this is the redesigned canon 5dsr mirror assembly... where do you see this level of complexity in a mirrorless camera?
IBIS. The sensor moves in incredibly small increments, and it's more difficult to draw the resulting heat off the sensor. The fact that IBIS is smaller does not mean it is less complex (or cheaper).
And again! All the other parts are the same. LCD, battery, circuit boards, lens mount, chassis, and so forth.
A smartphone isn't an ILC, doesn't have a sensor anywhere near as large as ILC mirrorless, a lens mount, doesn't have a grip, doesn't have a removable battery, doesn't usually include slots for storage, doesn't have a tripod mount, can't take battery grips, doesn't have camera strap mounts, doesn't have an EVF, doesn't have a relatively large mechanical shutter.
Oh, and mirrorless cameras don't have cellular reception, don't use iOS or Android OS.
Mirrorless ILCS are
much closer to DSLRs than they are to smartphones. That isn't even a question.
R&D costs are not directly linked to the number of screws. These days, it mostly involves software and programming.
i think that we are confusing r&d with engineering:
I'm not.
You're the one claiming that more parts in manufacturing requires more R&D. It doesn't. In fact, it can mean less, if all they're doing is making small changes to an existing design, as opposed to designing a camera from the ground up (which was likely the case with the original A7).
SLR is a decades-old and mature technology, that has minimal R&D costs.
does that completely redesigned mirror assembly look like "minimal r&d" to you?
It looks like marketing to me. The concept is essentially the same as it's been for decades.
didn't i just tell you that all of the flagship dslrs had to have their mirror assemblies completely redesigned?
"Completely?" Did they reinvent the mirror and the prism? No. They just added some dampening.
wrong, lol
"In order to accommodate the 35mm full-frame image sensor and cover the light flux of the large viewfinder with a nearly 100-percent field of view,
it was necessary to increase the size of the main mirror and mirror box. To minimize the size of the mirror box, PENTAX has developed a new mechanism that retracts the main mirror as it swings upwards."
zomg they got a mirror to move backwards by a millimeter!!! Obviously they've COMPLETELY reinvented the concept.
<< rolleyes >>
They're still using the same mirror concept, the same PDAF sensors, the same ground glass, the same ground glass, the same pentaprisms or pentamirrors, same exposure sensors... I have no doubt it's a clever bit of engineering, but let's get real -- not much has changed. At a minimum, it's not all that more intensive than reducing EVF lag with each iteration.
Please. Olympus almost certainly uses a Sony sensor with a very fast readout time and almost no rolling shutter;
no, m4/3 has less rolling shutter because of the much smaller size of the sensor.
sigh
Oly E-M1 Mk ii is 20mp, a9 is 24mp. It's nearly the same amount of data. Since rolling shutter happens on the pixel level, the size of the sensor is not what matters.
olympus doesn't have anything comparable to the a9 sensor, that's rubbish.
The MP count is nearly the same. (In fact, the sensor in the Oly would be around 60mp if it was in a 35mm sensor camera.) Electronic shutter for the Sony is 10fps, Oly is
20fps. Dynamic range is very close. Both can shoot at high FPS without viewfinder blackout. The a9 has more focus points, and better high ISO.
By the way, the Oly E-M1 Mk ii uses the Sony IMX270 sensor. It's a new design, probably designed by Oly, almost certainly with Sony input. (
http://www.43rumors.com/chipworks-reveals-the-e-m1ii-uses-the-sony-imx270-sensor/)
. However, with regard to the gouging implication he made a few digs that seemed to imply he thought MILCs were overpriced, e.g.: 'Don't get me wrong, R&D cost money. But lets say you use an of the shelf EVF, that body has nothing to make it cost anywhere near the price of a dSLR.'
