Thread: Mirrorless cameras

I'm using a Sony A7R2, have an A6000, and used to use an Olympus OMD EM1. There's definitely a size/weight advantage when using wide angle through to normal focal length lenses compared to a DSLR (with full frame - m43 is way smaller but compromised for low light/high ISO). The lens size advantage seems to be less evident with longer focal lengths, however the body size/weight advantage still remains.

Particularly with the Mark 3 Sonys, I see no advantage in DSLRs unless you want a physically bigger camera body. The new batteries and faster focus system in the Mk 3's eliminates the weaknesses @GravelBen points out. I'm considering upgrading my A7R2 to a A7R3 mainly for the battery life improvement for time lapse work.

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by The Claw

The new batteries and faster focus system in the Mk 3's eliminates the weaknesses @GravelBen points out. I'm considering upgrading my A7R2 to a A7R3 mainly for the battery life improvement for time lapse work.

I'd say they've improved the weaknesses but not eliminated them - even a A7R3 ($5300 ) still only has around half the rated battery life of many DSLRs (CIPA rating 650 shots vs 1230 for a Nikon D750 or 1840 for a D850). Having said that the old D7000 can do over 2000 shots on a charge with my use and its official rating is 1050, so if they beat their official rating by a similar amount its probably still heaps for most people and as you say it has other advantages with the smaller size and weight.

Similar story with the AF from what I've heard - it may not be as good at speed and tracking as the better Nikon and Canon DSLRS (which is part of the reason professional sports photographers are still almost exclusively using those) but its plenty good enough for most people now.