Originally posted by photoptimist Exactly!
A hybrid VF brings the best of both DSLR and MILC worlds with 1) the aesthetics, eye-friendliness, energy-savings, and noise(heat)-avoiding properties of an OVF with 2) the digital-preview/review, image enhancement, overlays, and blinkie/sparklie feedback on exposure and focus of an EVF. I'd love to be able to use an OVF for composition and shooting but get to see a quick digital review of each shot without taking my eye from the view finder. I'd only use full MILC-mode sporadically.
Sure, a DSLR with a hybrid VF might be more complex and expensive, but I'm looking for the best camera, not the cheapest camera I can find.
Everyone wants the best camera. Always funny when someone plays the "I want the best camera I can get." card. As if there's someone else who doesn't.
I'm a "I'm happy with what I have" guy, until the day I'm not.
The problem being our definitions of what makes the best camera are different.
One person's definition of what makes a "best camera" is another person's unnecessary frills.
As for why anyone would care what I appreciate, I'm not sure why that's of relevance to anyone. My thought should be unimportant to anyone else. Just putting them out there, like every one else. The only possible use could be someone thinking about the issue using the thoughts presented to clarify their own thought.
I tend to buy cars without the upgrade packages as well. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a minimalist when it comes to tools. The only issue is can you get what you want with what you have. I'm not having problems that way. So, too me add features are superfluous.
The answer to "you can have this and that or the other " is, "why do I need that?" "What am I having trouble with now that this "enhancement" would improve?"
No one has actually made case for the superior performance of mirrorless, only peripheral features which may or may not be of any relevance. Different is not always better.
To, me "top of the heap" belongs to the Nikon D850. 24 MP, marginally better than a K-1 in non-pixel shift images. !0 FPS compared to the K-3's 8. OVF. Nikon AF, the one camera that does everything well. Yet I don't see the Sony A7r having the same type of following despite similar specs.
Look at the camera brands used on flickr.
Apple is still number 1.
Pentax is still #12. flicker and 81 users uploaded images yesterday using K-1s.
The Sony A7r had uploads from 60 users yesterday.
The D850 had uploads from 587 users yesterday.
If Mirrorless is superior, there are a lot of people who aren't getting it. The issue always comes down to are the offered frill useful very often and will the affect IQ. NO question they are there, the question is, does what they do make any difference to your photography when you discuss output. Those points are not even addressed in the discussions of mirrorless.
After all, more information is more distraction and less attention paid to what you're doing. Someone needs to make the case that all the frills photographers never needed in the past add or detract from the photographer's experience. After all, sometime an "improvement" is just marketing fluff. The fact that some engineer somewhere went off on a tangent, doesn't make it practical, or even useful. evaluation is needed.
The assumption that advances in mirrorless will out strip advances in DSLRs are so far, unfounded.
Bottom line, if you want the best camera for you, it's probably not mirrorless. I might be, and you might want one as part of a group of cameras (I own an XG-1, mirrorless with an EVF. I take it out to save weight. But mirrorless as your main package, it's hard to find evidence of high res shooters going that way.
It's starting to look like Sony A7 series shooters do more buying than shooting, which would make sense based on my experience of the ergonomics and ease of use with those cameras.
Last edited by normhead; 03-13-2019 at 10:29 AM.