User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 7:29:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Can you live with an electronic viewfinder (or no viewfinder), ~300 shot battery life, and worse low light autofocus ability? Those are the major downsides I can think of.
On the upside the electronic viewfinder can display a lot more information than an optical one, the cameras are smaller and lighter, and some have in-body image stabilization. It's going to be hard to find a body and lens for $630 though, if you're expecting anything very comparable to the features of a DSLR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 8:02:02 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
I currently have a D70 that I bought on my honeymoon 10 years ago. I used it quite a bit, did some photography work on the side for about 4 years. My people skills aren't reall the same since I got back from Iraq so I've not really done anything like that in about 4 years. My folks are going to Alaska this year and I convinced them to upgrade their D100 to the D7000/18-140 VR kit from Best Buy. Now my NAS is kicking in and I'm considering the same thing. Right now the 629 is about all I can budget. I'm considering one of the mirrorless cameras, but it seems that the only ones with the features comparable to something like the D7000 cost trtwice as much. IAny suggestions on a couse of action? Get the D7000. Mirrorless isn't there yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 8:09:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Cheap mirrorless suck. Pro mirrorless are excellent. The idea that "mirrorless isn't there yet" is ridiculous, and there are several pro photogs shooting exclusively mirrorless. It's a case of the indian not the arrow. Hell, check out Zack Arias' work. He's getting some great images out of the Fuji stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 8:11:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cheap mirrorless suck. Pro mirrorless are excellent. The idea that "mirrorless isn't there yet" is ridiculous, and there are several pro photogs shooting exclusively mirrorless. It's a case of the indian not the arrow. Hell, check out Zack Arias' work. He's getting some great images out of the Fuji stuff. None of them are using gear you can get for less than $630 either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 9:16:42 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of them are using gear you can get for less than $630 either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cheap mirrorless suck. Pro mirrorless are excellent. The idea that "mirrorless isn't there yet" is ridiculous, and there are several pro photogs shooting exclusively mirrorless. It's a case of the indian not the arrow. Hell, check out Zack Arias' work. He's getting some great images out of the Fuji stuff. None of them are using gear you can get for less than $630 either. That's kinda what I'm thinking. I feel like $630 for the D7000 is a smoking deal for what you get. Plus I already have some good Nikon glass. I like my front and rear selection dials. Seems like most of the sub $1k mirrorless bodies don't have the versatility I'm used to. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 10:01:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None of them are using gear you can get for less than $630 either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cheap mirrorless suck. Pro mirrorless are excellent. The idea that "mirrorless isn't there yet" is ridiculous, and there are several pro photogs shooting exclusively mirrorless. It's a case of the indian not the arrow. Hell, check out Zack Arias' work. He's getting some great images out of the Fuji stuff. None of them are using gear you can get for less than $630 either. You're right, an XT1 costs $1200. But to write off mirrorless cameras as being inappropriate is silly. I could say the same thing about the D7000 being "not there yet" because it's completely outclassed by my 1Dx in every way. A Sony A6000 is a better camera than the D7000, it's mirrorless, and the same price. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 10:24:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're right, an XT1 costs $1200. But to write off mirrorless cameras as being inappropriate is silly. I could say the same thing about the D7000 being "not there yet" because it's completely outclassed by my 1Dx in every way. A Sony A6000 is a better camera than the D7000, it's mirrorless, and the same price. I think when 501st said they're "not there yet" he simply meant they're not at the point where they're a complete replacement for DSLRs. If someone had asked for a $630 camera as an alternative to a 1Dx or D4s, someone would say that $630 cameras aren't there yet. And they'd be right. I like mirrorless cameras and will probably get one to have as a second camera sometime in the next couple of years, but as a DSLR replacement they're just not there yet.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 10:50:19 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's kinda what I'm thinking. I feel like $630 for the D7000 is a smoking deal for what you get. Plus I already have some good Nikon glass. I like my front and rear selection dials. Seems like most of the sub $1k mirrorless bodies don't have the versatility I'm used to. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. That's a pretty decent reason to go with the D7000. What lenses do you have already? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 11:25:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cheap mirrorless suck. Pro mirrorless are excellent. The idea that "mirrorless isn't there yet" is ridiculous, and there are several pro photogs shooting exclusively mirrorless. It's a case of the indian not the arrow. Hell, check out Zack Arias' work. He's getting some great images out of the Fuji stuff. Shit, isn't all of photography? Or just about anything, really? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 12:47:16 AM EDT
[#10]
I can't speak to the mirror less stuff but I have seen some smoking deals on the 7000.
Expect to see some on the d7100 soon also. May already be able to find the 7100 body only cheap. 7200 is around the corner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 12:54:03 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think when 501st said they're "not there yet" he simply meant they're not at the point where they're a complete replacement for DSLRs. If someone had asked for a $630 camera as an alternative to a 1Dx or D4s, someone would say that $630 cameras aren't there yet. And they'd be right. I like mirrorless cameras and will probably get one to have as a second camera sometime in the next couple of years, but as a DSLR replacement they're just not there yet.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're right, an XT1 costs $1200. But to write off mirrorless cameras as being inappropriate is silly. I could say the same thing about the D7000 being "not there yet" because it's completely outclassed by my 1Dx in every way. A Sony A6000 is a better camera than the D7000, it's mirrorless, and the same price. I think when 501st said they're "not there yet" he simply meant they're not at the point where they're a complete replacement for DSLRs. If someone had asked for a $630 camera as an alternative to a 1Dx or D4s, someone would say that $630 cameras aren't there yet. And they'd be right. I like mirrorless cameras and will probably get one to have as a second camera sometime in the next couple of years, but as a DSLR replacement they're just not there yet.
