[kenafein]

not fepic fun for those of us with aging eyesight.

Actually, mirrorless is great for those with bad eyesight. An electronic viewfinder tends to be bigger and brighter than a optical one. They are getting better each generation, Sony's is quite excellent. The HUD overlay is very useful, as is focus magnification. Use what you enjoy, but MILCs do have some advantages.

I've only ever seen Pentax shooters, in the wild, when I didn't have my camera with me.

[jogiba]

Actually, mirrorless is great for those with bad eyesight. An electronic viewfinder tends to be bigger and brighter than a optical one. They are getting better each generation, Sony's is quite excellent. The HUD overlay is very useful, as is focus magnification. Use what you enjoy, but MILCs do have some advantages.

I've only ever seen Pentax shooters, in the wild, when I didn't have my camera with me.

I agree, I prefer using the OLED EVF in my NEX-VG-900 than the OVF in my K-7 .

[rawr]

An electronic viewfinder tends to be bigger and brighter than a optical one.

Be that as it may, EVF's can also introduce annoyances of their own. I recently picked up a FDA-EV1S EVF for my NEX-F3 (Sony seem to be dumping them cheap at the moment), and no matter what the switch or camera settings are, it has the VERY annoying habit (due to the eye sensor) of turning itself on and off on a whim, especially if you are an eyeglasses wearer. It drives me crazy. While using the EVF, it's like suddenly the lens cap is put over the lens, then taken off, then put back on 1 minute later etc. Ugh.

But when it is not switching itself off, it is indeed nice and bright and informative.

[JPT]

I'm not sure that Trey Ratcliff's interpretation of Nikon and Canon's mirrorless systems is correct. For a start, did they really sell much worse than Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and others? I don't know where that evidence comes from, except price drops, which could just be an indication of different approach to inventory control.

And are they "not serious" about mirrorless? Canon didn't have the dual-pixel sensor available, so the first model was more like a trial run. I expect their next models to be a lot more persuasive. Nikon seemed to want to be the iPhone of cameras. I mean they went for a very clean design and simplified interface. I don't mean they succeeded in emulating the iPhone's success. I would be willing to bet that Nikon is well into development of another high-end mirrorless system and will reveal it when ready. I suspect think Ricoh/Pentax is thinking along these lines too.

What is different about Sony, Olympus and Fuji in the one side and Nikon, Canon and Ricoh/Pentax on the other, is that the former group has a policy of indicating their plans and creating hype through leaks and the latter keeps their mouth shut until they are ready to launch. It's just a different approach to managing their pubic relations. They also jumped in early because they lacked attractive ILC systems from the start.

When the serious players are all-in with mirrorless, the balance will tip and I do think the DSLR will fade out. Until then, mirrorless sales will look weak against DSLRs, because the reality does not match the incessant hype at the moment.

As for mirrorless faring worse in the recession, I think that can be explained by their younger demographic. Younger generations seem to have been hit harder in this recession and have less disposable income. Also, DSLRs are currently used by more pros who often can't afford to delay their purchases if they want to stay in business.

[kenafein]

Be that as it may, EVF's can also introduce annoyances of their own. I recently picked up a FDA-EV1S EVF for my NEX-F3 (Sony seem to be dumping them cheap at the moment), and no matter what the switch or camera settings are, it has the VERY annoying habit (due to the eye sensor) of turning itself on and off on a whim, especially if you are an eyeglasses wearer. It drives me crazy. While using the EVF, it's like suddenly the lens cap is put over the lens, then taken off, then put back on 1 minute later etc. Ugh.

But when it is not switching itself off, it is indeed nice and bright and informative.

I didn't really have that trouble, maybe it's because I don't wear glasses. I think you can disable the eye sensor and just use the button. Or just disable the screen and always use the finder. I sold mine when I bought my NEX 6 or I'd experiment for you. What I really love about my NEX 6 is that I have a level right in the middle of the HUD. it's really wonderful. I miss it when I shoot with my DSLR. It just can't compare. I'm sorry that yours is buggy, but they're only going to get better each generation. I think we'll get to the point where most people prefer EVF to OVF. There is still a bit of latency and resolution to overcome, and other issues, as you've mentioned.

[p38arover]

I had to Google MILC.

I have a Q but I don't like the lack of a viewfinder.

[Kunzite]

Can't get away from it. There are people who turn their nose up at MILC users as well, however. Some people won't take MILCs seriously, and perceive DSLRs as superior, simply because they're not an SLR. If you took a K100D and a NEX 5N, I bet most people would tell you that the K100D is the superior camera, by looks alone. I'll always have a soft spot for my old K100D, but they would be mistaken. Most of these people are of the sort that enjoy an image and say, you have a really nice camera or internet jerks; but there are also serious photographers that won't give these great little cameras their due. I think the mirrorless camera will win out in the end. And not necessarily because of form factor, but because they will be cheaper to produce in the long run. Sony is going to be making DSLR sized and styled mirrorless cameras for the A-mount. They consider that their high end, pro, line. I certainly wouldn't want to shoot a 70-200/2.8 with a NEX 5N.

Yeah, but I don't see people claiming that the MILC choice must/will disappear (maybe with the exception of obvious trolls).

Considering one option or another "superior" (but this must be qualified) is OK. Considering it the only rational choice in every circumstance, call those who wants something else names and ask for camera manufacturers to fully switch to it, is not OK.
In this thread, you were talking about what you like about your NEX; and I could talk as well, about why I want a good optical viewfinder and can't stand EVFs. We're both right; we just have different preferences - and I don't see this as a "fight" which must be "won" by a camp or another.
But the MILC propaganda wants to deny us our right to choose, and since the MILC market won't naturally evolve into taking over the entire market, they're trying to make it happen by spreading FUD, misinformation and "predictions" that blatantly ignore reality.

