Mirrorless- Continuing to Under Perform

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 10,354Gear list
Like?
Re: Figures show mirrorless gaining ground?
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 15, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Isn't that my point? Mainstream MILC is a relatively new entrant. I expect a progressive transformation, rather than a magical one. Remember, my Sony NEX-3 may appear "old" given the way technology advances, but it was the first of Sony's APS-C mirror-less cameras and launched only 3 years ago.

I'm not sure, I have trouble deciphering your 'points' most of the time. If your 'point' is that a larger and more ergonomically friendly mirrorless bodies will eventually appear than you're exactly right.

I'm not surprised that you can't comprehend my points. A large part of it has to do with a tunnel vision driven...

Don't have tunnel vision at all. Reality vision, more like.'

Well, tunnel vision can be real to some.

rhetoric that... bigger body = better ergonomics.

To a point that's not just rhetoric, it's fact. At some point (and that point will vary for every user because we all are different sized) smaller becomes less ergonomically friendly. The same works as the size increases as well. These aren't theories, they're facts.

At some point, something too big becomes too inconvenient. The same applies when it becomes too small. Going mirror-less did good thing for Olympus, and Four-thirds in general. Put these sensors in a D4 sized body and it wouldn't make any sense at all.

Ergonomics is not the reason I would buy a 1D or D4, or even a medium format camera.

That there are no guarantees, explains why your simplistic ideas don't meet my points.

I think you're confused. I'm the one saying that 'it depends' whereas you're arguing the simplistic point that 'smaller is usually better than bigger'. So... try again.

Re-read.

The 'problem' is that it won't be MILC's evolving but rather dSLR's dropping the mirror for newer technology.

I'm unsure you understand how MILC and DSLR differ. You're simply having trouble acknowledging that a DSLR without a mirror would be a mirror-less camera. Or, would you still call it a DSLR?

I understand quite well, I'm just using current terminology to make it easier to reference things that don't exist yet. I'm using the term 'dSLR' to reference the body shape and size that we currently have in... dSLR's, not to say that a dSLR-sized camera without a mirror wouldn't be a mirrorless camera. Sheesh.

Speak in terms of form, rather than trying to demonstrate a state of denial that somehow "mirror-less" is a bad thing that it won't evolve into something with a form factor many prefer. When you admit the opposite (see below).

So then we won't be arguing mirrorless versus SLR but rather big versus small, in which case the ergonomic argument will be perfectly valid yet again.

That applies today in the mirror-less world.

Exactly, which has been my point all along.

Which would be contradicting your earlier point.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
YeahNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow