This is a serious question and not a brand loyalty fueled screed.

[flamin lib]

I'm in a serious question kind of mood.(https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287335979)

The selection of a new camera for us "serious" photographers is still between DSLR and Mirrorless. Leave out sensor size as FF is available in both.

Why choose one over the other? I can see that going from mirrorless to DSLR would be difficult because none of the lenses will adapt but going the other way allows full use of existing inventory with an adapter. Mirrorless now has both cdaf and pdaf in one camera so the focusing issue should be minimal with legacy lenses. Any new lenses, even replacements for existing inventory, can be made when features warrant.

For me the decision to go Mirrorless was partially based on insane brand loyalty but aside from that the live view, ibis, size reduction of the body and lenses (I'm m.43 but even full frame systems offer a size/weight reduction). Plus specific feature sets available to the mirrorless technology and the differences in performance between the two technologies are vanishing. Focus speed is now more a factor of camera lens combo than technology; fast camera body pared with slow lens motor reaction etc.

I swear this isn't meant to be flame bait but a genuine question about why one technology is more attractive than the other.

[Major Nikon]

1. Lenses are my first consideration

In my case I have many lenses so I need a body that works with most or all of them. In my case I have quite a few older ones that use different methods to step down the aperture. Many older Nikon lenses use the focusing motor in the body, while newer ones have the focusing motor in the lens.

I haven’t done any research on the adapter in which you refer. However there’s usually a trade off when using one and I'd be surprised if there was such a thing for Nikon which works with older Nikkors.

[flamin lib]

2. I may be mistaken but when Nikon released the Z series they

announced that every legacy lens could be mated to the new body. Obviously some functions will be negated like when mounting the 35mm lenses to the new body. It was one of the things that impressed me about Nikon approach to mirrorless.

Canon also announced adapters but it gets complicated with the multiple lens mounts they offer with both crop frame and full frame. I admit I don't follow Canon that closely except that they control 40% of the ICL marker.

[Major Nikon]

3. Just because it works, doesn't mean it will work well

Just because you can mount it, doesn’t mean autofocus, metering, and even any aperture setting besides wide open is going to work. You can also run into problems with distortion, field of view, subject isolation, vignetting and other issues since the back element to sensor distance will probably be different.

I haven’t done any research on the subject, but I’m pretty sure a number of those things are going to be an issue. There’s always trade offs when using an adapter. This is going to be especially true for Nikon since the legacy F-mount lenses go back 60 years and there’s a lot of variation on how many of the functions work.

[ManiacJoe]

4. Much of it comes down to what subjects you photograph

and what lighting conditions they usually come under and if that requires any specialized equipment.

For me, I shoot a lot of indoor sports under bad lighting. The mirrorless cameras have not yet gotten there, yet.

If you are doing landscapes or portraits or stuff that does not require specialized equipment, mirrorless can be a good way to go.

As you point out, lens adapters can easily allow for the use of your existing inventory. I have no idea what trade-offs the adapters bring with them.

I look at the mirrorless cameras like I look at the FF DLSRs and the DX DSLRs: compare the pros and cons of the systems after finding which bodies work for your subjects and shooting styles. For new users, the choice is simpler since they don't already have an investment in the hardware. For those when existing hardware, the cost of the swap needs to be factored in to the decision.

One big part of the decision is the size and weight of the cameras. While lots of people like the smaller cameras, I greatly prefer the larger ones because I find the larger bodies more comfortable to hold.

[flamin lib]

5. Thanks for the response. Can you elaborate on "not there yet"?

FF sensors should match dynamic range and low light performance regardless of a mirror box, right? The new offerings for crop and FF incorporate CDAF and PDAF so focus lock should be the same with or without a mirror box and with adapted DSLR glass. I tried to use a legacy DSLR lens on my first gen mirrorless and it was pretty much a failure. DSLRs used PDAF and my first gen body used CDAF only so there was lots of hunting and missed focus. Haven't had the chance to re-try with my 3G body but now that I'm reminded will re-try the experiment.

I understand that there may be some developmental issues as the new products come up to speed. I haven't any hands on so can't comment. There may be a learning curve as manufacturers adopt new tech. If that's what you mean your point is well taken and only time and firmware updates will fix it.

Anyway this is why I asked the question, to see what issues are slowing the adoption of new tech which, on paper, offer some marked advantages like higher frame rates, totally silent electronic shutters, real time live view, Ibis and more.

ETA: you also mentioned specialized equipment. I interpret that to mean fast tele and zoom lenses in a native mirrorless mount. I am operating on the assumption (possibly erroneously) that an adapted legacy lens would function as expected. Would like to get some first hand feedback on that.

[ManiacJoe]

6. This is all based on what I hear with no hands on experience with mirrorless.

Yes, the specialized equipment includes the wide-aperture tele prime and zoom lenses, low-light fast focus in the camera, clean high-ISO. Some would add the high frame rates, which we already have. The silent shutters of the mirrorless are a great bonus.

There used to be some lag in the electronic view finder systems, but that is getting better with the tech upgrades.

I can see the mirrorless systems being there in 5-8 years.

[flamin lib]

7. Thanks. This is precisely the feedback I'm asking for.

Unfortunately this is the bane of any new system. The first Omd came out in 2012. It took 5 years to get to the Pro series lenses. Yes there were adapters but because of the PDAF vs CDAF they were a total waste of time. I tried to adapt a 50-250 to the Omd 5 Mk1. Pretty much a disaster. After seeing the Nikon roll out I had high hopes that, being late to the party, they'd take advantage of improvements in technology to bypass some of those teething pains and take full advantage of legacy glass. It shouldn't be difficult as modern sensors incorporate both focus modes and there isn't a real savings in size/weight for FF glass making adapted glass more attractive. I guess I need to study the effectiveness of adapted legacy glass. I'll get back to ya. All that said any native lenses will be better than legacy just because time and technology march on. The biggest improvements in focus speed have been in lens motor speed.

Adding Ibis to ilis should be a huge advantage. It can easily double or triple hand held shutter speeds. Again I've been operating on the assumption that Nikon & Canon would take advantage of incorporating that using existing technology.

I've heard there was an evf refresh issue but never actually noticed it from a practical in field perspective. In my personal experience it no longer exists as an issue at all. Besides mirror lag vs refresh rate has always looked like a wash to me. YMMV.

As an aside to the legacy vs native, I spoke to an Oly tech specialist about modern lens development. He commented that if they were to make a front element the size of an enclosed sports stadium the deviation from spec would be measured in 1/1,000s of an inch. Learned this from NASA and projects like Hubble. Like I said, time and technology.

[flamin lib]

8. Searched DPreview, various Nikon sights and anything I can find on youtube

regarding legacy glass adapted to the Z platform. The consensus is that the current Nikor lenses perform as well and as fast on the Z bodies as they do on DSLR bodies. Obviously if you have 1980s glass it ain't gonna auto focus but it will adapt.

This is encouraging as it shows Nikon thought out the transition and the brazillion legacy lenses that fill Nikonophile's bags. Unlike my older Oly bodies.

Technologies march on!

I would be interested in hearing from someone that actually walked into a store with their own glass and tried adapting it to one of the Z bodies. Do a side by side comparison right there with your own equipment and with the new body plus adapter.

Don't know about Canon. See what I can find there. Maybe start a new thread with what I find for both camera makers.