Hint about what to expect from Canon's step into full frame mirrorless?

[Mikehit]

* no back/front-focus

That's strange because in the desire to improve AF tracking, Olympus have put Phase detect sensors on their sensors and this introduced focus errors and now I seem to recall they are introducing micro adjust focus.

 

[3kramd5]

* no back/front-focus

That's strange because in the desire to improve AF tracking, Olympus have put Phase detect sensors on their sensors and this introduced focus errors and now I seem to recall they are introducing micro adjust focus.

Advantages to off sensor AF don’t count. Advantages to minimally powered framing don’t count. Advantages to eye-fatigue don’t count. The only advantages are things which favor MILC, specifically the ability to package a given sensor in a smaller body than one with a mirror and OVF.

Of course, I could make a MILC even smaller by removing displays and using HDMI. Smaller as a virtue must be tempered by capability. Remvong core capability to make something smaller isn’t a given, it’s a trade.

 

[jolyonralph]

well to me
* no vibration Not unique to mirrorless and thus not an advantage of mirrorless but rather a shared capability of mirrorless and reflex using mirror lockup
* silent operation and Not unique to mirrorless and thus not an advantage of mirrorless but rather a shared capability of mirrorless and reflex using mirror lockup
* no back/front-focus Regarding focus errors introduced by misalignment of the off sensor PDAF unit: Not unique to mirrorless and thus not an advantage of mirrorless but rather a shared capability of mirrorless and reflex using mirror lockup.
* and very importantly: small size camera body
are rather convincing advantages. It is more than what I got since switching from film to digital.

So, once one identifies the real difference, the goal post is moved to “size.” One wonders why you want 135-format, since that drives size significantly relative to smaller sensors.

You seem to have discounted the advantages of mirrorless because SLRs can work in a mirrorless manner with the mirror locked up, but you forget one thing - you can't use the viewfinder if you do this meaning you CANNOT hold the camera comfortably and use it unless you've got the tiniest of lenses attached.

So, SLRs can do all of those things you say, except they can't if you want to use the one thing that SLRs were designed for - the viewfinder.

 

[ahsanford]

You seem to have discounted the advantages of mirrorless because SLRs can work in a mirrorless manner with the mirror locked up, but you forget one thing - you can't use the viewfinder if you do this meaning you CANNOT hold the camera comfortably and use it unless you've got the tiniest of lenses attached.

[wakes up from multi-page slumber]

+100. This.

The killer app for me of mirrorless is getting more information in the VF while I am holding the camera comfortably and stably up to my eye.

The retort of "LiveView is mirrorless shooting" is technically accurate but completely drives past what I just said. I'm not going to shoot large aperture manual focus glass or try to take a shot in a dark room with the camera wobbling 12" from my eye (or god forbid hook up and use an LCD loupe).

- A

 

[3kramd5]

You seem to have discounted the advantages of mirrorless because SLRs can work in a mirrorless manner with the mirror locked up, but you forget one thing - you can't use the viewfinder if you do this meaning you CANNOT hold the camera comfortably and use it unless you've got the tiniest of lenses attached.

So, SLRs can do all of those things you say, except they can't if you want to use the one thing that SLRs were designed for - the viewfinder.

I don’t discount EVF. I find EVF very useful in some situations and fully acknowledge it. I find OVF very useful in other situations and fully acknowledge it.

Although no current SLR has an EVF, nothing about the technology precludes one. No mirrorless camera has an optical viewfinder, nor the ancillary capabilities one brings; technology precludes it.

Even if you narrowly define an electronic viewfinder as a screen with a series of lenses in front of it that you stick up to your face, nothing about an SLR precludes one, you just have to pick a place for it. Top left when viewed from behind (“Rangefinder style”) would work.

I’d probably buy one. Pellicle mirror is a reasonable compromise, but it doesn’t mitigate eye strain or power draw of extended use.

 

[fullstop]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

 

[3kramd5]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

What do you mean “without the OVF?” Use the OVF when OVF is advantageous. Use the LV when LV is advantageous. What’s hard to grasp?

