Vanitas Photo: I think most current ILC's are fine, my only gripe is battery capacity, i would be happy if they had a bigger grip to acommodate a bigger battery (big hands too) as for the rest for what I do ( people who are still) most mirrorless are more than enough :)
And yes I know I can carry more batteries yadah-yadah but it would be nice to have 600-700 shots per battery instead of 300-350
Long battery life is nice but, to me, it's really not important. As long as the battery lasts all day that's fine by me, it can recharge overnight while I'm asleep in bed.
And just in case one battery doesn't last all day, I always carry a spare or two.
The cost is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. For example, I'm thinking of ditching my Nikon DSLR in favour of an Olympus M1. The Olympus (with very basic, pro quality kit of wide angle, standard and tele zooms) costs 3,500GBP with one battery. Or 3,700GBP with FIVE batteries.
WellyNZ: I see that my digital photography colleagues are still continuing to place importance on gear over photographs, despite more or less any camera costing upwards of a couple of hundred dollars/pounds/euros being capable of generating images that far outweigh the quality (technically speaking) of images from almost any 35mm camera ever made.
I'd wager if you're unable to create a high quality image from almost any of these mirrorless cameras, the problem is probably not with the technology.
After Ming's first paragraph there's a link that says "Important: Read this first."You did read it, didn't you?
"...social media sites, such as Facebook or Twitter, as those sites carry advertising that is attached to the content of its pages."
Alternatively, Facebook and Twitter could allow the user to suppress any advertising on their pages that included such photos.
Wouldn't that be fantastic? Dream on!
Better still, we could all move to Ello.co
Interesting stuff. But I would disagree with "Was this image taken with a DSLR or a mirrorless camera? If you can't tell from looking at the final image, does it matter?". For us hobbyists, yes it does. ENJOYING taking the image matters a lot.
Having owned both Nikon D7000 (optical viewfinder) and Sony NEX7 (small and light), my preferred solution to get the best of both worlds is a small dSLR - Nikon D5300.
When I need something truly pocketable my smartphone has to suffice.
Excellent review. And I agree wholeheartedly except for one thing. Why the worry about exposure compensation?
When I started in photography, light meters were an expensive luxury that few of us amateurs could afford. So exposure was based on judgement, or 'look at the light and guess'.
Forty years on, all cameras have light meters, most of which are staggeringly good. I reckon at least nine out of ten photos I take are perfectly exposed. But what about that one in ten that isn't? Well, there's three ways to solve that:
1. Use exposure bracketing and throw away the two poor shots. 2. Focus on the real subject, lock exposure, then re-frame. 3. Exposure compensation based on judgement, or... Exactly the same as good old 'look at the light and guess'.
Why do Richard, and most reviewers, want to turn the clock back forty years and return to guesswork? I'm more than happy for exposure comp to be relegated to a 'third class' dial. Aperture and ISO are the ones I want quick access to.
PStu: Why only add SmugMug? How about 500PX or other sharing services?
I use Aperture and Smugmug; I upload using 'SmuginProForAperture' - I made those decisions many years ago. Trouble is, with 50,000 photos on Aperture and Smugmug I cannot (realistically) change those decisions now.
Apple needs to recognise this and give us, and future customers, as much flexibility as possible.
Anaxagoras: No built-in flash - disappointingNo built-in GPS - disappointing
No viewfinder - APPALLINGLY BAD, Canon
Funnily enough, you don't see many professional photographers holding their cameras at arm's length and squinting at a screen.
And as far as I know, ALL Canon's dSLRS (professional or amateur) have viewfinders.
No built-in flash - disappointingNo built-in GPS - disappointing
Cy Cheze: It looks as though the NEX system can't provide a fast lens unless it is also rather big. If the E50mm f/1.8 sample is any indication, a 35mm or wider lens with f/1.8 would be very big. Both the 200mm f/6.3 lenses are too slow for sports at the long end, except maybe with the ISO juiced up.
(Physically) bigger sensors = (physically) bigger lenses.
Bigger apertures = bigger lenses.
Sorry, but unless you re-write the laws of physics...
(or give the NEX7 a puny, low-quality, small sensor?)