Why so much animosity between DSLR users and mirrorless uers?

[CharlesB58]

I understand the internet is a place where people like to argue for no good reason, but it seems like the normal brand wars (Canon v. Nikon v. Sony etc.) have been subsumed by seemingly more virulent format wars (DSLR vs. ILC vs. superzooms vs. smartphones etc.). There have been many threads either bashing the smaller formats for being unprofessional or useless or the bigger DSLRs for being dated and predicting their imminent demise.

So my question is, why? Aren't they largely best used for different purposes? Aren't many people using cameras from more than one (if not all) of those categories? I would find it weird for people on a car forum to claim that the 1-ton pickup is so vastly superior to the compact hybrid that hybrid drivers are all stupid (or vice-versa). Or to see a computer forum where the desktop users, laptop users, and tablet users all argued about how theirs was the ultimate computing platform. Are cameras different for some reason?

Because on DPR you have factions which actually represent a very small portion of any given user base. However, in typical Lilliputian style, they think they are much bigger and more important than the rest of the world. They tend to be the most competitive, vocal and vociferous types, so they will dominate any thread or forum they possibly can.

What you have is a dozen or so people trying to make noise like they represent thousands of people, but they don't.

Toy battleships in a bathtub do make a big splash, unless you are out swimming in the ocean. Most people who buy cameras are swimming in the ocean.

 

[MarkJH]

I understand the internet is a place where people like to argue for no good reason, but it seems like the normal brand wars (Canon v. Nikon v. Sony etc.) have been subsumed by seemingly more virulent format wars (DSLR vs. ILC vs. superzooms vs. smartphones etc.). There have been many threads either bashing the smaller formats for being unprofessional or useless or the bigger DSLRs for being dated and predicting their imminent demise.

So my question is, why? Aren't they largely best used for different purposes?

No, Pros use DSLRs, not mirrorless and that irks those people to no end. Pros use medium format and may not use a FF because of the work they do. A FF dslr guy does not get upset about that. I think this is the single biggest sticking point. While there may be a few pros that use mirrorless there are a a small number.

David Hobby, aka "The Strobist," didn't get your memo:

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2013/12/fuji-follow-up.html

Neither did Zack Arias:

http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/fuji-x100s-follow-up-review-life-without-dslrs/

Vogue and other publications / clients seem to be happy with what Jonathan Posner and Andre Arthur are doing with m4/3:

http://www.jonathanposner.com/olympusmagazine

http://www.43rumors.com/using-the-e-m5-for-fashion-by-andre-arthur/

I could go on and on and on and on . . . .

I suppose all of these folks do agree with you that Medium Format still has a place--it's just the DSLR that seems to have declining use in what they do.

If we're talking about what "irks" us: as a shooter of many formats (67 and 645 medium format, 135, 4/3-m4/3), what troubles me most are generalizations without evidence. What do "pros" use? Whatever they want, whether "Richard" on DPReview can get his head around it or not.

 

[Midwest]

The war was started by group of "insecure" Mirrorless Users keep calling for the DEATH OF DSLR.....in spite that DSLR outsold every mirrorless camera combine.

The GAP between the claim of [DSLR DEATH] vs [Actual Sales] is outrageous that every forum thread proclaiming the death of DSLR is met without counter examples. Hence the WAR.

Exactly. It is always a mirrorless or m43 user posting something about the cameras OTHER people are using, that they are 'dying' or 'obsolete' or what have you.

Go to the DSLR forums - you will not see any threads to drum up support and rally the locals with 'hooray for our cameras, the other ones are (not selling) (losing money) (inferior) (whatever)'. You just don't see it. Because the people in the DSLR forums have no need to keep convincing themselves that their cameras are better. Oh, we may bicker about which camera's sensors are better or other things pertaining to our own type of cameras, but we're not dragging out repeated cases to contrast our type of cameras with others.

Personally as a DSLR user I believe in using whatever camera does the job the user wants it for, and I wish people using those smaller cameras would adopt the same attitude and stop worrying about other peoples' cameras. Any animosity from DSLR users is just because we get so tired of these 'DSLRs are dying' threads... not tired, sick to death of them.

 

[Bill Robb]

I understand the internet is a place where people like to argue for no good reason, but it seems like the normal brand wars (Canon v. Nikon v. Sony etc.) have been subsumed by seemingly more virulent format wars (DSLR vs. ILC vs. superzooms vs. smartphones etc.). There have been many threads either bashing the smaller formats for being unprofessional or useless or the bigger DSLRs for being dated and predicting their imminent demise.

