Why Thom is wrong...

[DT200]

Richard wrote:

When something comes out and is even better...

Auto Focus realities:. Phase-detection autofocus (even using still targets and center-point only) wasn’t nearly as accurate as contrast detection.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/08/01/Roger-Cicala-Lensrentals-Canon-Autofocus-marketing-claims



Removing moving parts and make a product smaller and lighter is what most manufacturers strive for....except maybe Swiss Watch companies.

Watches with moving parts are now really only jewerly. Cheap quartz watches are far more accurate, and we are too the point where most people no longer wear watches.

In a few more years people buying DSLRs will be the same people wearing mechanical watches, paying with checks, and using Jitter Bug phones. They all will be wearing those shade things on the sides of their glasses and eating diner at 4PM at Golden Coral.

 

[stevo23]

TrapperJohn wrote:

Mirrorless is not about taking a mirror out. Or trimming the sides and top down on a cheap dslr, but keeping the same large lenses, large film lens mount, and long film registration distance.

It's about smaller, lighter, less bulky, less attention drawing, less attention demanding. It's about taking a fresh look, a new approach with some very real benefits, new display and operation options that aren't possible on the more traditional systems. It's about slender bodies with short registration distances. It's about bringing dslr capability along, without lugging all that gear along.

It's also a market that, so far, is refreshingly free of the two 800 pound gorillas who became so preoccupied with each other that they were royally pwned when they came into the mirrorless market thinking that a Canon or Nikon label was all they needed, and each other was all they had to be concerned with.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that one reason mirrorless has seen such an accelerated level of development is - Canon and Nikon are not a factor, so they're not holding it back with their duopolistic dominance. In this market, it's worth taking a chance on a new design, now that most of the buying public isn't stuck on one brand name or one design. Rather refreshing, actually.

Consider what happened when the market leaders took the public for granted...

Nikon designed a mirrorless system that was crippled so as not to compete with it's own DSLR. Unfortunately for Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony didn't cooperate. They did design mirrorless systems to compete with Nikon's DSLR's. All Nikon did was legitimize the mirrorless concept to many Nikon faithful, who then found how much more capable the other systems are. Oops...

Canon designed a mirrorless system that would beat Nikon, because that's all they've been doing for the last 30 years. And so they did. Unfortunately for Canon, so did everyone else's mirrorless system, and by a wider margin.

Does it sound impossible that two market leaders would soak hundreds of millions of dollars/euros/yen into new systems that were obviously uncompetitive? Could it be possible that Canon and Nikon were so arrogant that they honestly thought each other were all that merited consideration? That the 'little guys' and their products weren't worth considering? Is that your idea of a 'market leader'? They'd have mirrorless plodding along at a snail's pace too, if they dominated it.

To top off this picture of unbridled arrogance, Nikon released that long tome not long ago on how the mirrorless market was not worth considering.

A few weeks later, the Olympus EM1, the most capable mirrorless system ever, comes out to rave reviews and unprecedented preorders. Plus the Fuji XM1. Plus the NEX A3000. Plus the Panasonic GX7. For a dead market, there sure are a lot of new bodies, more than all the DSLR makers put together.

It's an exciting new world. And a much needed dose of humility to Canon and Nikon, who have become far too arrogant in attitude, and far too stagnant in design. Take off the platform specific blinders, and experience what a really first rate mirrorless system can do. A lot more than you might think.

It's thins kind of uninformed and visceral thinking that keeps these conversations heated and silly. A simple bit of research on the markets and browsing of annual reports etc. will tell you that there's a lot more to it than a tunnel-vision, inaccurate answer as above.

 

[Dennis]

TrapperJohn wrote:

Mirrorless is not about taking a mirror out. Or trimming the sides and top down on a cheap dslr, but keeping the same large lenses, large film lens mount, and long film registration distance.

More on that at the end ...

In this market, it's worth taking a chance on a new design, now that most of the buying public isn't stuck on one brand name or one design. Rather refreshing, actually.

So you're obviously talking about what we think of today as the mirrorless camera market - the ILCs and their buyers. And in that sense, I agree with what you're saying here and ...

Nikon designed a mirrorless system that was crippled so as not to compete with it's own DSLR. Unfortunately for Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony didn't cooperate. They did design mirrorless systems to compete with Nikon's DSLR's. All Nikon did was legitimize the mirrorless concept to many Nikon faithful, who then found how much more capable the other systems are. Oops...