 

[fullstop]

use of OVF may be useful to you and some others. I don't care for it. And most of the people under 40 don't even know what an optical viewfinder is and certainly don't miss or want one.

 

[neuroanatomist]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Try to suspend —for a brief moment— your intransigent belief that your views, opinions, and use cases universally represent all photographers. Probably impossible for you, I know, but try.

Currently, there are no vibration-free, completely silent ILCs (in fact, most of the nearly silent ones generate an artificial shutter sound by default). So, despite your personal desire for those features, it's clear that they are not requirements for photographers generally. Nice to have, sure. Very useful in limited situations, absolutely – limited situations which can often be addressed by using live view on a dSLR.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled fantasyworld.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Do you have to be quite so arrogant?
When I bought my 5D mk4 I had ample opportunity to try the best mirrorless cameras that were available at the time. The Fuji XT1 was interesting and the range of lenses was impressive, but it has a crop sensor and having just gone through the pain of upgrading from a 7D to a 5D there is no way I am going back to APSC. Also the body was fragile and there is no way that it would survive a 2 hour sports shoot in continuous and persistent rain.
The Olympus OMD EM1 handled quite well - a bit like a mid range Canon such as a 70D. There was also a good choice of lenses. The problem is that the sensor is tiny, even smaller than the Fuji so for me that rules it out.
That just leaves us with the Sony A7ii. The camera I tried crashed 4 times during the demo and the only way the sales assistant could restart it was to remove the battery and try again. I have never had this type of problem with any of my Canon DSLRs.
During the few moments that the Sony A7ii was working I found the quality lenses such as the 24-70 F2.8 Gmaster were so big and heavy that the camera was unbalanced and difficult to hold. I desperately wanted a heavy camera body to balance the heavy Gmaster lens. Also the Gmaster lenses are a lot more expensive than the equivalent Canon L lenses - and having already invested in the Canon lenses so why would I pay more money for a huge, heavy lens that is no better than my Canon? After a while the sales assistant agreed that the best option for me is a 5D mk4 so I bought one and I am really delighted with it.
Why can't you accept that some people have different priorities from yours and it is possible that they think very carefully before buying a camera? The idea that we are "clinging on for dear life" to an outdated system is quite ridiculous. I like my 5D mk4 and I really enjoy using it. I have tried the alternatives and I don't like them. Please respect my ability to choose a camera that suits my needs.

 

[Isaacheus]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Do you have to be quite so arrogant?
When I bought my 5D mk4 I had ample opportunity to try the best mirrorless cameras that were available at the time. The Fuji XT1 was interesting and the range of lenses was impressive, but it has a crop sensor and having just gone through the pain of upgrading from a 7D to a 5D there is no way I am going back to APSC. Also the body was fragile and there is no way that it would survive a 2 hour sports shoot in continuous and persistent rain.
The Olympus OMD EM1 handled quite well - a bit like a mid range Canon such as a 70D. There was also a good choice of lenses. The problem is that the sensor is tiny, even smaller than the Fuji so for me that rules it out.
That just leaves us with the Sony A7ii. The camera I tried crashed 4 times during the demo and the only way the sales assistant could restart it was to remove the battery and try again. I have never had this type of problem with any of my Canon DSLRs.
During the few moments that the Sony A7ii was working I found the quality lenses such as the 24-70 F2.8 Gmaster were so big and heavy that the camera was unbalanced and difficult to hold. I desperately wanted a heavy camera body to balance the heavy Gmaster lens. Also the Gmaster lenses are a lot more expensive than the equivalent Canon L lenses - and having already invested in the Canon lenses so why would I pay more money for a huge, heavy lens that is no better than my Canon? After a while the sales assistant agreed that the best option for me is a 5D mk4 so I bought one and I am really delighted with it.
Why can't you accept that some people have different priorities from yours and it is possible that they think very carefully before buying a camera? The idea that we are "clinging on for dear life" to an outdated system is quite ridiculous. I like my 5D mk4 and I really enjoy using it. I have tried the alternatives and I don't like them. Please respect my ability to choose a camera that suits my needs.

