As a confirmed mirrorless user, serious contemplation regarding my next purchase, an SLR may seem odd.

The reality is, I love the mirrorless work style, but I am not blind to the benefits of SLR’s. Even when happily using mirrorless cameras, my mind often switches to the things I miss about SLR cameras.

Battery life.

In their natural form, SLR’s are up to three times more battery efficient. At the moment, a major sports event where I work, is a three battery affair. With an SLR, it would only be one.

Applying a photographic brain.

This one is really odd. An SLR gives you less feed back, making you think more “photographically”. Exposure and jpeg effect previews are all second hand with an SLR. In effect you have to predict rather than see and react. This to me is a major selling point for an SLR. I know my own photographic thinking has been blunted by the “what you see is what you get” feed back loop of a mirrorless.

The feel.

I miss the feel. The bigger form factor, the glass only view finder and specifically the Canon curves are all things I miss for some applications. It occurred to me recently, while teaching a student how to use their SLR, how much I liked and missed the Canon SLR interface.

The best of both worlds.

The reality is, the latest generation of Canon SLR’s are (will) be effectively true hybrids. Ironically this comes at a time when mirrorless cameras have reached SLR like performance, so I guess the hybrid is coming from both directions. Like a very economical petrol powered car or a noiseless magnetic tape, the revolution has maybe come in the form of a too little-too late package, but for a short time, there is a window where the best of both worlds intercede.

The 90D specifically has floated to the top of my soon to be filled wish list as the best all-round camera solution for my current kit.

It offers several needed things;

The better battery life (1500-2000 shots) in SLR mode.

Sports capable af system in two forms, both roughly equalling the EM1 mk2. Canon eye focus tracking in live view mode, which seems to be as good as any current mirrorless (basically the same as the latest RF series) and full phase detect af in SLR mode. The 90D has been positioned as a replacement for the 80D and 7D in a shrinking SLR market.

Lenses that are top tier, especially in affordable telephoto options (a short fall in the Nikon and Sony ranges). The 70-200 f4 or 200 f2.8 are proven winners for under $1000au, the 100-400 is best in class (possibly tied optically with the Fuji, but better made), and the 70-300L is a gem. Not to be forgotten are the older, but still better than Nikon’s offerings for most of their lives, affordable short teles, the 85 f1.8, 100 f2 and 135 f2 primes. the reality is, these excellent and proven lenses are sometimes being bettered by new mirrorless designs, but not by much and at a premium price.

Forward compatibility for an eventual migration to RF.

200,000+ shutter fires or so (Canon’s have generally exceeded their quoted count, some by a great deal. My old 50D for example, went to a sports shooter who retired it at half a million+ frames). This is not as many as the quoted 400k of the EM1 mk3, but the camera is considerably cheaper and has other advantages.

Great price. The 90D undercuts the G9, EM1 mk2, is nearly half the price of an EM1 mk3, is cheaper than anything full frame except the budget Canon mirrorless and is more advanced than many. It also offers weather sealing, which for a Canon is a new low price point. The reality is, the last generation of Canon SLR’s (?) are great value. Much better than most other options.

IQ. Added to the beautiful Canon colour, that I have always used as a standard, is the real benefit of more pixels, and with added cost compared to it’s earlier models. Canon is just measurably a little behind some others in dynamic range and high ISO performance, but they are ahead of M43, where I am now and that is still excellent. The higher pixel count means that the exhibited noise is relatively smaller or aggressive cropping is possible. From a sports perspective, this gives me several advantages. The first is smaller, shorter and faster lenses can do more and secondly, shooting wider, then cropping after is more realistic.

To put it another way, the camera effectively has a 100% cropping factor benefit over an R6, between it’s native format (1.6x) and pixel count advantage (1.5x) and a 50% advantage over my current 20mp maximum and/or can perform at a full ISO setting higher (at least) for the same quality.

Would Full Frame be better in low light? Of course, but again, just as when compared to M43, that would be at substantially higher cost and weight in camera, lens and depth of field.

For example R6 would easily beat it in low light, but the base camera and lens (100-500) come in at about $8500.

The 90D with both a 200 f2.8 and 100-400 would end up at $5500 (just with the 70-300L at $3500), with better battery life, better handling, more depth of field for more keepers (+1 stop), more reach (400=640) or a faster lens (200 f2.8 = +2 stops at 300 equiv.), 50% more pixels and the hybrid advantage.

Other minor considerations are;

My M43 gear is still fully relevant. The Canon does come with the downsides of a big, sometimes noisy and always very obvious SLR. The M43 gear would be used for most other work, especially with children in close, as backup for sports and for indoor work. This may sound counter intuitive, but the reality is, the fast glass and stabilisers from Olympus still have an edge.

I would like a different brand in my kit. No brand does everything well.

Peace of mind for the future. The lenses can go forward to RF and the brand has much less of a shadow hanging over it.

The future (inspired in the past) awaits.