I don't think that's the complete picture, but it's an interesting way of looking at it. I think the Nikon 1 serves a niche market, but I agree that Nikon has also drawn attention to and legitimized mirrorless and in the process, driven people to consider alternatives.

Canon designed a mirrorless system that would beat Nikon,

I don't think that was their goal; rather a "me too" system like Sony & Oly & Panny did with a simple, compact entry level body based on sensors they were already using in their DSLRs.

because that's all they've been doing for the last 30 years. And so they did. Unfortunately for Canon, so did everyone else's mirrorless system, and by a wider margin.

I really had high hopes for mirrorless from both Nikon and Canon, because back when they were first rumored, NEX & m43 were both pretty "point & shoot-ish" and I figured Nikon & Canon were bound to create something more "serious" ! (I couldn't have been more wrong !)

To top off this picture of unbridled arrogance, Nikon released that long tome not long ago on how the mirrorless market was not worth considering.

They also said they wouldn't do full frame at one point in time.

A few weeks later, the Olympus EM1, the most capable mirrorless system ever, comes out to rave reviews and unprecedented preorders. Plus the Fuji XM1. Plus the NEX A3000. Plus the Panasonic GX7. For a dead market, there sure are a lot of new bodies, more than all the DSLR makers put together.

I think the A3000 points to something that's been missing - the cheap entry-level-DSLR alternative - an affordable body with a viewfinder that's not styled like a little point & shoot. The Panasonic G's are fine, but aren't that visible in the retail market and aren't that cheap (compared to a D3100, for instance ... the kind of camera that consumers buy).

It's an exciting new world. And a much needed dose of humility to Canon and Nikon, who have become far too arrogant in attitude, and far too stagnant in design. Take off the platform specific blinders, and experience what a really first rate mirrorless system can do. A lot more than you might think.

But first rate mirrorless is very expensive. NEX is an incomplete solution and a high end m43 kit can cost as much as a full frame DSLR kit (with less-than-high-end lenses, but lenses sufficient to produce great results on FF). Basically, high end mirrorless is expensive enough that you have to really want it.

As for what mirrorless is "about", you're focusing on what we think of today as mirrorless. In a few years, mirrorless may be every bit as much about how it's transformed traditional DSLR systems with full time live view, information available in the VF, quieter shooting, faster frame rates, less vibration, greater AF accuracy. It may be that in a few years, mirrorless F mount and EOS mount bodies outsell reduced registration distance mirrorless bodies.

- Dennis

 

[DT200]

Erik Magnuson wrote:

DT200 wrote:

They are more common in the cheaper entry level DSLRs.

Other than some defective hinge pins in early Canon 300D's and some bad glue on some 5D's, I've not heard of many problems

Yes, moving parts that have to calibrated are a pain. Fewer moving parts and not having to be adjusted is always better.

I wonder how many DSLRs straight from the factory have front and rear focus issues. I see a lot of people complain when DSLRs don't have micro-adjustment features and have to be sent to the manufacture to be fixed.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

DT200 wrote:

Richard wrote:

When something comes out and is even better...

Auto Focus realities:. Phase-detection autofocus (even using still targets and center-point only) wasn’t nearly as accurate as contrast detection.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/08/01/Roger-Cicala-Lensrentals-Canon-Autofocus-marketing-claims

And then goes on to say "Part two of the series showed that a few newer lenses did focus as accurately as contrast detection on 5D Mark III cameras"

Just like fast CDAF required lenses designed for it, more accurate PDAF needs system design tweaks as well.

 

[PK24X36NOW]

MichaelKJ wrote:

PK24X36NOW wrote:

Thom (and all of the mirrorless cheerleaders here) are wrong because the mirror provides something no mirrorless camera can EVER provide - a real time, lag free, eyestrain inducing flicker free view through the taking lens that consumes NO battery power. This unique aspect of the SLR/dSLR makes it a superior photography instrument that will not be bettered by the best electronic viewfinder in the world.

Why would I want an eyestrain inducing view?

That's "eye strain inducing flicker FREE view..." I know it's a lot of words to keep together in your head.

Thom noted that power consumption is the EVFs main disadvantage, so you can't claim he is wrong about that.

No, but the overall conclusion that "eveything's going mirrorless" is wrong, in no small part because of that. There is no compelling reason to stop using mirrors, because they offer advantages that can't be overcome by technology.

