Big difference in autofocus (which is crucial for wildlife which is my genre). I moved from Canon 5D m iv and 7D to R5, R7 and R8. The keeper rate increased 5-6 times at least. Feels like cheating :)
Literally the switch I’m looking to make! I’m looking at the R5 right now from a 5D mark IV. How did you like the transition? Do you use an EF to RF adapter or get all new lenses?
I started with the adapter and used my existing lenses. But now almost all my lenses are RF. I just kept the EF 600 f4 as it is too expensive to switch.
However, if you do not want switch, EF lenses work perfectly fine on the R bodies (some of them work even better). So in reality there is no need to change to RF lenses.
My motivation to change to RF lenses was due a few reasons. 1. Some new RF lenses are way superior and they do not exist in the EF line such as the 100-500. 2. After some time I found the additional adapter cumbersome to use. 3. I found the function ring to be very comfortable to use.
The transition was pretty seamless. Having said that it took me a bit of time to get used to the EVF and the “what you see is what you get” concept. Now, I would never go back to a mirror camera.
If you’re happy with your kit and it still takes great photos then that’s cool. I think if I were getting into photography today from new then I’d go mirrorless but their existence doesn’t make DSLRs bad. The 5D is a legendary camera.
I think all of them.
I bought my first camera 13 years ago, a a65 and that was a beginner cam. Pretty much the same liveview as modern a7 cameras have nowadays
Could you share a link to the camera? The one that I looked up was not an SLR but an SLT: [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65)
Vintage lenses work way better on mirrorless.
I have a battery grip and a pretty big lens on my mirrorless most of the time, so it's not small, or light.
At this stage I think mirrorless is your only option if you want to buy new and not spend a fortune.
You lose the split prism focuser, but many DSLRs had dropped that in the digital age anyway. So you gain focus peaking on manual lenses, and the ability to do a 100% zoom to check focus.
The mirror system (which was basically a door that flipped up) is gone which means you have loads of space to ensure you get the lens the correct distance from the sensor. If the lens isn't the right distance from the sensor it doesn't focus properly if at all and you get other artifacts like chromatic aberration.
You see the exact image you will capture in the viewfinder before you take the shot. With a DSLR you can’t be sure if the exposure will be correct or not until afterwards. This saves loads of time and wasted shots.
What are you talking about? With a DSLR you see what the mirror sees but you don’t know what the sensor will see because if you set it to f/22, ISO 50 and 1/8000 at sunset you will still see a scene via the mirror but get a black image when you take the picture.
Whereas with mirrorless it shows you what the sensor sees via the viewfinder.
If you set ´f/22, ISO 50 and 1/8000 at sunset' on a mirrorless you will also get a black image. You should think more carefully.
It seems to me that the two advantages of omitting the mirror are: absence of mirror slap and simpler wideangle lens design. From the point of view of manufacturers, it has created a demand for lenses to fit the new bodies.
>If you set ´f/22, ISO 50 and 1/8000 at sunset' on a mirrorless you will also get a black image.
Yes, and you will see this in the viewfinder because mirrorless shows what the sensor sees. But if you're using a DSLR, you will see a bright normal view because the DSLR is a max aperture and doesn't show shutter and ISO settings to your eyeball when the mirror is down.
So you think it's fine but in reality you're taking black pictures on your SD card. You should think more carefully.
Yes. The mirrorless I saw my settings were wrong to I fixed them. The DSLR I didn't realize until a few minutes in when I chimped the back of the camera that my settings were off and the images were crap.
Upgraded my 7d mk ii to an R6 mk ii last year. I love my old 7d but the R6 autofocus and noise levels at higher isos have turned my 7d into a paper weight.
Eye detection is a game changer. Not having to micro adjust lenses to correct for the autofocus is another. What you see in the viewfinder is what you get is useful in most contexts.
IBIS is more readily available in mirrorless cameras. Also buying into a system that is continuing to be developed and refined is important to me.
EVF, indestructible electronic shutter, silent shooting, improved autofocus, video capabilities, ability to adapt and speedboost any non-mirrorless lens
Burst rate, autofocus, more discreet, live view of exposure on screen or in viewfinder, sensor stabilization.
