Mirrorless- Continuing to Under Perform

Started Apr 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Forum ProPosts: 11,977Gear list
Re: Figures show mirrorless gaining ground?
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 15, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

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.

Well no, as that would be a sensor downgrade.

We're talking ergonomics. If larger is better, as you assume to be, why not? Small sensor but great ergonomics. What could go wrong?

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

I would take a stab that you've never actually used a 1Dx or a D4, have you? The D4 is excellent ergonomically and is a pleasure to use for an extended period of active shooting. Would I buy it for ergonomics alone? No, of course not, but it's sure nice that it's also great in that area!

I can appreciate their strengths, but don't care for these cameras for my own use. Either way, I wouldn't want their ergonomics, size and weight, on my camera which I prefer to carry with me as much as possible (not as little as possible).

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.


I did. You should as well. It's evident you're misunderstanding.

So, you're okay with the idea that larger size doesn't guarantee better ergonomics.

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).

I'll speak in any terms I see fit. NEVER once have I said that mirrorless cameras are inherently a bad thing. Instead, I've said that right now they are a significant compromise in quite a few different way. Some day those compromises will be lessened or eliminated. Today is not that day.

You seem to have a peculiar idea of what MILC entails.

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.

You're getting yourself all confused, I'd recommend a thorough re-read of everything I've been saying the last 4-5 threads on this topic.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 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)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow