zinedi: Don't deceive photographers. Neither SLT principle, nor EVF are "new technologies" (as someone suggested here). In fact - the first one is a blind street of evolution known from 1960s (Canon Pellix) and EVF is cheap alternative for optical viewfinder. Both are justifiable in cheaper mirrorless and compact cameras league, but not in semi-pro or even pro. So say : cheap technologies instead of new technologies to be correct. EVF even in today's state-of-the-art form is very imperfect tool for serious and enjoyable photography. It was big error to escape from DSLRs to these TV toys.
Flipscreen has nothing to do with viewfinder - flipscreen is a substitute for angle-viewfinder, but viewfinder is the thing you look through with camera supported against your forehead.
Don't deceive photographers. Neither SLT principle, nor EVF are "new technologies" (as someone suggested here). In fact - the first one is a blind street of evolution known from 1960s (Canon Pellix) and EVF is cheap alternative for optical viewfinder. Both are justifiable in cheaper mirrorless and compact cameras league, but not in semi-pro or even pro. So say : cheap technologies instead of new technologies to be correct. EVF even in today's state-of-the-art form is very imperfect tool for serious and enjoyable photography. It was big error to escape from DSLRs to these TV toys.
Take it easy boys. If you are satisfied with cheap substitute of meat sausage by soya and colza mud - it's your option. But be informed that it is good for manufacturers health, not for your health. I am not against electronic progress ( in fact I work in technology development), but I prefer digital technology which brings better products then analogue ones, not the worse.
Why OVF. EVF is a cheap fake of optical viewfinder. It cannot even far-off simulate analogue natural look and feeling of OVF - feeling of nature.EVF is harmful for human health - the eye was made by nature for natural analogue-fluent light. The flickering LED light is harmful - not only for eye.EVF is cheaply constructed to be able even simulate OVF. When there is 6000x4000pix/250Hz 32million colours viewfinder I shall see if it is comparable with OVF and harmless and maybe.. .EVF is and for long time still will be lagging after on-line reality - so it is difficult to do sport with this. And the picture not beeing fluent in panoraming e.g. is also rough and harmful for human health.I have 20 years old SLR with pentaprism OVF - still functional. Do you believe that these small electronic dummy viewfinders will work at least 5 years?
Gully Foyle: I will wait and see all the posters who defend the OVFs when Canikon releases their first EVF on a serious (i.e. >D7000, >60D) because...
...THEY WILL !!!
Wake up! The film became sensor, the MF became AF and many many other techs that you now take for granted, were once innovations on obsolete designs.
I bet, were there internet forums back in the '80s there would be the same debate between the ones that found AF a sad joke and the "others".
OVF is currently the future, next they have to get rid of the shutter and then, oh well, lenses!
All digital is the (not so new) dogma. Realize that and be happy with what you have.
"The market is not ready for EVF's"I'd say - EVFs are not ready for serious market. When there is 6000x4000pix/250Hz EVF I will test it whether it doesn't harm eye health by flickering artificial light. What is made today is for photographic purposes harmful garbage. Why EVF is not at least like full HD TV/200Hz? And even then - natural analogue light is light for which nature has made our eye for - not for flickering led light. Optical is always better, more durable than electronical. And don't speak of backside LCD screen - it's not EVF.
Joe Shaffer: So it preforms on par or better than "professional" cameras but you keep using the words "SLR enthusiasts" for the people who would buy it. Why enthusiasts and not professionals? Is it because it doesn't say Canon or Nikon on it?
No, it is also because of inflammation of conjunctiva. Try to look through EVF all day long.
MrPetkus: Looks fantastic. It would be nice if Sony produced a mirrored version, too, like the contemporaneous a580 and a55. The EVF is great but unfortunately it hurts my eyes after a bit. I've tried and wish I didn't have this problem. For now I can only choose OVF.
Cy Cheze > No, I've never had these problems with my several SLRs and DSLRs with OVFs. Only EVF with flickering artificial light irritates my eye.
