Thinking about switching to mirrorless...

Ariel484

DIS Legend
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
11,911
Current set-up: Canon T3i, Tamron 17-50, Sigma 30mm and Sigma 10-20.

I don't love lugging the DSLR around and honestly I don't think I love photography as much as I used to...as it is I really only use the DSLR for vacation pictures. Wondering if a downgrade in size would be a good move. I'm looking at the Sony a6000 with the kit lens and possibly adding the 55-210mm bundle.

Has anyone made the switch from DSLR to mirrorless? Would I be disappointed?

Thanks!!
 
Current set-up: Canon T3i, Tamron 17-50, Sigma 30mm and Sigma 10-20.

I don't love lugging the DSLR around and honestly I don't think I love photography as much as I used to...as it is I really only use the DSLR for vacation pictures. Wondering if a downgrade in size would be a good move. I'm looking at the Sony a6000 with the kit lens and possibly adding the 55-210mm bundle.

Has anyone made the switch from DSLR to mirrorless? Would I be disappointed?

Thanks!!

mirrorless could be a good option if you're not shooting a lot of action pics like sports. I use a mirrorless for events, concerts, family, etc. but keep the DSLR and 100-400 for birds and sports.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless/
 
I doubt you will be disappointed. In most ways, the A6000 is superior to the T3i, as far as camera body.
The advantages of the A6000:
- Big bright 100% EVF
- In decent light, faster and more accurate auto focus, with greater AF coverage.
- Superior image quality, including slightly higher resolution, and RAW shooters will get noticeably better dynamic range as low ISO.
- Much faster burst rate
- Much better autofocus for video
- Superior live view auto focus.
- Smaller, more compact
- Wifi, etc.

Advantages of the T3i:
- OVF can be better for tracking action, and some people subjectively prefer the OVF. But it is a smaller and darker viewfinder than the A6000, and it's only 95%.
- AF may be more reliable in low light situations
- Longer battery life. (actually, the T3i is rated about the same as the A6000)

As you can see, not too many advantages of the T3i, as far as camera body is concerned, but there are some other SYSTEM differences:

You are currently shooting with the Tamron 17-50/2.8? That is a far superior lens to the Sony A6000 kit lens.
Additionally, the Canon system has a far wider selection of different lens types, at different price categories. If you ever want a super long telephoto, you lack options with the A6000. You don't really have 2.8 zooms for the a6000.

Compared A6000 "kit" to the T3i "kit", I'd take the A6000 every time. But if you are using 2.8 lenses or long telephotos, then the comparison becomes much more murky.

If you want to prioritize size and performance, the A6000 is the better choice.
If you are focused on lens based image quality, shooting at 2.8, etc, then stick to the T3i.
 
mirrorless could be a good option if you're not shooting a lot of action pics like sports. I use a mirrorless for events, concerts, family, etc. but keep the DSLR and 100-400 for birds and sports.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless/

Depends on the mirrorless and the action I dare say, that for outdoor sports shot in the effective 200-300mm range, the A6000 is superior to any comparably priced dSLR. No comparably priced dSLR is going to give you 11 fps with tracking across most of the viewfinder. Now if you're going to step up to a Nikon D4s, then the A6000 cannot compare.
 

@bob100 no birds or sports for me...probably not shooting sports until we have a kiddo and we go to their events...

@havoc315 thanks for the detailed reply. The reviews of the A6000 kit lens are definitely giving me pause...I think if I made the switch I'd want to get a better version of the kit lens, but then that has me potentially spending a bit more than I want to. Hmm...
 
@bob100 no birds or sports for me...probably not shooting sports until we have a kiddo and we go to their events...

@havoc315 thanks for the detailed reply. The reviews of the A6000 kit lens are definitely giving me pause...I think if I made the switch I'd want to get a better version of the kit lens, but then that has me potentially spending a bit more than I want to. Hmm...

There are some excellent primes for the A6000. But there is no zoom equivalent of the 17-50/2.8. There are no 2.8 zooms, there is a good, but not great, f4 zoom.

Though with the size savings, you may find you get the quality you are seeking by just using a few primes, the 16/2.8, the 28mm, and the 50/1.8, for example. You certainly can get good pics with the A6000 kit, but it won't match the Tamron 17-50 on a pixel peeping level.
 
