justmeMN: Mirrorless enthusiasts claim that the former is less expensive to manufacture than DSLRs, but that claim doesn't seem to be reflected in the price of most mirrorless cameras.
You can score that M4/3's set-up in the UK way cheaper than that.
I'd don't know what the "special look" is meant to be? someone going OTT with the clarity slider? Nice high ISO, nice image quality but no special "Leica look" to my eyes.
Astrotripper: "Better high ISO performance with one to two stops of improvement"
Compared to what?
I was responding to mgrum's assertion.
Actually in mono the DPXM's aren't bad for high ISO work, for those that know how to use them.
Recently picked a mint one up for peanuts out of curiosity, so glad I did, it takes superb jpegs and the colour is as accurate as any I've seen on any camera. I'll definitely use it occasionally, ergonomically it's also very nice, fits my hand like a glove and it's built like a tank. Still a camera worth using IMHO.
CNY_AP: Continuous AF in DSLRs isn't very good either unless they've greatly improved recently. I therefore use single shot AF for everything with my SLR.
Clearly you're entrenched in your position and not really interested in others opinions so I'll leave you to it.
Well I'm not sure what you're expecting considering the price difference but these mirrorless cameras will outperform many DSLR's in their price bracket, as the reviewer states at the end.
I think you'll find it's a lot better than you think, here's a great test which demonstrates how capable it is, compared to the D4S as well ;-)
I don't think I ever said the XT-1 compared to a D4S, but it's certainly better than a Canon 5D or 5D2, which were never great at tracking anyway.
Hmmm, a German telling an Englishman to be quiet, that's never really worked has it ;-)
Well if you don't know how to spell "proving" I suggest you check the mirror first before trying to dish out insults, it saves on your embarrassment ;-)
You might be advised to check your spelling before calling anyone a "moron" ;-)
Trying switching it on next time, makes a hell of a difference.
Dream on, you've clearly not used the XT1 or if you did you didn't know how to use it.
papillon_65: Excellent news, I wait with baited breath for threads from wealthy amateurs filled with badly exposed shots of their cats which they can print to the size of Malta.
@ AbrasiveReducer - You're new here aren't you :-)
@ TadekH - I'm not a professional, I just don't take badly exposed shots of cats with gear that I don't need, though I reserve the right to do so should I win the lottery ;-)
Excellent news, I wait with baited breath for threads from wealthy amateurs filled with badly exposed shots of their cats which they can print to the size of Malta.
papillon_65: Excellent choice and I fully endorse the rationale behind the SL1. It's a really nice little camera which doesn't have much missing in terms of it's bigger brothers. It's also a really fun camera to use, easy and intuitive IMHO. If you own a full frame or larger Canon it compliments them nicely. I'd also like to see the 22mm EF-M ported over to EF-S, it'a cracking little lens that would be great on this camera. I've owned the EOS-M and OMD EM-5 and I prefer the 100D over both of them, the ovf is very decent for such a small camera and very useful when you don't want to do the stinky diaper dance. Im very happy with mine, good choice Shawn.
Yep, that's about the strength of it, a mini dlsr that takes all of my lenses and has an ovf, nothing not to like for me.
Lab D: I like the SL1, but is it much different than the old Olympus E-4xx series or the Sony A35, A55 and A37? The SLTs were actually better for tracking during video, but with some restrictions.
Quite a bit is grammatically correct, not sure what your point is?
Care to elaborate on that Naveed?