Originally posted by biz-engineer Why would mirrorless need sensor stabilization when the lenses are optically stabilized?
From my perspective , I can only seen a leap forward with image sensors get the global shutter functionality. The closest to global shutter feature is Sony A9 , but it's not fully a global shutter approach, and still has issues with moving subjects. I don't see the benefit of higher frame rate of an electronic shutter if there are still artifacts on moving subjects. In that sense, the electronic shuttering technology is not yet ready to completely replace DSLR mechanisms. As for the electronic view finder, it is quite ok in good light, but there is framing latency when panning in less good light: the subject is not where you thing it is in the frame... (that's my experience). With the optical view finder of your 5DSr, the image in the viewfinder is continuously refreshed at the speed of light. I believe wildlife shooter would be the very last to use a mirrorless camera: no much interest to save on camera size and get poor ergonomics when using a 600 f4. And right now, I'm asking myself what mount should it be when buying an expensive long prime, if it happens that lens mounts will change for mirrorless?
Supposedly Olympus has figured out how to get sensor stabilization and lens stabilization to work together to allow for really long exposures hand held. Certainly that is a limited use. A lot of the interesting things with IBIS don't even have to do with sensor stabilization (pixel shift/astro tracer/composition adjustment). The question in my mind is how easy it is for brands late to the sensor stabilization party to find methods for doing it that are not under patent protection by brands like Pentax, Olympus, and Sony that have been using the tech for a long time.
Overall, technology will continue to improve, but the real question to me is when we see some real bump in image quality. From the sensor in the D810 to the most recent full frame sensors we see improvements in video (4K), faster frame rates, more PDAF points on the sensors, and slight bumps in megapixels -- but the image quality is about the same or maybe actually a little worse (if Sony's star eater issues and banding are any indication).
My hope had always been that someone would figure out Foveon technology (or something similar) and have sensors that have better color depth and dynamic range than those currently on the market.
Ergonomics are probably the worst thing about Sony mirrorless cameras and probably the thing that Canon and Nikon can do the best job of beating them on (hard to match Sony on straight up tech and specs as that's what they do best).