Again you're generalizing. There is currently not a mirrorless that can compete right now with the top pro bodies in certain situations. As I pointed out, the Sony A6000 is a complete replacement for (and also performs better than) the D7000 for the same price, and there are mirrorless cameras that outperforms the 1Dx and D4S in certain circumstances. So yes, mirrorless cameras are a replacement for a DSLR, and outside of a narrow set of circumstances (namely low-light fast action) there's no reason to not consider mirrorless cameras side-by-side with an equivalent DSLR. Again, I already pointed out a better mirrorless camera for the same price. And there are enough excellent lens adapters on the market such that already owning Nikon lenses is not an argument in the least. The only reason I own a 1Dx is because I happen to shoot quite a bit in the area where mirrorless cameras fall short. The trend is already developing that outside of sports and concert photogs, there is a large shift to mirrorless cameras. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 7:54:12 AM EDT
[#12]
I used to have a D7000 with the 17-55 2.8 lens. My friend that shoots semi-pro has two of them. It is an excellent camera and a significant step up from a mirrorless on the basis of the body (sensor and processor) technology and the lenses. You can use an FX lens on a DX body with excellent results.
The only reason I sold the D7000 was that I ran across a good deal on a Nikon 24-70 2.8 and made the mistake of putting it on my camera. It is such an impressive piece of glass that I sold the D7000 to get an FX body to match the lens. I got a D600 when everyone was afraid of them. I knew what to look for with the shutter problems and that it either had the problem or did not. This one did not and is way more camera than I know how to use but I am learning. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:37:00 AM EDT
[#13]
You did not state what type of photography you will typical shoot. Mirrorless cameras are behind the DSLRs in rapid focusing for example.
What you need to do is list the specs you need that matches the type of photography you do, then compare and find the best match. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:41:43 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shit, isn't all of photography? Or just about anything, really? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Cheap mirrorless suck. Pro mirrorless are excellent. The idea that "mirrorless isn't there yet" is ridiculous, and there are several pro photogs shooting exclusively mirrorless. It's a case of the indian not the arrow. Hell, check out Zack Arias' work. He's getting some great images out of the Fuji stuff. Shit, isn't all of photography? Or just about anything, really? Yep. It's not the camera, it's the photographer. It's not the gun, it's the shooter. Sure, there are instances when superior equipment will get you a shot that you may not have gotten without it, but either way things like framing and composition are either there or not, independent of equipment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 5:15:33 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You did not state what type of photography you will typical shoot. Mirrorless cameras are behind the DSLRs in rapid focusing for example. What you need to do is list the specs you need that matches the type of photography you do, then compare and find the best match. I do a little bit of everything from Sports to Landscape, like I said I'm not doing this as a job anymore. My biggest concerns are lower light/ high ISO performance (IQ more than AF speed) and ease of manipulation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 10:29:56 PM EDT
[#16]
I've been very happy with my D7K. I don't think mirrorless would suffice for sports. I do like the idea but I think I'm going to let it bake for a little while longer. I really thought about it long and hard but like the OP I already had an investment in Nikon glass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2015 2:59:24 PM EDT
[#17]
If you already have an investment in Nikon lenses, I'd stay with the Nikon family of bodies.
A couple of years ago, I sold off my cameras and lenses while I was out of work, so I recently bought a Sony a3000 mirrorless camera. It's not the full frame a7, but it's not bad for a sub $300 camera. 
All three photos have only been resized and white-balanced in Lightroom 5. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2015 10:17:33 AM EDT
[#18]
I would upgrade to the D7100 way better camera with many more lenses etc. Depends upon what you want to do with it.
For my little mundane D5200, I have a Nikon 10-24mm super-wide angle 18-200 "normall," and a 55-300 long telephono, and a 10-17 fish-eye. I uae every lense at least once per week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2015 10:47:56 PM EDT
[#19]
Don't forget you should be able to get another 10% knocked off at Best Buy by getting the mover's coupon from the post office.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2015 10:11:23 AM EDT
[#20]
Long time macro shooter, went from Canon Point and shoot elph, to Mirrorless Fuji XE1, to now the Nikon D7100.
Here is my take on the differences Fuji xe1 mirrorless: Great lenses, not any bad lens IMO. Fantastic in camera JPEG. Smaller easier to maneuver. Looks like ur grandpa's camera and no thieves looks at it twice. Nikon d7100: Way faster focus - night and day if you are shooting moving objects. Faster flash sync. More aftermarket offerings. Tether to Lightroom for macro. Better image details even with $50 lenses and manual lens built in the 70's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2015 4:56:22 AM EDT
[#21]
I fucking LOVE my Olympus OM-D EM-5. It takes excellent photos. I love the small size. The jpeg engine is fucking awesome.
I'd love to get the EM-1 or even the EM-5 II, but the EM-5 is so good as-is... there's not much that can be upgraded. Just a few features that don't really make me want to spend $1k on a new body. Eventually, but not soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2015 5:31:38 PM EDT
[#22]
personally i'd go with the DSLR. Especially if you alreay have lenses for the mount system.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