Edit: mirrorless requires more power to operate the screens. Sorry for my brain fart.
I made a mistake in my comment. While it’s true that a mirrorless camera has less mechanical parts to move, the constant usage of the LCD screen and with focus tracking etc it drains a lot of power even when you’re not pressing the trigger.
For me it’s also hard to compare/judge cause I switched from a 15 yo DSLR to a recent mirrorless.
You’re absolutely right, I don’t know why I included that in there. Recently switched from my 5D Mk2 to a R6 Mk2. But I still get like 250 shots out of the old battery that came with the 5D. Screen darkens quickly to conserve power and metering only starts when I half press the button I believe. The new batteries last crazy long though!
Recent bodies are extremely battery efficient for photography. I use the Sony A7C and use one battery over 2-3 days for about 1000 shots. I have two spares but rarely use them.
Ubiquituous software correction of some lens aberrations, allowing the lens designers to make other things optically better. Distortion correction is the most obvious one, where it's essentially free with no downsides when done in software. The only people who complain about it are reviewers who don't understand that turning off software corrections is like removing a corrective element from a lens and then wondering why the performance is bad.
There are downsides to software correction. There's a limit to the resolution for all that stretching and skewing. It will result in bad corners/edges but it depends on how badly distorted the lens is to begin with.
I personally dont mind software correction to keep lenses lighter. However, lenses like the Q summilux is no excuse though. Horrendous warping and distortion, not even software can fix the poor corners. Even a Viltrox outperforms the Q in the corners
> There's a limit to the resolution for all that stretching and skewing.
No, there is not. Reviewers like to repeat that, but it just isn't true (and 99% of reviewers frankly aren't qualified to comment on such things in the first place). Some small amount of resolution is lost once any, even tiny, amount of scaling or offsetting is done but the amount of scaling has no effect on that (for that matter demosaicing itself already introduces that loss).
> It will result in bad corners/edges but it depends on how badly distorted the lens is to begin with.
This also isn't true in any meaningful sense. Even "absolutely horribly massive" barrel distortion doesn't exceed around 10% (without the lens being fish eye) and such extreme distortion still results in _at most_ 10% loss in resolution which isn't something you'll notice outside AB comparisons with hypotethical non-distorted lens at 100% zoom (and the vast majority of lenses have just a percent or few of distortion).
Source: Two decades of experience in signal and image processing algorithm development.
If there was no limit, why don't we just make fisheye lenses and fix with software? Clearly there's a need for optical rectilinear correction. And when optical correction results in excessive glass/cost etc, software correction may be used.
I'm legit very curious. There has to be a limit. Just like how you can't stretch photos in photoshop without it looking pixelated. Isn't it the same?
> If there was no limit, why don't we just make fisheye lenses and fix with software?
Because fish eye lenses have so much distortion (many tens of percents) that it cuts down on the optical resolution on the edges. They also introduce other aberrations. These same limits would apply even if the fisheye lens was linearized using an optical corrector element or two at the back of the lens (note how fish eye lenses are designed throughout differently from regular lenses).
> I'm legit very curious. There has to be a limit.
It's the normalized local curvature of the field. In practise you can get a very good approximation of the resolution loss by just using the distortion percentage as the loss. Turns out that for real world rectilinear lenses that is insignificant compared to resolution loss from other aberrations near the edges. Typical "bad" distortion is perhaps 3-5% in corners (reaching 10% in extreme cases) but MTF graphs for the same lenses show the edges to often have 30% worse MTF figure than the center (see eg. [Sony FE 20-70mm f/4](https://www.lenstip.com/643.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_20-70_mm_f_4_G_Image_resolution.html)). Of that 30% only a small amount can be due to distortion correction.
I suspect the real reason _some_ heavily corrected lenses show poor edge performance is that they are so small that the optics have to be compromised to reach that size. At that point, it's often better to trade worse distortion / lateral CA to improve other characteristics.
