While a vastly improved electronic viewfinder might make mirror-less more competitive, it would still have huge hurdles to overcome. The mirror-less form factor is great as a light weight street camera, but it offers no advantage for many other applications, such as studio and portrait work. It may even be a disadvantage when using telephotos beyond about 135mm (Notice Leica doesn't even produce any longish telephotos).
I think that full-frame will continue to dominate studio & portrait. However, mirrorless offers some nice advantages for photographers who are on their feet covering events all day. The Leica limitation of 135mm relates to the rangefinder mechanism and won't be a disadvantage for new mirrorless cameras like the OM-D. Panasonic offers a 35-100/2.8 (70-200 equiv.) and Olympus will soon offer a 40-150/2.8 (80-300 equiv.). These telephoto zooms are much more compact & lightweight than their full-frame alternatives, while still offering nice depth of field control. The Panasonic 35-100/2.8 in particular weighs a small fraction of what a typical 70-200 weighs (13 ounces vs. 3 pounds). Likewise the Olympus 75/1.8 weighs a fraction of a what full-frame equivalent would weigh. I think the reduced size & weight will be a selling point for photographers who are tired of carrying around big telephoto zooms, especially now that the OM-D has improved autofocus.
I agree. The real advantage of mirror-less comes in weight and size savings.
But that weight and size advantage is contingent upon a smaller sensor. It also requires a new set of lenses. There is still a lot of inertia to overcome before the market settles on an ideal compact-sized sensor.
In any case, none of that will satisfy those who insist that Canon absolutely must produce a full-frame mirror-less camera. Which really was my point -- to debunk the idea that we are going to see either Canon or Nikon rushing into the mirror-less market with a full-frame offering anytime in the near future.
i agree...but disagree, but then again agree...lol...i don't think mirrorless --mind you --- in its current form will prevail because ---weight and size advantage is not really an advantage when coupled with---whole new system/ new lenses or awkward adapters to EF lenses.
Is uncle bob going to buy a mirrorless camera or is he just going to go to the wedding and take pics with his ipad...not even the iphone, the ipad?
uncle bob wants to share those photos on facebook immediately! He will complain if the venue doesn't have wifi!!!!
LOL...that's extreme, but, there are a lot of uncle bobs out there. and weight and size only matter to uncle bob.
right now it's cell phones vs everything else. Like it or not, that's whats happening. Size and weight will only matter to those looking to just have it in their pocket, which mirrorless can't do unless it has a cell phone style fixed internal lens.
Can it fit in aunt janes purse along with her cell phone. Does aunt jane have a computer to process images? will she even take the images off the memory card?
That's why i think mirrorless has to ditch that market if it wants to be taken seriously. Screw size and weight. Unit the system. Make it EF compatible. Design it so it can happen. Then it's just a new body...level the playing field.
I know people say there is this and that advantage to mirrorless...but as it see it it's all theory. Mirror slapping degrade IQ?
? Lets look on all the marvelous mirrorflapping photography from the last 50+ years.
To DESERVE a new system, new lenses, new components, etc... it must be truly revolutionary, and thats not only with the sensor its with the optics...the lenses. How do these new lenses DOMINATE current 35mm options? They don't. Why, because digital adopted film specs. And the past 2 decades have been spent developing optics for 35mm format.
Why waste time creating a new system? Why fight all that inertia? If it can be done via adapters it can be done in the camera body...the A7 proves that. If it's any good...put it up against the current dslr offerings on the same playing field and see what happens.