Exactly my case. Constant inflammation of conjunctiva from EVF - after whole day of shooting.
marike6: Sony made a big gamble by dropping the OVF on all their cameras. A top level pentaprism OVF will always be the state-of-the-art, while in one or two years time, the A99 EVF will be old technology, superseded by new models. Just ask Fuji X-Pro1 users how they felt when the X-E1 came out with a higher specified EVF. So perhaps one of the negatives of adopting an evolving technology like EVF is an increased need to upgrade. Whereas a 100% OVF of a 5D3, D800 or A900 will always be about as good as it gets.
Very reasonable opinion. I agree, there are some things which do not age - like TTL pentagonal viewfinder, but electronics goes out quickly.
Peter 111: Overall score A99: 84%D800E: 84%D800: 82%5D3: 82%
"It stands out as the only full frame camera to offer in-body stabilization, an EVF and articulated rear screen." WYSIWYG EVF, throwing away the Hoodman now. Sold my D800 and got an A99, loving it :)
No, I shoot RAW - don't need to play with WB or exposure on place - actually I save time - it is not so accurate on a small LCD/OLED - better on PC. And it is known that there is some difference between what you see in EVF/LCD and on PC screen/paper.
EVF is great disadvantage in my eyes - lagging, abruptly changing unreal colors and contrast, no space feeling, eye weariness, ... EVF has a meaning in mirrorless systems for bulk saving - but not in slr/slt, where speed is first.
massimogori: While using two canon dslr, I started thinking about the raw processing, noise removing, sharpening, color balancing, retouching... What a boring process. And how far from the simple kodachrome or velvia slide approach!
I understand that pros may need all that, but for a traveller like I am, the Fuji approach can give you back all the pleasure and immediacy. Without compromising on quality.
The results from my x-pro 1 look fantastic, in spite of the inexperienced photographer I am. I expect the shots taken with the xe-1 to be on the same league
Holy flame of ardour for jpg was cooled down by a bit patronising tone - OK? And inexperience playing card was taken out by you - I turned it back - it's your gamble.
qwertyasdf: Why is the X-Pro1 more expensive than the X-E1?X-Pro1 has awful AF, and a gimmicky OVF
The parallax correction is indicated there too. But of course it is not as precise for close-ups, but for this the EVF is there easy switchable - yes EVF is worse than the state of the art - but OVF has only Fuji.
@Gediminas 8: Not at all, everything is all right with my sleep. But when someone has the right to tell the others that he doesn't need RAW I feel my need to express my very need of RAW workflow. It would be very bad (from my point of view) if manufacturers would not support RAW workflow - jpg lovers have nothing to lose.
It is exactly that marvellous hybrid OVF - with distance scale, level line, over 100% view, .. which is absolutely unique and reminiscent of range-finder classic, that stands out this camera over the others.
Yes, that's easy to trash Fuji raw workflow when it is so bad/unexisting as it is. But not every and each photographer (whatever experienced) does with velvia and .jpg only.
rattymouse: "The XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R OIS LM offers a fairly-standard 28-80mm equivalent zoom range, but with an unusually fast maximum aperture."
Really? Unusual? Are DPR not aware that Canon, Nikon, Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma ALL have this zoom with at CONSTANT f/2.8 aperture?
But they are true optical - opticaly corrected lenses, which is big difference from heavily software corrected lenses.
"The results from my x-pro 1 look fantastic, in spite of the inexperienced photographer I am."
And now try to imagine how boring, flat, mediocre and poor those results will look to you, when you become experienced photographer - then you inevitably will be interested in some good raw based workflow. Good luck in gathering experience.
Back to DSLRs. I confess - I also had been infatuated by portability and style of some mirorrless cameras. But I was very disappointed by production quality of these - X100 - well known SAB problem, NEX - electronics problems - durability less than 10,000 clicks, underestimated handling tools - like viewfinders, .. . In fact I see this category as electronic toys only not as reliable photographic tools for serious enthusiast photographer. I've never had any problem with my 3 DSLR bodies and many lenses for several hundreds of thousands of clicks and many years and many weather conditions. Contemporary mirrorless are catching up the price level of semi-pro DSLRs, but they are not in no way as reliable and user friendly photographic tool (with weight only exception) - they are really only expensive toys. I started to respect my heavy DSLR again - this is the result of bad production and handling quality of mirorrless toys - for myself.
JackM: it's cheaper than owning an iPhone for 2 years.
It's cheaper than M16A1 rifle. Ehh, but it's different way of shooting, isn't it.