EVFs are improving at a very rapid rate. Flicker is becoming a non-issue and lag time soon be a fraction of the time interval from when your decide to shoot and when you depress the shutter (that lag will always exist).

Flicker is never a non-issue. You either have flicker (and thus eye strain related to it) or not. An OVF does not flicker, and therefore does not strain your eyes. An EVF does, and therefore does strain your eyes. The severity may be reduced, but it cannot be eliminated. The lag will also always be present, since no EVF flickers as fast as the speed of light, which is the only constraint in an OVF providing a real time view.

As others have noted, EVFs offer things that OVFs will never provide. Thus, while EVFs will continue to improve in the areas in which they trail OVFs, OVFs will remain what they are.

OVFs can provide some of the EVF "things" via overlays, if anyone really feels a desparate need for them. OVFs also provide things that EVFs will never provide, like zero battery drain, real time, lag free viewing through the taking lens.

Flange distance? Not only a non-issue, but actually beneficial given the angles of incoming light caused by short flange distances, coupled with the nature of digital sensors.

Size/weight are only arguments because you're comparing smaller sensor cameras with larger sensor cameras for the most part, and becasue you're not comparing cameras with equal image capabilities (i.e., including DOF control). If they make a FF MILC, the lenses will be just as big as for FF dSLRs, and the FF MILC + lens will be an awkward, front-heavy combination when you have a small, thin camera body.

Leica M9 is a FF MILC.

Yup, a rangefinder with a longest lens of 135mm. Hardly worth discussion.

What makes you think Canon and Nikon won't eventually release FF mirrorless cameras that take their current FF lenses and are similar in size and weight to their current DSLRs?

Possible, but unless dSLRs lose massive amounts of market share to mirrorless, why bother? It's obviously not happening, because dSLR users aren't longing for crappy screens to replace their OVF.

Sony will soon release a FF NEX and they won't be the last company to do so.

They might be, after you see how small the sales numbers are!

Personally, I don't think professional cameras need to be as large and heavy as they are to accommodate FF lenses, so I think we will see something closer in size to the SLRs of the past.

A small reduction in size would be OK. Big reductions would make things awkward, however, since AF lenses have bulked things up quite a bit compared with the manual focus lenses of yesteryear. Small body with big lens = ergonomic nightmare.

If you're willing to sacrifice the ability to isolate subjects from background, are willing to sacrifice (high ISO and overall) image quality, are willing to sacrifice tracking autofocus for moving subjects, are willing to sacrifice battery life, and are willing to suffer with akward ergonomics/poor controls because the camera bodies are too small to allow enough room for extensive on-camera controls (or because the controls are so small they can't be easily used), then mirrorless cameras may seem like a good "alternative," but when those limitations are taken into account, they provide no compelling reason to move away from dSLRs. Quite the reverse, in fact.

The future is mirrorless, regardless of sensor size. Users will pick the format(s) that best meet their needs.

Not necessarily. When the disadvantages of a supposedly irresistable change number as many or more than the supposed advantages, the "future" tends to end up looking like the past. There is a market for mirrorless, but it is by no means a "better mousetrap" that will displace dSLRs.

 

[forpetessake]

I don't want to enumerate the wrong assertions in the OP post, it's been already done in many replies. I only want to point out one trend that technological advancements demonstrated through the last several decades. Namely, the silicon drives out metal (glass, etc.), or you can say, digital drives out analog. In this case the mirror box is analog device from the past, and mirrorless design moves that analog functionality to silicon. Apart from all the other limitations and deficiencies of mirror that were listed, that is one reason sufficient to cause mirror box death. Any mechanical part of the camera that can be unloaded to silicon will inevitably go away. Another technological tendency is reducing the number of chips, so more and more functionality is moving to a single die. That will mean that we'll eventually see a camera on a chip, where (almost) everything is implemented in a single chip.

 

[MPA1]

Richard wrote:

Chris Malcolm wrote:

Just read this whole thread and discovered that while there's a lot of talk about pro cameras and pro systems there's been negligible discussion of mirror and shutter vibration effects on the image. Of course you can always lock the mirror up or introduce a second or two pause after mirror raise, but that's annoying or impractical for some kinds of photography.

But this is only if you use the camera in mirror mode. Yes, many camera have a lock up feature to eliminate vibration. BUT. When you put a DSLR in live view there is not mirror slap, it is out of the way and works the same way a mirrorless does.