So my question is, why? Aren't they largely best used for different purposes? Aren't many people using cameras from more than one (if not all) of those categories? I would find it weird for people on a car forum to claim that the 1-ton pickup is so vastly superior to the compact hybrid that hybrid drivers are all stupid (or vice-versa). Or to see a computer forum where the desktop users, laptop users, and tablet users all argued about how theirs was the ultimate computing platform. Are cameras different for some reason?

What I read here is a lot of mirrorless users are talking up their latest whatever as the second coming.

Sorry, no piece of equipment is that good, and the rabid vacuosity of the nouveau faithful is really annoying.

 

[BarnET]

I think tablets are great for reviewing images especially the late high res ones. Great on the go. But they should keep it by reviewing not taking. Unless they carry an qx100.

 

[Richard]

David Hobby, aka "The Strobist," didn't get your memo:

Neither did Zack Arias:

http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/fuji-x100s-follow-up-review-life-without-dslrs/

Vogue and other publications / clients seem to be happy with what Jonathan Posner and Andre Arthur are doing with m4/3:

Who are these people. I agree there are a small number of no name pros that use them but they are a tiny minority.

I could go on and on and on and on . . . . generalizations without evidence. What do "pros" use?

While your words sound sweet to the ears of the mirrorless fanboi, a picture is worth a thousand words, or is it a thousand cameras.

 

[hdr]

They are users and not photographers.

The camera market depends largely on camera users, not just photographers per se. Thus, many factors can determine the popularity of a particular type of camera.

For instance, many camera enthusiasts love the distinctive sound of an SLR's shutter and mirror, which other cameras could not give. The mere sound of it could indeed convey a profound sense of satisfaction and well-being to those so inclined.

 

[MarkJH]

Ah, I get it. Professional photographers are journalists who document Olympic track and field events, only.

Or is it: Professional photographers photograph with telephoto lenses only?

Or is it: Professional photographers photograph with Canon lenses only?

You've shown us evidence of something, but to quote one particularly sage thinker: "I do not think that means what you think it means."

Meanwhile, your asking who David Hobby is tells us everything we need to know about where you are. There's nothing wrong with keeping your world as small as you want--but don't pretend you can box the rest of us into it.

Hey man, I'm no fanboi of anything in particular--I'm just skeptical that professional photographic practice, as a whole, can or should be defined by journalistic techniques for one olympic sport.

David Hobby, aka "The Strobist," didn't get your memo:

Neither did Zack Arias:

http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/fuji-x100s-follow-up-review-life-without-dslrs/

Vogue and other publications / clients seem to be happy with what Jonathan Posner and Andre Arthur are doing with m4/3:

Who are these people.

I agree there are a small number of no name pros that use them but they are a tiny minority.

I could go on and on and on and on . . . . generalizations without evidence. What do "pros" use?

While your words sound sweet to the ears of the mirrorless fanboi, a picture is worth a thousand words, or is it a thousand cameras.

 

[Draek]

I understand the internet is a place where people like to argue for no good reason, but it seems like the normal brand wars (Canon v. Nikon v. Sony etc.) have been subsumed by seemingly more virulent format wars (DSLR vs. ILC vs. superzooms vs. smartphones etc.). There have been many threads either bashing the smaller formats for being unprofessional or useless or the bigger DSLRs for being dated and predicting their imminent demise.

Discussions on the SLR's demise, much as with similar discussions on compacts suffering the same fate, do not belong to the so-called "format wars" but rather belong to the category of those debating the state of the industry at large; few predict the SLR's death because they "suck" or anything of the sort, after all.

So my question is, why? Aren't they largely best used for different purposes? Aren't many people using cameras from more than one (if not all) of those categories?

Because there's been plenty of interesting cameras from plenty of manufacturers as of late; thus, fewer and fewer people are sticking with just one manufacturer anymore, even among the trolls.

I would find it weird for people on a car forum to claim that the 1-ton pickup is so vastly superior to the compact hybrid that hybrid drivers are all stupid (or vice-versa). Or to see a computer forum where the desktop users, laptop users, and tablet users all argued about how theirs was the ultimate computing platform. Are cameras different for some reason?

They aren't any different; they're just as stupid, but they still happen. Go take a look at Slashdot around the time tablets started gaining popularity --- put "entry-level SLRs" in place of "netbooks" and "mirrorless" in place of "tablets" and you'd get almost a word-by-word view of this forum's past couple years.

