I have already sold my Nikon camera and currently selling all my lenses to permanently switch to Sony. As far as I know, Sony is the only company currently doing real innovation in the field of image sensors.
DSLR tech has stagnated meaning they keep their value, so presently I can sell with a small loss, while mirrorless tech is rapidly improving so today's models will lose their value quickly - not a good investment. However, a lot of people seem to be making the switch, which will drive down the value of DSLRs over time, so switching too late means making a larger loss on my DSLR.
Not to mention the cost effectiveness of DSLRs vs. mirrorless cameras. From what I've read, mirrorless are still behind.
I suppose I should wait for the release of a mirrorless model that rivals similarly priced DSLRs at a time when the rate of improvement has lessened somewhat to maintain its value.
It is improving very slowly, actually, by any standard of improvement. I have an almost 6-years midrange MFT camera, which I wanted to replace with the latest and greatest MFT, but things haven't changed in a significant way.
I've actually spent a holiday carrying around both the old camera and a "latest and greatest" APS-C, and taking the same pictures with both. While there was difference, it wasn't as large as one would expect from a ~5 years timeframe. Of course, I must mention that I don't generally take pictures in extremely challenging conditions (very low light, very fast focus speed etc.etc.).
On top of that, the MFT market radically changed in the last years. Nowadays the best sensors are in the top-of-line camers, which are very expensive (on par with APS-C), and it seems they're not permeating down to the midrange segment, as they used to do.
In other words, buying today a midrange MFT gives almost no noticeable improvement compared to a 5 years old midrange MFT. Buying a top-of-line MFT gives an advantage that is not as large as expected, while also being very expensive.
I don't imply that using MFT doesn't make sense (it's my favourite format), however, it's nowadays far from being revolutionary.
In certain situations, like when light is low, larger sensors have the edge. But, compare a modern APS-C or MFT sensor to one of ten years ago and the performance gulf in low light is huge.
For the record, I'm a Nikon user that's very tempted by Fuji.
Yeah, just 4K at 200mbps (GH5 and co) and 10bit color, 6MP snapshots from video, 5 axis image stabilisation that's rock solid, sensor-shift 40+ MP images, much better low light, and so on.
>While there was difference, it wasn't as large as one would expect from a ~5 years timeframe.
Analog cameras image quality didn't have ANY difference in a 5 or even 20 years timeframe, so there's that...
>Nowadays the best sensors are in the top-of-line camers, which are very expensive (on par with APS-C), and it seems they're not permeating down to the midrange segment, as they used to do.
Err, Panasonic for one has several cheap models with essentially the same sensor as GH5.
>I don't imply that using MFT doesn't make sense (it's my favourite format), however, it's nowadays far from being revolutionary.
MFT does not exhaust mirroless (which is what the parent spoke about).
This is a good thing to point out, because video really has progressed substantially in the last five years. But most people still can't make videos like they can photos, and 10bit colour an high-bitrate 4K are both totally useless to the average person, or even a enthusiast photographer.
Well, is clear 6400+ ISO (which we've got today) really useful to the average person?
People have been snapping photos for 70+ years of film, where iso 400 was really pushing it grain-wise...
> Yeah, just 4K at 200mbps (GH5 and co) and 10bit color, 6MP snapshots from video, 5 axis image stabilisation that's rock solid, sensor-shift 40+ MP images, much better low light, and so on.
None of them has nothing to do with the sensor quality in a strict sense (dynamic range/color resolution/low light sensitivity).
I've personally done real-world tests with old and new sensors (difference of more or less 5 years), and the generational advantage has been significantly lower than the previous 5 years.
In particular, the "low light" is far from being "significantly better". On paper, in best cases, the best sensors from each mirrorless, including Fuji, have gained more or less one stop.
In real world, less, and I've tried it.
> Analog cameras image quality didn't have ANY difference in a 5 or even 20 years timeframe, so there's that...
Irrelevant.
> Err, Panasonic for one has several cheap models with essentially the same sensor as GH5.
They're not the same. With the vague term "essentially" one can make any argument.
> MFT does not exhaust mirroless (which is what the parent spoke about).
This is a fair point, but the slowdown applied to all the other mirrorless as well. Probably the most interesting/significant improvements have been the X-Trans sensor, and the A7S; the former probably made, in the respective segment, the largest difference.