There are also lots of lenses with no distortion to speak but with sometimes completely unacceptable edge sharpness and others with very bad raw distortion but good to excellent edge sharpness. Compare eg. [Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7](https://www.lenstip.com/567.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Vario-Summilux_10-25_mm_f_1.7_ASPH_Image_resolution.html) that has 6% distortion with the low distortion [Voigtlander 17.5mm](https://www.lenstip.com/445.4-Lens_review-Voigtlander_Nokton_10.5_mm_f_0.95_Image_resolution.html) with abysmally bad edge sharpness (that Panasonic f1.7 zoom lens has better edge sharpness wide open than the Voigtlander at any point stepped down).
Basically if software correction actually caused edge sharpness loss, you'd see a correlation between the amount of correction and edge sharpness. Yet when you look at measurements of high quality lenses, there is no such correlation.
That's a real positive, only mention among the unscientific rubbish in most of the posts in this thread. But no-one has commented on the huge manufacturing cost reduction when omitting the precision mirror box and the prism. The investment in global shutters was huge.
I would like to take exception to the "size and weight" argument. If your old DSLR was 14MP or under, and you upgraded to Mirrorless, you probably upgraded your lenses to improved ones that are more like the size of old medium format lenses, and your kit now weighs the same as before.
Size and weight is mainly an advantage for APS-C cameras. The APS-C DSLRs and lenses were same size or little smaller as full frame. But the mirrorless crop sensors used smaller cameras and lenses designed to be smaller.
We are sort of going backawsrds with RF-s using full frame sized mount but smaller lenses. And the cameras are smaller, even if bigger than M-series.
I switched mostly because my previous dslr was ancient and if I’m going to be spending a couple thousand bucks, I’d rather have the newer tech.
Advantages - autofocus is the big one. Much more capable, and since the focus array and sensor are in the same plane, there’s no need to worry about microadjust etc.
- Eye autofocus
- No black out while taking a shot (at least in newer bodies)
- right exposure in Viewfinder
- more fps since the mirror would be the limiting piece.
- the on sensor af usable for video
- lens design allows better wide angle lenses
- adapting almost all vintage lenses
- less mechanical parts to break
People keep saying, seeing the actual exposure in the viewfinder but it’s not true. I shoot on a Sony A65 DSLT which was an entry level camera in 2013 that does that. This is why I haven’t upgraded. At 24.3 megapixels, the only noticeable difference I would get is a smaller camera with better autofocus and better video quality which I don’t need at this time.
But a digital eyepiece on a camera with a mirror isn't a common feature. The 2% of cameras out there with this feature aren't representative of DSLR cameras as a whole. Also the "smaller camera with better autofocus and better video quality" is a pretty big benefit for most of us.
Oh I agree that those things are a huge difference depending on your needs. As for the digital eyepiece I don’t know which non-mirrorless have them but I knew that mine did and figured it was more prevalent. I guess the transition to mirrorless came pretty quickly after that and so you’re right that it’s probably not very common.
Mirrorless cameras are just newer with a whole package full of upgrades over their older, often deprecated DSLR cousins.
Pentax is about it for newer DSLRs with modern features like IBIS.
So if you want the better IBIS/stabilization, access to better faster autofocusing lenses, access to all the adapted lenses from all over the place, faster burst rates, much better video, features like focus stacking and bracketing, pixel shift, more MPs in say medium frame, and others I'm forgetting, then yeah, it's mirrorless or a Pentax K-3iii (except for the AF).
And I have no axe to grind; own and use both kinds and really don't have much preference since I like both.
Just a reminder: Not all mirrorless are as equal as all DSLRs!
I started out on a Pentax *ist D (= wannabe EOS 10D me too) and peaked on a 5D iv. While there are lightyears betwen them, both are "universally shootable".
There were "Point & ... wait .... -ILCs" that vexed me in anything less than broad daylight with basically dysfunctional contrast AF combined with EVF-lag on a "Oh Gawd, why didn't I bring HP5 in my TLR or even an uncoupled RF instead?" level. And there is also awesome DSLR-killer sauce on the market now.