And haven't any of the expert pro photographers writing here noticed how very much worse a problem mirror vibration is for full frame compared to smaller sensor DSLRs? For me that's a significant advantage that crop sensor DSLRs have over full frame.

Once you've got rid of the mirror & mirror vibration there's the mechanical shutter vibration of the focal plane shutter. One of the first things I did when I got my hands on a camera which could switch between mechanical and electronic first curtain shutter was to do careful comparative tests. I was surprised and delighted by the extent of the difference. When going after high resolution with long lenses on a tripod it dramatically increases the range of usable shutter speeds. Which means that for some long lens work you no longer need to heave around a massive wide aperture long lens. You might even not have to buy one of those shockingly expensive monster lenses

 

[Richard]

alexisgreat wrote:
Pixel mapping and direct live histogram have yet to be copied and no one who is serious about photography should purchase a camera that does not have these features
--
http://Alex_the_GREAT.photoshop.com

My 7d has live histogram, it has an auto pixel map, if that does not work, you send it in and they do it.

 

[Richard]

DT200 wrote:

Richard wrote:

When something comes out and is even better...

Auto Focus realities:. Phase-detection autofocus (even using still targets and center-point only) wasn’t nearly as accurate as contrast detection.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/08/01/Roger-Cicala-Lensrentals-Canon-Autofocus-marketing-claims

Removing moving parts and make a product smaller and lighter is what most manufacturers strive for....except maybe Swiss Watch companies.

Watches with moving parts are now really only jewerly. Cheap quartz watches are far more accurate, and we are too the point where most people no longer wear watches.

In a few more years people buying DSLRs will be the same people wearing mechanical watches, paying with checks, and using Jitter Bug phones. They all will be wearing those shade things on the sides of their glasses and eating diner at 4PM at Golden Coral.

Only real photographers will use tools that are for the trade, the rest will be relegated to phone cameras. No need for a mirrorless when a phone will do... by your logic.

 

[Richard]

TrapperJohn wrote:

Mirrorless is not about taking a mirror out. Or trimming the sides and top down on a cheap dslr, but keeping the same large lenses, large film lens mount, and long film registration distance.

It's about smaller, lighter, less bulky, less attention drawing, less attention demanding. It's about taking a fresh look, a new approach with some very real benefits, new display and operation options that aren't possible on the more traditional systems. It's about slender bodies with short registration distances.

We have those, they are called camera phones.

DSLR is for people who want something more and mirrorLESS is less not more.

 

[Promit]

Richard wrote:

We have those, they are called camera phones.

DSLR is for people who want something more and mirrorLESS is less not more.

If you'd just written that in the original post it would've been a lot clearer that you're not here to do anything except troll and attack those who don't feel that the DSLR is the end-all of photographic technology. But you're not. All you're doing here is to denigrate people and pick fights, declaring that your preferred equipment is better than everyone else's because you said so.

So here we are, some hundred and thirty posts later, and your intentions are laid bare. You don't know the first thing about the mirrorless market and you don't care. You're just here to antagonize.

You've made 3,649 posts. Have you ever helped anyone in all that time or contributed positively? I suspect the answer is no.

 

[Richard]

forpetessake wrote:

I don't want to enumerate the wrong assertions in the OP post, it's been already done in many replies. I only want to point out one trend that technological advancements demonstrated through the last several decades. Namely, the silicon drives out metal (glass, etc.), or you can say, digital drives out analog.

This is not true, digital only drives out analog if it is better in the sense of storage, if it is not better, it doesn't.

Digital never drives out analog. Because everything digital must be turned back into analog for us to use it. Whether it be prints, or monitor, or speaker. You cannot hear or see digital you only see analog light waves or hear analog sound waves.

In this case the mirror box is analog device from the past, and mirrorless design moves that analog functionality to silicon. Apart from all the other limitations and deficiencies of mirror that were listed, that is one reason sufficient to cause mirror box death. Any mechanical part of the camera that can be unloaded to silicon will inevitably go away. Another technological tendency is reducing the number of chips, so more and more functionality is moving to a single die. That will mean that we'll eventually see a camera on a chip, where (almost) everything is implemented in a single chip.

Until the manufacturing process makes EVF that is better and less expensive than the mirror box, it will not happen. When that happens people will buy it, but they are not right now. Even if it is better, remember sony beta? It has to be implemented and marketed well for it to survive. Mirrorless is in a state of decline as far as sales. It is not "better"

 

[peripheralfocus]

TrapperJohn wrote:

To top off this picture of unbridled arrogance, Nikon released that long tome not long ago on how the mirrorless market was not worth considering.

