[stripes]

After a non-biking trip and carting around 3 lenses and my DSLR for two weeks, I realized how much I like shooting with a nice camera over my phone. I'm not looking to upgrade my phone, but possibly change to a lighter camera setup.

That said, does mirrorless camera make sense? I'm looking for:
- Still the same functionality as my Canon 60D
- The ability to switch to different lenses
- Be lighter so I can actually carry it around more often, even possibly biking.

I realize it's a bit of an investment, but before I even start going down the research of it of all, can someone who's done this give me the positives and negatives of doing this (other than the lighter part)? Thanks!

 

[Redmon]

There is no getting around that mirrorless is smaller. Weight savings? I guess to a degree until you start carrying multiple lenses. I had the Nikon d50 I think it was and went Sony mirrorless and never looked back. I have the a6000 and the a6500 with about 7 lenses and love it . Also I carry a Sony rx100mva in my top bar bag that has the same sensor as above and takes great pictures! If you want to carry the a6000 you can. Throw the very. Small Sony 35 on there and you have a very small set up that your happy with all day!

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

 

[ocnLogan]

I shoot with a Nikon D750 (full frame DSLR), but I only recently acquired it. I shot with a D7000 (crop sensor, similar to your 60D) for 6 years before that, but never took it biking (but have hiked on several multi-night trips with it).

Mirror less is lighter... but not as much as you may think, if comparing apples to apples. The body is smaller, but many of the lenses have extra length to them (not all though). So depending on which mirrorless camera you are thinking, and which lenses, you may not save as much weight/bulk as you are thinking.

Have you considered going micro 4/3? It’s a step below a crop sensor in sensor size, but still fairly large, and has a huge selection of lenses (since the standard is used by many manufactures, instead of just one).

Full disclosure, I’ve never used a mirrorless ILC. But in my mind they have a few main advantages over a DSLR.

No autofocus fine tune worries. A mirrorless always focuses exactly.
WYSIWYG viewfinder. So what you see, in the viewfinder, is what the photo will look like so you don’t have to check afterwards to see how exposed the photo is.
Good at video.
Wider autofocus area coverage than a DSLR (not always, but often).

And a few negatives.

Battery life
Electronic viewfinder is imperfect, sometimes laggy
Autofocus performance is not always up to the same level as DSLRs (though the high end ones now are very good. Just really depends on the model).

And the ideal camera for you will likely depend on what you want to use the camera for.

After a lot of research and thinking about it, I stuck with a DSLR (vs going mirrorless) when I upgraded to the d750, because I love long battery life, never take video, already had a lens or two that worked with it... and it worked with my version of Lightroom (pre-subscription version). Not sure if I’d be ever cycle with it though, unless maybe if I was doing bike packing or something like that anyway.

But mirrorless options are better than ever now. Just really depends on what you’re looking for.

 

[bsieb]

Mirrorless is ideal for outdoor use, much smaller gear bag, still enough weight to produce good sharp images. I use an a5000 primarily, great images, tough as my impact driver, battered but not broken, utterly reliable, a digital shrunken M Leica.

Do you use Photoshop for editing?

 

[johnnyspoke]

camera size is a website I've found handy. For instance, here's what your 60d would look like with attached 18-135mm lens, vs a M6 mark ii with 18-150mm lens. *************/37R1pQx

*************/37R1pQx

Ok, so sorry, I can't figure out how to attach a link. Anyway, camerasize.com Look for the tab cameras with lenses, and play to your hearts content.

 

[ocnLogan]

The camera body of a mirrorless camera is always going to have the ability to be smaller (it doesn't have a mirror box), there is no way "around" that. And on the camera forums out there, this has been a topic of hot debate for years and years. Plenty of articles/forum posts out there if you want to dig deeper into that.

But basically, lenses for any given sensor size, will always need to be fairly similar in size, because its the size of the image circle (and the aperture) that determines most of the lens size, not the size of the body it connects to.

