Plastek: " We have done some studies where we presented consumers with a DSLR and a mirrorless camera and ask them if the image quality was the same, which one they would chose, and generally they chose the DSLR." - I would answer in exactly the same way. Simply because DSLRs offer by far wider choice of lenses many of which are superior to mirrorless glass. And then there are whole systems of accessories, flashes, and well: everything else that in the end creates a photograph.
So: Yes, DSLRs DO offer better final image quality, but reasons for that go beyond body itself.
Maybe on FF. On APS-C DSLRs like the majority of users, it's difficult to say that mirrorless is inferior as a general statement.
I mean, I've had Rebels for years and Canon never made an EF-S 'normal' lens (around 28-35mm) and only ever bothered making only ONE EF-S prime. Yes, you could use EF (FF) lenses or lenses from third party, but it's obvious that Canon's main focus is FF. A while ago, Nikon was in a similar boat, but luckily they've put more effort in making DX lenses. Now, compare that to the number of mirrorless lenses released so far in the last few years, particularly in m4/3. Even Fuji released 3 primes right off the bat. Mirrorless lenses, like m4/3, perform just as well as their DSLR equivalent mounted on a APS-C bodies.
As for accessories like flash, m4/3 is using the same flash system as their DSLR. Also, even the cheapest body, like the E-PL1, has multi-flash wireless remote control built-in, where as you'd need a middle tier body or higher to get that on DSLRs.
Jose Sentmanat: This is all good as usual with your reviews, I am still hoping that I can get a lot for all of my formerly expensive SLR cameras and lenses to that I can afford to by one decent DSLR or Mirrorless Digital Camera. Sorry I must wait also for a miracle that prices come within my reach. :(
"Poor cost performance"? Like a T5i, the EM-10 has an articulated touchscreen but at a lower price and you also get better IQ, IBIS, WiFi, larger viewfinder with 100% coverage, more physical controls, metal case, and so on. Stop your BS.
SelfMotivator: A 50mm slow lens f/2.8 for $US1K, damn. Fuji 56mm f/1.2 sounds like a sure winner.
Edited: I did not see MACRO so no comparison. Fuji 60mm f/2.8 macro is only $US650, a much better reached focal length if I shoot macro.
Worthless for me anyway :).
It is a "Zeiss" so it is expected to be expensive but the price is steep for a macro none the less. Makes the Oly 60/2.8 weather proof macro look like a bargain at $400.
Paul Guba: I would have brought the 12-40 18 months ago without hesitation, but with so many more mirrorless options now I really don't feel the compulsion.
Other mirrorless systems still don't have weather sealed and constant f/2.8 zooms.
Gazeomon: Surely a very good camera, but I'll wait for more info on the Pentax K3 which is not much larger than the EM-1 but has a new sensor. I also miss the top panel display on the Olympus to which I got so used to on my DSLR's (all the important info's at a glance). But there is a lot to like on the EM-1.
The EVF has all the info you need and it shows you what the sensor "sees". Plus you get other info like live histogram, grid, level, etc.
Sergey Borachev: I see a lot of reaction from DSLR users.
Especially for all those who keep pointing out the small M43 sensor, I wonder why they bother to read this review at all, and why they then feel the need to post what we all know - that M43 cameras have a smaller sensor, no good, blah blah.
Shouldn't they be happy about what they use, the bigger sensor and cameras etc, and not feel so threatened?
@Henry M. Hertz: last time I checked you can still buy an m43 camera w/ lens for less than $500, like the E-PM2. How much is a 6D/D600 + lens, and how much bigger and heavier is it? As for those EVFs that suck battery, the newest FF bodies (A7/A7r) has 'em.
IZO100: This review before the Canon 70D ? Why ?
What is the market share of this toy again ??
@photo nuts:Family sedans outsells sporty coupés, so what's your point?
Dougbm_2: Could be quite interested in this but then again I could just buy an 18-135 for my 50D for about $400 (or 15-85 for about $500). Sure they are not as bright but depth of field will be better.
DoF is either shallow or deep, not better. At any rate, being f/5.6 at the long end makes those zooms both slower and have deeper DoF than the RX10.
Gordon L: I love the concept of a compact full frame camera, long overdue from camera makers. A thousand bucks for a 50mm f1.8? gimme a break. $800 for a 35mm f28? As usual Sony is not delivering decent lens choices. Their marriage to Zeiss is unfortunate. Ziess produces huge over-build over-prices clunky lenses that often test out no better than much cheaper lenses from other makers. Sony nees to take a few pages from Fuji, talk to some actual photographers. I've never even considered the NEX system because of the lens choices.
@rxbot, as JackM says, w/o an adapter to mount existing EF lenses, the the flange distance has to be the same, which means the camera is still going to be bulky. It would be like the Pentax K-01.