Don't know whether the same goes for car forums as I've never dealt in that market in my life, but it does happen on videogames as well, where the "format wars" (PCs vs Consoles vs Portables vs Smartphones vs Flash) have also overtaken the "brand wars" (Nintendo vs Sony vs Microsoft vs whoever) as the most common, and vicious, of fan wars in recent years. And, of course, the "format wars" among audiophiles are almost legendary, poisoning even discussions outside that particular niche --- even in tech and photography forums I've seen people claiming vinyl's alleged superiority over digital audio, with the requisite thinly-veiled insult to go with it, of course.

 

[Richard]

Ah, I get it. Professional photographers are journalists who document Olympic track and field events, only.

Or is it: Professional photographers photograph with telephoto lenses only?

Or is it: Professional photographers photograph with Canon lenses only?

You've shown us evidence of something, but to quote one particularly sage thinker: "I do not think that means what you think it means."

It means there are no OMD's or mirrorless in that crowd.

You said "what troubles me most are generalizations without evidence. What do "pros" use? Whatever they want,"

No generalizations, just the facts. Pros with Tele or Canon, doesn't matter, the question is what pros use, there is no doubt a picture tells us. Show me a group of mirrorless pros in those numbers. You won't find one because we know what Pros use. I already agree there are a small minority of pro photographers who use mirrorless and when mirrorless becomes a viable option we may even see more but if the Sony A7r or what ever it is called sporting 1.5fps is what mirrorless is moving forwards to, the reality is they are moving backwards. Some pros, those who work at a major newspaper were told to use phones, that is no more a step forwards than 1.5fps.

Hey man, I'm no fanboi of anything in particular--I'm just skeptical that professional photographic practice,

You can be skeptical all you want.

as a whole, can or should be defined by journalistic techniques for one olympic sport.

When I have shot other sports, there are no mirrorless even in shots like these when close to the action

Or when you need to get really close to the action like this. Just so there is no confusion, I have made money of images, but I am not a pro, but I did sleep at a Holiday in express. LOL

Richard, post: 52746476"]

MarkJH, post: 52746476"]
David Hobby, aka "The Strobist," didn't get your memo:

Neither did Zack Arias:

http://zackarias.com/for-photographers/gear-gadgets/fuji-x100s-follow-up-review-life-without-dslrs/

Vogue and other publications / clients seem to be happy with what Jonathan Posner and Andre Arthur are doing with m4/3:

Who are these people.

I agree there are a small number of no name pros that use them but they are a tiny minority.

I could go on and on and on and on . . . . generalizations without evidence. What do "pros" use?

While your words sound sweet to the ears of the mirrorless fanboi, a picture is worth a thousand words, or is it a thousand cameras.

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

 

[MarkJH]

I think you should keep writing, Richard, and I'll give you every opportunity. Because you're making some real entertainment, here. I have a few in-line prompts, below, to help you keep rolling.

Ah, I get it. Professional photographers are journalists who document Olympic track and field events, only.

Or is it: Professional photographers photograph with telephoto lenses only?

Or is it: Professional photographers photograph with Canon lenses only?

You've shown us evidence of something, but to quote one particularly sage thinker: "I do not think that means what you think it means."

It means there are no OMD's or mirrorless in that crowd.

How can you tell? OMDs are pretty small and inconspicuous. Every single one of those dudes might have one ready in one of their photo vest pockets!

You said "what troubles me most are generalizations without evidence. What do "pros" use? Whatever they want,"

No generalizations, just the facts. Pros with Tele or Canon, doesn't matter, the question is what pros use, there is no doubt a picture tells us.

So: concluding about fashion, commercial, portrait, wedding photographers with a sample of a bunch of sports journalists at one event isn't a generalization?

I don't understand how the "facts" you showed us tells us what's going on in commercial photo studios, or what's going on with wedding photographers, or what's going on with family portrait shooters.

Show me a group of mirrorless pros in those numbers. You won't find one because we know what Pros use.

No: thanks to what you've shown us, we know what photographers used at one sporting event once. Again, why do professional sports photographers define the art for every other photographer who's getting paid with every other kind of photography?

A lot of people might argue that "Pros use" artificial lights. Didn't see a single strobe in any of your "evidence" shots.

Or is using light "not demanding?"

I already agree there are a small minority of pro photographers who use mirrorless and when mirrorless becomes a viable option we may even see more but if the Sony A7r or what ever it is called sporting 1.5fps is what mirrorless is moving forwards to

(<cough> the OM-D Em-5 from 2012 does 9 fps. </cough>)

the reality is they are moving backwards. Some pros, those who work at a major newspaper were told to use phones, that is no more a step forwards than 1.5fps.

