Memes aside, in what situation would it make sense to have and

Like, on your person or in your collection?

I keep my dslr for battery life and performance.

I keep my mirrorless for form factor, specifically when i don't want to lug around a 3 pound brick that is 9 inches long, 6 inches high and 5 inches across.

I never keep both on my person because lol why

>>2975834
Just wondering if there was a case where it would make sense to have both.

>I keep my dslr for battery life and performance.
which DSLR vs which MILC do you own? Also, wouldn't different lens systems be an issue?

>>2975838

D810, Fujifilm.

Different lens systems aren't too much of an issue as I have a couple of focal lengths at this point that I prefer to all others. I only need a 35mm (or its eqiuvalent), fast normal, fast short tele.

File: p_slr_v_mirrorless_1426111749900.png (36KB, 1070x396px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 1070x396px

Explained in picture.

>>2975849
i cringe imagining someone making this thinking its funny

>>2975832
If you are a rich fuck who has an assistant for casual hobby shooting, then I guess it makes sense to have him bring both a full FF system and a full Fuji system. That way you can walk around with your nice and light Fuji, and have him ready to hand your your D5 if you decide you need it for a shot you want

>>2975853
this how i imagine america would be if slaves were still a thing

Sports, birds, stars, nature: SLR
Manual focus, macro, candid, travel: mirrorless

At least that's how i would do it

>>2975852
I, on the other hand, wish I'd made it myself.

>>2975875
Interesting.

I have used mirrorless for stars with good results though. Noise is a bit of an issue sometimes, but I don't see why this wouldn't be an issue in SLR bodies as well.

>>2975832
>in what situation would it make sense to have and use both a DSLR and a MILC?
If you're a fucking gearfagging autist?

>>2975875
pretty much this

>>2975889
SLR bodies have better cooling, thus long exposures are cleaner. This is only a real-world issue if you literally shoot 30 minute exposures all the time.

>>2975875
I agree with this.

>>2975875
I agree except macro
I got a cheap old Adaptall f/2.8 macro lens and a bellows f/4 macro lens and I have no problem shooting with a DSLR. The shots come out nice and clean. Have liveview and peaking for focusing, also focusing rail.
What would improve a shorter flange distance when you already want to increase it for macro?

>>2975832
I use my a7 for manual lenses.
My 7D and 6D are for when I can't focus quickly enough.

>>2975911
In general mirrorless cameras just have better, faster liveview, good live histograms, many have 5 axis IBIS which reduces macro tremors both for focusing and shooting, and cameras like micro four thirds with their smaller sensors net a higher magnification with the same lens. Also, new Panasonic cameras will focus stack for you.

>>2975918
>In general mirrorless cameras just have better, faster liveview, good live histograms
Bullshit, my DSLR has just as good liveview and live histogram as my friends Sony.
And IBIS will not help you in macro, at least at true macro, none of that 1:3-1:4 pseudo macro shit you get with Sigmas, Tamrons and simple extension tubes.
Movement is just too much at 1:1. What you need is a wireless remote, a sturdy tripod and a good 2-way macro focusing rail.
Automatic focus stack also won't work at true macro, the macro ratio changes too much with the slight change in the focus since that is what you use to control the macro ratio. Again, focus rail and manual stacking.
Yes I actually did macro before not just talking out of my ass over the internet.

>>2975933
Of course you can do macro on a DSLR. But it's going to be a lot easier on a mirrorless camera that's purpose built for that kind of application, especially if you're using adapted lenses. (Anyone who argues that mirrorless cameras don't have an enormous advantage in using adapted lenses has never owned one)

And yes, auto focus stacking works at 2:1 and greater equivalent macro with oem lenses. I've used it before and it's incredible. Not to mention that their oem lenses give better than 1:1 equivalent macro at incredible detail, which pretty much negates the purpose of cheapo adapted macro lenses.

And yes, IBIS makes focusing incredibly easy, it both makes contrast AF accurate and feasible at high magnification and manual focus is a dream when shakes from touching the camera just vanish. You want a wireless remote, but the Ibis will protect you from shutter slap and wind when you're outside at 3:1 mag.

And yes, I have shot macro, and have used both DSLRs and Mirrorless extensively.

>>2975936

can we see some macro?