Thanks a lot for the insight, @havoc315. That's a good idea with the primes...you have given me a lot to think about! :)
 
One thing to consider is that the Canon EOS M3 is making its way rapidly to US shores via official import (you can buy it from DigitalRev today, BTW). Add an adapter, and you lose none of your current lenses, giving you flexibility to use either DSLR or mirrorless whenever you choose.
 
One thing to consider is that the Canon EOS M3 is making its way rapidly to US shores via official import (you can buy it from DigitalRev today, BTW). Add an adapter, and you lose none of your current lenses, giving you flexibility to use either DSLR or mirrorless whenever you choose.

Problem is, the m3 still is leagues behind other mirrorless. No viewfinder. Virtually no native lenses and no good native lenses. Af system is inferior to the a6000 and others. Burst rate is inferior to even regular dslrs, while a camera like the a6000 greatly surpasses most dslrs. Battery life is awful, even far worse than most other mirrorless.

Basically, the m3 is honestly one of the worst mirrorless cameras on the market, and it's just aimed at Canon loyalists who insist on a mirrorless camera with the Canon brand. It's greatly improved from the M1, but can't legitimately compete with the other yet.

If one waits just a few weeks/months, the next generation of Sony mirrorless Aps-c are likely to take Canon lenses even better than the M3. (For full frame, the Sony a7rii works better with Canon lenses than the Canon m3).
 
Last edited:
I saw that Canon. It was tempting but it definitely looks like the Sony cameras are better-known and get consistently good reviews...:confused3

What to do, what to do...
 
I saw that Canon. It was tempting but it definitely looks like the Sony cameras are better-known and get consistently good reviews...:confused3

What to do, what to do...

you don't shoot sports and primarily use the camera for vacations - sounds like a mirrorless system is in your future
Now that I have a mirrorless I can't imagine walking around Disney or any large place all day with a DSLR and a bag of lens

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 
Use an NEX-7 (basically same sensor as the A6000) and think it's a great camera for WDW. On vacation now and I'm using the SEL 10-18 f/4 which I rented. I think I'm in love.
 
Was waiting for you to jump in, @fractal. :)

REALLY tempted to make the switch, but as @havoc315 implied I don't think I would be satisfied with the kit lens. And I low my UWA that I currently have (my favorite lens) so I think I'd want a UWA for this new set-up...so getting the body + some sort of walk-around lens + the UWA that can work with the camera would get pretty pricey. :confused3
 
Was waiting for you to jump in, @fractal. :)

REALLY tempted to make the switch, but as @havoc315 implied I don't think I would be satisfied with the kit lens. And I low my UWA that I currently have (my favorite lens) so I think I'd want a UWA for this new set-up...so getting the body + some sort of walk-around lens + the UWA that can work with the camera would get pretty pricey. :confused3

The kit lens is average. The advantage of the kit is the compact size. The A6000 with the kit is practically pocketable and would be extremely convenient carrying around WDW, but at the expense of some IQ ( although I've seen very good shots taken with the 16-50 kit ). The 16mm 2.8 is below average in my opinion - in fact I just sold mine. The corners smear and distortion is high - the Sigma 19mm 2.8 is cheaper and better.

The SEL 10-18 is terrific IMO. It's not 2.8 but is amazingly compact for a ultra wide zoom and the long end gives you a 27mm equivalent which is not bad for a walk around. The price is a bit high but the lens is stabilized. I will likely look to buy a used copy.

There is no easy answer for the cost of the set-up. I think the body only A6000 price is great for what you get but the good Sony E-mount lenses are above average in price. If I were you I would consider the A6000 body, a used SEL 10-18 and the SEL 50mm 1.8 ( a very good lens, especially for portraits) - maybe add the 16-50 kit for when you want ultimate compactness.

Next week I will be posting plenty of shots I took with the SEL 10-18 if you want a sense of what the lens can do matched with the Sony 24mp sensor.
 
Last edited:
Additionally, you can buy an adapter for your Canon mount lenses, but will either have to sacrifice AF speed or go full manual.

I purchased a cheap "dummy" adapter and some old Minolta Rokkor lenses that I enjoy shooting manual with (using Sony's focus peaking). Yesterday I was at Epcot and used a cheap "focal reducer" adapter with a Minolta Rokkor 50mm 1.4 in Spaceship Earth. It gave me a full-frame equivalent of a 50mm f/0.95 lens and it looks to have performed very well. I'm anxious to get home and upload them. :-)
 
Additionally, you can buy an adapter for your Canon mount lenses, but will either have to sacrifice AF speed or go full manual.

