Which DSLR/Mirrorless Should I get?

For anyone who's had both a DSLR and a Mirrorless, how's the low light performance of the later?

That's probably my primary reason for using a DSLR, next to action shots and I don't shoot action like I once did. Before having the camera stolen, I was shooting a lot of sunsets and low light portraits both indoors and outside.

Most of the M4/3 lenses seem to be in the 2.8 range, unless you spend $400 or more for something down in the 1.8 range. That's a lot of money for a prime.

By comparison the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens is only $169.

Do the mirrorless cameras (outside of the FF A7) have any chance of matching even a budget DSLR like the D3300 in low light?

PHeller wrote: Most of the M4/3 lenses seem to be in the 2.8 range, unless you spend $400 or more for something down in the 1.8 range. That's a lot of money for a prime. By comparison the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX lens is only $169. Do the mirrorless cameras (outside of the FF A7) have any chance of matching even a budget DSLR like the D3300 in low light?

another tidbit is that even at f2.8 the smaller 4/3 sensor isn't going to get as shallow as f2.8 on the crop (or even more so if you move to FF)... take a peak at that link I posted on the last page about equivalence... interesting stuff IMHO

The mirror less cameras have incredible lenses, many much better than the dslr offerings if you're a prime lens kinda guy. M43 in particular has a very impressive almost film-like selections of primes.

Unfortunately they're pretty expensive. You do get what you pay for. I would bet there isn't many lenses out there better than Olympus' 75mm. The Panny 20mm is stellar, and so is the Olympus 12mm. All the others are at the very least "above average."

If I was starting out, don't know if I would go either M43 or Fuji, if price was no object. But I have some m43 lenses already, so that's my system.

I love the portability, and I'll never go back to dslr. I just left the slr at home too often, and it's a pain to bring a whole kit on vacations. With the m43, a camera and three lenses fit in two pockets comfortably.

The newest mirror less cameras are on par or better than with prosumer dslrs on focus speed and low light performance. Go back a generation, and you'll gain a bit more noise at high ISO.

For an absolute bargain body, check out the Panasonic GX1.

In reply to bastomatic:

I think most would agree that while a mirrorless system with internal image stabilization can provide good low light performance for stationary objects, it can't do the same for a moving object. The faster lenses under f/2.0 are twice the price as similar focal length MFT lenses, and cannot be found used/refurbed.

I could see going to a mirrorless design once something like the Oly 17mm f1.7 becomes more common and less expensive, or the Nikon 1 series is improved to compete with the OM-D.

In reply to PHeller:

You're right about focus tracking in low light. But in reality, that's an area that dslrs are not very good at until you spend huge amounts of money, and even then it's hit or miss.

As to the lens prices, there's really not much competition for many of the lens offerings in the mirror less world. In DSLRs there's the "nifty fifty" and that's about it for good prime lenses. If you're a prime lens shooter, or looking for a kit that's easy to take along, the Dslr doesn't cut it.

The oly 17mm is actually one of the worst mirrorless primes, btw. I think there's good reason the other lenses can't be found cheaply. That makes the investment a little easier to swallow, as you should be able to sell them for near-new prices in a few years.

But if you're looking for cheap fast zooms, Dslr is the only option.

bastomatic wrote: ... In DSLRs there's the "nifty fifty" and that's about it for good prime lenses. If you're a prime lens shooter, or looking for a kit that's easy to take along, the Dslr doesn't cut it...

I do not want to turn this into a some camera format pissing match "join my cult of choices" mess. That said, if you think the only good prime lenses made that natively mount to DSLR's are 50mm jobs that got the slang term of "nifty" applied to them, then I think you may want to check again.

Here's a couple references;

https://www.flickr.com/groups/1342558@N25/ (Pentax FA* 24mm group)

https://www.flickr.com/groups/pentax3528macro/ (Pentax DA 35mm Limited group)

https://www.flickr.com/groups/51022074@N00/ (Canon EF 100mm group)

I'm not saying every single shot shown in those groups is wonderful. It just seemed really odd/silly to take decades of available lenses and say "they're all junk save for these really inexpensive 50mm's that the Internet decided was the must-have prime".

the only reason the nifty fifty is so popular is the 1.8 is so freaking inexpensive just over $100 from most companies... they are fairly small, light, and "fast"

that being said I'm not a fan on a crop sensor... its the only Lens I have for regular use on the 5dmkII (full frame) and between the clunkyness of the camera and that I'm so spoiled by my 17-50 2.8 on my personal camera I prefer to shoot with it... also the zoom will focus only an inch or two in front of the lens (10.6" from sensor) while the 1.4 I shoot requires nearly twice that distance :-/ it does emulate an 80mm fairly well but for how I shoot I'd rather something a bit longer

on a side note... it seems the canon EOS-M (mirrorless canon with the APS-C sensor on crop dslrs) can be had for $250 right now with the 18-55 lens which is supposed to be even better than the standard canon kit lens that comes with DSLRs... buy an adapter and the canon EOS lenses work with it... sadly it looks like it is pretty slow at AF...

In reply to pres589:

If I implied all the dSLR primes are junk I certainly didn't mean it that way. You're right that there are some primes that are quite good in the dSLR market. I do believe that the current crop of mirrorless cameras, especially Fuji and m43, are superior to the dSLR offerings in terms of prime lenses available, because that's what the system caters to.

In autofocus m43, you have the there are at least 12 different prime lens focal lengths available. Most of these lenses are f/2 and faster, most are extremely high quality, and all are tiny. Fuji has an impressive list of primes available too.

If you want a list of fine zoom lenses available for the mirrorless world, then that list would be very short indeed. If you're a zoom user, I think you're better off in the dSLR world.

It's hard to make this into a pissing match, as each system is much better at doing something completely different than the "competitor."

My wife bought a G11 a couple years ago because she didn't want to lug a big camera around, she still uses the thing in auto but wants to get a dslr now. Any tips? I say she learns how to use this thing first since it seems to have a lot of features that would make it a nice camera.

chandlerGTi wrote: My wife bought a G11 a couple years ago because she didn't want to lug a big camera around, she still uses the thing in auto but wants to get a dslr now. Any tips? I say she learns how to use this thing first since it seems to have a lot of features that would make it a nice camera.

The G11 is an advanced compact more than anything else, and is rather different in terms of capabilities to either a mirrorless or DSLR, but is still quite capable. The only real reason I can see to get a DSLR over the G11 is if you need easy manual focus and shallow DOF. I have the G12, which is very similar, and have found it remarkably capable in most situations - it's certainly easier to carry. I'd argue for learning to use it before dropping the money on a DSLR unless you need those specific capabilities.

I've used the g series a little in the past... I like them, plenty of control and still very easily carried with you... as 02Pilot said start learning how and what the different controls do with the g11, you can learn a lot, when it comes time it makes it easier to understand what the various controls do on the DSLR... no point in getting an SLR if you only ever use it in "green" (auto) mode