DSLR vs Mirrorless (clickbait)

[Riles4365]

Hello, 

 

so im nit sure if this category of question will work on this site but here goes. So i am recently very interested in photography and I was looking for an entry level dslr to buy and I found the nikon d3400 which came with 18-55mm and 70-300mm lens. Then i saw mirrorless and the sony a6000. The a6000 was a bit more and I want to know is it justifiable to pay more or is it better to go dslr for entry level photographer. Please help?!!!!

[Riles4365]

9 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

Real mens' cameras have mirrors.

come on man, please help me. I am stuck!!!! also, would a nikon d3400 with 18-55 also be better instead of a 70-300 but with a 55-300????????

[zMeul]

I have a Nikon D40, served me well

 

the only thing. afaik, mirrorless can and DSLR can't is to capture video

[Riles4365]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I have a Nikon D40, served me well

great, any advice about entry level dslr or mirrorless ???

[zMeul]

Just now, Riles4365 said:

great, any advice about entry level dslr or mirrorless ???

I would not buy any if it can't detach the lenses

[roughavoc]

I'd grab the D3400, more versatile than the sony. 

[eLucid]

I got rid of my D7100 and never looked back. Sure, lens selection isn't the greatest but it's slowly getting better. My Sony a7ii paired with a carl zeiss outshines everything else.

[Riles4365]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

I would not buy any if it can't detach the lenses

they both can

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Riles4365 said:

they both can

mine does not, so ... yeah

it can do burst mode, but that's another thing

[Riles4365]

What about a sony a6000 with 16-50mm and another lens (tell me another good one) ???????

[eLucid]

The a6000 is a wise choice for entry photography btw. You won't be disappointed if you decide to go that route. Just make sure you pick up a good prime..

[Riles4365]

4 minutes ago, eLucid said:

The a6000 is a wise choice for entry photography btw. You won't be disappointed if you decide to go that route.

what lenses do you recommend for photography?????? like landscape and close up pics I will be taking 

[eLucid]

8 minutes ago, Riles4365 said:

what lenses do you recommend for photography?????? like landscape and close up pics I will be taking 

The 16-50mm is a great shooting lens for landscape. If you want a better shooting zoom in that range it does not exist. The Zeiss has a bit longer focal range and is a bit faster (-5 to 1 stop) but does not produce better results. The primes are better but the focal length is fixed, and the quality difference is debatable unless you are printing huge. If you really like primes there are several options. The Sigma 19mm is popular.

Edited January 14, 2017 by eLucid

[AkiraDaarkst]

Go to a store that has both cameras on display, hold them in your hands and see which one you feel more comfortable using.  Sometimes the display models have a battery charged inside, if so turn the camera on and see how you feel about the menu system.

 

There are pros and cons to different camera systems and mirrorless vs dslr is no different.  It's a matter of budget, the availability of accessories (i.e. lenses) and what you want to do.  For a beginner, any camera system you can afford to buy with your budget is likely the best camera.

 

I use both big heavy dslr and lightweight mirrorless cameras, no mirrorless will ever replace my Nikons as the primary workhorse.  But this is my personal preference, other people prefer mirrorless.

[xQubeZx]

5 hours ago, Riles4365 said:

what lenses do you recommend for photography?????? like landscape and close up pics I will be taking 

It is mostly by preference in my opinion. The newer mirrorless are pretty much performing the same as the dslrs (in mid to low range, there is a lot fever really high end options on mirrorless. Talking 1DX Mark ii style but that isn't relevant for you so) 

 

Personally I love the EVF's and Live view on the mirrorless cameras. I also find the smaller size fit my needs as it makes it easier to carry around and take with me on adventures. However downsides can be that DSLR's have had an advantage in AF speeds but its not really something to care for anymore imo, especially since you are considering a A6000 which has incredible good AF system. Lens selection may be a bit harder but you get the benefit of adapting old manual focus lenses with cheap adapters. Lens selection on Sony have however increased a lot the latest years and I have the feeling its just going to continue, especially now when it looks like Sigma and Samyang are focusing more on them. 

