I think neoprene (wetsuit material) camera strap more or less accomplishes the same "shock absorption", albeit with less travel/extension.
I don't think this strap is a terrible idea. I just don't care too much for the accordion look on the strap. It's the camera strap equivalent of wearing a ruffled shirt.
RSilva: This strap is certainly much better:http://deadcameras.com/2015/11/04/the-new-deadcameras-xl-strap/
That does look like a very nice strap.
KonstantinosK: So basically, if you combine all of these things in one mirrorless camera and add extra features like top LCD and a 1000 shots battery, you end up with a mirrorless as big as a DSLR.
I'd go the other way around. Take all the things that are good in a top mirrorless and put them in a top DSLR. It must be cheaper, too.
Exmp.1) Take a D8102) Develop a selectable hybrid OVF/EVF, with the EVF like the one in the Leica SL 3) Add Sony's on-chip PDAF for when you use the EVF/Live View4) Add Sony's Eye whatever CDAF for when you use EVF/Live View.
There. What more could one ask? A D810 with a good lens is not much bigger or heavier than a Sony A7x, let alone a monstrous Leica SL.
It would be nice to have a D809 with 24 mp, though...
133g, in spite of being hewn from a solid block of metal and being built like a tank. Any other manufacturer, making a similar body, but with magnesium alloy injection molding ("thixomolding"), as Canon and Nikon do with their DSLR bodies, would yield an even lighter body.
And yes, the dimensions don't lie. It's a smaller, slimmer body than the D810.
As for an A7x, the A7R II is 355g lighter than the D810, even with an internal sensor stabilization system that adds weight. And there's a huge size difference:
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
@bernardf12 - yeah, but it'd be nice just to have a larger battery without the need for an add-on battery grip that substantially increases the size of the camera. A larger battery in a larger grip would be a minimal increase in body size.
Not that big a difference? LOL. The SL is 2cm shorter in height, has a body depth of only 39mm compared to the D810's 81.5mm (double the depth of the SL), and even though the SL is milled from a solid block of metal and is built like a tank, it *still* ends up being 133g *lighter* than the D810 (847g vs 980g)!!! The numbers don't lie. Even though the SL is built solid and beefy (as Leicas typically are), it still manages to be a slimmer and lighter camera than the D810! It just shows the considerable potential of size and weight reduction that mirrorless cameras offer. Other manufacturers (that don't make their cameras out of solid blocks of metal like Leica does) could easily make something similar to the SL, but even lighter and more compact. As for the lenses, Leica makes big zoom lenses, no doubt about it. But a manufacturer such as Nikon or Canon would easily make mirrorless lenses that were smaller.
"So basically, if you combine all of these things in one mirrorless camera and add extra features like top LCD and a 1000 shots battery, you end up with a mirrorless as big as a DSLR."
No, you'd still be smaller. My analogy is comparing the size of a Canon EOS 1V film SLR (Canon's last flagship film SLR body) with the thickness of a Canon 1DX or Canon 6D DSLR. The EOS 1V is downright thin compared to today's DSLRs. With mirrorless, you can cut out all that fat midsection girth that today's DSLRs have, allowing for much thinner bodies. With DSLRs, you have all the electronic guts of a digital body *plus* that huge, cavernous space for the reflex mirror.
As for the "monstrous Leica SL", it's actually considerably smaller than a D810. Its height is 2cm shorter than the D810, and the body is much much thinner, particularly through the midsection.
Putting the Leica SL next to a D810 is like putting a thin person next to an obese person.
Red Dawn: It's not really a "mirrorless" in a sense, but the Leica M system has been around for 60 years, and for much of that history, battery life has never been a problem.
I've been shooting the digital Leica M typ 240 for weddings and such, and for reference, I shot 640 shots over a 8 hour period with a single battery, and still have 35% battery life left - about 10% of the shots are with EVF use. For me, the battery life issue has finally been put to rest with this latest iteration of the M body. Leica solved it by simply having a physically BIGGER battery. No secrets there....
My second shooter took around 400 shots over a shorter period, and is down to her third battery with the Sony A7.......
None of this compares of course to the good old DSLR - on a separate occasion, for a full day I took 830 shots with the Nikon D600 and it still had 53% battery left by the end of the day...
Yep, I totally agree, a lot of this battery life issue will be put to rest (for most people) once Sony moves to a larger battery. The current battery is tiny.
keepreal: Some need to debate features for mirrorless, much need to challenge manufacturers for a DSLR the size of an Olympus OM and it still be full frame.
Maybe at the outset of digital this was not possible but it is now. If DSLRs and lenses were designed how they used to be, the majority of serious photographers would still want that. And lens design has gone back to the dark ages. Even with a focus motor and auto diaphragm, a lens need be nowhere as big and heavy as most now are and could still be made to be distortion free without software correction.
