Grad gift: DSLR camera versus one of these newfangled "mirrorless" cams

Why not tell her you'll give her x amount of money toward a camera and let her do the legwork? It's an essential skill for this sort of work to be able to understand the gear and the market, and make decisions accordingly.

I have been shooting for decades, and I've never had as much fun as I have with my OM-D. My 5D mark 2 and L lenses currently have a formidable coat of dust on them, and it's only a matter of time before they go up on ebay. Though I'm not a professional, I do sell wall decor (I'm not comfortable calling my own work "fine art") prints, and the image quality of modern micro four thirds sensors paired with prime lenses is more than good enough. I standardize on the 16"x20" size for my prints. The intended use is a huge factor in this decision, for two reasons. The first is that current mirrorless cameras do not have phase detect autofocus. What this means in non-nerd terms is that they are not as good at keeping focus locked on a moving subject. So if you are shooting sports, or fast moving wildlife, or other similar subjects, DSLR will carry a rather important advantage. The other issue is the lenses available to the system. Canikon DSLR have more complete lens lineups than any mirrorless system. In mirrorless, micro four thirds has the most complete lens lineup. Legacy lenses from almost any system can be adapted, but the crop factor is 2x -- and since it's very tough to find legacy lenses wider than 24mm, this option is not realistic for anything other than normals and telephotos. For specialty cases a system might be missing a lens that's critical to have, for example the outstanding Fuji X system is lacking in telephotos. The sony NEX system doesn't have a good selection of high quality primes. Micro four thirds seems to be missing mid-range zoom lenses. There is a 24-70 and 70-200 equivilent from panasonic now, at the cost of >$1000 each. Below that, you are in cheap kit lens territory. The 12-50 that comes with the OM-D is passable, but not especially impressive. Personally I'm somewhat of a minimalist and I roll with a wide angle prime, a standard prime, and a portrait prime. The 14mm, 25mm, and 45mm micro four thirds lenses are the perfect kit for me, and I couldn't dream of having anything more. But some people, especially those new to photography, would want zoom lenses.

Do any MePhoto-phytes out there have comparative experience with these two species of camera? I have only used DSLR and point-and-shoot, not MILC. Feel free to weigh my input accordingly. Generally speaking, I agree with encouraging your daughter to do her own research and buy (choose) her own device. Rental options for digital cameras are abundant and excellent, especially for researching before buying. Would smaller be better for a young teen? I don't think it matters in that respect. I think size matters in (1) more general, not-specific-to-the-person respects, and (2) more personal, not-specific-to-the-type-of-person respects. Depending on your habits as a photographer, this is an object that you may be carrying with you everywhere. When you're a passenger in the car, it will be sitting in your lap. When you're at a restaurant, it might be on the table beside you. In different circumstances, the object's size and bulk and conspicuousness will matter in different ways. And there's a spectrum between a small point-and-shoot versus a full-frame DSLR with a telephoto zoom lens: what photos you can take, what's small versus smaller versus tiny versus large, etc. Which tradeoffs make sense for you? I don't think it's an issue you can create a rule of thumb about, is what I'm saying. I also get the feeling the mirrorless will be coming on strong vs. traditional DSLR in the near future. Thoughts? I agree, and I'll suggest an analogy. You might be aware that Adobe recently announced moving all their professional-level graphics and design software to a cloud-based subscription model. Many photographers are furious about paying monthly for Photoshop. But the other side of the coin is that Adobe has committed to keeping Lightroom available for licensed purchase. For years, Photoshop has been built for professionals but used by everybody. I think Adobe's plan going forward is to more deliberately target Photoshop to professionals, and to make Lightroom better and more powerful and used by everybody. This is roughly where I see camera hardware heading. DSLRs won't disappear, but they will be increasingly treated as a small, professionals' market. Canon's 1D and 5D cameras aren't going anywhere; but the Rebel series? Kiss those goodbye in maybe five years. MILCs are the hardware equivalent of Lightroom. Their capabilities will get better, bodies and lenses both, and the manufacturers are going to increasingly focus on MILCs when looking at consumers and hobbyists. I'm not necessarily encouraging you to go the MILC route. As I said, I shoot DSLR and I have no plans to try MILC. It's not for me: larger sensors and better lenses have benefits that I actually use, so they have value to me. On the contrary, I'm investing more in DSLR. However, my needs aren't everybody's, and I tend to think that MILCs probably do, and increasingly will, make sense for more photographers than DSLRs do. If you decide to look into MILCs, it's my understanding that Sony currently leads that pack, with Nikon chasing and Canon lagging. The Olympus has generated a lot of buzz but if it were me, I'd start by looking at Sony and probably limit serious consideration to Sony and Nikon.

