You're allowed to be whatever you like, but please don't think EVF is superior
It is because...
Actually, on legacy lenses you turn the aperture ring and it does give you DoF preview right there.
Yeah right! Wait a minute!
No it doesn't! The optical viewfinder will give you false DOF (as I already said 3 times before this). And then when you are back out of that, your subject has gone about his life...
EVF? No need to go into any of that mess. It's WYSIWYG, all the time*!
And what about video? How do you focus manually? You know that serious video with properly done focus pulls is done manually? Please tell my how you that in a DSLR! Perhaps with the LCD? Or an external monitor? You know that both of these devices are big Electronic Viewfinders right?
it can take cheaper lenses,
Can a DSLR mount CCTV lenses? Can it take rangefinder lenses? Can it take almost any imaginable legacy mount?
CCTV lenses are awful
Don't escape the argument, your argument was price. As a sidenote, which current DSLR can take Leica glass? Any kind?
I'm not "escaping" the argument, Leica lenses are bloody expensive (at least really good ones) and putting them on 43rds sensor is sacrilege - put it in front of a 35mm sensor or film to get the max out of the lens it was intended to be used on.
So you say it can't take cheap ones, I say CCTV, you say proper ones, I say Leica, you say expensive! How more evasive can you be?
I'll tell you one proper system that is cheap: Konica AR. Now you can quit the slalom and tell me which DSLR can handle Konica AR better than let's say m43 (as an example of mirroless).
Again, if you have money for Leica lenses, you should have money for Leica cameras.
I have money for neither otherwise I wouldn't give a damn about m43 which
unlike my DSLR can really extract the value out of those legacy gems I own.
Where is Panasonic's portrait lens (like 50mm and/or 35-100), quality fast zoom (like 14-54 or 12-60), quality fast tele zoom (50-200 2.8-3.5 or 90-250 f2.8), quality fast tele prime (150 f2), portrait zoom such as 35-100?
Open your eyes for legacy. I don't know of any AF or Zoom lens that can give me sharper results at F1.2 than my Konica Hexanon 57mm. Well actually I know but the Noctilux doesn't count.
Why would I get a new camera with all those new features and use old MF lenses?
Because of the sentence you are replying to. It looks like you haven't even read it...
In other words: cheap and proper!
And I'll let in another secret: All (and I mean all) of my Konica AR will
focus and
change aperture continuously ,
silently and
proportionally to the touch of the hand! A little DIY operation that can take around 3m for each of my 4 lenses.
No Digital lens can do that!
That Konica would be even better on 35mm body.
Not really. Digital is beyond film in every aspect (well, beyond accessible film anyway). That's a path that's not even worth arguing.
1. Built larger than necessary bodies
What's the GF1 then? Apart from the totally unbalanced NEXes what have the other's done? The Samsung NX? WOW! That was small...
GF1 is ooooold, it's got poor VF accessory, if Panny cared about GF1 they would've introduced better VF option since it's an external accessory.
Don't escape the argument, your statement was about body size.
Ok, GF1 is only Panny body which is small, why? Isn't the entire point of MFT in having really small bodies and lenses? Since lenses are better on proper 43rds as well as being telecentric with really wide apertures (zooms).
Apparently it is by looking at sales, but I'm glad that Panasonic (unlike Olympus) didn't stop there otherwise I wouldn't have a choice!
Just because I like the tilt & swivel LCD and I need a good EVF that lets me focus legacy I'm out of Olympus target.
Magnesium alloy is no heavier than plastic, take a look at 60D vs D7000 for instance.
I find that plastic is the better compromise of weight, resistance and price. Other may think otherwise.
Panasonic will get hit much harder than Olympus because they:
3. Have no IBIS
(...)
Because C&N have the best brand recognition, and now if a person goes to buy DSLR, 95% buy one of those 2 despite having worst "bang for buck" factor out there.
So Canon won't be hit because they are Canon. Same for Nikon? Is that a real argument? Look at the sales in the Japanese market! They were hit all right! First it was the E-P1 getting sustained sales in the top #10 figures. Then it was the GF1 hitting harder with 2 models in the top #8 and now the sacrilege: Sony taking both #5 and #6.
I don't think that Panasonic is worried or that they will take a hit for also having IS in lenses when all the other companies are doing the same. And why has Samsung taken the same option? Don't forget that they have a tested IBIS solution. Why has Sony done the same? And Panasonic?
Are all these marketing departments high on crack?
Each day I believe more and more that this is a marginal issue among more important ones regarding usability and performance. Don't get me wrong! I'd be the first in line to buy a GH1 the day it came out should it feature IBIS. All my legacy glass would have welcomed it. IBIS was the only reason that held me back waiting for Olympus since the day the G1 came out!!! :O But these days, after hard testing IS (against tripod, against remote release, against mirror lock up, against burst shooting) I get the feeling that it's overstated and the 1.5-2EV advantage of the GH2 sensor will soon clear my conscience of the E-P2 IBIS advantage, and that my friend, is the real Olympus handicap: a sensor that should have been retired more than 1 year ago and inexplicably makes it to their top of the line model. :O
Now it's Saturday night and I'm off to enjoy a movie! Something that was probably filmed on a digital video-camera with manual focus on an EVF...
Cheers!
