Valiant Thor: JPEGs show signs of obvious panametric defamulation.
"..but what is panametric defamulation?""
Not sure but I think its compensated for by the flux capacitor.
Mister Joseph: If my mirrorless setup was just as physically big/heavy as my DSLR setup, I'll probably stick with my cheaper DSLR setup.
In the meantime, my APS-C mirrorless with a tiny wideangle lens will stay as my "discreet street camera." The problem with Full-frame mirrorless is the same problem as my Full-Frame DSLR; The lenses tend to be HUGE.
Discreet = Rangefinder
Graham Edwards: WHAT a pointless article. Who cares? The market will sort this out. Its very simple, every step up in size from an iPhone has to offer a substantial enough upgrade in image quality to persuade the user to carry the extra bulk.So i have a Sony RX100 mk111 because the image quality is sufficiently better than my phone that it is worth carrying, I also have a couple of Olympus OM-D again because the increase in size is worth it vs the Sony. For me thats where I stop but I actually have an old Nikon D-90 plus a stack of Nikon lenses but they just sit in my study because in 99% of cases (that I can predict when leaving my house with a camera) the increase in size just isn't worth it. Yes they are better, but for me (and probably 99% of the population) the difference in quality vs the M4/3 just isn't worth the hassle.This whole DSLR vs ILC debate is pointless because it will be decided by market forces not by debate If consumers want DSLRs they will survive and if they don't they won't.
Well you care enough to write a reply...
ttran88: Rest assure mirrorless fans, the mighty C & N will come sweeping in with mirrorless offerings and take the market by storm. Let the pleasant build the market up and we the mighty C & N will come and sweep up the market. Haha And to all of our fans standing behind the OVF till the end we commend you with our deepest gratitude. We will give you free recycling of those antique and a 10% discount on all EVF equipped cameras. It's a promising future for photography. I'm photography and Believe In Impossible!!
And the Canikon sheep will flock to it en mass then come on here and spout about how great a "good" evf is.
Zeisschen: Full Frame film SLR seemed to be just nice in terms of size, like Sony A7 or higher end M43 or Fuji APS-C mirrorless cameras today.The higher end FF DSLR then suddenly became monsters like a D4, 1Dx or 5DmkIII. Something went wrong in this transition and the mirrorless cameras appeal so much more to the majority of photographers, which are not the small niche of sports shooters that might be left for DSLR territory...
I love seeing guys (always guys) walk around Disney Land with their family, a stroller, diaper bags, backpacks and a D4/70-200... bet they are having just a great day!
AshMills: Presumably a mirrorless camera is cheaper to make, without mirrors to swing or prisms to align? Is that why they are so cheap? Oh. Nothing like "equivalence" pricing.
A Porsche 911 has a lot less metal than an F250 so why does the truck cost way less?
Nimbifer: yes DSLRs are quickly becoming a niche product. And the niche will be much smaller than most would believe. DSLR users will be soon be as small a minority as medium format camera users or as vinyl LP users today.
It does matter a lot, whether a digital camera has unnecessary mechanically moving parts in the light path or not. Mirrorless will truly kick mnirrorslappers butt, as soon as global electronic shutter reaches prime time and both mirror and mech shutter are finally history.
As far as styling and body size goes, this is just an artefact of ultra-conservative old people in japanese camera makers top management teams. Plus a few old farts on the user side. But again, in reality those are about as many as vinyl LP listeners and medium format photogs today.
"Your vinyl LP analogy is a bit off, since vinyl sales continue to climb!"
Sure... since when? In the last couple of years, maybe. Since the 60's-80's... not on this planet.
justmeMN: Mirrorless enthusiasts like to point out that mirrorless cameras are smaller than DSLRs. So what? Not everyone is obsessed with camera size.
"In the end look at the sidelines of any sports event or car race, the pros use what gets the shot, and it is not mirrorless."
Because this forum is loaded with "pro's" who sit on the sidelines taking shots for SI. I guess this also means that anyone not using a D4/1D hasn't got a hope of getting a decent shot.
wombat661: At least you try to be less biased, but still got some ways to go...
For sports nothing beats DSLR for focus tracking especially in low lights AND you have a fast lens that needs accurate focus. All those tests for mirrorless use small aperture and bright light, so everything are in focus anyway. Is a lie just like Olympus M4/3 mirrorless claim to be as good as APSC when they just "mis-labled" their ISO setting. For that reason, you can't recommend mirrorless for the enthusiast.
Mirrorless takes time to turn on (even if that time is short), so you can't capture split second moment i.e. kids and babies, unless you set it to be on all the time, and that eats thru batteries. That time for EVF to turn on will irritate the hell out of some users. For that reason, you can't recommend mirrorless for the enthusiast unless you tell them what they are getting into.
