Why choose an APS-C mirrorless kit over a full-frame SLR kit? [duplicate]

Question

The biggest tradeoff between SLRs and mirrorless cameras is compactness for sensor quality. In particular, an APS-C mirrorless kit costs about the same as a low end full-frame SLR kit.

There are lots of situations where you would lose pictures on the mirrorless kit that you might have gotten on the SLR kit (nighttime, concerts, buildings). The other way around it is not so clear.

The word on the street is that mirrorless cameras are less obtrusive than SLRs, but I am not sure I believe this. Is a full-frame SLR gawdy enough that it justifies foregoing sensor quality?

Answer 1

People get very hung up on "quality". I think Internet review sites are partly to blame, because they get traffic by analyzing the minutia of this vs. that measurement. Keep in mind, though, that the baseline for quality is very, very high, and every modern camera with a 1" sensor or large is capable of stellar results. We're not talking "C" vs "A", here — it's a question of A+++ vs A++++.

There may be some extreme situations where you might "lose pictures" with the mirrorless camera, but really, they're probably also situations where you're not getting a lot of keepers with the latest-greatest full-frame, either.

With 2016's technology, the biggest functional difference is going to be in autofocus. Even with the on-sensor phase detect, Fujifilm's AF speed lags behind the high-end DSLRs — especially for continuous tracking of moving subjects. For slower or still subjects, though, it's a non-issue — and from what I've seen, offerings from Olympus, Nikon, Sony are really narrowing the gap. And, on the upside, the slower contrast-detect approach is inherently more accurate and offers niceties like eye tracking.

Obtrusiveness is obviously both situational and subjective. Since I use the Fujifilm X-T10 a lot, I'd say that from experience, going around the city people don't give a second look (or if they do, it's because they think it's a film camera), but the lens definitely looks like more than a toy. It's no stealth cam.

Consider this, though, when comparing the example you suggested earlier — Nikon D600 + Sigma 35mm f/1.4 compared to Fujifilm X-T10 with Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4: the D600 setup weighs about 1.7kg (with batteries and accessories), while the X-T10 clocks in at 0.7kg — about 40% of the weight! Whether or not other people notice that, you might, if you're out shooting for extended periods.

Answer 2

The Sony α6000 is $500. Show me a full frame for that price, and I will accept your argument that even the body, let alone the lenses, are the same for a full frame dSLR as they are for an APS-C compact mirrorless. The only full frame camera I know of that matches even the α6300 or Fuji X-T10 in price is the α7(which is showing its age!), which is also mirrorless.

Compare APS-C dSLRs to APS-C mirrorless cameras, and full frame dSLRs to full frame mirrorless. Do that and I think you'll find the price and quality differences will become vanishingly small. You shouldn't ignore lens system, features, handling and ergonomics - these are really the biggest differences, and won't change much over time. Price and quality will come down to differences on brand and model more than fundamental aspects of mirrorless/dSLR systems as a whole.

Pick the brand, feeling, design system, ergonomics and philosophy(Sony is all about sensors, Fuji is more retro and widely better received ergonomics, just to mention a few) of the company you like best. It sounds silly, but those are the constants in this ever-changing world, and the cost of switching later goes up as you buy in.

Remember that the body is only a small part of the expense if you plan on getting deep into photography. Good luck!

Full frame DSLRs just as cheap as APS-C Compact Mirrorless

Ok, with several examples I can now make a comparison. The Nikon D600 and the Canon 6D were both launched in 2012.They are aging for sure. Even the α7 is getting old. This doesn't make them "bad", but it comes with it's own set of downsides. Things like autofocus, video, and ISO won't be as good as their current full frame counterparts. In many respects, much newer mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X-T10 and Sony a6300 will have caught up. In video, the α6300 is certainly better. In base ISO range, the Canon 6D is rated up to 25600 - exactly the same as the α6300. This is a huge blow to what I would consider a key advantage of full frame. Granted, this is mostly on paper, the full frame Canon's outdated sensor is still probably better "in real life", but the differences are eroding.

What you end up with is all the weight of the full frame, with all the costs of the lenses (which do not come down in price dramatically over time like bodies do), but many of the advantages have been eroded by time. If you have never felt the difference, it is a very different feel from holding a little α6300 vs the heft of a good old full frame dSLR. Not something you casually walk around with. Now, especially in professional settings, that solidity, size, and heft screams professionalism, so that's something to take into consideration.

So, if video and weight are beans to you, and cost of full frame lenses has been taken into account, then the older cameras may be great. If the needs favor APS-C crop factor(so-called "reach"), or other newer features like 4k video, or you care about weight and bulk, APS-C is the way to go.

Ultimately, I'd go with the one that you see yourself using the most, even into the future. If you really, really want to go full frame, but can't afford a newer body yet, you might take the disadvantages of an older camera and then upgrade in the future(today's hot new cameras are the α7's and 6D's of tomorrow), without having to sell your old lenses.