It'll be interesting to see how you decide for your next camera; I'd guess Canon would have a FF mirrorless by the next upgrade you do, so it'll be a true dslr vs mirrorless choice if you go canon again (rather the current comparisons which often seem more like sony vs canon vs everything else etc,the brand wars).

 

[jayphotoworks]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

What do you mean “without the OVF?” Use the OVF when OVF is advantageous. Use the LV when LV is advantageous. What’s hard to grasp?

What's hard to grasp? If I were in OVF mode shooting stills and I saw a moment I wanted to capture in 4K and wanted to track them as they were walking through the framein video mode, how would I do that?

I would have to move the camera from my eye, hold it about 12" away, hope the sun's glare wouldn't fully obscure the screen, hit the button to go to LV, recompose the image and hit the record button. Whatever was unfolding would be long gone by then. On a mirrorless, I simply hit the record button and start recording, and when done, I can continue shooting stills.

 

[jayphotoworks]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Try to suspend —for a brief moment— your intransigent belief that your views, opinions, and use cases universally represent all photographers. Probably impossible for you, I know, but try.

Currently, there are no vibration-free, completely silent ILCs (in fact, most of the nearly silent ones generate an artificial shutter sound by default). So, despite your personal desire for those features, it's clear that they are not requirements for photographers generally. Nice to have, sure. Very useful in limited situations, absolutely – limited situations which can often be addressed by using live view on a dSLR.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled fantasyworld.

It isn't fantasy... Artificial sounds can be disabled, but physical noises cannot be disabled outside of putting it in a blimp. The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways.

No DSLR is silent 100% because it makes a ruckus flipping that mirror out of the way to get into LV and back again to get into OVF mode. I'm sure you could run out of the room flip it into LV and run back in again, i'm sure it would be nearly silent at that point....

 

[3kramd5]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

What do you mean “without the OVF?” Use the OVF when OVF is advantageous. Use the LV when LV is advantageous. What’s hard to grasp?

What's hard to grasp? If I were in OVF mode shooting stills and I saw a moment I wanted to capture in 4K and wanted to track them as they were walking through the framein video mode, how would I do that?

I would have to move the camera from my eye, hold it about 12" away, hope the sun's glare wouldn't fully obscure the screen, hit the button to go to LV, recompose the image and hit the record button. Whatever was unfolding would be long gone by then. On a mirrorless, I simply hit the record button and start recording, and when done, I can continue shooting stills.

I don’t follow the hold it a foot out thing, but if that’s your main use case, you’re better off with a mirrorless camera (until someone designs a reflex camera with dual viewfinders ).

I find only about half the time I prefer EVF, but the trade offs required on the camera I had (which I don’t take as representative of any other nor the potential of the technology) were frustrating enough I went back to SLR.

 

[Talys]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Do you have to be quite so arrogant?
When I bought my 5D mk4 I had ample opportunity to try the best mirrorless cameras that were available at the time. The Fuji XT1 was interesting and the range of lenses was impressive, but it has a crop sensor and having just gone through the pain of upgrading from a 7D to a 5D there is no way I am going back to APSC. Also the body was fragile and there is no way that it would survive a 2 hour sports shoot in continuous and persistent rain.
The Olympus OMD EM1 handled quite well - a bit like a mid range Canon such as a 70D. There was also a good choice of lenses. The problem is that the sensor is tiny, even smaller than the Fuji so for me that rules it out.
That just leaves us with the Sony A7ii. The camera I tried crashed 4 times during the demo and the only way the sales assistant could restart it was to remove the battery and try again. I have never had this type of problem with any of my Canon DSLRs.
During the few moments that the Sony A7ii was working I found the quality lenses such as the 24-70 F2.8 Gmaster were so big and heavy that the camera was unbalanced and difficult to hold. I desperately wanted a heavy camera body to balance the heavy Gmaster lens. Also the Gmaster lenses are a lot more expensive than the equivalent Canon L lenses - and having already invested in the Canon lenses so why would I pay more money for a huge, heavy lens that is no better than my Canon? After a while the sales assistant agreed that the best option for me is a 5D mk4 so I bought one and I am really delighted with it.
Why can't you accept that some people have different priorities from yours and it is possible that they think very carefully before buying a camera? The idea that we are "clinging on for dear life" to an outdated system is quite ridiculous. I like my 5D mk4 and I really enjoy using it. I have tried the alternatives and I don't like them. Please respect my ability to choose a camera that suits my needs.