It is only because of the limitations of the DSLR as foist on us today that most people turn to mirrorless. No viewfinder compares with an OVF, except the Leica M albeit with a parallax issue and less precision in the coverage.
So either you settle on full frame or APS-C with a decent OVF or mirrorless if you want to save bulk and weight at the expense of a paltry image on LCD or through an EVF that at best is second best, a compromise.
@PerL - Sure, some of the best APS-C DSLRs may have the same viewfinder sizes as 1.3x DSLRs. But what I'm saying is that many APS-C mirrorless cameras now offer viewfinders that are the same size as FF DSLRs. In the future, they may even be larger. The point is that things like viewfinder size and viewfinder brightness are not limited with EVFs like they are with OVFs. Nor is viewfinder location limited with EVFs like they are with OVFs.
I don't know why people put so much value or importance in these kinds of "Top 10" lists. They are just lists put together by people with their own biases and preferences.
@ keepreal- there are definitely areas were EVFs are not as good as OVF. And there are certain areas where OVF are not as good as EVF. There are pros and cons to each. Everyone has to decide which works best for them. I don't shoot all that often into the sun, but when I have, I don't recall it being that much of an issue. I don't know if shooting into the sun with an OVF is very good for your eyes, though.
Frankly, I think the "EVF vs OVF" debate echoes the debates we had regarding film vs digital photography in the early days of digital photography. Film shooters hated the look of digital because it wasn't film. Likewise, today many OVF shooters hate the look of EVFs because they aren't OVFs. As a long-time OVF shooter who now regularly uses EVFs, it took a slight bit of adjustment, but these days I have no problem working with EVFs. OVF and EVF both have their pros and cons. I don't expect one to look exactly like the other. But I do prefer EVFs mainly for the features they offer. And I do anticipate the day when EVFs will be so good, many people will actually prefer the IQ and capabilities of EVFs, much like how many people today prefer the IQ and capabilities of digital over analog photography. For me, that day is already here. The IQ is good enough, and the capabilities/features of EVFs are very useful to me.
"...APS-C with a decent OVF or mirrorless if you want to save bulk and weight at the expense of a paltry image on LCD or through an EVF that at best is second best, a compromise."
It's funny how people think APS-C OVFs are so great these days. I remember in the early days of DSLRs, when we only had APS-C sensors, many of us 35mm film shooters hated the smaller viewfinders of APS-C cameras. We called it "looking through a tunnel", because the APS-C viewfinder frame was so much smaller than what we were used to on our 35mm full frame SLRs. Now I guess people have gotten used to it, or they like it because that's all they know.
The great thing about mirrorless EVFs is that the viewfinder size is no longer restricted by the sensor format size. That's why many APS-C mirrorless cameras have viewfinder frames that are the size of FF cameras, and much larger than you'd get with an APS-C DSLR:
Chaitanya S: Battery life is a serious concern even for me. When using a DSLR with 4-5 spare batteries I can easily wander off in remote wilderness for a week or two. But with mirrorless cameras I have serious doubts as to whether I can use my camera with those 4-5 spare batteries after 3rd day of shooting in remote forests. Unless the battery life is improved to be on par with Mid level DSLRs I don't see switching over to mirrorless as a full system rather it will stay as a backup camera system for casual shooting on weekends when I dont to lug around my SLR kit.
@Roland Karlsson- it's not that big of a deal. For example, Sony batteries are very small, and they charge up pretty quick. I have two chargers. I can usually have two batteries charged up before bed time. And additional two can be charged overnight. That was plenty for me on a recent trip to India with an A6000. Plus, you can also juice up your battery by simply plugging in a micro-USB smartphone charger into your camera. For travel, I always carry a powerbank just in case my smartphone needs extra juice. The same powerbank's micro-USB cable can be plugged into most mirrorless cameras to juice up the battery. And of course, you can use a micro-USB smartphone wall charger plugged directly into the camera too. It's really not that big of a deal.
T3: The constant whining over the "huge" burden of changing your battery a few extra times (with mirrorless cameras) during a long shooting day makes me think that none of you people would have ever survived in the film era when we had to change our film every 36 shots! I think a lot of you would have either given up on photography, or tossed your cameras out the window in frustration over the terrible burden of having to load/unload/reload your film so often.
Yes, I do think it would be great if mirrorless cameras had longer battery life (which I think can be easily remedied by simply giving mirrorless cameras bigger batteries that go inside bigger grips), but I don't think it's nearly as big of an issue as some people make it out to be. It's a change from the extremely long battery life of DSLRs, but it's not really that big of a change to adapt to. The smaller profile and other benefits that mirrorless cameras offer make the adjustment worthwhile, at least to me.