That said, in some cases, the shorter potential mounting distance of the mirrorless does allow for a different optical design technique, making for smaller lenses (wide angle lenses only AFAIK).

So if depending on how many lenses you carry, and what type they are, the total system weight/size may not be all that much different.

A flip side to the smaller physical size, is often times mirrorless cameras have less physical places for buttons, and are smaller/slipperier to hold, especially if wet. This is primarily an issue with larger lenses (large aperture telephoto lenses) that are weighty. Just because it gives the camera/lens setup an unbalanced weight distribution. Most smaller cameras are harder to use with gloves too (again, probably not an issue, but some people care a lot about that).

Anyway, just pointing out that while there are clear differences, its not quite as clear cut as "mirrorless is better". Like most things, its better at some things, and not as good at others.

If you're looking for smaller/lighter kit, the easiest way to do it is to shrink the sensor size. Because that shrinks the required size of lenses, and everything else.

I'd seriously consider the Panisonic GX85 (or similar micro 4:3 camera) if you're looking for a small ILC (Interchangeable Lens Camera).

https://www.amazon.com/PANASONIC-12...keywords=panasonic+gx85&qid=1582569274&sr=8-3

It is listed in DPReviews most recent "Best bargain cameras of 2020" list as well. You can find a link there to their full review if you're interested.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-camera-bargains#gx85

And here is a useful tool comparing sizes of cameras and lenses. You can see how much smaller the GX85 is than your 60D.

https://camerasize.com/compare/#100,673

Anyway, good luck with whatever you do .

 

[chrisx]

Nikon Z mirrorless looks the best to me.
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/mirrorless-cameras/overview.page
They have been out for a while now, so it should be about time for a sale of some kind.
Be sure to get the lens adaptor so you can use over 300 Nikor lenses, while you wait for and save up for the newest Z line lens.

I will get mine before to much longer.

Best part of their sales pitch,
weatherproof and robust.


A couple of things to consider;

Weatherproofing. This is a mt bike forum, not a photos out the window of a Cadillac forum.

Sensor size. Bigger sensors take better pictures, for a price.

Lens compatibility. Camera lenses are not universal. If you buy a Fuji camera body, you will be buying Fugi lenses. Nikon Body? = Nikor lenses. Get it?

Choose your brand carefully. You get to expand on that brand for years to come.
Lens adapters do exist, and have a down side as well as an up side.

I resisted and thought about it long enough. Nikon Z is in the near future for me.

 

[ocnLogan]

A couple of things to consider;

Weatherproofing. This is a mt bike forum, not a photos out the window of a Cadillac forum.

I can confirm weatherproofing being useful, even if you're not necessarily buying a camera exclusively for mountain biking photos. It really does bring some peace and mind.

This last summer I hiked 35 miles of the "wonderland" trail around Mt Rainier. Three days/4 nights of hiking, and it rained ~75% of the time (including the entirety of at least one 12hr day of hiking).

I carried my D7000 in my hand/around my neck for almost the entirety of the trip (I did put i in my pack a few times during more intense rain periods a few times). The D7000 has weather sealing, and while it got rained on a lot, it never once had a problem.

Thats a more extreme example (4 days of constant rain, being out in the open, and stored wet). But its also come in handy shooting portraits of friends/family (a cloudburst when out at the park/etc).

And I nearly went for the Z series. Its wonderful... but the lenses are very expensive right now. I went for an older DSLR, as it let me reuse my current SD cards, a lens or two, and not need to pay for a new editing program. But the next one after this one might be mirrorless.

Anecdotally, the camera I HAVE carried with my on a few rides, has been my Panasonic ZS100. Its a 1in sensor non interchangeable lens camera. But it is very compact, has a 25-250mm equivalent lens, thats F2.8 -5.6, and has very accessible manual controls. If the Micro 4/3 cameras are still too large for the OP, this might be another type of camera to consider.

