Originally posted by reh321 How do we know that the Sony FF cameras are more profitable than the A6000 and A6300?
Partly because it is generally assumed that Sony's imaging division didn't start making money until they released the A7 and A7r, partly because Sony is paying a lot more attention to their FF system (and the relative neglect of their APS-C line), and partly because it fits the general trend in the mirrorless industry, where higher end cameras make more money (or lose less money) than lower end cameras.
Originally posted by reh321 My personal belief is that MILC technology is more likely to be dominant in consumer lines than in pro/semi-pro lines.
Five years ago I would've been inclined to agree with you; but from everything I've seen in recent years, I've become rather skeptical of that view. The fact is, in terms of bang for your buck, APS-C DSLRs system cameras (and here I include lenses and not just cameras) just give you more than m43 or Sony APS-C. And brand name awareness coupled with the ability to put product in the big box scores gives Nikon and Canon huge advantages.
The larger point is that if Canon were to come out with a well designed mirrorless camera along with some high-end lenses comparable to L glass (but much smaller — and no adapters please!), they could seize the number one spot in mirrorless ILC sales from Sony in the matter of a few years. So why don't they do that? The common excuse is that they don't want cannibalize their DSLR business; but that excuse has never made sense to me.
Originally posted by surfar For a long time Pentax Q users have been requesting(whining) a EVF,Canon must be listening to their market.
The trend in mirrorless is heavily biased toward EVF cameras, and that's because cameras without EVFs don't sell as well and often lose a lot money. Olympus and Sony lost loads of money with their Pens and Nex 3 and 5's.
Originally posted by surfar vI don't see any difference from the fact that BIG K mount lenses are(in some circumstances) mounted on even smaller Qute cameras.
Some people (mostly mirrorless fanboys?) aren't bothered by putting a big lens on a small camera; but many people are bothered by the awkwardness of such an arrangement, and if the future is large heavy lenses attached to small cameras, that's a very dark future indeed.
Originally posted by surfar This Canon has an AF adapter(U$100ish) that makes every lens that is AF, useable as it was designed.
Given that none of the L lenses were designed to be used on tiny cameras, "useable as it was designed" strikes me as a bit of a stretch. I've used large lenses on a small mirrorless camera and it's not an experience I remember fondly.