Originally posted by Clavius Nope, vinyl has more advantages. And the advantages are REAL too. Ask the vinylaholics. They can tell you all about how horrible the digital music sounds to them and how good the tonal ranges, wave accuracies and what not. Not to mention the loss of quality due to data compression when not using vinyl. Even if we do hear the difference, do us normal consumers care about that? Nope, apparently not.
In my case the same goes for that battery life. The 'Only' ~120 shots on a battery of my A7r is less then the ~800 of my K-5. It's a real difference, but I don't give a hoot because it's still more then I'll ever need to shoot on a single battery.
Same goes for VF latency. Sure, in some conditions I see some latency. Especially when I'm panning hard for example. I just don't care. It's still showing me live DOF preview whilst continuously autofocussing during that panning. (Is that why I need less shots maybe?)
And if I want to see the "actual scene" then I just take the camera away from my face. That shows me more of the actual scene then the OVF of my camera. But for photographing, I'm many MANY times more interested in what my sensor is seeing.
I'm sorry, but that's bull. I consider myself a bit of an audio enthusiast, and vinyl has one big advantage. It's crap. Let me elaborate: It has a pretty limited dynamic range (the needle would jump if it's too great), which ironically leads to a greater dynamic range because the sound engineer can't make it as loud as possible. Also, as of now it's the format of choice by audiophiles, which means vinyls are engineered with those customers in mind. Best possible sound quality. You could do the same to CDs, or digital downloads, but those are meant for average consumers who just want LOUD (or so bands and producers believe). The problem is that when you hear 2 songs, you'll probably like the one that's a bit louder more. Louder is better. So since CDs have a big dynamic range without any jumping needle they pushed it as far as possible. But since everyone pushed it THAT far, they wanted to push it even further... and further... and further. Which leads to absolutely awful sound quality.
I have some Red Hot Chili Peppers albums (Californication for example) in several versions. The original CD and a high quality rip of the vinyl version. The vinyl version sounds much better, despite the crackling and other noises, because it is mixed better. I also have an early mix from the studio, before Rick Rubin f***ed up the mix. It is MUCH better than either version, despite being a CD.
People who listen to vinyl simply have great sound systems, and vinyl is a bit of a celebration of music. You've got huge cover artwork, you have to clean the record before putting it on the player, it's just a lot of effort to get it right, which makes you value the product more. A CD is _technically_ better. There are also SACD and DVD Audios... improvements on the CD, though not significant IMHO. They sound a lot better though (even when you copy them onto a CD), because they were meant for an audiophile market. They were produced for someone who has a high quality sound system and cares about sound quality.
As for compression: It depends on the compression. There is lossless compression, which is, well, lossless. As good as uncompressed. And there are some pretty good formats (MP3 not so much) and encoders which, at high enough bit rates sound just like the original. Unless you have a "weird" ear. Lossy compression works by leaving away what humans don't hear in the first place. If you try to get too small files, it has to leave away too much stuff/tries to bring it back artificially, and that sounds bad. But at high enough bit rates... The problem is not everyone works the same way, so if your ear is able to hear exactly those things that others don't, then you'll notice. Imagine having eyes that see infrared light. Photographs won't be able to come close to what reality looks like for you. And you can train yourself to hear the artefacts that digital compression can produce. But again, at good enough quality, with good enough encoders and bit rates, it becomes transparent. You can AB test it on a good sound system, and you still can't differentiate.
120 shots on a battery is not enough. Oh my god is it not enough. I can go through that with 2 interior photos (HDR panoramas).
@Rondec: But that situation is turning around. One day there'll be more glass for mirrorless than for DSLRs... at least new glass.
I don't need a tiny camera, but one that, all in all, body + lens, takes up less space and has the weight more around the center. I can hold a 50 1.8 much more steady than a 18-55 at 50mm. Not sure why exactly, but it works for me. The problem is that most camera makers, when they make a mirrorless one, aim for the smallest possible camera, sacrificing usability in the process. I want something that is usable like a DSLR, just as a whole smaller and lighter than DSLRs. More flexible, and with a bigger and sharper screen (i.e. EVF). More useful info on the screen too. And to be able to use the screen while recording video.
I wouldn't compare vinyl with DSLRs... if anything, vinyl is film. An analog medium that has certain characteristics that people find pleasant (though IMHO film can be better in terms of quality than digital, vinyl can't. That vinyl sounds better than CDs and downloads only shows how badly they are mixed. Think badly done HDRs). Whether you shoot mirrorless or DSLR doesn't make a difference on the end result.
Btw., am I the only one who wants a USB power input in my camera? i.e. being able to charge the battery via USB, especially while using the camera. Imagine shooting star trails at night... the battery dies. Changing it ruins the picture. But if you can simply keep the camera running via external USB battery? Even if that dies, the internal battery will be charged enough for you to switch the external battery without interruption. I am already really enjoying the external battery charger that can take USB power sources...