>>2975936
>a lot easier on a mirrorless camera that's purpose built for that kind of application
I still call bullshit on that.
Mirrorless has one purpose to be built for, and that is taking photos, same as a DSLR. you don't actually get any advantage for macro specifically over DSLRs because you are at macro. If you ever done it you would know.

DSLR for when somebody's paying me to lug heavy shit around all day in return for the best photos possible.

Mirrorless for when I'm fucking around on my own time and don't want my gear to be a constant burden.

That's how it was when I was shooting for paychecks, anyway. I'm all mirrorless now that all of my shooting is fucking around.

>>2975901
>SLR bodies have better cooling
Why is this?
I have never thought about it tbqh

>>2976286
They don't, some early models didn't have the best heat dissipation, but those days are behind us.

Wait until you see the new sony body announced in February, between the fanbois and haters the board will lose their shit, safe to say no one will be able to compete with it at any level for anything.

live view 10x manual focusing is literally 10x better than anything you could get peeking into an OVF. your eye will never ever resolve that kind of detail to achieve truest focus you possibly can

generally I always used my camera's OVF, but whenver I'm shooting something that's not really moving, I try to switch to live view and inspect key details zoomed in. this includes some macro stuff

>>2976292
>eye will never resolve
The eye's not even the limiting factor, the ground glass has a resolution.

And don't forget, can't focus on lenses faster than f2.8 on a dslr unless you swap out the focusing screen for a much darker one. And having your focus points on a different plane to the sensor, kekkery.

File: 2.jpg (87KB, 576x368px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 576x368px

>>2975849
>sperm goes INTO the penis

you /p/hags have the most fucked up fetishes

>>2976306
> you /p/hags have the most fucked up fetishes

like you've never stuck your dick in a mirror box and hit that sweet 11fps

>>2976286
They are larger, allowing the heat to spread out without being stuffed into such a tiny space (around the sensor). The other anon is a clueless Sony shill.

File: 1480614182113.png (154KB, 2000x1744px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 2000x1744px

DSLR autofocus is reliable, especially with tracking. Actually, they're reliable in every aspect. It's more than enough for everything you could think of doing with it, and then some. It's just not convenient to carry around because of their size and weight, and they can get loud.

Mirrorless cameras are smaller and less conspicuous, but that comes at the cost of performance in areas that could be dealbreakers, like slow start-up time, software bugs, unacceptable noise, AF performance, etc. There are some exceptions to this rule, though. A mirrorless is what you take if a reflex camera is overkill.

>>2976626
>software bugs

I don't think mirrorless cameras get these more often than DSLRs. And I can't recall any camera shipping with serious bugs for the last, like, 15 years.

>>2976777
I used Fuji and Olympus cameras, both gave me frequent and annoying bugs, as well as really slow starting and lazy, slow button/dial response. Compared to even older dslrs that start instantly and respond to input instantly. ymmv

>>2976780
Examples? I tried a couple old lolympus DSLRs and mirrorless cams and they seemed pretty much identical to me, aside from AF speed.

>>2976784
Keep in mind that I was comparing these mirrorless cameras to Nikon DSLRs, not Olympus dslrs.

The Fuji xe1 was an unusable nightmare - very laggy controls, and the dials didn't function well. For instance, turning the SS dial too fast would result in the selected SS and the SS in the "selected position" on the dial not matching. Also, it would freeze occasionally, or have menu options unavailable with no explanation as to why. Turning the camera off and on again to reset it could also leave the camera stuck off even though the power switch was set to on.

The Olympus EP3 wasn't that bad, but I would often see a shot, turn it on (can't leave mirrorless cams on all the time or the battery will die), and shoot, only to find that it didn't shoot at all. The shutter lag on the first shot after turning on (not including startup time) would be heinously long, even with AF turned off, in the realm of 5+ seconds.

>>2976785
Just span my xe1 ss dial faster than meatspin on meth and it works absolutely fine.

You're chatting shit aren't you mate, to justify using outdated clunky technology.

>>2976626
Isn't the AE module in the pentaprism? At least, that's where I think it is on Nikons.

>A mirrorless is what you take if a reflex camera is overkill.
Too true, and they're perfect for that.

>>2976792
Nigga what? The XE1 wasn't exactly outdated years ago when I used it. Maybe your model is fine - mine wasn't. And inconsistency is shit.