People have to keep in mind that there are pros and cons to everything. I just think that this battery issue is way overblown. I just took a trip to India, and I had no battery issue. I carried four batteries with me, which was plenty for all-day shooting, with juice to spare. Sony batteries are tiny, so they don't take up much room at all. If Sony could double the size and capacity of their batteries, I'd be perfectly happy, and battery power would be totally a non-issue for me.
VENTURE-STAR: I agree with most of the points made. However, manufacturers like to introduce improvements slowly as part of their money making strategy and batteries are used to make the camera manufacturers extra money. That's why they fit chips and try to stop cheap copies that are often just as good. It's the same method that's used by printer companies.
My prediction is that in 15-20 years time, all pro/semi-pro cameras will be mirrorless and probably use very high performance APS-C sized ccds, in excess of 100 mp. I also think there will be less need for interchangeable lenses as zooms continue to improve. 8k video will be a standard feature and batteries will be better. But there is going to be an increasing equipment gap between phones and these cameras, so hopefully the prices won't be too high.
@sh10453 - you seem to be completely oblivious to the high IQ of current sensors. Also, we already have medium format systems for "portraiture, advertising, arts, models, magazines, etc." But the resolution and quality that these sensors produce is overkill for most people and most applications. At a certain point, people have to come to terms with what is "good enough". We've reached a point where existing sensor formats are already delivering abundantly good quality. Achieving even better quality (that can't even be seen unless you zoom in to the image to extreme levels) is starting to go beyond what is of real practical value. I don't see many safari photographers or journalists clamoring for medium format. Anything beyond 35mm FF format is going to be a very small niche of the market. For most photographers, APS-C and m4/3 is delivering more than sufficient IQ. I think people are going to shift their thoughts towards more practical considerations, like equipment size.
@ sh10453 - but are people going to be willing to carry around the bulkier lenses that go with larger sensors? I doubt it. For example, most people now prefer lighter, slimmer laptops. Not a whole lot of laptop users are interested in going back to larger, heavier, bulkier laptops. So I just don't see a whole lot of people wanting to lug around huge medium format lenses. You can't talk about sensor size while the corresponding lens size required to cover these larger sensor formats.
The constant whining over the "huge" burden of changing your battery a few extra times (with mirrorless cameras) during a long shooting day makes me think that none of you people would have ever survived in the film era when we had to change our film every 36 shots! I think a lot of you would have either given up on photography, or tossed your cameras out the window in frustration over the terrible burden of having to load/unload/reload your film so often.
@Chaitanya S - "I can easily wander off in remote wilderness for a week or two."
Well, that's definitely an outlier situation. It's not a situation that the vast majority of shooters are ever going to find themselves in. It's not like the average shooter is going to say to his wife: "Hey honey, I'm going to go and wander around in the remote wilderness for a couple weeks!" The reality is that most people aren't a couple of hours away from an electrical outlet. They aren't going to go one or two weeks without plugging into something.
Keep in mind that we live in the smartphone age, after all! How long does your smartphone last between charges? Shorter battery life in smartphones certainly hasn't kept them from spreading across the globe, even into rural and less-developed areas.
marc petzold: Battery Life currently is an issue with Mirrorless, DSLM cameras, simply because there is no OVF by design, no mirror, and the Viewfinder has to be electronic...and this EVF sucks energy too much, for current Designs.
One could develop bigger batteries with more mA, but then the size of the whole body would also grow something bigger. EVFs in 2016 for future cameras should be use less power then current designs, much less.
It's a huge difference if one can shoot all day with a simple battery, or does need 3 to 5 batteries for their mirrorless cameras.
@ marc petzold - "One could develop bigger batteries with more mA, but then the size of the whole body would also grow something bigger."
No, only the grip would grow bigger. And that's not really a bad thing.
"It's a huge difference if one can shoot all day with a simple battery, or does need 3 to 5 batteries for their mirrorless cameras."
Is it really a "huge difference"? As someone who uses both DSLR and mirrorless, I don't find it to be as "huge" a difference as I used to think. So you change your battery a couple extra times on a long shoot? It's not a big deal. It's certainly not like changing your film after every 36 shots, which photographers seemed to survive doing! It's amazing how spoiled and whiny we've become.
I think the battery life issue can be easily mitigated by simply offering batteries with the same size and capacity as DSLR batteries! Mirrorless batteries should be at least the same size as DSLR batteries, but instead they are smaller than DSLR batteries, which makes very little sense. Sure, even with same-sized batteries, mirrorless cameras will still consume more power and therefore won't last as long as DSLRs. But I think battery life will be extended long enough to make it far less of an issue than it currently is. Larger batteries would also allow mirrorless cameras to have bigger grips, which I think a lot of mirrorless camera users wouldn't mind. A larger grip would still maintain the compact size of mirrorless bodies, because they still wouldn't extend beyond the length of the shortest mirrorless lenses. And even with larger batteries, mirrorless bodies would still be lighter than comparable DSLRs thanks to their slimmer, less voluminous bodies.