I would like to present my counter-argument against bumpkin's post. Obviously he is well aware of his personal camera needs, has considered all the factors, and made a logical and informed choice. He's quite correct about this: "Better, faster autofocus: I shoot mostly moving objects (fast moving people and animals) and all reviews are clear on this point being a weakness of mirrorless cameras in general and the OMD in particular." I do not shoot much action at all, especially not fast action, so I don't mind. At this point 2/3rds of my frequent-use lens collection is made up of old manual-focus lenses so AF isn't an option at all, never mind fast AF. Regarding his other point about the sensor size and its implication about image quality: I had forgotten I took http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinomara/tags/cameracomparison using more-or-less equivalent effective lens magnifications. Viewed at default size there's basically no difference. Viewed at full size there are some apparent differences, but nothing major. I realize that I'm comparing an older full-frame camera with a brand-new camera, and that sensors and image quality are always increasing, but still, I was quite pleasantly surprised with the results. Regarding "Bigger, better sensor: means better low light performance" I've found that to my eye the OM-D looks better at ISO1600 than my 5D did, but I don't have comparison images for that. I never run it up past 1600 though I know it goes to some crazy-high ISO. But honestly, I used to take pictures with one of the earlier models of Canon Digital Rebel XTs with something like a 6MP sensor that would put out an image at somewhere near 3500x2300. I have sent many of those images off to be printed at 20" x 30" and loved the results every time. The OM-D will put out files at 4600x3400 and I wouldn't hesitate for a second to print them at 20" x 30". The point here is that bumpkin is right - you need to take into consideration what you intend to do with your gear and make sure it fits your requirements. He's found something that's perfect for him, I've found something perfect for me, and somehow you'll come out of this maze with something perfect for your daughter.

I have an Olympus PL2 and I really like it as someone who is interested in photography enough to want to change out lenses and mess with different settings but is not super seriously interested in photography. I had a Canon SLR (film) before I got the Olympus and it pretty much does everything my old one did as far as my technical ability and interests are going to take me. I like that it is light, small, and doesn't make me stand out when I use it the way a larger camera can. No idea which would be better for film making.

Chiming in to say that if she narrows it down to two and still isn't sure, you can http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/eos-m/canon-eos-m each for a few days to try them out. I do this when purchasing new lenses, and it has changed my mind on several.

Just chiming in with my own anecdote / report of personal preferences: The http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusem5 is one of my current lust cameras. I want it: micro 4/3 lens mount, very capable (electric) viewfinder, super solid and abuse resistant construction, compact, classy design, lots to love. Twice in the last few months, I've walked into the local camera store to hold it in my greasy hands, play and shoot with it. But I've never pulled the trigger. Not because of the price - it isn't cheap by any means, mind you, but its within the budget, but because even though its getting on three years old, and has already been upgraded and supplanted in their line up, my http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/slrs/nikon_d7000 is still a better camera. Bigger, better sensor: means better low light performance. Better, faster autofocus: I shoot mostly moving objects (fast moving people and animals) and all reviews are clear on this point being a weakness of mirrorless cameras in general and the OMD in particular. Better battery -- weeks on a charge, hundreds of frames. Far better and more diverse ecosystem of lenses. At least as solid and weathertight a construction, which is key for me because I've very hard on my stuff, and I spend most of my camera time in high mountain / winter settings. Its been buried in snow countless times. Dropped. Hit with ice and rocks. Thrown out of a pack onto a rocky trail. Eaten by an elephant and then pooped out (could be lying about that). Its heavier, sure. Definitely bigger. I don't carry it with me every where I go (I've a small pocketable camera for that), but when I am carrying it, I am more purposeful about pictures. To be honest, the OM-D isn't so much smaller that it occupies a different niche. Now that the D7100 has arrived to replace it, the D7000 sells for almost half what I paid for it. It is however far from obsolete, beating what I consider the best of the Micro 4/3 cameras (I find the Panasonic M4/3 feel light and flimsy, and hate the way Sony handles its interfaces -- the Olympus cameras, both the E-P1 or P2 and the OM-D feel, look and act like "real" cameras). I say all this not to pump the Nikon's tires (there are equivalent Canons and Pentax's for sure): but to put the argument in favour of considering a good 'enthusiast-level' DSLR.

Really great stuff people! Thank you very much. This gives me good info to present to her. She will make the ultimate decision, but I sure like what I hear about the mirrorless. Seems to me these are poised to be the next wave of serious hobbyist level cameras. I don't think they are a fad, but a good response to the market and to new technology/design trends. Thanks.

I also get the feeling the mirrorless will be coming on strong vs. traditional DSLR in the near future. The future is now. Olympus PEN series, as mentioned above, is a very nice camera system. Another alternative - you can find deals on the Samsung NX 1000 - camera, flash and lens under $400. It takes a great photo and is easy to use, and has a large stable of lenses (and lens adapters) if she decides to branch out. Surprisingly small. Canon doesn't seem to have committed to their mirrorless system yet... Sony makes some great mirrorless bodies, but the lenses for the system have largely been a disappointment. Another option is a large-sensor compact; the Sony RX100 or Ricoh GR - they have the guts of an APS-C DSLR, but a non-removable lens and a very compact form factor. They have lots of options for advanced photographers and videographers, but fewer moving pieces to worry about.