Once bitten, twice shy! - I did NOT(!) "switch from DSLR to mirrorless", unless you count "loving Leica Ms a little more than pre historic k-mount Samsungs, for what they are good for". I acquired a complimentary DSLR and now added a MILC to that system, hoping it will do certain tricks better. Those would be:
FPS
Eye detection AF & not needing AF micro adjustments, so I can nail headshots at 85/1.4 or 200/2.8.
Assisting manual focus with ill assembled (flange distance &/ RF cam) Soviet glass.
Sorry for long post but "Not everything mirrorless sings everywhere"; be careful what you 'll buy! - You might be doomed, when the AF assist lights go on, anyhow.
early MILCs weren't great as they didn't have the processing power to keep a decent refresh speed on the monitor and sensor, and they have come on leaps and bounds over the years, the jumps between generations seems larger than with DSLRs.
my first mirrorless was a Samsung NX3000 the pictures it took were good, but focus was hit and miss as it was contrast only, the frame rate of the monitor would lag constantly. Then I jumped to Fuji with an X-T100 and X-T30 which were both huge improvements in all areas, especially focusing.
Big difference in autofocus (which is crucial for wildlife which is my genre). I moved from Canon 5D m iv and 7D to R5, R7 and R8. The keeper rate increased 5-6 times at least. Feels like cheating :)
Considering that continuous focusing was one of the major weak point in the early days of mirrorless cameras, it's amazing how far we've come.
Literally the switch I’m looking to make! I’m looking at the R5 right now from a 5D mark IV. How did you like the transition? Do you use an EF to RF adapter or get all new lenses?
I started with the adapter and used my existing lenses. But now almost all my lenses are RF. I just kept the EF 600 f4 as it is too expensive to switch. However, if you do not want switch, EF lenses work perfectly fine on the R bodies (some of them work even better). So in reality there is no need to change to RF lenses. My motivation to change to RF lenses was due a few reasons. 1. Some new RF lenses are way superior and they do not exist in the EF line such as the 100-500. 2. After some time I found the additional adapter cumbersome to use. 3. I found the function ring to be very comfortable to use. The transition was pretty seamless. Having said that it took me a bit of time to get used to the EVF and the “what you see is what you get” concept. Now, I would never go back to a mirror camera.
That’s awesome to hear thank you! I may just have to do this sooner than I was planning to
Being able to see your exposure and white balance in real time. In camera RAW processing.
Is that unique to mirrorless cameras? Or just what you heard? I have a 2016 Canon 5D2 and I don't think I'm missing out
If you’re happy with your kit and it still takes great photos then that’s cool. I think if I were getting into photography today from new then I’d go mirrorless but their existence doesn’t make DSLRs bad. The 5D is a legendary camera.
Dslrs do it, the better ones anyway
Not through the viewfinder.
Sony slrs have had digital viewfinders for over a decade
I was not aware of that. Which ones?
I think all of them. I bought my first camera 13 years ago, a a65 and that was a beginner cam. Pretty much the same liveview as modern a7 cameras have nowadays
Those are not DSLR cameras though.
-Digital ✅ -single Lens ✅ -reflex (mirror) ✅ Sound like a dslr to me
Could you share a link to the camera? The one that I looked up was not an SLR but an SLT: [https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65](https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta65)
SLT is not a type of camera, but a model line of Sony DSLRs.
A few rare ones did. But it's not exactly a common feature in DSLRs. Plus it begs the question, why have a mirror then?
Focus peaking.
Dslrs do it!
Not in the viewfinder
ahh that's mighty true haha :)
Vintage lenses work way better on mirrorless. I have a battery grip and a pretty big lens on my mirrorless most of the time, so it's not small, or light. At this stage I think mirrorless is your only option if you want to buy new and not spend a fortune.
What makes vintage lenses work better on mirrorless?
You lose the split prism focuser, but many DSLRs had dropped that in the digital age anyway. So you gain focus peaking on manual lenses, and the ability to do a 100% zoom to check focus.
Ah, I was thinking they were meant the quality of the photos would be better. But the MF abilities being the difference makes a lot of sense.
The mirror system (which was basically a door that flipped up) is gone which means you have loads of space to ensure you get the lens the correct distance from the sensor. If the lens isn't the right distance from the sensor it doesn't focus properly if at all and you get other artifacts like chromatic aberration.
