[Digitalis]

when I imagine a big fat DSLR in place of that mirrorless camera, the contraption still doesn't make much sense.

Because there is more to a camera than simple looks, there are ergonomic considerations, the balance of the camera/lens combination button placement and the number of hard/soft buttons used to control critical functions needed by photographers.

This is one of the areas where Mirrorless cameras fall flat on their baseplates, the idea is to make them smaller than and SLR. However an SLR happens to be an excellent form factor that allows for manufacters to place controls at a users fingertips. It is like comparing Mini ATX to full ATX motherboards, there are limits imposed by the form factor. By the time you get around to adding things you might as well have bought a Full ATX in the first place.

If you plan on shooting f2.8 zooms, then the A7 series is probably not your best bet.

Without a doubt, however in that pic that camera has a 70-200mm f/4 zoom, which are much smaller than their f/2.8 counterparts.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Mirrorless nothing short of a revolution, a wonder of the 21st century. Make no mistake they are sleeker, they have faster, more accurate AF, fewer moving parts and most importantly they smaller than ancient DSLRs...



..oh, nevermind.

You are correct It's going to happen. Lag will be non existent in the near future and the production cost of a camera with little or no moving parts will be very appealing to the camera industry. Evf's are like a Focus screen that can be whatever you want it to be I imagine in the very near future somebody is going to make a Camera app that does split screen focusing and prism for evfs just for the fun of it. In the 90's I remember a lot of photographers scoffing at AF lenses because they had lag and couldn't keep up with the human brain and said that it takes some of the artistry of a photographer. Now almost all lenses are AF.
My prediction is that eventually the The Interchangeable lens Camera will be the same size as a teleconverter with images sent to google glass, Phone, or Tablet device.
Like this

[Rondec]

Because there is more to a camera than simple looks, there are ergonomic considerations, the balance of the camera/lens combination button placement and the number of hard/soft buttons used to control critical functions needed by photographers.

This is one of the areas where Mirrorless cameras fall flat on their baseplates, the idea is to make them smaller than and SLR. However an SLR happens to be an excellent form factor that allows for manufacters to place controls at a users fingertips. It is like comparing Mini ATX to full ATX motherboards, there are limits imposed by the form factor. By the time you get around to adding things you might as well have bought a Full ATX in the first place.



Without a doubt, however in that pic that camera has a 70-200mm f/4 zoom, which are much smaller than their f/2.8 counterparts.

Maybe I should have said that mirrorless works better with primes than with zooms -- at least if the sensor is APS-C sized or bigger. Even kit lenses are decent sized compared to the camera bodies.

[Clavius]

If you plan on shooting f2.8 zooms, then the A7 series is probably not your best bet. The lens will be the biggest part of the package at that point and pretty unwieldy on such a camera.

Yeah, just as unwielding as putting a tiny lens on a big DSLR. But the big lenses are no problem anyway, there are no native 2.8 zooms for the A7.

[eddie1960]

Maybe I should have said that mirrorless works better with primes than with zooms -- at least if the sensor is APS-C sized or bigger. Even kit lenses are decent sized compared to the camera bodies.

If you think of Rangefinders as essentially a mirrorless camera (since size and in some cases form factor is the same) then it gives a good read on what they are best at. RFs wer always fantastic with smaller primes and for reporterage/street style shooting (and very capable at pretty much anything a smaller prime is good at) Bigger zooms are not a strength. even on SLR shaped Milcs like the OMD and the XT1. That being said i did just pull the trigger on the 2 XC zooms for the fuji from japan (price a fair bit less than the 50-230 locally but with the 16-50 as well) I grabbed them because my wife likes zooms some times and I would like the longer reach occasionally. they are also lightweight (all plastic) have ois and surprisingly good glass for cheap plastic kit lenses. I doubt they will see a lot of use but they will get some and be handy on trips. Now I just need to save for the UWA and next years 90mm and I am done. Finished, Finito, Fooling myself

[Rondec]

Yeah, just as unwielding as putting a tiny lens on a big DSLR. But the big lenses are no problem anyway, there are no native 2.8 zooms for the A7.

Is the whole point of small cameras not the idea of portability? Once your lens is a certain size, it doesn't matter so much if your camera body is small, does it?

[Clavius]

Because there is more to a camera than simple looks, there are ergonomic considerations, the balance of the camera/lens combination button placement and the number of hard/soft buttons used to control critical functions needed by photographers.

