Mirrorless cameras will displace DSLRs when it's less expensive to build
a quality EVF than it is to build a Quality OVF. That's hasn't happened
yet and it may never happen, or it could happen tomorrow. I've looked
at both and I don't have a problem with EVFs as they stand now, but
there are things that they just don't do as well as OVFs, they are
however good enough for most situations and superior in others, but
there 's no compelling reason for manufactures abandon OVFs and the
systems they support.
On 9/10/2014 5:50 PM, Brian Walters wrote:
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]>:
As you're probably aware, I've been working with the 'mirrorless'
cameras since they first appeared on the market in late 2008. To
write about all the advantages of going with these cameras over what
I used to do with DSLR kits would take more time than I have
available, but they are very compelling for my photography.
An Olympus Pen digital is not a viable replacement for a quality DSLR
(maybe for a consumer DSLR). An Olympus OM-D series camera (certainly
the E-M1, maybe the E-M5 as well) or a Panasonic GH3 or GH4
definitely are.
I think I'd add the E-M10 to that as well. My reading is that the M10
loses nothing to the M5 except the 5-axis stabilisation and it has
inherited a number of feature from the M1 that are missing on the M5.
I've only had my M10 for a couple of weeks but I think this thing
could walk and talk (if I could just find the menu setting to activate
that feature....). I wish it were slightly larger as well, but I can
live with the size.
I'm not about to get rid of my K-5 but I really think mirrorless is
the future.
Cheers
Brian
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/
These cameras work very well although best with the lenses designed
for them. My E-M1 is a far better camera than any of my Pentax DSLRs
(I stopped shooting with Pentax after the K10D) with respect to
haptics, features, and viewfinder ... And image qualities.
IMO, although I've done it for years, you lose a lot with the smaller
format when you adapt older SLR lenses simply because you're paying
the weight/size penalty on the lenses which were designed for a
larger format SLR, on which they image better.
The Sony A7, on the other hand, gives you a Pentax MX sized body that
works very nicely with nearly any SLR lenses via mount adapters. It
has a very good viewfinder (nearly as good as the Olympus E-M1) and
good controls/features. Where it's lacking compared to the mid- to
upper-grade SLRs is in responsiveness (unlike the E-M1) and an
overall somewhat clunky feel. It also works well with a carefully
selected range of smaller, RF camera lenses which nets a much
smaller, lighter overall kit to carry compared to nearly any DSLR
system.
I don't know that anything is 'chasing me away' from DSLRs so much as
these new cameras are drawing me to them. I will nearly always pick
the smaller, lighter camera over the larger, heavier one, and the
added versatility to use any lens I want from my Nikkor, Leica R,
Leica M, and other makes floating about in the closet is a huge plus
with the A7. The camera is a chameleon: Fit a Nikkor lens and the
imaging looks just like my Nikon F. Fit a Leica R lens and the
imaging looks just like with my Leica R8. Fit the right Leica M lens,
and the imaging looks just like with my Leica M4-2. And the overall
body package is in that sweet spot, for me, of the Pentax MX/Nikon
FM2 that I always preferred. I pick the E-M1 if I want pro-DSLR grade
responsiveness and access to the superb Olympus HG and SHG lenses.
Godfrey
On Sep 10, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Stanley Halpin
<[email protected]> wrote:
I had a brief fling with an Olympus a couple of years ago. It was
fine as a point-and-shoot, at least as good as my iPhone. The kit
zoom lens was decent.
What I wanted, though, was to use it with viewfinder and to use it
shooting in manual mode with other-brand lenses like Pentax and
Leica (via adapter of course). The buttons/menus etc were not
designed with manual shooting in mind. At least I could never figure
them out. The viewfinder was too much of a downgrade from a good
optical viewfinder. I sold it, use my iPhone or WG-3 as my
point-and-shoot.
I don’t know that there is anything about mirrorless chasing me away
(except maybe the small sensor), but I haven’t found much to attract
me to them either
stan
On Sep 10, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Collin Brendemuehl
<[email protected]> wrote:
When we were in Philly I saw far more mirrorless than DSLRs in use.
After getting home I was chatting with a local store owner who
found that
odd since mirrorless sales are only a fraction of the market.
Maybe they
were all in one place at one time?
Then last weekend we were in Wisconsin and Illinois. (Fresh curds
... yum.)
Had a good conversation with a pro who shoots for stock.
He uses (another brand) DSLR for action and a Sony mirrorless for
general
use. He likes the size/weight for carrying around, and the good
lenses
don't hurt.
So I wonder ... is it just the form/shape that chases people away
from these
cameras?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
