camera because the ISO he wanted to shoot on was not sensitive enough to pickup the modeling lights on his strobes to project onto the virtual viewfinder. He would have had to bump his ISO way up, then compose his image, pull focus and then lower the ISO back down. For shoots requiring quick thinking and problem solving, this is a a clunky way to work. Perhaps there is a better antidote for this but time didn’t allow the photographer to research this so he ultimately pivoted back to a DSLR. This ultimately killed any interest I had in Mirrorless Full Frame Cameras. Have I mentioned that the R5 is $3400 yet?
This is by no means a dig at those that have invested in mirrorless. If there was a perceived upgrade and you can justify the purchase; or if you never lived in the SLR or DSLR world for many years; like a lot of us have, then you are a lucky maverick/early adopter.
If I were just getting started out as a professional (I’m still a student) and wasn’t already invested in an ecosystem, then Pro level mirrorless might make sense (actually watching DSLRs become more affordable as everyone jumps ship to mirrorless has made me a very happy college student).
But I’ve been getting straight A’s with an 11 year old camera body that wasn’t $3400.
(So here’s the caveat) Another thing I don’t see anyone talking about when having the DSLR vs Mirrorless debate; is how “affordable” medium format digital cameras are becoming on the used market (my favorite market). While everyone goes all in on Mirrorless, no one seems to be talking about Hasselblad or the Fuji GFX100 (both also mirrorless). To really justify investing in a new ecosystem; In my opinion, I want to see an actual tangible upgrade. For me that means a larger sensor size with equipment that’s been vetted out for a few years now. (The Hasselblad X1D came out in 2016 and was updated to the MKII in 2019)
This potential is more out of curiosity and possibly a little bit of FOMO; which I admit is not the most logical for making purchasing decisions, but I’d like to learn something new, to try a different tool and see if it fits my style and workflow better.
I can get a Hasselblad X1Dii used for around $2500 (nearly $1000 less than an R5 body) and it has the specs I’m looking for. A larger sensor @50MPs and the color science with Hasselblad is different than Canon or Nikon. Some say Hasselblad is more natural and accurate; softer, and less crunchy. I don’t think one is better than the other, just that there is a difference. Also remember that at launch the X1D was $9000 in 2016 dollars.
But what I really want to know is if a larger sensor size has some magic that Full Frame sensors are missing. If Full Frame is a nicer image quality than Crop Sensor, then surely Medium Format is a step up. I don’t feel like Mirrorless Full Frame has any secret sauce that I don’t already have with my DSLRs. Medium and large format (120, 4×5 and 8×10) always felt more exclusive when we still lived in the film era. If a professional was selling larger prints to clientele; they most likely weren’t using 35mm. Do these differences translate to the digital world as well?
Some complaints I’ve seen about Medium Format (at least with the Hasselblad) is that they are more bulky and also slow. Slow boot times, slow shut down times, slow read and write times. If fast shooting is your style then I can see the Hasselblads not working for you. For me I could see using my current DSLRs as my daily drivers and then using medium format for Studio and Location Portraiture and Product Photography. Scenarios where slowing down and getting “in front of the camera” is a good thing.
Lastly I think it’s important to remember that companies like Canon are in business to make money. It’s their job to market the latest and greatest. You don’t want to get left behind now do you? And while I’m definitely a Canon loyalist, I’m wary of buying into hype. I’m not gonna be shamed because I have yesterday’s technology that is still perfectly serviceable (I absolutely love my 5D3 and plan on driving it till the tires fall off of it). Or chasing whatever Canon, or Nikon; or Hasselblad or Fuji tells me is bang up to date. That’s a never-ending merry-go-round I’m not willing to hop on.
But what I am gonna do is satisfy my curiosities and Full Frame Mirrorless doesn’t really have me that curious.