An A7 with an an alpha adapter is still smaller than any FF DSLR body. It can also use different adapter to mount lenses from different manufacturers. It's a better approach. It makes more sense than keeping a having a mirrorless body with an SLR flange distance.
Wabznasm: I've confused myself. Can someone please assist a noob? :)
I love using my Super Takumar 55m 1.8 on my NEX 5.Will this lens be suitable for use on an A7 / A7r? Will it change the focal length? and will it be more suitable on one over the other?
As FreedomLover said, FL stays the same and when mounted on the A7, FoV will be back to original (55mm on FF/135mm format), which is wider than on NEX5 (82.5mm with crop factor).
As for vignetting/colour shifting issues, they seems to exist with certain wide angle lenses. Less wide lenses (35mm and up) such as your standard/normal lens shouldn't have any issues.
Paul JM: no OIS at this price ?no interest sadly. Would love a fast wide prime with OIS to use with the Blackmagic pocket
Only 1 m4/3 prime has OIS that is currently available and this is much wider and brighter than that so it is to be expected. Besides, if you mount it on a GX7 or any Oly body, it'll be stabilized.
MarceloSalup: I would hope most of the people reading this site would have those, for sure. I recently added one more: a bean-bag-mini-tripod. It is a beanbag with a tripod head and great when shooting in locations where the mini-tripo is too clumsy: for example, windowsills, held against a light post... the bean bag conforms to the surface really well.
Haven't seen one of those yet so I'll check them out. Personnally, I like those mini flexible tripods (gorillapod). You can wrap them around tree branches, stand them on rocky/uneven surface, etc.
RDCollins: Sorry, Sony, but I need an electronic or optical view finder! The option you offer is far too expensive and compromises the camera's compact size.
At almost $450, the FDA-EVM1K is definitely expensive. Also, there really are no other options. Compare that to the Olympus VF4, which has the same resolution but cost only $280. On top of that, there even cheaper options: VF2 and VF3.Anyway, the RX100II is nice and all but if one needs an EVF, might as well go for a NEX6 or GX7, which are also wifi capable.
Deardorff: 14 degrees? ABOVE zero???
That is not cold. They are claiming it won't freeze up in the cold so why isn't it good to 30 below which is what our winters generally hit when bad weather comes in.
Sounds nice, but I already use my gear in sub zero temps with good success.
It says -10C or 14F, so definitely subzero.
PK24X36NOW: DPR viewfinder size fiction continues. "Dividing (viewfinder magnification) by the crop factor" is essentially an assumption (in this case) that the MFT sensor is 1/2 the size of a FF sensor, which it is not. It is little more than 1/4 the size.
The correct relative size calculation is as follows:
17.3 * 13 * 100% * 1.48 = 332.852 sq mm
35.9 * 24 * 100% * 0.7 = 603.12 sq mm
So the new Oly's "wonder viewfinder is actually little more than 1/2 as big as a typical FF dSLR viewfinder.
PenGun: Makes no sense to me. The Fuji X cameras will just murder it in almost every way and cost less.
And stabilization, weather sealing, burst rate, lens selection, wifi, etc.
"Quality is what I need.."
Then why you shooting with an APS-C cam? Go FF or MF.
"Makes no sense to me"
You make no sense.
Mirrorless Crusader: Hmm, I could buy a huge heavy 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom from CANIKON for $2500, or a lightweight portable 24-80mm f/2.8 for $1000 from OLYMPUS. Tough decision, there.
"You skipped right over APS-C to make a point, huh?"
Well a Nikon 17-55/2.8 costs $400 more and weighs twice as much.
Timmbits: I was eyeing this... but I just discovered on camerasizecom that this this is a bit larger than the APS NX300 - isn't MFT supposed to be more compact?
also, does anyone know how this compares to the GX1 and the Oly sensor (in the omdem5, epl5/5, ep5) ?
GX7 has built in EVF that tilts and pop-up flash, with more physical buttons and dials. Also, the sensor is stabilized. These things, which the NX300 don't have, add to the size.
mpgxsvcd: Canon should take note of what Panasonic is doing. Panasonic actually removed some video features(ETC at 60p, multi aspect ratio sensor) from the GH3 that was in the GH2. They said that it was done to give the GH3 the absolute best image quality possible for a 4/3" sized sensor and they appear to have achieved that.
The GH3 still has the excellent AFC during movies that the 70D has. However, it also has exceptional image quality.
I just find it interesting that Canon is now playing catchup to mirrorless.
"who cares about m4/3 format"
I do and seems like Panasonic/Olympus do too as they actually make primes for the system. How many EF-S primes does Canon make again? Also, we've seen fast LV, articulated touchscreen, wifi, etc. on m4/3 (and other mirrorless) before Canon. This from a former Canon user.
brdeveloper: Too many moving parts. Is it shock-resistant?