Originally posted by Jonathan Mac Relatively compact full frame, mirrorless, interchangeable-lens camera.
It won't be too many years before we look back on these huge, bulky DSLRs that don't know what a human eye looks like and wonder how we ever put up with them.
How much difference is there really in size? My experience is that for a given quality level/sensor size, that mirrorless cameras end up being equivalent size and price to SLRs, particularly when you include a lens in your factor. A camera like the Nikon Df is not particularly large in size, while some of the NEX cameras are getting pretty big. Lense are basically similar size, as long as you keep aperture constant. The easiest ways to make lenses smaller (for any sensor size) are to make their apertures slower (there are few native lenses faster than f2.8 for FE mount currently) and to under engineer them (Sony has had a tendency to depend on software manipulation to fix lens flaws).
More important to me than absolute size (none of these cameras is pocketable) is ergonomics of a given camera body/lens combo and here is where many mirrorless cameras suffer.
In the end, I think it will come down to how much benefit EVFs really give over OVFs. Probably some, but there is definitely a trade off of less battery life (battery tech has not come along in the same way that other technology has).