Why do you persist with this falsehood? Nikon said nothing of the sort. In an earnings projection -- i.e. a pure business statement for their shareholders -- among many, many statements about their entire business, from point-and-shoot cameras to biological microscopes to steppers, Nikon revised their projection for FY2014 ILC sales downward by 550,000 units and attributed this mostly to the unexpected recent downturn in the mirrorless ILC market (a downturn that is absolutely undeniable, as is a similar downturn in the DSLR market and a crash in the point-and-shoot market).

They added one sentence saying they would reconsider their product planning for the Nikon 1 system, which means they are trying to figure out how to make that business meet its sales targets.

And they just introduced a new Nikon 1 model. Did you miss that?

 

[peripheralfocus]

Dennis wrote:

To top off this picture of unbridled arrogance, Nikon released that long tome not long ago on how the mirrorless market was not worth considering.

They also said they wouldn't do full frame at one point in time.

Nikon never made such a statement. At various times in the early and mid 2000s, Nikon managers said the company had no current plans to make a full-frame DSLR.

Companies make statements like that all the time, and it has a very specific meaning -- it means no decision to go into production has been made. It emphatically does not mean that a decision to never produce a product has been made. No company would tie their own hands that way, not internally and not externally.

Many people on the Internet interpreted "we have no plans" as "we will never make". Not the same, as anyone who has ever worked for a manufacturing firm should know.

 

[peripheralfocus]

TrapperJohn wrote:

It's about smaller, lighter, less bulky, less attention drawing, less attention demanding. It's about taking a fresh look, a new approach with some very real benefits,

I have little doubt that mirrorless models will eventually outsell SLRs in the ILC camera class, for many of the reasons you note. But ...

It's an exciting new world. And a much needed dose of humility to Canon and Nikon, who have become far too arrogant in attitude, and far too stagnant in design.

Anybody who underestimates Canon's ability to enter and dominate any camera market -- even if they enter it late -- doesn't understand the camera business. If Canon does not end up as the leading maker of mirrorless ILC cameras, it will be a big surprise.

Nikon does not have as formidable a history of taking over any camera market they target, nor do they have the resources to brute force their way to the top. So they will have to be smart to continue being a top ILC maker and a profitable one over a 5 or 10-year horizon; indeed, they will have to be smart to continue as a profitable camera maker period. Wrenching changes are already in motion (as they have clearly noted in recent investor statements -- it's not like they, or anybody, is in doubt about that.) That said, Nikon navigated the huge transition from film to digital much better than any other camera company except Canon, so they aren't hopeless.

 

[robert1955]

Richard wrote:

robert1955 wrote:

Seems you give no reasons why the mirror should or will be kept. And a DSLR without a mirror ...

Selfish reason I guess. I like the viewfinder and I don't like EVF.

That would be a hope then and hope knows no reason which makes discussion pointless

But then you also use the canikon word

 

[bcalkins]

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. They also can use a laptop, tablet or smart phone as a remote. They have had this for some time. Mirrorless has no advantage there.

That is a silly statement! Mirrorless cameras have optical viewfinders too - you can just use your eyes and look!

 

[Matsu]

They really are two separate, but entwined discussions.

Let's start with the mount dimensions. The flange focal distance within a digital system is in and of itself not necessarily a guarantee of smaller lenses. Sony's NEX and Alpha mounts provide an interesting example. The kit 18-55 is virtually the same size in either because of a number of reasons - they're both zooms for the same size image circle (APSC). APSC DSLRs built on legacy (full frame) mounts have an extra long flange focal distance to image diameter ratio compared to mirrorless cameras and even to full frame DSLRs.

I'll just round the numbers, but they go something like this:

Full frame SLR's tend to have registers about 45mm deep for an image circle about 43.27mm in diameter, a roughly 1:1 ratio.

APSC SLRs have the same register, but an image circle of only about 28mm, so the ratio longer, about 1.5:1

Curiously, the old 4/3rds mount had an even longer ratio, about 1.8:1.* And this is worth noting because Kodak did a lot of research, and had most of the best early knowledge of the properties of digital sensors for most of the early days of digital, but we'll come back to that.