It'll be interesting to see how you decide for your next camera; I'd guess Canon would have a FF mirrorless by the next upgrade you do, so it'll be a true dslr vs mirrorless choice if you go canon again (rather the current comparisons which often seem more like sony vs canon vs everything else etc,the brand wars).

For me, Canon vs Sony (or other) is not a factor in mirrorless vs DSLR. The fact is, most of my photography is still done on an 80D; I am perfectly happy with APSC for almost everything, and I could just as easily own a M5 (or a6500), but my favorite camera remains the 80D.

When Canon puts out a mirrorless full frame, I'll certainly consider it, but it will be held to the same litmus test as the Sony -- does it make my life easier doing the kinds of photography I like, without forcing me to make another compromise that I might like less.

In the context of modern sensors, image-related issues are largely all an even playing field for me; I don't think anyone could tell if I took a photo with a Sony or a Canon or a DSLR or a mirrorless. It all just comes down to which one feels better in the hand, and gets less in the way when I want to do the things I want to do.

The things that the Sony didn't quite get right that I hope Canon does better are:

- Better and more consistent autofocus that just works more like a DSLR's dedicated AF sensor (ie always just works and I don't have to pick and choose between different compromises)

- Better low light autofocus, and also AF that is compatible with red-pattern AF flash illuminators

- Ergonomics (feel in the hand) that I enjoy, especially with telephoto lenses, without having to add a vertical grip. I'd really like to see a mirrorless about the size of an 80D at the smallest; a 6D2 would be even better.

- Good support for lenses that aren't focus-by-wire

The rest of the stuff, I think I can live with. If Canon can achieve the list above for me, I'd then ask, what more does a mirrorless offer me, over the DSLR? And is that advantage worth the loss of the optical viewfinder? I would probably trade battery life for manual focus magnification, but I don't know if I'd be willing to throw anything else into the mix, because that's a pretty big concession to me (but for a feature I really love).

I am loyal to Canon in the sense that I won't go and switch systems just because for 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever years, some other system comes out with new stuff. I am not loyal to Canon in the sense that if another system has exactly what I want, I'm more than happy to spend some money there to have it now (it doesn't mean I have to get rid of my Canon stuff, though). The problem is, that just hasn't happened for me yet.

 

[neuroanatomist]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Try to suspend —for a brief moment— your intransigent belief that your views, opinions, and use cases universally represent all photographers. Probably impossible for you, I know, but try.

Currently, there are no vibration-free, completely silent ILCs (in fact, most of the nearly silent ones generate an artificial shutter sound by default). So, despite your personal desire for those features, it's clear that they are not requirements for photographers generally. Nice to have, sure. Very useful in limited situations, absolutely – limited situations which can often be addressed by using live view on a dSLR.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled fantasyworld.

It isn't fantasy... Artificial sounds can be disabled, but physical noises cannot be disabled outside of putting it in a blimp. The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways.

No DSLR is silent 100% because it makes a ruckus flipping that mirror out of the way to get into LV and back again to get into OVF mode. I'm sure you could run out of the room flip it into LV and run back in again, i'm sure it would be nearly silent at that point....

That whooshing sound was the point sailing right over your head. Better luck grasping it next time.

 

[Orangutan]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Try to suspend —for a brief moment— your intransigent belief that your views, opinions, and use cases universally represent all photographers. Probably impossible for you, I know, but try.

Currently, there are no vibration-free, completely silent ILCs (in fact, most of the nearly silent ones generate an artificial shutter sound by default). So, despite your personal desire for those features, it's clear that they are not requirements for photographers generally. Nice to have, sure. Very useful in limited situations, absolutely – limited situations which can often be addressed by using live view on a dSLR.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled fantasyworld.

It isn't fantasy... Artificial sounds can be disabled, but physical noises cannot be disabled outside of putting it in a blimp. The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways.