Meanwhile, your asking who David Hobby is tells us everything we need to know about where you are.

I don't know David, and I would be skeptical of someone who would tell pros to use mirrorless. It is ok to keep and open mind, just don't let your brain leak out

I think you mean David doesn't know you.

Your whole "I shoot motorbike racing so I'm obviously a bigger deal than the Strobist movement" schtick is pretty entertaining, man. Keep it rolling!

There's nothing wrong with keeping your world as small as you want--but don't pretend you can box the rest of us into it.

I would never box you in. My world is very large, it allows for the cameras in phones, just not for professional photograpy.

Well, your world isn't apparently large enough to realize that photographers get paid for work other than sports journalism.

So . . . not large enough for fashion and commercial photographers who support billions of dollars of ad and editorial revenue in magazines, print, and on the web . . . not large enough for all the private portrait and wedding photographers out there . . . .

Or is considering photography other than sports journalism an example of, what did you say, "letting your brain leak out?"

I just said I know what pros use and I used evidence to back it up.

Well, you said you "know what pros use" and then you showed us two pictures of a bunch of photo journalists at a sports event. I don't really understand what that "evidence" says about photographers who earn money with shots of things other than olympic track athletes in motion. I'm sure you can explain, though, why a Canon DSLR and a 500mm super tele is the ideal wedding photography rig. I'm looking forward to it!

You dismiss it because a small minority of pro use lesser cameras because what they shoot is less demanding. When what you shoot becomes so undemanding even and OMD will work, doesn't me I would use it for professional use.

So, only shots of motorbike racing are "demanding?"

Awesome. I am sure DSLR shooters everywhere are super pleased that you're here to be their voice, Richard.

So we're now we're going to grade professional photography by "how demanding" you think it is, with "most demanding" being gems like this:

And, "least demanding" would then be something something like, say, the international Range Rover ad campaign Zack Arias recently shot with the Fuji X-trans mirrorless?

You're cracking me up, man. Seriously. Keep 'em coming!

 

[paulkienitz]

What makes this different, and worse than ordinary brand wars, is that certain mirrorless advocates, in the belief that mirrorless is The Future, have taken up the idea that finishing off DSLRs is a Cause. DSLR users are, IMO, just responding to that.

 

[JohnJ851]

By the way, I'm so sick of seeing people running around my local Zoo with huge 10 inch iPads and Galaxy Tabs taking pictures of Zebras and Meerkats. It's bizarre. I wish they'd all go and get proper cameras.

In your post above you wrote elitism and then this post!!!

 

[fotowbert]

I would be more inclined to be angry at the manufacturers, the way the held back on developing the fixed lens cameras until sony's attempts recently to fit a decent size sensor.

Instead the manufacturers coerced people into buying interchangeable lens cameras with the flow on effect that they would get more money from lens sales. People fell for this hook line and sinker, and it makes me angry when such suckers come on these forums a try to get others to do the same as they did and buy these bloated non portable cameras.

If I see another post saying to a beginner that they need a DSLR I will scream.

Fortunately ordinary people are fighting back by using their phones to take photos leaving the camera makers wondering how they are going to rip us off now.

Brian

Now that explains how I got stuck with this monstrosity of a camera...it's a conspiracy by the camera makers aided by forum shills...I had no idea.

At least now there's hope the evil camera manufacturers will be punished by the growing popularity of camera phones.

I would join with you in the fight but I just acquired a sturdy hand truck with manual hydraulic lift so I could take my DSLR on location.

Thanks, your post made my day. :-D

• John, still lol

full disclosure: bold emphasis in quote is mine.

 

[brianj]

I would be more inclined to be angry at the manufacturers, the way the held back on developing the fixed lens cameras until sony's attempts recently to fit a decent size sensor.

Instead the manufacturers coerced people into buying interchangeable lens cameras with the flow on effect that they would get more money from lens sales. People fell for this hook line and sinker, and it makes me angry when such suckers come on these forums a try to get others to do the same as they did and buy these bloated non portable cameras.

If I see another post saying to a beginner that they need a DSLR I will scream.

Fortunately ordinary people are fighting back by using their phones to take photos leaving the camera makers wondering how they are going to rip us off now.

Brian

Now that explains how I got stuck with this monstrosity of a camera...it's a conspiracy by the camera makers aided by forum shills...I had no idea.