 

I know people who will preffer a DSLR for differnent reasons, I have not owned a new DSLR myself so I can't give an accurate opinion really on the benefits. Howvever I have tried out my friends Canon 6D a couple of times and I can say the ergonomics are defentivly better compared to the A6000 but its a lot heavier of a body, especially with some large glass. Of course an optical viewfinder is nice but personally I preffer a EVF. 

 

My reccomendation is to go to a store and play around with the options a bit. 

 

Now I also saw you asked on what lens combo on the A6000. I have to say the 16-50 is a good start as it covers a good zoom range. Its small and light too. Thats however about all I like with it. I like the 24mm equivilent and its basically the only focal length I use on it because its not really sharp, like at all. If you only can afford one lens, get the kit with the 16-50mm, its not horrible and its a good start. If you can spend slightly more the 18-105 is a good choice instead of the 16-50. 

 

Now, if you have more to spend or maybe want to buy more lenses later on here is my thoughs on what to get. (Only my prefference and reccomendations) 

 

Wide angle:

Sony has a 10-18, its very pricey so personally I would go with a MF Samyang 14 or 12mm a you barley need AF at those focallengths. 

 

Primes:

The Sigma 30 1.4, that is probably the best lens for cropped E mount. Its razor sharp has a nice out of focus DOF at 1.4. Cheaper options would be Sigmas other three primes, the 19. 30, and 60 2.8. I personally own the 60mm and its amazing. Its a lot better than what you expect considering how cheap it is. 

 

I have lesser experience with Sony's own primes but I have only seen good reviews about the 50 1.8. Wouldnt consider the 35 1.8 since the sigma 30 1.4 is a much better option imo. 

 

For longer primes I would look on the FE side of E mount (be sure to count in on the 1.5 crop to get the right equvilent) 

 

Something like Zeiss Batis lenses or similar. These are however very pricey. 

 

Tele zoom: 

There is not so many tele options right now. The 55-210 is pretty good. Its a bit slow AF in bad light and its not that sharp after 130-150mm. However I find it to be fun to use at times and its decently priced for what you get. (I own it myself so have played around quite a bit with it) 

 

If you want a better after that really there is the FE 70-200 f/4. Have not tried this one as its expensive. Reviews however say its very sharp and nice lens all around. 

 

Just ask if you want more info. I have used a Sony mirrorless for soon 2 years so I have a pretty good feeling of them. I'm worse at reccomending DSLR's though as I only tried them in stores and occasionally tried friends dslrs. 

 

Go with what feels best for you though. Neither of the two are worse, they just may work better for different kind of work or shooting style. 

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

22 hours ago, Riles4365 said:

what lenses do you recommend for photography?????? like landscape and close up pics I will be taking 

I recommend using whatever kit lens comes included in the box of your camera first.  Don't buy any additional lenses until you've understood what you need.

 

15 hours ago, xQubeZx said:

Go with what feels best for you though. Neither of the two are worse, they just may work better for different kind of work or shooting style. 

Exactly.  Though almost every beginner at photography is still lacking the ability to identify what their needs are or what they want to do.

[xQubeZx]

27 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

I recommend using whatever kit lens comes included in the box of your camera first.  Don't buy any additional lenses until you've understood what you need.

 

Exactly.  Though almost every beginner at photography is still lacking the ability to identify what their needs are or what they want to do.

Defentivly agree. I have quicky realised what I want in a camera now after I have used my mirrorless for some time as it was my first "real" camera. I know I want a relativly small formfactor but I want an EVF, better AF than what I have now, and mostly, I want separate wheels for changing aparture, shutter and iso. And a flip out screen, damn that is wonderful for shooting at low angles. 

[Riles4365]

I was looking at a6000 but any kit with it is way too expensive !!!!!

[Riles4365]

I found a nikon d3400 with 18-55 and 70-300 for reasonable price!!

[kirashi]

41 minutes ago, Riles4365 said:

I was looking at a6000 but any kit with it is way too expensive !!!!!

Sony's mirrorless cameras (or even their higher end point and shoots like the RX100 V) are really expensive because they outperform almost every other prosumer level camera in the lower to mid price ranges in terms of low-light image capture and panoroma/landscape photography.