Micro4/3 has basically reduced the ratio down to about 1:1, the same as a full frame DSLR, but with a smaller sensor and a smaller image circle, about 21mm each.

NEX and Fuji X have ratios that look more like full frame film Rangefinders did, about 0.6:1, or roughly 20mm registers, for roughly 28mm image circles. It will be interesting to see how a full frame NEX works with the same mount - which would give it about a 0.5:1 ratio.

When you compare a Leica M lens set to a film era SLR set, the Leica's are smaller, but not all of them. The difference is more dramatic for wide primes, but some of these are very symmetrical and do not deal as well with digital sensors unless other corrective measures are employed. Even Sony's NEX has some issues with wides.

Back when Kodak and Olympus were planning 4/3, telecenricity was a major concern. They overestimated the requirement, and since adjusted with Micro4/3, but it's interesting nonetheless because it gives us some clues about how big full frame mirrorless lenses would have to be. As Does Sony's NEX/Alpha comparison.

Basically, wide primes should be smaller on a system with a shorter flange distance, but difference in lens size lessens as focal ranges and zoom ratios increase.

How big or small the system is will depend on how large a sensor you want, AND what sort of lenses you want. Big fast zoom ratios will be big, on either a long register or a short one. Wide primes will be smaller on a "mirrorless" design.

So what can Nikon and Canon do to protect and leverage their legacy mount? Easy, move more people over to Full Frame, hence the cheaper models like D600 and 6D, and perhaps even more aggressive pricing to come. APSC DSLRs are a compromise, not a bad one, very convenient for users of the whole system, but the advantage of their mount is in housing the bigger sensor and lens selections tailored to it. Also why there has never really been a proliferation of DX/APSC DSLR glass, despite Hogan's and many of our own protestations

If one day they delete the mirror, and I would expect that one day they would, they can the visit the question of reducing the register. A simple adaptor and on chip PDAF would be all that's required to maintain compatibility, much like Olympus has already shown in the transition from 4/3 to m4/3.

Marketing, installed base, and lens selection and support will be far more important than the exacting dimensions of any mount, they are all compromises, just different sorts.

 

[ApertureAcolyte]

Richard wrote:

I agree Canon sits on their laurels more than the other brands. They do that because they can. I think they will have to start being more competitive now days.

Well, we've haven't seen a real sensor upgrade in the 70D, just improved CAF but no increase in IQ

2. Canikon already have EVF, on the back of the camera for live view. They also can use a laptop, tablet or smart phone as a remote. They have had this for some time. Mirrorless has no advantage there.

That's not an EVF. Can you put your eye up to your live view? NO.

Definition of viewfinder

view·find·er (vy f n d r). n. A device on a camera that indicates, either optically or electronically, what will appear in the field of view of the lens.

Cool, you can cut & paste a conceited dictionary entry.

I can as well:

An electronic viewfinder (EVF) is a camera viewfinder where the image captured by the lens is projected electronically onto a miniature display. The image on this display is used to assist in aiming the camera at the scene to be photographed. It differs from a live preview screen in being smaller and shaded from ambient light.

The sensor records the view through the lens, the view is processed, and finally projected on a miniature display which is viewable through the eyepiece. Electronic viewfinders are used in digital still cameras and in video cameras.

The screen on the back of any camera does that, you don't need to put your eye to it, your argument does not hold water because you don't understand the definition. If you feel that need to put your eye up to it, they make units that take the screen on the back of any camera and put a lens to it.

They do things in a different way. If you think they do the same thing, you're basically a fool and missing the point.

You cannot isolate your eye with live view. You cannot have your eye up to the camera in liveview. That alone presents an ergonomic difference. Holding the camera away from you to preview live view in bright conditions is not only awkward to control the camera, it isn't going to work most of the time because you won't be able to make sense of the screen.

.

3. Canikon can make smaller dslrs with APS-C that will be able to compete with mirrorless or they can produce better EOSM and V1 units. Again, they cover Pro, Advanced amateur, beginner, small size DSLRs. (they both produce point and shoots too.)

Can they? Or do they just keep producing incremental nudges in the APS-C lines? Be honest...

They could do that but I think they would lose market share, I don't think they will do that.

Well, I don't want to give money to lazy companies making cynical recursive products. I want innovation.

At this point mirrorless has no advantage and has disadvantages compared to Canikon solutions.

At this point you've shown your ignorance.

Your post has nothing to support or refute anything I have said.

It did, you just can't comprehend it.