This is one of the areas where Mirrorless cameras fall flat on their baseplates, the idea is to make them smaller than and SLR. However an SLR happens to be an excellent form factor that allows for manufacters to place controls at a users fingertips.

You don't consider size a part of ergonomics then? Sorry, but every time I left my "super-ergonomic" K-5 at home, because of the size of my kit and because I was doubting if a photo-oppertunity would come along anyway, and missed that shot, the ergonomics failed completely. I don't know if the saying translates, but at that point it completely surpasses it's goal.

Size is a very important part of ergonomics. True, my A7r has some really awkward button placements. But it's there when I need it because of it's size.

Who holds their cameras all day long anyway? Birders? Plane spotters? Wouldn't they use a tripod anyway? I'm not joking here, who handholds that monster of a lens in your picture and expects to take unshaky images?

It is like comparing Mini ATX to full ATX motherboards, there are limits imposed by the form factor. By the time you get around to adding things you might as well have bought a Full ATX in the first place.

The only application that requires such heavy processing that a desktop computer is required would be... gaming. I got a laptop that does more then any desktop I ever had.



Anyway, different people have different preferences and want different tools. Why some people don't want other tools to even enter the market however, is beyond me. I would very much to have both options, mirrored and mirrorless to still be available to me in 10 years time.

[IchabodCrane]

Mirrorless nothing short of a revolution, a wonder of the 21st century. Make no mistake they are sleeker, they have faster, more accurate AF, fewer moving parts and most importantly they smaller than ancient DSLRs...



..oh, nevermind.

This image is Exhibit A of why no camera style will ever universally be "the best". When was it ever? However, we should keep in mind that likely 98+% of all ILC camera owners will also never own a lens that large.

[Winder]

I look at the market place right now and it seems like Canon and Nikon are on very different tracks than Sony is. Every new "big" camera from Canon and Nikon -- the 7D Mk II, the D750 -- are SLR type and while they have gotten a little smaller over time, they are what they are.

On the other hand, it seems that Sony generates a huge amount of buzz with every new iteration of the NEX series of cameras. Whether crop sensor or, full frame, it doesn't seem to matter. Is it the smaller size, or the EVF? I'm not sure. I am just questioning at this point whether the days of the traditional SLR are numbered. Are we going to see SLRs limited to a small number of professional shooters who happen to use fast telephoto lenses?

It feels like this makes a big difference to a company like Pentax. Pentax has made the decision not to pursue the mirrorless market with a larger sensored market, I guess think that people will either get an SLR or a Q.

I wonder if the SLR market is dying and if Pentax should be exploring mirrorless options, rather than hanging on to the mirror.

Don't get me wrong. I like a good OVF. I haven't used an EVF that I like better than an OVF, but it just feels like the market is shifting and maybe Pentax is going to be way behind again, just as they were when the "digital revolution" started and then the "full frame revolution" started.

Just some thoughts, but wondered what others think?

I think the question will be answered pretty soon. I think we are on the edge of a technology shift in cameras. The Samsung NX-1 may never sell very well, but it will go down as a significant camera in history. Instead of a dedicated imaging processor it has a 5 core ARM processor that is a huge jump in power over traditional imaging processors. 28MPs at 15 frames per second while handling AF. Accord to one HD video review it is reading the entire sensor at up to 30fps, processing and downsampling in camera.

In the near future I think you will be able to create presets on your computer (film emulations if you like) and upload them to your camera. Shoot RAW + your own preset. Someone like Sony will buy DxO or VSCO and implement their processing/film packs into the camera. Fuji is getting a lot of positive response to its film emulation modes. Link your DSLR to you tablet. Use your tablet to control the in-camera RAW processing.

In the very near future the resolution, DR, color, & refresh rates of the EVF will exceed what the human eye can perceive. When that happens the OVF will be inferior. What technology can DSLR manufacturers bring to the OVF to keep it superior to the EVF? Being able to see exposure, DoF, histogram, actual focus, color shifts in real time through an EVF has real advantages. Can DSLR manufacturers bring these features to the OVF?

The future of the DSLR depends on advances in the OVF. Providing more information and a better user experience is the only way the DSLR survives.

[Sliver-Surfer]

Because there is more to a camera than simple looks, there are ergonomic considerations, the balance of the camera/lens combination button placement and the number of hard/soft buttons used to control critical functions needed by photographers.