 

[mikesee]

The only real drawback to modern mirrorless is the investment.

If you can afford it, do it.

 

[DeeGeeCee]

no more Canon EF mount lenses

After a non-biking trip and carting around 3 lenses and my DSLR for two weeks, I realized how much I like shooting with a nice camera over my phone. I'm not looking to upgrade my phone, but possibly change to a lighter camera setup.

That said, does mirrorless camera make sense? I'm looking for:
- Still the same functionality as my Canon 60D
- The ability to switch to different lenses
- Be lighter so I can actually carry it around more often, even possibly biking.

I realize it's a bit of an investment, but before I even start going down the research of it of all, can someone who's done this give me the positives and negatives of doing this (other than the lighter part)? Thanks!

Keep in mind that Canon announced recently they will no longer be releasing EF mount lenses, the ones found on their DSLR bodies like 5D4, 1DX3, i don't think that means EF-S lenses on crop bodies like the 60D, but Canon and any major player has made the move to mirrorless. Eventually Canon crop system DSLR's might go away too, or at least get smaller. Nikon ditched 1/3 of its line up in DSLR cameras to mirrorless as well, hoping to bring back some much lost ground financially in their camera business. Mirrorless, It is where the companies are now spending the majority of their money and effort developing imaging tools.
Sony ILC's like the A6400 is a really good compact aps-c format with excellent image quality, even their full frame bodies are smaller than some micro 4/3 cameras. You could consider this.....rent a camera and a few lenses from Lenserentals.com or borrowlenses.com and see what mirrorless is like.

 

[chrisx]

The only real drawback to modern mirrorless is the investment.

If you can afford it, do it.

All full frame cameras are to expensive.
A plan for the next ten or fifteen years is what a person needs. Choose carefully the brand and type of camera you want.

Me. As I grow older I will spend less time riding my bicycle for weeks in the desert, or getting rained on in the pnw. And more time walking the hills of nw Wyoming, like I did as a child.

Nikon mirrorless sounds like what I need to photograph animals around Clouds Home, Wy.

Keep in mind where you travel to vs how much you spend.
I am in Barranquilla Colombia. Home of the world's second largest carnaval. An industrial port town where cocaine is expensive and wages are low. (I drink water and smoke nothing at all.) I still have the rx100v I paid $900 and something for. I got a couple of bruises holding onto it with both hands as tight as I could. I stopped taking pictures of the parades and only take pictures of my little friend Venezolana Nikky the last few days.

 

[DeeGeeCee]

Full frame is expensive, but like most things, you get what you pay for. If you want the best IQ, nothing beats full frame. Does crop have good IQ? Yes if executed well they can deliver the goods. Though Nikon might work for you, there are good and better choices out there depending on what a person wants or needs.

 

[edubfromktown]

I'm still going strong with a Nikon D5600 DSLR. It is quite small (especially when I go out with just a prime lens). Also, the newer/lighter kit lenses have a lock position which is kina nice particularly on some of the rocky/rooty trails I ride.

If I go mirrorless, it is definitely going to be a Fuji XT-4

 

[mikesee]

Does crop have good IQ?

Acceptable until you're talking low light, and then crop isn't even close to full frame.

 

[ocnLogan]

Acceptable until you're talking low light, and then crop isn't even close to full frame.

As Mike said, that is basically true. To be more specific, a full frame sensor should always have ~1 stop better low light performance, as the sensor is twice the size of a crop sensor.

The other factor though, is that it kind of depends on which generation of sensors we're talking about though. As newer sensors have better high ISO performance than old sensors.

But if you're talking roughly the same generation, then full frame will pretty much always be better. And this is assuming you're using the same aperature lenses on both cameras.

Also, for reference, a Micro 4/3 camera should be almost another stop worse than the crop sensors (its 30% smaller than a crop sensor). But its still 9 times larger than what you'd get with your stereotypical point and shoot camera/phone.