No DSLR is silent 100% because it makes a ruckus flipping that mirror out of the way to get into LV and back again to get into OVF mode. I'm sure you could run out of the room flip it into LV and run back in again, i'm sure it would be nearly silent at that point....

That whooshing sound was the point sailing right over your head. Better luck grasping it next time.

@jayphotoworks, I'll attempt to translate the "whoosh" for you. I believe Neuro is calling to your attention the fact that your urgent need for silence is a niche need, as demonstrated by the fact that the great majority of people don't bother to turn off the artificial shutter sound.

It's entirely legitimate that you would like to have this feature; however, it is another matter entirely to extrapolate that to a general need. That would be an example of AvTvM's "ego fallacy," which is the reductio ad absurdum of the "hasty generalization" fallacy.

 

[Aussie shooter]

It's interesting to listen to the people who insist mirrorless is already far superior to DSLR. I can only assume the photography they do is not very demanding. Certainly not sports or wildlife photography and likely not out in the tough elements where gear has to be reliable. I don't think anyone doubts that mirrorless will one day be close enough to DSLR performance in the areas it now lags(battery life, EVF v OVF, ruggedness and reliability) that DSLR's will be phased out but today is not that day. I also have no doubt that it will be canon and Nikon(and not Sony) that produce the mirrorless cameras good enough to do the job. Maybe Nikon if they are still competitive anyway. The rate of technological advancement COULD mean that a 5D5 is the last DSLR but that is hard to say. At the moment though people who require and demand performance and reliability are going to stick with the gear that does the job and that aint mirrorless. Photograpers that do it a little easier are probably perfectly happy with mirrorless.

I am really keen to see what canon bring to the table though and have no doubt it will be a far superior camera to Sony(in the aspects that really matter that is)

 

[Isaacheus]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Do you have to be quite so arrogant?
When I bought my 5D mk4 I had ample opportunity to try the best mirrorless cameras that were available at the time. The Fuji XT1 was interesting and the range of lenses was impressive, but it has a crop sensor and having just gone through the pain of upgrading from a 7D to a 5D there is no way I am going back to APSC. Also the body was fragile and there is no way that it would survive a 2 hour sports shoot in continuous and persistent rain.
The Olympus OMD EM1 handled quite well - a bit like a mid range Canon such as a 70D. There was also a good choice of lenses. The problem is that the sensor is tiny, even smaller than the Fuji so for me that rules it out.
That just leaves us with the Sony A7ii. The camera I tried crashed 4 times during the demo and the only way the sales assistant could restart it was to remove the battery and try again. I have never had this type of problem with any of my Canon DSLRs.
During the few moments that the Sony A7ii was working I found the quality lenses such as the 24-70 F2.8 Gmaster were so big and heavy that the camera was unbalanced and difficult to hold. I desperately wanted a heavy camera body to balance the heavy Gmaster lens. Also the Gmaster lenses are a lot more expensive than the equivalent Canon L lenses - and having already invested in the Canon lenses so why would I pay more money for a huge, heavy lens that is no better than my Canon? After a while the sales assistant agreed that the best option for me is a 5D mk4 so I bought one and I am really delighted with it.
Why can't you accept that some people have different priorities from yours and it is possible that they think very carefully before buying a camera? The idea that we are "clinging on for dear life" to an outdated system is quite ridiculous. I like my 5D mk4 and I really enjoy using it. I have tried the alternatives and I don't like them. Please respect my ability to choose a camera that suits my needs.

It'll be interesting to see how you decide for your next camera; I'd guess Canon would have a FF mirrorless by the next upgrade you do, so it'll be a true dslr vs mirrorless choice if you go canon again (rather the current comparisons which often seem more like sony vs canon vs everything else etc,the brand wars).

For me, Canon vs Sony (or other) is not a factor in mirrorless vs DSLR. The fact is, most of my photography is still done on an 80D; I am perfectly happy with APSC for almost everything, and I could just as easily own a M5 (or a6500), but my favorite camera remains the 80D.

When Canon puts out a mirrorless full frame, I'll certainly consider it, but it will be held to the same litmus test as the Sony -- does it make my life easier doing the kinds of photography I like, without forcing me to make another compromise that I might like less.

