New camera time, mirror or mirrorless, recommendations etc?

[Taipan]

I told my management that I considered my current studio set up to be "at risk" due to the kits age etc. I have to report things like this so if it breaks, I don't get the, well why didn't you tell me scenario and the blame lies with me. I do this every couple of years but no one ever does anything about it. However, this time the new managers have unexpectedly said wtf, omg, get quotes for new stuff immediately, so I am!

Current set up is a Canon EOS 5d mk3 with a (cheap) Canon 50mm prime. I have old-fashioned Bowens fluorescent light boxes too. I've no particular allegiance to Canon and dont have stack of lenses to consider. So I want a full-frame camera and was thinking of jumping ship to a mirrorless Sony, but could happily stay with Canon.

My camera is mounted on a Linhoff copy stand and my work is mainly tethered shooting of rare books, manuscripts etc and the odd artefact etc, but everything is normally within a 2m focal range. First look and I've come up with this. I'm sure there's a few photographers on here, so what's your thoughts on the below, or what would you go for given my criteria?
TIA

[Mr. Dazzle]

IME the main advantages of mirrorless are that you can see the photo before you take it (i.e. exposure settings etc all effect the image in the 'viewfinder') and a reduction in physical size. Neither of those things would seem hugely important when shooting static 'staged' shots?

[Taipan]

IME the main advantages of mirrorless are that you can see the photo before you take it (i.e. exposure settings etc all effect the image in the 'viewfinder') and a reduction in physical size. Neither of those things would seem hugely important when shooting static 'staged' shots?

Majority of my work I suppose it wouldn't be important but there is the other stuff (functions, architectural) i do that it would be of great use, but not a deal breaker. I do see mirrorless as the future though, so may as well change whilst i'm about it. That aside I still need a full frame camera with bundles of megapixels!

[roadster]

I part exchanged my canon EOS for a Fujifilm X-H1 and got better picture quality straight away. Most of my hobby shots are of birds and the image stabilization on a windy day with a long Fuji lens is excellent.
Here is an example of a picture taken hand held with the Fuji long lens (400mm). I have used a small fraction of the original 6000 X 4000 pixels so that I can attach it using 8% jpg compression.

DSCF5113.jpg (184.3 KiB) Viewed 169 times

Cropped approximately 1000 pixels square. Doesn't prove much except that the camera helps a shaky old guy take a reasonable picture.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Mrs D has a 500mm lens she uses with both SLRs and her ZFC mirrorless sometimes.

It looks absurd on the tiny ZFC . She does a lot of running even photography and typically has the 500mm on a SLR and a more wieldy thing on the ZFC.

[Slenver]

I have a photography business mainly doing events, and I'm still hanging on to my SLR but am finally planning to migrate to mirrorless in the next few months.

The main benefit for me is the huge improvement in autofocus (speed, range across the viewfinder and object tracking) but this isn't a big deal in a studio. The other main driver for me is really just that all new cameras are mirrorless and so all my SLR bodies and lenses are depreciating fast! If I'm to recoup much money at all then I need to jump ship pretty soon.

The Sonys have become very popular very quickly and have gone from being nowhere in SLRs to no.1 in mirrorless, while the old guard (Nikon/Canon) have been far too slow in transitioning and so lost a lot of customers. That said, a lot of people don't like Sony and complain mainly about colour rendition (particularly skin tones) and the awful menu systems, though in reality I'm fairly sure that the colour stuff is all fairly irrelevant with post processing.

I'm going to be sticking with Nikon really just because it's what I currently have, it'll save a little money in flash ancillaries and stuff and they've finally caught up enough with AF to make their latest model a good proposition, but if you're doing a clean sweep then Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji are all good enough.

My only question from your list is why buy the kit lens if you're only going to use the 50?

[Mr. Dazzle]

Mirrorless burst is also really fast actually, forgot about that. Goes partly hand in hand with the speedy AF etc.

Dead useful for photographing manuscripts I'm sure

[Taipan]

I have a photography business mainly doing events, and I'm still hanging on to my SLR but am finally planning to migrate to mirrorless in the next few months.

The main benefit for me is the huge improvement in autofocus (speed, range across the viewfinder and object tracking) but this isn't a big deal in a studio. The other main driver for me is really just that all new cameras are mirrorless and so all my SLR bodies and lenses are depreciating fast! If I'm to recoup much money at all then I need to jump ship pretty soon.

The Sonys have become very popular very quickly and have gone from being nowhere in SLRs to no.1 in mirrorless, while the old guard (Nikon/Canon) have been far too slow in transitioning and so lost a lot of customers. That said, a lot of people don't like Sony and complain mainly about colour rendition (particularly skin tones) and the awful menu systems, though in reality I'm fairly sure that the colour stuff is all fairly irrelevant with post processing.

I'm going to be sticking with Nikon really just because it's what I currently have, it'll save a little money in flash ancillaries and stuff and they've finally caught up enough with AF to make their latest model a good proposition, but if you're doing a clean sweep then Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji are all good enough.

My only question from your list is why buy the kit lens if you're only going to use the 50?

Thanks. I'd buy the kit as i only use the 50 in the studio but sometimes I do other stuff around the buildings, exhibition set ups etc and occasionally i attened events and just grab pics of guests and speakers etc.

[mangocrazy]

Not sure if this is still relevant, but back on 'film' days it was considered best practice to use a dedicated Micro/Macro lens for close-up work. I have a 55mm Micro-Nikkor bought about 40 years ago and it's razor sharp on close-ups. If they're still made for DSLRs, that would be the first piece of kit on my list.

As for mirror/mirrorless, for the use you will be putting it to, does it really matter? If you can pick up a bargain top-spec mirror body, I'm sure it will give you kudos with your superiors that you tried to get best value for their money...

[Slenver]

I think it boils down to this...

There's nothing about mirrorless that will give you any advantage. But... if you want a newer camera then it'll be mirrorless, because they almost all are now and there's no benefit to seeking out the rare SLR that's still made.