If you look at the reviews on DPreview.com, they have a test scene they shoot with every camera. They let you do side by side comparisons with a bunch of different models all at once, at either the same, or different ISO values.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d780-review/6

The list of cameras in the tool isn't exhaustive, but its pretty good. You can easily compare a 70D(cannon crop sensor), to a micro 4/3 camera , and modern full frame pretty easily.

 

[chrisx]

Though Nikon might work for you, there are good and better choices out there depending on what a person wants or needs.

Care to elaborate on that?
But kindly read what Logan posted first?

I carried my D7000 in my hand/around my neck for almost the entirety of the trip (I did put i in my pack a few times during more intense rain periods a few times). The D7000 has weather sealing, and while it got rained on a lot, it never once had a problem.

 

[ocnLogan]

I would assume that DeeGeeCee is just mentioning that what is important to you/I, may not be whats important to any other person. And maybe not just weather sealing, but I read that comment as mentioning other features as well.

Weather sealing is something I'll look for in any ILC camera moving forward (personally), but if I still lived in CA/AZ... that may not be as much of a priority.

I've been looking through my photos of that trip, trying to find some that do justice to how much rain/water there was... and its not working out. I wasn't taking as many photos in the truely wet bits (I carried it close to my chest, almost under where my baseball hat was, trying to minimize the water contact... as even though its weather sealed... it felt prudent to at least try to take care of it).

Also, as I was the only person really taking photos... there aren't really any photos of me where you can see me holding the camera.

Here is one photo from the trip I was fairly happy with though.

It is a bit out of focus :/. But it turns out, if you round a corner, and then suddenly see a full grown bear 50ft in front of you, your hands aren't as steady as they typically are :/ (or, at least mine weren't). The next shot was technically better, but the bear looks much better in this one.

 

[Klainmeister]

I'll chime in here:

I used to shoot Large Format and Medium Format film (still do sometimes) and bought a D750 when it first came out and used it for a while. I eventually bought a Panasonic GX8 for travel reasons and really fell in love with the M43 format despite coming from the larger formats.

Currently I use a Panasonic G9 with 7-14mm F4, 12-35mm F2.8, and 35-100mm F2.8. Benefits of this setup are: insanely fast FPS (both the 6k hybrid mode as well as e-shutter and lastly mechanical shutter), weather sealing, roughly 6 stops of stabilization, and people tracking continous autofocus. The size difference between a M43 35-100 F2.8 and a Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 is comical. I can carry the body + 2 lenses for the weight of just one of the FF lenses.

Downsides: less subject seperation and poor low-light performance. Realistically, these aren't issues I find when riding/shooting, but they are worth noting.

There's always pixel-peepers that will crap on anything M43, but in real life situations with good glass its a non-issue. I carry a camera more, which yields more pictures and being able to shoot a meaningful 2.8 vs stopping down to 5.6 because the subject is too thin is very useful.

Here's a gallery of shots, 95% G9 or GX8: Mountain Biking - Kyle Klain Photography

 

[chrisx]

Here's a gallery of shots, 95% G9 [/url]

Sensor Size 17.3 x 13 mm

Good shots, worth a click.


As far as ,
good and better choices out there

Could be different from one mind to another.
With delusions of grandeur, wanting to see a 5 foot tall photo of mine on a wall somewhere. I clicked medium format mirrorless.

100 megapixels, 150 megapixels. man oh man.
About the price of a Dodge pickup truck.,

Then I dropped a nickel on the ground and bent over to pick it up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKxodgpyGec

Change in my pocket wasn't enough

 

[DeeGeeCee]

Nikon is not for everyone, anymore than Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji and so on are. Sony works for me quite well, Olympus and Panasonic did not work out, Canon was ok, i rented and tried out both Fuji and Nikon before jumping to Sony. It is just a matter of ones needs. Everyone's needs are as different as the cameras themselves. Thats all i am saying. Do a decent amount of research before buying and you will end up with something good.