Crop sensor cameras are not inferior to full frame despite what magazines etc may have you believe. Again they have different advantages and disadvantages.
For example: A cropped sensor gives you greater pixel density: if you want to expand a portion of the image, as is common in wildlife photography, then they are the way to go.
The main advantages that a full frame give you are a larger image area at a given focal length and the ability to create a shallow depth of field more easily. You pay for this with more expensive and heavier kit!
If you decide what kind of images you are going to be taking and then work backwards to what camera and lens you will need then I think you will make a good and informed decision.
> As I understand it though phase detect AF used by DSLRs is generally faster.
Phase detect is better (essential) for subjects moving towards or away from the camera, but contrast detect is fastest for static ones.
The Fuji X-T2 uses Phase detect autofocus (as well as contrast detect), so phase detect is not an exclusive DSLR thing.
'the X-T2’s AF system offers 91 points in a 7×13-point formation at default, and this can be expanded to 325 points in a 13×25-point formation.'
'When set to the default 91-point mode there are 49 phase-detect AF points in the centre of the array. '
'This central area with the phase-detect points covers 40% of the frame, and with the contrast detect points the total coverage is 85%. You can easily see the extent of both types as the phase-detect AF points are larger than the contrast-detect AF ones'
Thanks Ali... Food for thought.
I've got both. My Pentax dSLR pre-dates any credible mirrorless cameras but I didn't enjoy lugging it up an Alp especially when not properly acclimatised. So when the wee 4/3 Lumix came along I bought one. I like 'em both, and use them both in different circumstances. But it's a huge advantage being able to stick the Lumix GF1 in a pocket for a long day.
Also I reckon on big hill days or hectic routes I don't reckon I've enough brain power left over so convenience is good. Shooting in RAW, using aperture priority or "Intelligent Auto" lets me fix the problems later.
I always promised Mrs Colin that I would sell the big camera...but hey, its not worth very much now anyway. I do like having a viewfinder.
Echoing what others have said. Shot with Canon on/off for a decade (for a brief period I moved to the Nikon D800 for action, but went back to Canon) but I always travel minimal and light, and lugging 1kg body with 3-4kg of lenses with a dedicated backpack just made me leave it at home more often than not.
Even when I traveled with it, I would spend less time on my feet and cover less distance due to the weight taking it's toll, and I'd leave lenses, tripod or other gear at home to fit carry-on restrictions. My Canons were amazing for wildlife photography and action, but I missed more opportunities than I shot simply due to not having the camera with me, the hassle of unpacking my bag and changing lenses, or not being in the right place at the right time due to stamina.
I switched to the Fuji XT2 recently and the difference is huge. My regular kit is half the weight of the Canon gear, and I can put a prime lens in each hand-warmer pocket of my Atom AR or Fission SV and switch lenses on a few seconds. I take less frames (live EVF means you nail exposure on the first frame) but capture much more.
I can ski comfortably with an entire lens loadout and backcountry gear, I just use neoprene pouches and chuck the lenses in the top of my pack/bottle pockets (or loose in my jacket). Usually I'll clip the XT2 onto a BR sling and forget about it. It's like 800-900g with 35mm lens and battery grip vs ~2kg for the same Canon setup and half the bulk. The weather-sealing isn't as good as Canon's pro line but it's good enough. If you're out in conditions that would wreck the camera, you've likely got more things to worry about than getting off a few blurry shots.
Image quality isn't noticeable unless you're pixel peeping. Another huge thing I love about the Fujis is saving both RAW and JPG, but automatically processing the JPG with Fuji's internal and customisable film emulation (it's gorgeous) - then WIFI transferring it straight to my phone to post to Insta or Facebook. You can post a constant stream of professional quality shots and video live from the field to Insta/Facebook/wherever (with mobile signal of course) which is awesome.
Sometimes I miss the sheer ruggedness of Canon and the full-frame sensor when up high in winter conditions, but then I remember - either the camera would still be at home or I'd still be at the bottom.
> Having used both, I'm now a completely converted mirrorless user. I've got the Fuji XT1 and it goes everywhere with me. The lenses are brilliant, the raw files are excellent and I've had numerous large prints made. A fantastic, weatherproof and lightweight set-up.
> However, there's no denying that a full frame DSLR are ultimately a "better" camera, they focus loads quicker and have a better depth of field, but, they do weigh loads more. When that stopped me taking my camera out, it made me realise it was time to go and I've not looked back (maybe 4 years now and still not interested in looking for anything else).
I'm taking issue with 'better' with respect to depth of field. a FF DSLR will simply provide narrower DOF with any lens at any aperture than any APS-C camera (DSLR, bridge or mirrorless) will, and exactly the same DOF for any focal length lens and aperture as a FF mirrorless would.
I appreciate your point about autofocus though, and imagine most twitchers, football photojournalists. and train spotters would get better performance out of a Canon and a native Canon telephoto lens than they ever would with any current mirrorless and lens combination. I mostly manual focus, and don't own any native lenses for my FF mirrorless but I did buy a gizmo that works very well to fool the Sony A7II into believing that a 50 year old Zeiss Jena or Minolta Rokkor is a native Sony lens by exploiting 'phase detection'.