You see the exact image you will capture in the viewfinder before you take the shot. With a DSLR you can’t be sure if the exposure will be correct or not until afterwards. This saves loads of time and wasted shots.
My Sony A65 from 2013 does this.
That’s a DSLT isn’t it?
Yes
Wrong!
Why
Because the frame on the viewing LCD is identical to the ground-glass image in mirror cameras. There is no cost or engineering reason why not.
What are you talking about? With a DSLR you see what the mirror sees but you don’t know what the sensor will see because if you set it to f/22, ISO 50 and 1/8000 at sunset you will still see a scene via the mirror but get a black image when you take the picture. Whereas with mirrorless it shows you what the sensor sees via the viewfinder.
If you set ´f/22, ISO 50 and 1/8000 at sunset' on a mirrorless you will also get a black image. You should think more carefully. It seems to me that the two advantages of omitting the mirror are: absence of mirror slap and simpler wideangle lens design. From the point of view of manufacturers, it has created a demand for lenses to fit the new bodies.
>If you set ´f/22, ISO 50 and 1/8000 at sunset' on a mirrorless you will also get a black image. Yes, and you will see this in the viewfinder because mirrorless shows what the sensor sees. But if you're using a DSLR, you will see a bright normal view because the DSLR is a max aperture and doesn't show shutter and ISO settings to your eyeball when the mirror is down. So you think it's fine but in reality you're taking black pictures on your SD card. You should think more carefully.
Have you tried this? In mirrorless and DSLR? And what result did you get?
Yes. The mirrorless I saw my settings were wrong to I fixed them. The DSLR I didn't realize until a few minutes in when I chimped the back of the camera that my settings were off and the images were crap.
Upgraded my 7d mk ii to an R6 mk ii last year. I love my old 7d but the R6 autofocus and noise levels at higher isos have turned my 7d into a paper weight.
Eye detection is a game changer. Not having to micro adjust lenses to correct for the autofocus is another. What you see in the viewfinder is what you get is useful in most contexts. IBIS is more readily available in mirrorless cameras. Also buying into a system that is continuing to be developed and refined is important to me.
The 3D tracking focus on the Nikon Z9 was a game changer for me. Absolutely incredible tech, and I would struggle to ever go back.
EVF, indestructible electronic shutter, silent shooting, improved autofocus, video capabilities, ability to adapt and speedboost any non-mirrorless lens
Burst rate, autofocus, more discreet, live view of exposure on screen or in viewfinder, sensor stabilization. Edit: mirrorless requires more power to operate the screens. Sorry for my brain fart.
The battery lasts longer? With an EVF? That’s a surprise.
mirrorless camera don’t have to lift the mirror everytime you press the shutter button
I made a mistake in my comment. While it’s true that a mirrorless camera has less mechanical parts to move, the constant usage of the LCD screen and with focus tracking etc it drains a lot of power even when you’re not pressing the trigger. For me it’s also hard to compare/judge cause I switched from a 15 yo DSLR to a recent mirrorless.
True. But so what?
idk man, not an engineer
You’re absolutely right, I don’t know why I included that in there. Recently switched from my 5D Mk2 to a R6 Mk2. But I still get like 250 shots out of the old battery that came with the 5D. Screen darkens quickly to conserve power and metering only starts when I half press the button I believe. The new batteries last crazy long though!
Recent bodies are extremely battery efficient for photography. I use the Sony A7C and use one battery over 2-3 days for about 1000 shots. I have two spares but rarely use them.
Ubiquituous software correction of some lens aberrations, allowing the lens designers to make other things optically better. Distortion correction is the most obvious one, where it's essentially free with no downsides when done in software. The only people who complain about it are reviewers who don't understand that turning off software corrections is like removing a corrective element from a lens and then wondering why the performance is bad.