Lastly, lens for Mirrorless and DSLR weights about the same. Been discussed before with data.
You should probably actually use a modern mirrorless before spouting nonsense...
D 503: They are all cameras.
Steve in GA: I'm not anti-mirrorless, but I haven't seen anything come out of the mirrorless camp yet that would convince me to put my DSLR and four good lenses on eBay.
Now, if Nikon were to make a mirrorless body that would work well with my existing lenses, I might give that a try.
Well if you are going to use the (big) glass, not much point in downsizing the body. Besides, Nikon does make a mirrorless that works with your existing lenses; whether its any good or not is another debate...
GoranS: OVF = full dynamic range, zero lag. I'ts not just 'personal preference' it's the best tool we can get atm.
An OVF in a D4 is great. An OVF on a D5500 is awful.
AKH: In my opinion mirrorless cameras do not sell very well because they are too expensive for just the size advantage. Most people that upgrade from point and shoot are much better off buying an entry level DSLR. This is also what I see on my holidays here in Europe - many people, including young people, use DSLRs besides a lot of people using mobile phones.
Entry/mid level DSLR's sell because they are in every store you can think of.
DBE: This may be a 'niche' response, but I will stick with a DSLR / OVF for the foreseeable future since an EVF cannot be used when photographing night landscapes. With an OVF your eyes eventually adjust to the darkness and you can properly frame your shot by starlight. An EVF? Pure black - at least with my previous Sony SLT. The same goes for bright sunlight. The current crop of EVFs cannot and perhaps never will match the dynamic range of what your eye sees through an OVF, and the 'look' of a final print is what you remember from the viewfinder composition. But then again, I still create framed prints, which may also be going the way of the Dodo ...
Sounds like you need to use a modern EVF; I'm not 25 anymore so my "night vision" is not great. With an EVF I have no trouble framing in the dark; with an OVF (Nikon), may as well just put the camera away. I'll also add that the Olympus live bulb is an amazing feature for nightscapes.
Roman_93: Well, if these features are all they put out in a year, then it is very thin and maybe comes in handy but nothing really wothwhile. Nearly no one whould have bought the new version with the old payment model.
It turns out that when innovation runs low a cloud pay model is needed to ensure cash flow rises.
Simple solution... don't subscribe and use another solution. End of problem.
Unfortunately not the end of pages and pages of whining every time Adobe is mentioned on DPR
exapp: Hope they fixed the performance issues with Lightroom CC, develop module is almost unusably slow.
CC version is a disaster to use and is many many time slower than LR 5.7 and that's on a current gen PC with lots of RAM and SSDs hate to see what it would be like on an old machine.
Exapp, you have something wrong either with your system or your install.
Overall I'd say it was a rather good week for the camera industry as a whole; new products released and they all look pretty damn good!
Hubertus Bigend: I have in nearly four decades of photography never, ever, aspired to owning a Leica M, because I always found the rangefinder to be a poor kludge compared to the SLR finder, making macro and tele photography impossible, which happen to be two of my favorite fields. The SLR was invented more than half a century ago to overcome the shortcomings of the rangefinder, and the SLR did overcome them, and it was for a reason that it went off on its triumphant course to replace it. Yes, the rangefinder camera could still be slightly more compact with short focal lengths and it continued to exist in a tiny niche, but at no time would I have voluntarily have given away my DSLR for a rangefinder camera.
The Q, on the other hand, is no rangefinder camera, it is a technologically advanced EVF camera, a sophisticated mirrorless system camera without the 'system' aspect. Give me a Leica Q with interchangeable lenses and a broad range of lenses to go with it, and, given the budget, I might be in.
Obviously an RF (of any type) is not for you. Thats fine because those who use an RF for its strengths would never buy a large DSLR.
Pandimonium: In the film days you could use a camera for decades and always have the newest sensor (film). Nowadays it's lifespan is much shorter because of fast changing technology. In ten years this camera will just be an obsolete dust gathering piece of tech in your cupboard. No sense in spending so much money on it.
While I do agree, I will say that about 5yrs ago I pulled my old Nikon D70 out. And while the image quality at lower iso was fine, using that VF was just painful. We do get spoiled by newer technology.
Angrymagpie: "If they’re being honest, I suspect that most enthusiast photographers have at one time or another aspired to owning a Leica."
Not for me. I've always thought of Leica M as an expensive luxury item for wealthy photography enthusiasts. X100 series got me interested in the idea of a digital rangefinder. But that's a Fujifilm, not Leica. Though some would say that it is perhaps more Leica than Leica nowadays.
I really like the Q from what I've read so far. However yes, an RX2 with a built in EVF would certainly be sweet. Not 100% sure I could live with the single FL though; last time I used a rangefinder was my Canonette back in the '70s.