[Christine Tham]

Five years ago, in Q2 2008, Nokia was still the No. .1 smartphone maker in the world, with a market share of 47.5%. Blackberry had increased market share dramatically to 17.4% - No. 2.

Gartner noted that Apple market share actually decreased to just 2.8% in the quarter. Some say Apple will never achieve significant business usage because it lacks important enterprise features and does not have a hardware keyboard.

At business conferences etc., I doubt you will see many carrying an iPhone. Although there may have been a cute girl carrying a white Windows phone.

BlackBerry, HTC eat into Nokia Q2 market share ? The Register

[Kunzite]

And? What does it say about a different market, under different conditions?

[Christine Tham]

Here is a selfie of me (taken today) using the world's most popular camera (according to Flickr). The number of people using this as a camera will far exceed all the DSLR AND mirrorless users in the world combined. :-)

[magkelly]

You know if it wasn't for the fact that it's the only digital camera I have that I can put my Yashica lenses on I'd likely sell my little Oly. That's the main reason I got it, well, that and the fact that oldest Oly bodies are cheaper than dirt and it was the only one I could afford to get. I don't like using a rear LCD screen to focus with at ALL, and I have yet to be able to afford the EVF or the AF kit lens for this thing so it's been pretty useless except for being able to put any lens I want on it. Plus you step outside into the sun and the LCD is useless. It was fun, for a little while but in terms of practicality I'd have to add $300 worth of stuff to my $100 camera to make this set up work like a DSLR. It is definitely inferior to any DSLR I've ever owned in quite a few respects. It's basically just a glorified pocket camera that I happen to be able to changes lenses on. It is handy that it's small and that it looks like a junk camera. I can do pics in places that they'd hassle me with my DSLR but otherwise, meh. I've thought about selling it a couple of times but it's just not cost effective to go there. I'm even seeing them for less than $100 now and for that I might as well hang onto it. But no way I'd ever buy another camera like this unless it came with an EVF and a kit lens. This guy he made me laugh. I just cannot see why I'm supposed to prefer one of these to a DSLR. I can get a DSLR for cheaper actually so why would I spend more for the mirrorless?. Particularly when having an EVF and kit lens with it jacks up the price considerably.

[mecrox]

"Mirorrless" strikes me as a bit of a misnomer. At one end it could mean a huge DSLR that happens to have an EVF instead of a mirrorbox but which is otherwise completely traditional. At the other end it could mean a camera specifically designed to be small and light because it uses a smaller sensor and modern lenses designed for a very short registration distance. The two cameras will look completely different, cost very different amounts to buy and likely appeal to completely different buyers. So what does mirrorless really mean, other than literally "lacking a mirror"?

The only innovation since digital cameras were invented for which consumers have gone head over heels has been sharing, instantly. Since this uses mobile, it has bypassed the conventional camera as well as utterly trouncing it in popularity. Mobile has gone on to bolster this popularity by expanding what one can do with mobile cameras, both stills and video, via a range of add-on apps which are cheap as chips.

The camera-makers still don't seem to have got with the programme here. Hence so much of the talk about mirrorless has centred around style, size and convenience. But this doesn't motivate all that many consumers, I'd say. They have what they want in those respects on mobile and if they want more they can buy a "real camera", the DSLR - a reliable known quantity with famous brands in every store and at an attractive price too.

So for anything new to change the industry, it really needs to offer ways of doing interesting things with a camera that the traditional formats don't offer (or can't because of, e.g., limitations with the mirrorbox design). Perhaps sooner or later someone will come up with that and they will mate it with a modern OS with the mobile goodies on board. Chances are they'll use a mirrorless design because a) it is a natural design for younger customers who are open to new ideas; and b) it is cheaper and easier to manufacturer in quantity. Then there might be fireworks.

The point being that mirrorless won't necessarily become much more popular because the camera is small and lacks a mirror but because the form factor has been chosen as the delivery system for something completely new which buyers feel they just must have. Could be incredibly clever software, could be FF for 500 bucks with an ingenious folding lens. Who knows. However, I don't feel that Trey Ratcliff's article has got much further than saying mirrorless will become more popular because it's cool and all my friends use it. Oh I say, do they indeed.

[rawr]

and other issues, as you've mentioned.

The other big issue is with this otherwise very nice EVF is how badly it performs at very low-light. Streaks and colour noise everywhere, just like the rear LCD. You can see it really struggling to render the scene. Optical viewfinders will get dim, but don't degrade anywhere near as badly in poor light.

[kenafein]

The other big issue is with this otherwise very nice EVF is how badly it performs at very low-light. Streaks and colour noise everywhere, just like the rear LCD. You can see it really struggling to render the scene. Optical viewfinders will get dim, but don't degrade anywhere near as badly in poor light.

I suppose it does get a bit grainy, but i've always been able to compose. My biggest gripe with the EVF is that the focus peaking doesn't work as well in the EVF as it does on the back LCD, that's quite frustrating to me.

[Rupert]

I like a small camera, they are handy and a novelty of sorts...some even produce excellent results. Still, I have to wonder where is the advantage when you mount a lens that makes it just as bulky as a DSLR, for all practical purposes? It's like buying a Mini Cooper and outfitting it up to tow a Motor Home. Sure, you still have a small car, but where was your gain in size saving?

Regards!