Originally posted by ccc_ there are some interesting MILCs out there
however none of them are really small in practical terms
in order to make images the IL component is required
the only deficiency I found in the k01 was a lack of a viewfinder
it is an interesting design exercise that makes great images as long as you can see the lcd
the fact that it stirred such unrelenting controversy was just an added bonus
whoever convinced the buying public that smaller and lighter was a genius or a monster
visit any forum related to any pursuit and you will find one half crying...smaller!... lighter!
the other half moaning...my expensive plastic dream machine is broken!
I pretty much retired my q in favor of a Fuji x30
both are beautifully made machines that make wonderful images
users complain that the q has no viewfinder and the x30 is too big
that I guess is my point...you can't have it both ways
as a gentle observation...if users used instead of just buying the situation would be much different
I have a lot of cameras and I take a lot of pictures (some years approaching 50k)
each one of those cameras is a compromise as are the lens that ride on them
(before you ask...I generally pair a body with a couple of lens that perform well on it and carry that combination as a kit)
frankly I enjoy them all, to some degree or another
I think/feel that if a user masters his tool and learns to use it instead of lusting after some theoretical improvement there might be a bit more joy out there
I kind of agree with you, but only kind of.
I am one of those who bought {and regularly uses} a Q-7, but will not buy a K-01. The Q-7 provides me with capabilities that a larger {or larger sensored} camera cannot provide, so I tolerate its lack of EVF; after studying other MILC's and viewfinders on various cameras, I am convinced adding an EVF would cost roughly 1/4" in height, and I really doubt that would harm the value of a Q.
I did not, and will not, buy a K-01 because of it's lacking an EVF - unlike the Q-7, there are other options with viewfinders that will provide the same utility. I notice that Canon's latest EOS-M camera does {finally} have a built-in EVF. My personal belief is that is essential these days. It is also the primary benefit of MILC. As has already been commented, for some focal lengths, a shorter flange distance leads to a larger lens, so "small" seems to be a false promise/goal for MILC. However, difficult lighting conditions is where MILC really shines, because of its ability to add gain to what we see in the viewfinder. For example, a few months ago, just as the migration season started, my family spent the day at a county park. It was a cloudy day; just before we left, my wife noticed a bird 'way out on the lake, in a shaded area, dark even by the standards of that cloudy day. Using the 300mm lens on my Q-7, I was eventually able to find and photograph it - I could not see it without the Q-7's LCD + hoodman, but my wife could describe roughly where she thought it was. The picture was not very good to my eyes - I had to use an ISO setting of 1600 and I had mis-told the Q-7 that the focal length was 400mm, so that was no surprise - but it was good enough for a friend to say "the is a good picture of a double-breasted cormorant". This experience alone convinced me that EVF increases the value of a camera.