This is one of the areas where Mirrorless cameras fall flat on their baseplates, the idea is to make them smaller than and SLR. However an SLR happens to be an excellent form factor that allows for manufacters to place controls at a users fingertips. It is like comparing Mini ATX to full ATX motherboards, there are limits imposed by the form factor. By the time you get around to adding things you might as well have bought a Full ATX in the first place.



Without a doubt, however in that pic that camera has a 70-200mm f/4 zoom, which are much smaller than their f/2.8 counterparts.

I use a Adaptall 2.8/80-200mm on my A7 handheld with no discomfort. Find it as easy or easier than with my k5 and that's a big fricken lens

[IchabodCrane]

When Canon or possibly Nikon comes out with a pro camera that doesn't employ an OVF, it will be a watershed event for the industry. We know that they will try hard to make sure they've incorporated everything most pros will need/expect so it doesn't flop. When that will be... I have no clue but I bet they are working on it.

[northcoastgreg]

Is the whole point of small cameras not the idea of portability? Once your lens is a certain size, it doesn't matter so much if your camera body is small, does it?

One would think so. But for some people for whom mirrorless is a religion rather than a photographic tool, practical considerations are of little consideration.

[IchabodCrane]

One would think so. But for some people for whom mirrorless is a religion rather than a photographic tool, practical considerations are of little consideration.

Didn't Nikon once state that 50% of all DSLR buyers never buy a second lens after the kit zoom?

The problem with the DSLR/MILC debate is we think we're "the market". Not really, we're just a small but relatively higher spending and enthusiastic part of the market.

[monochrome]

When Canon or possibly Nikon comes out with a pro camera that doesn't employ an OVF, it will be a watershed event for the industry. We know that they will try hard to make sure they've incorporated everything most pros will need/expect so it doesn't flop. When that will be... I have no clue but I bet they are working on it.

Some people I've spoken with say the technology watershed will be when AMOLED is commercially viable on small surfaces. Presently it is viable on large screens (40" +). An application process using Computational Fluid Dynamics for a solution-deposit process is emerging as a possible replacement for CVD.

Didn't Nikon once state that 50% of all DSLR buyers never buy a second lens after the kit zoom?

The problem with the DSLR/MILC debate is we think we're "the market". Not really, we're just a small but relatively higher spending and enthusiastic part of the market.

I'd really like to know how many dSLR buyers buy a second dSLR.

[osv]

Please produce a quote of me saying that, Osv ... I would very much like to see it.

In the 'Why I'm Staying With Pentax' thread I mentioned all the Sonys that lacked PDAF, like your A7R, and you responded with saying we could buy some crap adapter that worked with old Alpha and Minolta lenses!

once again, clackers, you just contradicted your own quote

b&h lists 78 brand new ff a-mount lenses, why are you claiming that they are "old"
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Lens+Format+Coverage_Full+Frame+L...563+4108103537

the autofocus versions all have pdaf with the lea4 adapter.

why do we have to keep educating you on the state of modern photography?

---------- Post added 12-03-2014 at 09:19 AM ----------

Can you read your own Sony PDF?

IPS revenue in the time of the E-mount cameras has fallen from 756 billion yen in 2012 to 710 billion in 2014, and by their own projections will drop to perhaps 650 billion by 2017.

are you having a reading comprehension problem with the sony pdf

camera revenues for all manufacturers have been falling, but you single out sony like it's the only entity with declining sales

good grief! sounds like platform bigotry to me.

---------- Post added 12-03-2014 at 09:55 AM ----------

If you plan on shooting f2.8 zooms, then the A7 series is probably not your best bet. The lens will be the biggest part of the package at that point and pretty unwieldy on such a camera.

hmmm... b&h doesn't list any pentax full frame f/2.8 zoom lenses, it looks like you have to go tamron/sigma, and then there are only three choices??

SLR Lenses, DSLR Lenses | B&H Photo Video

is that list wrong? does pentax actually make any ff f/2.8 lenses?

if not, what will you do if pentax actually releases a ff k-mount body, and you want f/2.8 glass?

sony has four a-mount f/2.8 zooms, that give you pdaf with the laea4 adapter, and there are eleven a-mount f/2.8 zooms total, if you include aftermarket:

SLR Lenses, DSLR Lenses | B&H Photo Video

sounds to me like the a7 series is actually a much better choice for f/2.8 lenses than anything that pentax offers.