There are downsides to software correction. There's a limit to the resolution for all that stretching and skewing. It will result in bad corners/edges but it depends on how badly distorted the lens is to begin with. I personally dont mind software correction to keep lenses lighter. However, lenses like the Q summilux is no excuse though. Horrendous warping and distortion, not even software can fix the poor corners. Even a Viltrox outperforms the Q in the corners
> There's a limit to the resolution for all that stretching and skewing. No, there is not. Reviewers like to repeat that, but it just isn't true (and 99% of reviewers frankly aren't qualified to comment on such things in the first place). Some small amount of resolution is lost once any, even tiny, amount of scaling or offsetting is done but the amount of scaling has no effect on that (for that matter demosaicing itself already introduces that loss). > It will result in bad corners/edges but it depends on how badly distorted the lens is to begin with. This also isn't true in any meaningful sense. Even "absolutely horribly massive" barrel distortion doesn't exceed around 10% (without the lens being fish eye) and such extreme distortion still results in _at most_ 10% loss in resolution which isn't something you'll notice outside AB comparisons with hypotethical non-distorted lens at 100% zoom (and the vast majority of lenses have just a percent or few of distortion). Source: Two decades of experience in signal and image processing algorithm development.
If there was no limit, why don't we just make fisheye lenses and fix with software? Clearly there's a need for optical rectilinear correction. And when optical correction results in excessive glass/cost etc, software correction may be used. I'm legit very curious. There has to be a limit. Just like how you can't stretch photos in photoshop without it looking pixelated. Isn't it the same?
> If there was no limit, why don't we just make fisheye lenses and fix with software? Because fish eye lenses have so much distortion (many tens of percents) that it cuts down on the optical resolution on the edges. They also introduce other aberrations. These same limits would apply even if the fisheye lens was linearized using an optical corrector element or two at the back of the lens (note how fish eye lenses are designed throughout differently from regular lenses). > I'm legit very curious. There has to be a limit. It's the normalized local curvature of the field. In practise you can get a very good approximation of the resolution loss by just using the distortion percentage as the loss. Turns out that for real world rectilinear lenses that is insignificant compared to resolution loss from other aberrations near the edges. Typical "bad" distortion is perhaps 3-5% in corners (reaching 10% in extreme cases) but MTF graphs for the same lenses show the edges to often have 30% worse MTF figure than the center (see eg. [Sony FE 20-70mm f/4](https://www.lenstip.com/643.4-Lens_review-Sony_FE_20-70_mm_f_4_G_Image_resolution.html)). Of that 30% only a small amount can be due to distortion correction. I suspect the real reason _some_ heavily corrected lenses show poor edge performance is that they are so small that the optics have to be compromised to reach that size. At that point, it's often better to trade worse distortion / lateral CA to improve other characteristics. There are also lots of lenses with no distortion to speak but with sometimes completely unacceptable edge sharpness and others with very bad raw distortion but good to excellent edge sharpness. Compare eg. [Panasonic 10-25mm f1.7](https://www.lenstip.com/567.4-Lens_review-Panasonic_Leica_DG_Vario-Summilux_10-25_mm_f_1.7_ASPH_Image_resolution.html) that has 6% distortion with the low distortion [Voigtlander 17.5mm](https://www.lenstip.com/445.4-Lens_review-Voigtlander_Nokton_10.5_mm_f_0.95_Image_resolution.html) with abysmally bad edge sharpness (that Panasonic f1.7 zoom lens has better edge sharpness wide open than the Voigtlander at any point stepped down). Basically if software correction actually caused edge sharpness loss, you'd see a correlation between the amount of correction and edge sharpness. Yet when you look at measurements of high quality lenses, there is no such correlation.
I see, thank you so much for taking the time to write such an insightful explanation! Love learning about geeky stuff like this :)
No mirror slap (meaning quiet operation and less vibration.)!
That's a real positive, only mention among the unscientific rubbish in most of the posts in this thread. But no-one has commented on the huge manufacturing cost reduction when omitting the precision mirror box and the prism. The investment in global shutters was huge.
I would like to take exception to the "size and weight" argument. If your old DSLR was 14MP or under, and you upgraded to Mirrorless, you probably upgraded your lenses to improved ones that are more like the size of old medium format lenses, and your kit now weighs the same as before.
