Originally posted by redcat Milc has many advantages :
- Super fast and accurate AF (no front/back focus)
- Eye AF
- Correct exposure (what you see is what you get)
- Less moving parts (less point of failure)
- Bigger focus area
- Better tracking
- No blackout when shooting multiple frames
- Cheaper to produce (may leads to cheaper price in the long run)
.....
Leica is mirrorless now and has to team up with sigma & panasonic to compete with other players.
So, let me get this clear, point by point:
-Super fast AF: You skip the AF fine adjustment step and have AF go from "very" to "super" fast. BTW, the speed is not really dependent on MILC vs DSLR.
-Eye-AF: you get a feature that is a game changer... If you are shooting very specific types of photography and need all images to be super accurately focused at 100% pixel peeping levels. I have never felt the need for Eye-AF even on portraits, it's easy enough to get what I want.
-Exposure: this is lol. I took 1600 photos in a trip to India a month ago. There were.... 10 that had wrong exposure?
And those were because I changed to/from a manual lens and was in the wrong mode. Ah, and in many cases I had a scene that really pushed the DR of the K-1 (where many MILCs suffer as they have to cripple their sensors with PDAF modules) to its limits; an EVF would have given up and have a bunch of solid white.
-Less moving parts is correct (and I already said it's the main reason manufacturers push them; it's cheaper). But not necessarily "less points of failure". Guess which type of camera overheats the sensor more often
-Bigger focus area: I, too, like my subjects in focus at the corner or the frame, because it's all about the TECHNOLOGY and not the photograph. Like Jesus, this particular argument is nonsense and proves that some MILC fanboys (
particularly Sony fanboys, I've found) are more gearheads than photographers.
- Better tracking: true. But it's really at a point where it qualifies as "first world problems", so it is a moot point in the overwhelming majority of cases.
- No blackout when shooting multiple frames: as has already been said, only if you shell out a *lot* of money for a top level EVF (which also makes the battery go poof). DSLRs don't have *that* much blackout come on.
- Cheaper to produce (may lead to cheaper price in the long run): HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. May lead to higher profit margin.
Meanwhile, you conveniently ignore that:
-The EVF has limited DR and cannot show you what's outside of the exposure range, so you have to adjust settings to see everything in high-contrast situations.
-If you are moving the camera to compose you have to wait for the EVF to stop being a pixelated laggy mess (this applies up to the 2500€ A7iii, the EVF quality is nothibg compared to a decent OVF). God forbid you need to track anything while shooting.
-Extremely uncomfortable to use over long periods because glass is glass and any telephotos are going to make the setup very front-heavy. If you compensate by getting the rear elements very close to the sensor, the quality at the edges will suffer because of the angle of incidence (which is why Sony and Nikon have baked-in corrections for their lenses, and as we all know baking in stuff on raw is only bad when Pentax does it
)
I asked for features that would compensate for the downgrade to an EVF. None of the ones you mentioned is worth enough to me, not even put together.