Originally posted by mecrox ..Roger Cicala's teardown of a Sony A7[/URL] series camera and his conclusion: "The completely disassembled Sony A7R consists of about a dozen major pieces, held together with 29 screws of just three different sizes. A typical DSLR has around 120 screws of 11 different sizes ... how much cheaper it must be to make this camera, than to make a DSLR.".
Ricoh Imaging can do DSLRs quite cheaply. It's not how DLRS appear complex to users, but how the process is worked out. Human brain is very complex — imagine how much cheaper would it be for nature to produce nuts only, or bird's brains? But it dares to produce more complex machinery.
Complexity is oftentimes needed to achieve a certain feature that makes all the difference, and from there, new achievements. Say, Pentax team totally reinvented the way mirror works. Or how the FF sensor shifts. That knowledge is very valuable to solve something else. So some healthy complexity must remain.
And that is Mr Cicala's problem, he laments about the inadequacies of his skills and equipment. Many mechanics too lament they can't repair modern cars anymore, "Computer's control gone, must go to the manufacturer's". Or the brake assembly is too complicated, requires special skills. But that extra complexity in brake control system helps save more lives, for example. Etc.
Mr Cicala can repair an old SLR perhaps, but can't repair a DSLR, nor a mirrorless anymore. Nor Sony's E-mount zoom. Mirrorless may look simpler for him to disassemble, and waste less time, but looks simpler because it is mostly a computer with ever reduced number of circuitry.
Similarly, IT technicians complain today about iPads, MacBook Pros, smartphones, etc. Not expandable, can't really repair them, can't prolong their life — although they are simpler than traditional computers with CD drives, hard disks, keyboards etc.
So we have two trends — (A) complexity, and (B) unfixable simplicity.
If one wishes to find a limes of the trend (B), (lim f(x)) it seems it goes towards irreplaceability and automatic end of life when the manufacturer goes bust or leaves the arena. Because only the manufacturer can issue a new device instead, and offer support for third party additions.
That is the major reason I am reluctant to spend any money on any camera and lens with a purely electronic mirrorless mount. I support only Leica's M because it was analog, and I am very interested to keep supporting the K-mount for the same reason. Because I cannot ignore that limes above — I would be a fool to ignore it when the rest of the industry fortifies into it.
My only ideal mirrorless camera is therefore a fixed lens mirrorless camera, because I am prepared to the fact that it may be broken and never replaced. If Leica stops doing their X line, Panasonic may have something with a fixed lens. Or if Panasonic stops doing them, Ricoh may still have the GR. Etc. There is a high probability that one manufacturer will always be there that offers a fixed lens mirrorless camera. But if Canon leaves EOS M, or Fuji leaves X, no other manufacturer will support them and issue new cameras for those mounts, nor provide third party support instead of them.
Last edited by Uluru; 05-08-2017 at 04:44 PM.