At least now there's hope the evil camera manufacturers will be punished by the growing popularity of camera phones.

I would join with you in the fight but I just acquired a sturdy hand truck with manual hydraulic lift so I could take my DSLR on location.

Thanks, your post made my day. :-D

• John, still lol

full disclosure: bold emphasis in quote is mine.

Wouldn't a trailer behind your car be suffucient?

Sucked in and doesn't even know it!

Brian

 

[Richard]

Or is itProfessional photographers photograph with telephoto lenses only?

Or is it: Professional photographers photograph with Canon lenses only?

You've shown us evidence of something, but to quote one particularly sage thinker: "I do not think that means what you think it means."

It means there are no OMD's or mirrorless in that crowd.

How can you tell? OMDs are pretty small and inconspicuous.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist

You said "what troubles me most are generalizations without evidence. What do "pros" use? Whatever they want,"

No generalizations, just the facts. Pros with Tele or Canon, doesn't matter, the question is what pros use, there is no doubt a picture tells us.

So: concluding about fashion, commercial, portrait, wedding photographers with a sample of a bunch of sports journalists at one event isn't a generalization?

I know pros use Canon and Nikon. As I said before, a small minority use mirrorless.

I don't understand how the "facts"

I know you don't

you showed us tells us what's going on in commercial photo studios, or what's going on with wedding photographers, or what's going on with family portrait shooters.

I don't have pictures of all those people with Canon or Nikon cameras, but I know most of them have them.

Show me a group of mirrorless pros in those numbers. You won't find one because we know what Pros use.

No: thanks to what you've shown us, we know what photographers used at one sporting event once.

The use Canikon all the time. Go here http://www.sportsshooter.com/ see what they use, do a search in the gear section for olympus.

Again, why do professional sports photographers define the art for every other photographer who's getting paid with every other kind of photography?

I never said that, you are just trying to put words in my mouth.

A lot of people might argue that "Pros use" artificial lights. Didn't see a single strobe in any of your "evidence" shots.

You would have to look at indoor basketball for that. Go to http://www.sportsshooter.com/ and educate yourself so you stop making dumb statements.

Or is using light "not demanding?"

Hmm, did I ever say that? In basket ball using strobes you have to know what you are doing, it may or may not be more demanding depending on the situation. The fact that I have to explain that to you tells me alot about you.

I already agree there are a small minority of pro photographers who use mirrorless and when mirrorless becomes a viable option we may even see more but if the Sony A7r or what ever it is called sporting 1.5fps is what mirrorless is moving forwards to

(<cough> the OM-D Em-5 from 2012 does 9 fps. </cough>)

If they were any good, pros would use them.. they don't (or at least only a small minority).

the reality is they are moving backwards. Some pros, those who work at a major newspaper were told to use phones, that is no more a step forwards than 1.5fps.

Meanwhile, your asking who David Hobby is tells us everything we need to know about where you are.

I don't know David, and I would be skeptical of someone who would tell pros to use mirrorless. It is ok to keep and open mind, just don't let your brain leak out

I think you mean David doesn't know you.

Yes, I would not attend his seminars if he is saying mirrorless is better than DSLR. So no, he would not know me.

Your whole "I shoot motorbike racing so I'm obviously a bigger deal than the Strobist movement" schtick is pretty entertaining, man. Keep it rolling!

Really, I never said that, that is something you made up. I said that I shot with a lot of people, motocross, supercross and sportbikes, Never met anyone with an m43 or a mirrorless. Not that I am a bigger deal, it is just I have met a lot of pros. I know what they use. Not all of them though.

There's nothing wrong with keeping your world as small as you want--but don't pretend you can box the rest of us into it.

I would never box you in. My world is very large, it allows for the cameras in phones, just not for professional photograpy.

Well, your world isn't apparently large enough to realize that photographers get paid for work other than sports journalism.

You must think I am stupid. I have been around long enough to know that there are only sports photographers in the world. If you don't think I know this, I would question your ability to reason.

So . . . not large enough for fashion and commercial photographers who support billions of dollars of ad and editorial revenue in magazines, print, and on the web . . . not large enough for all the private portrait and wedding photographers out there . . . .

I have shot with some of them too, none of them m43 or mirrorless.

Or is considering photography other than sports journalism an example of, what did you say, "letting your brain leak out?"

Every pro I have personally met either owned pro Canon or Nikon or backup cameras that were prosumer level.

I just said I know what pros use and I used evidence to back it up.

