Originally posted by monochrome AGAIN, I advocate nothing. I’m asking questions.
So really there isn’t one mirrorless size standard. You describe at least two - almost as large as a small dSLR, formatted for large lenses and pocket-sized, formatted for small lenses. Pentax could make a good camera formatted for either format and compete in part of the market - say, based on a KP for large lenses, or a larger Q for small lenses.
I do sense an emerging consistent response - people on this forum assume excellent video is required in ANY MILC.
My experience is that the real draw for enthusiasts, at least in the MOR generalist cameras, is first WYSIWYG in the viewfinder together with exposure blinkies, focus peaking, a histogram +/- whatever else someone wants; and second, incredibly responsive CDAF focusing (though it has limits and drawbacks too) which can be located almost anywhere on the sensor. This can be extended to stuff like eye-tracking. Overall, it's a different vibe and different experience. Some love it, some don't. It does relieve one of a lot of the need for chimping, lens calibration and so on. Very fast frame rates are also possible if the sensor is modern enough to clear the data quickly but only a few folks really need that. Silent shooting with an electronic shutter is a useful and welcome feature for some.
For others, it is size, convenience, fashion and smartphone-like operation. Items like some of the Canon M series or the Olympus Pens. They don't have a viewfinder but they do seem extremely popular in points East. Easy to put in a pocket or bag, especially with a small prime or a folding zoom lens. Fun, and fashionable perhaps. Pentax tapped right into this with the Q but times and fashions too have moved on from that era.
Size is a function of format, I think. There maybe some saving using a thinner register distance but this soon vanishes when one gets into big, fast zooms because by far the most of the size/weight is in the lens. But for primes of around f1.8, yes things can be kept small and compact as they are on for example M43. But: a hitch. Fast CDAF really needs lenses and lens motors designed for it. Just repurposing old stuff would keep one out of the Premier League or even burn out an older kind of motor. The kit has to be designed for it.
I think good video is in fact extremely difficult to do well. Not the least of the engineering problems is dealing with heat and power draw, before one even gets into video-friendly lenses. I don't think it's an accident that while the world + wife advertise themselves as 4K capable, only a handful cameras seem to be really considered options if you're serious about it (the Panasonic GH5, e.g.). And they and the lenses are not cheap.
Last edited by mecrox; 01-26-2018 at 07:14 AM.