I purchased a cheap "dummy" adapter and some old Minolta Rokkor lenses that I enjoy shooting manual with (using Sony's focus peaking). Yesterday I was at Epcot and used a cheap "focal reducer" adapter with a Minolta Rokkor 50mm 1.4 in Spaceship Earth. It gave me a full-frame equivalent of a 50mm f/0.95 lens and it looks to have performed very well. I'm anxious to get home and upload them. :-)

I suspect the a7000 will bring fast af to adapted lenses (as long as the lens has in body motor), as with the a7rii.
 
There's another kit lens option you could consider, which some people prefer to the 16-50mm that comes with the A6000 - pick up one of the older 18-55mm kit lenses that came with previous NEX models. It's a debate how much better or same it is, but some at least seem to feel it might have been a slightly better overall lens, and it's not an extending/power zoom type lens, which some people like myself just can't stand (the lens auto-retracts all the time when you're not shooting, takes longer to extend again on wakeup, and is just slower in use with the zoom switch rather than a nice old twist of the wrist). You can find them everywhere very cheap - $100ish - and pick up the A6000 body only. Also, some have indicated Costco was selling a bundle A6000 that included the 18-55mm and 55-210mm lenses, rather than the usual 16-50mm...that's something else to look for.

Remember in all the reviews of 'bad' lenses, much of the time there's a combination of very very picky, high-end pixel peepers comparing much more expensive lenses and decrying that the kit lens is horrible, and others who just keep quoting that the kit lenses are unusable based on no actual personal experience. While the kit lens isn't a low light monster, isn't a depth-of-field master for shallow closeup work, and isn't a speed demon; for normal, every day walkaround shooting for a majority of non-professional photographers who won't be needing to make 5-foot prints, the kit lens is just fine. Despite two camera systems and 30+ lenses, I still routinely use my 18-55mm kit lens on my A6000 for Disney, for cruises, and for general walkaround stuff, and it does just fine. You can always look to upgrade the lens sometime down the road if you really want to go to something better...save up and spend bigger money for something like the Zeiss 16-35mm F4, or who knows what's coming down the pike as Sony has roadmapped 8 more lenses coming over the next year or so, one of which might be a faster standard zoom. Just something to keep in mind.
 
There's another kit lens option you could consider, which some people prefer to the 16-50mm that comes with the A6000 - pick up one of the older 18-55mm kit lenses that came with previous NEX models. It's a debate how much better or same it is, but some at least seem to feel it might have been a slightly better overall lens, and it's not an extending/power zoom type lens, which some people like myself just can't stand (the lens auto-retracts all the time when you're not shooting, takes longer to extend again on wakeup, and is just slower in use with the zoom switch rather than a nice old twist of the wrist). You can find them everywhere very cheap - $100ish - and pick up the A6000 body only. Also, some have indicated Costco was selling a bundle A6000 that included the 18-55mm and 55-210mm lenses, rather than the usual 16-50mm...that's something else to look for.

Remember in all the reviews of 'bad' lenses, much of the time there's a combination of very very picky, high-end pixel peepers comparing much more expensive lenses and decrying that the kit lens is horrible, and others who just keep quoting that the kit lenses are unusable based on no actual personal experience. While the kit lens isn't a low light monster, isn't a depth-of-field master for shallow closeup work, and isn't a speed demon; for normal, every day walkaround shooting for a majority of non-professional photographers who won't be needing to make 5-foot prints, the kit lens is just fine. Despite two camera systems and 30+ lenses, I still routinely use my 18-55mm kit lens on my A6000 for Disney, for cruises, and for general walkaround stuff, and it does just fine. You can always look to upgrade the lens sometime down the road if you really want to go to something better...save up and spend bigger money for something like the Zeiss 16-35mm F4, or who knows what's coming down the pike as Sony has roadmapped 8 more lenses coming over the next year or so, one of which might be a faster standard zoom. Just something to keep in mind.

That's all true. But the thing is... While you can certainly get great images with a basic kit lens, once you get used to something faster and sharper, you definitely do notice the step back.

OP chose to shoot with a 17-50/2.8 versus a kit Canon lens. They already decided they wanted something better than the kit lens. So the Sony 16-50 and 18-55 would both be steps backwards. If the kit Canon 18-55 wasn't good enough for you (whether because it was too slow, whether due to pixel peeping), then the Sony kit lenses won't be good enough either.
Certainly, they aren't "bad lenses" but op already chose to go with an upgraded lens.
 












Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE


New Posts





DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top Bottom