I don't really understand

I know you don't

what that "evidence" says about photographers who earn money with shots of things other than olympic track athletes in motion. I'm sure you can explain, though, why a Canon DSLR and a 500mm super tele is the ideal wedding photography rig. I'm looking forward to it!

No I would say at a wedding, I would use my 24-70 2.8 and or 70-200 2.8 and the 85 1.2 if using a FF. It would depend on distances and whether it was the wedding/pre wedding.

You dismiss it because a small minority of pro use lesser cameras because what they shoot is less demanding. When what you shoot becomes so undemanding even and OMD will work, doesn't me I would use it for professional use.

So, only shots of motorbike racing are "demanding?"

No, shooting birds is demanding. You see I have shot many different things. Some are more demanding on the camera. Sports, BIF put more demands on the camera for FPS and AF. Night photography ISO and AF. Again I have shot with many pros and know what they use. You obviously have not if you think more than a small mintority shoot mirrorless.

Awesome. I am sure DSLR shooters everywhere are super pleased that you're here to be their voice, Richard.

I am not speaking for them, the picture I posted speaks for itself.

So we're now we're going to grade professional photography by "how demanding" you think it is, with "most demanding" being gems like this:

The photograph below is not demanding, you are not trying to focus on a moving target. But you should know this. wow, maybe you don't

And, "least demanding" would then be something something like, say, the international Range Rover ad campaign Zack Arias recently shot with the Fuji X-trans mirrorless?

Portrait is less demanding on the camera, staged or posed shots are generally less demanding on the camera AF.

You're cracking me up, man. Seriously. Keep 'em coming!

No that's ok, it would seem you don't get it, you don't shoot with pros and you don't know what they use. I already said there is a small minority that use m43 or mirrorless, but most pros use Canon or Nikon pro gear. The photos I posted show that, but you don't get it. I wish I could say I thought you cracked me up but I really thing you believe your own fanboi nonsense. Play with someone else, I don't have time to try to prove to you that most pros use pro Canikon gear.

You are a Oly fanboi, no way to have a meaningful discussion with you. Carry on without me.

 

[cainn24]

By the way, I'm so sick of seeing people running around my local Zoo with huge 10 inch iPads and Galaxy Tabs taking pictures of Zebras and Meerkats. It's bizarre. I wish they'd all go and get proper cameras.

In your post above you wrote elitism and then this post!!

Yes.

I'm certainly curious about why that post was liked by two people. Do they agree, or were they just giving me a gold star for being funny?

 

[MarkJH]

You knocked it out of the park with this one, man:

I have been around long enough to know that there are only sports photographers in the world. If you don't think I know this, I would question your ability to reason.

For the record: I'm not accusing you of "not knowing" that there "are only sports photographers in the world." I've been accusing you of being bizarre for thinking exactly that--that there are only sports photographers.

Let me say that again: it's really, really weird to argue that sports journalists are the only photographers out there. I mean, yikes, what about Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Dorothea Lange, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Annie Leibovitz, Yousuf Karsh, Matthew Brady . . . any of these names ringing a bell? (Or are you going to say, "I don't know Annie . . . ")

How does appreciating Ansel Adams's non-motocross-action professional work make me an Oly fanboy? (As far as I can track you, shouldn't it make me a sheet-film / view-camera fanboy? Guilty as charged, I guess.) Are you going to argue that what Ansel produced wasn't "demanding" because it didn't involve tracking motion or "require" an SLR camera?

It's deeply stupid to argue that one kind of photography is "more demanding" than another. It puts you in this weirdo spot where you end up pimping a bunch of motocross action snaps as being somehow more indicative of photographic skill than an Ansel Adams still.

 

[jeffcpix]

I prefer an OVF -- that's why I bought a Sony a900.

Now, Sony has abandoned OVF. It appears doubtful that they will ever manufacture an OVF camera again.

Had I thought that possible, I would have invested in a different system. Unfortunately for me, the combination of FF, IBIS and OVF seems to only have existed in the Sony a900. I have no doubt that the EVF/mirrorless cameras can produce images comparable to or better than the a900 -- it's just a matter of preference -- but within the Sony product line, my preference has been eliminated.

 

[Chris R-UK]

I prefer an OVF -- that's why I bought a Sony a900.

Now, Sony has abandoned OVF. It appears doubtful that they will ever manufacture an OVF camera again.

OVFs have also been eliminated in the Olympus product line.

I suspect that the SLT will be the next Sony format to be eliminated.