Isn't the smaller size kind of the point or mirrorless?
No. The point of mirrorless is the lack of the mirror with all the needed mechanical parts.
I like the size of my NX30 or the A7 II. With pancakes they are small enough and with bigger lenses I don't need any dumb accessory grip. With even bigger lenses, like my 4/100-300, I prefer a body the size of my D700. It's too big? Get a Pentax Q...;-)
What would be the point of getting rid of the mirror and all the other parts if not to make the camera itself smaller? I'm not saying that's the ONLY point but a smaller/lighter camera is a big part of mirrorless.
There are lots of points to that. To get peaking in the VF, to get magnification in the VF, to be able to record video in the VF,
But a plenty of mirrorless models don't have a VF....
Obviously, we're talking about mirrorless models with VF, of which there are many. And many mirrorless cameras that don't have EVFs allow you to attach one.
He was saying 'the point of mirrorless is...' and then gave points that don't apply to all mirrorless models. Have all mirrorless camera models released had focus peaking?
to reduce vibration via mirrorslap,
and replace it with shutter shock?
I've had several mirrorless cameras. I've never experienced shutter shock with any of them. Sure, certain models have encountered that issue, just like certain DSLR models had issues with back-focus. But it's certainly not a general characteristic of these types of cameras.
It's a well documented and tested issue that arose with models where the designers didn't take the whole 'Let's remove the mirror to reduce vibration' seriously enough to test these properties of the camera.
to make them quieter by removing mirrorslap.
There's something in that..
What's even better is to go totally silent with electronic shutter. Sure, it's not ideal for every shooting situation, but for plenty of occasions it's a very nice advantage, especially for street photography.
Does every mirrorless camera released have a silent/electronic shutter option? I'll wager that they don't.
There are a large number of reasons that a person might want ML that have nothing to do with size or weight.
Yet almost everyone mentions size and weight as a main reason to buy one
Different buyers have different priorities. I think what he's saying is that mirrorless cameras offer certain features and capabilities that make them attractive and desireable aside from size and weight. It doesn't mean size and weight
aren't factors. It just means that there are reasons that one might choose mirrorless that "have nothing to do with size and weight."
Yes, I agree there are other reasons. But they haven't always been a point of concern for the manufacturer, and aren't in EVERY mirrorless camera. So I don't think one can say they are the 'point' of mirrorless. By something having a 'point' it's supposed to be designed with that in mind and cover all subsequent products. Otherwise we can say 'The point of mirrorless is to have focus peaking, but only in mirrorless models with focus peaking' which is somewhat of an oxymoron no?
If you have never thought of any of these I feel sorry for you, you are one of those "surface thinkers" never looking past the most obvious layers of any concept.
I feel sorry for you. Most of your points are pointless as they don't seem to be major reasons even from the manufacturer in the design of these cameras.
They aren't "major reasons" according to you. But who are you to decide for the rest of us? Plus, a lot of little reasons can have a cumulative effect.
They aren't major reasons to people with mirrorless cameras that don't have those features in the first place. So it seems these major reasons that people have to buy mirrorless only apply to certain mirrorless models. So they can't be the point of mirrorless. But now I'm just rambling about semantics.
I think one of the major benefits of mirrorless cameras is that they offer a much broader and more diverse selection of body types and designs than DSLRs. DSLRs are all basically the same in design, because it's a limitation of the reflex mirror body design.
Not true. Are you saying the the Canon SL1 is the same body type/design as the Nikon Df and the same as the EOS 1DX?
But with mirrorless, you can have center-mounted viewfinder
yeah
, or a side-mounted viewfinder,
what is the benefit of this?
or you can have no viewfinder,
Or you can just not look at it.
or you can have a detachable viewfinder,
Why would you want to take an EVF off? So you can replace it with a more useful one? How many varieties are there exactly and what are their individual benefits? So you can lose it? So you can put it on another very specific model that takes the same finder that the manufacturer may or may not support in the future?
or you can have a built-in viewfinder that tilt,
or you can use an angle finder on a DSLR, I have one that's 40 years old.
or you can have a removable viewfinder that tilts!
You mean one that takes an external battery and is cabled to the camera for monitoring? They make these for any camera with a HDMI output you know...
Otherwise, why would you remove and tilt an EVF if you couldn't see anything through it?
That's already a huge diversity of designs that DSLRs can't offer. With mirrorless, you can really try out a variety of designs and decide for yourself which one fits you the best.
I don't think so man...