 

As for other lenses to buy, I'm not familiar with the exact lenses available for Sony's alpha series, but my personal portrait favorite still is and forever will be a "nifty fifty" 50mm f1.8 or lower lens.

For street photography, something around 12-16mm does the job really well, and a ~70-250mm (or 300mm if you really need it) works great for landscapes where to want to frame up a longer distance shot.

 

That's not to say you can't get the same kind of shots with other camera's - I just mean that out of the box, Sony's tend to do the best job at these types of shots with minimal farting around in the settings. I know plenty of amateur photographers that take amazing low-light starscapes at night using DSLR's from Canon and Nikon after they learn how to tweak aperture, shutter speed, and ISO for the scene they're shooting, so they're definitely an option too.

41 minutes ago, Riles4365 said:

I found a nikon d3400 with 18-55 and 70-300 for reasonable price!!

Then you'll have to go with that if it's what your budget can afford at this time. 

 

My personal approach when I got into amateur photography in 2012 was to buy a Canon Rebel T1i stock 18-55mm kit with a bag and extra battery. Based on the number of photos I take each year, 16GB SD cards have also been my capacity of choice since I treat the cards like rolls of film, buying new cards when they get full each year.

I still have the DSLR, and have enjoyed using a 50mm f1.8 lens along with a 55-250mm for tele shots, but I'm finding carrying around my lenses and gear to be very cumbersome, especially when switching between portrait and landscape shots. I'd rather have two DSLR's with each lens mounted on each camera at all times, but that would only make my problem worse...

So, I've realized I want to sell my DSLR, the lenses, and move on over to something like Sony's RX100 V, but at $1350 CAD, that's WAY out of my budget at this point.

 

Why did I tell you this story? So you can get a perspective of the lifecycle of other amateur photographers and see what their thoughts are. I'd say go for the Nikon (or a Canon) DSLR at this time, and try it out. You might fall in love, upgrade to something like the Canon 70D (because let's face it, the 80D is a crapshoot), and then to the 5d MKIII. Or you may sell everything and downsize to a compact but high end point and shoot.

[cc143]

I'd go with the d3400, as mentioned above, its much more versatile and the a6000 has a lot of querks a beginner shouldn't want to deal with.

Like the non existent battery life, expensive lenses etc. I also have a feeling it won't age that well. I got one because I wanted something light and ended up using my EOS 50D more at the end, only thing the sony was used for was recording when opening up ebay boxes for insurance purposes, and that's just because the 50D doesn't support video recording. 

 

As far as the lenses go, I find the long telephoto lenses to be useless for most people, I got one (EF 90-300mm USM) 12 years ago when I first got into photography, and its been used 5 times in the past 12 years. What I would really recommend you get, after you have tried out your camera and are kinda convinved you'll stick with it is a 50mm f1.8. They tend to be fairly affordable, are very versatile and really help you learn more I find. 

 

A 50mm equivalent is a better option, however, 35mm lenses tend to be more expensive, although tbh, on the Canon side, it doesn't get much cheaper than the 50mm f1.8 anyway. 

 

Anything beyond that, depends on what you want to do with your camera. 

[Sprawlie]

On 14/01/2017 at 8:00 AM, Riles4365 said:

Hello, 

 

so im nit sure if this category of question will work on this site but here goes. So i am recently very interested in photography and I was looking for an entry level dslr to buy and I found the nikon d3400 which came with 18-55mm and 70-300mm lens. Then i saw mirrorless and the sony a6000. The a6000 was a bit more and I want to know is it justifiable to pay more or is it better to go dslr for entry level photographer. Please help?!!!!

It's not an easy question. Both DSLR's and Mirrorless generally offer very similar image quality no the output. Sony makes some great sensors too. But it's going to come down to what you prefer using. 

 

there are some pro's and cons to either.

 

A DSLR is going to be heavier and bulkier. But tend to have great battery life and offer optical viewfinders.

Mirrorless is going to be lighter and more compact. but battery life generally is lower and you need to rely on digital viewfinder or liveview. 

 

neither are right/wrong tools. it's just going to be which do you think will work better for you.