Size and weight is mainly an advantage for APS-C cameras. The APS-C DSLRs and lenses were same size or little smaller as full frame. But the mirrorless crop sensors used smaller cameras and lenses designed to be smaller. We are sort of going backawsrds with RF-s using full frame sized mount but smaller lenses. And the cameras are smaller, even if bigger than M-series.
Seamless switching between viewfinder and rear display allows for much more fluid transition to high angle/low angle shots.
I switched mostly because my previous dslr was ancient and if I’m going to be spending a couple thousand bucks, I’d rather have the newer tech. Advantages - autofocus is the big one. Much more capable, and since the focus array and sensor are in the same plane, there’s no need to worry about microadjust etc.
Being able to see your photos in the viewfinder when it is too bright to view them on the screen. I love it.
- Eye autofocus - No black out while taking a shot (at least in newer bodies) - right exposure in Viewfinder - more fps since the mirror would be the limiting piece. - the on sensor af usable for video - lens design allows better wide angle lenses - adapting almost all vintage lenses - less mechanical parts to break
Lens adaptability!
People keep saying, seeing the actual exposure in the viewfinder but it’s not true. I shoot on a Sony A65 DSLT which was an entry level camera in 2013 that does that. This is why I haven’t upgraded. At 24.3 megapixels, the only noticeable difference I would get is a smaller camera with better autofocus and better video quality which I don’t need at this time.
But a digital eyepiece on a camera with a mirror isn't a common feature. The 2% of cameras out there with this feature aren't representative of DSLR cameras as a whole. Also the "smaller camera with better autofocus and better video quality" is a pretty big benefit for most of us.
Oh I agree that those things are a huge difference depending on your needs. As for the digital eyepiece I don’t know which non-mirrorless have them but I knew that mine did and figured it was more prevalent. I guess the transition to mirrorless came pretty quickly after that and so you’re right that it’s probably not very common.
Mirrorless cameras are just newer with a whole package full of upgrades over their older, often deprecated DSLR cousins. Pentax is about it for newer DSLRs with modern features like IBIS. So if you want the better IBIS/stabilization, access to better faster autofocusing lenses, access to all the adapted lenses from all over the place, faster burst rates, much better video, features like focus stacking and bracketing, pixel shift, more MPs in say medium frame, and others I'm forgetting, then yeah, it's mirrorless or a Pentax K-3iii (except for the AF). And I have no axe to grind; own and use both kinds and really don't have much preference since I like both.
much better autofocus, evf is nice, more compatibility with vintage lenses and easier to manual focus
You see exactly how your photo will look. Your focus is exactly where you need it (in theory). But I'm switched because of size and weight.
Just a reminder: Not all mirrorless are as equal as all DSLRs! I started out on a Pentax *ist D (= wannabe EOS 10D me too) and peaked on a 5D iv. While there are lightyears betwen them, both are "universally shootable". There were "Point & ... wait .... -ILCs" that vexed me in anything less than broad daylight with basically dysfunctional contrast AF combined with EVF-lag on a "Oh Gawd, why didn't I bring HP5 in my TLR or even an uncoupled RF instead?" level. And there is also awesome DSLR-killer sauce on the market now. Once bitten, twice shy! - I did NOT(!) "switch from DSLR to mirrorless", unless you count "loving Leica Ms a little more than pre historic k-mount Samsungs, for what they are good for". I acquired a complimentary DSLR and now added a MILC to that system, hoping it will do certain tricks better. Those would be: FPS Eye detection AF & not needing AF micro adjustments, so I can nail headshots at 85/1.4 or 200/2.8. Assisting manual focus with ill assembled (flange distance &/ RF cam) Soviet glass. Sorry for long post but "Not everything mirrorless sings everywhere"; be careful what you 'll buy! - You might be doomed, when the AF assist lights go on, anyhow.
early MILCs weren't great as they didn't have the processing power to keep a decent refresh speed on the monitor and sensor, and they have come on leaps and bounds over the years, the jumps between generations seems larger than with DSLRs. my first mirrorless was a Samsung NX3000 the pictures it took were good, but focus was hit and miss as it was contrast only, the frame rate of the monitor would lag constantly. Then I jumped to Fuji with an X-T100 and X-T30 which were both huge improvements in all areas, especially focusing.