In the context of modern sensors, image-related issues are largely all an even playing field for me; I don't think anyone could tell if I took a photo with a Sony or a Canon or a DSLR or a mirrorless. It all just comes down to which one feels better in the hand, and gets less in the way when I want to do the things I want to do.

The things that the Sony didn't quite get right that I hope Canon does better are:

- Better and more consistent autofocus that just works more like a DSLR's dedicated AF sensor (ie always just works and I don't have to pick and choose between different compromises)

- Better low light autofocus, and also AF that is compatible with red-pattern AF flash illuminators

- Ergonomics (feel in the hand) that I enjoy, especially with telephoto lenses, without having to add a vertical grip. I'd really like to see a mirrorless about the size of an 80D at the smallest; a 6D2 would be even better.

- Good support for lenses that aren't focus-by-wire

The rest of the stuff, I think I can live with. If Canon can achieve the list above for me, I'd then ask, what more does a mirrorless offer me, over the DSLR? And is that advantage worth the loss of the optical viewfinder? I would probably trade battery life for manual focus magnification, but I don't know if I'd be willing to throw anything else into the mix, because that's a pretty big concession to me (but for a feature I really love).

I am loyal to Canon in the sense that I won't go and switch systems just because for 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever years, some other system comes out with new stuff. I am not loyal to Canon in the sense that if another system has exactly what I want, I'm more than happy to spend some money there to have it now (it doesn't mean I have to get rid of my Canon stuff, though). The problem is, that just hasn't happened for me yet.

I totally agree with the points you have; I personally give some features more weight and others less but in the end the same outlook. It's positive to note that there seems to be a steady improvement in the mirror-less offerings from pretty much all brands, which are reducing the 'cons' list of mirror-less and increasing the 'pros' list reasonably quickly.

For (most) of the points there, I'd say it's really just a matter of time (obviously the OVF will always be a difference)

 

[jayphotoworks]

sure, DSLRs can be crippled into a sub-par version of a mirrorless camera using them in live view. But then, without use of the glorified OVF - why bother with all the mirrorslapping to start with?

Always makes me chuckle to see how some people cling on "for dear life" to that dying mirrorslapping stuff. And how that group of people seems to be pretty much identical with the Canapologists. ;D

Try to suspend —for a brief moment— your intransigent belief that your views, opinions, and use cases universally represent all photographers. Probably impossible for you, I know, but try.

Currently, there are no vibration-free, completely silent ILCs (in fact, most of the nearly silent ones generate an artificial shutter sound by default). So, despite your personal desire for those features, it's clear that they are not requirements for photographers generally. Nice to have, sure. Very useful in limited situations, absolutely – limited situations which can often be addressed by using live view on a dSLR.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled fantasyworld.

It isn't fantasy... Artificial sounds can be disabled, but physical noises cannot be disabled outside of putting it in a blimp. The A9 is 100% silent and was designed to be used in e-shutter mode natively. The only need for the mechanical shutter is when you are shooting with a flash which creates a visual disturbance anyways.

No DSLR is silent 100% because it makes a ruckus flipping that mirror out of the way to get into LV and back again to get into OVF mode. I'm sure you could run out of the room flip it into LV and run back in again, i'm sure it would be nearly silent at that point....

That whooshing sound was the point sailing right over your head. Better luck grasping it next time.

@jayphotoworks, I'll attempt to translate the "whoosh" for you. I believe Neuro is calling to your attention the fact that your urgent need for silence is a niche need, as demonstrated by the fact that the great majority of people don't bother to turn off the artificial shutter sound.

It's entirely legitimate that you would like to have this feature; however, it is another matter entirely to extrapolate that to a general need. That would be an example of AvTvM's "ego fallacy," which is the reductio ad absurdum of the "hasty generalization" fallacy.

I understand that most people don't bother to turn off the sound, and as a result completely silent operation is probably not an urgent need for many photographers. My point wasn't that that silent operation was a necessity, it simply is a differentiating point that shows one advantage that mirrorless has that DSLRs don't have as a result of its dual operating paradigm.