What a Full Frame Canon Mirrorless Needs To Have To Be Successful
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
That EF mount is just a passing fad. I'll buy Canon again when they bring back the FD mount. OH WAIT... photography is just a passing fad. Nothing but paintings on MY walls. Oils, of course none of that acrylic rubbish--passing fad.
Sure, but the TC also costs you a stop of light, and spending an extra £2,5k does not.scyrene said:
And as I've prattled about, removing the mirror also gives the option to use a multi-sensor design, either RGB; or. alternately, two standard Bayer arrays, but one with an ND filter in front to give single-shot HDR. You could also use a slightly larger sensor to capture a square covering both portrait and landscape orientations simultaneously. (edit: not ND filter, but partial mirror to one of them)Canon Rumors said:
Reducing size is definitely not the only reason to go mirrorless.
- native EF lens mount - great EF lens lineup already.
- weight & size - lighter weight is welcome. as for size, Canon doesn't need to go on a diet.
- good AF
mirrorless eliminates the need for AFMA (am i correct?)
- weight & size - lighter weight is welcome. as for size, Canon doesn't need to go on a diet.
- good AF
mirrorless eliminates the need for AFMA (am i correct?)
Just make a normal sensor there, at least as in 5d4. Canon inclined to fulfill desires ? No !
Maybe canon, like some other manufacturers, try so hard, and making each new camera so good as far as possible today , that it seems, even touches the upstream segment cameras ? NO !
Therefore, the only thing that I want from canon is that the sensor be better than in 6d2.
Maybe canon, like some other manufacturers, try so hard, and making each new camera so good as far as possible today , that it seems, even touches the upstream segment cameras ? NO !
Therefore, the only thing that I want from canon is that the sensor be better than in 6d2.
I read CR for the humour.IglooEater said:
Why would anyone not want weather sealing when it could be the difference between a functional and non-functional camera in a critical situation. I suppose it needs dual cards in case of memory failure but not sealing in case of weather.
Jack
We are probably not professionals, but we do weddings. And what we use is the 70-200/2.8 II IS, and next month we get 5DIV along with 24-70/2.8 II. And then we've already got Sigma ART 35/1.4. All pretty heavy lens imo, which I would not like to have attached to my cell phone size/proportion cameraAvTvM said:
First, I 100% agree with everything that CR guy said.
I won't buy a Canon mirrorless FF, at least not any time soon, that isn't EF, ergonomically comfortable for the stuff I like to shoot, and has a superb EVF. I cannot imagine any set of features they could pack into a FF MILC that would compensate for a shortfall in any of those categories.
It's not that everyone who uses a top tiered camera will always need weather-sealing, and it's not that every high end camera needs to be weather-sealed. But if it's not in your top tiered camera, what are you going to do, stick it in your second tiered camera? That just sounds kind of crazy. More likely, you get the Sony thing... where none of your top tiered cameras have competitive weather sealing, and that's a terrible thing.
Even me... almost exclusively fair weather or indoor photographer... If I'm going to spend $4000+ on a camera, it's going to have decent weather sealing.
But a 70-200/2.8 is an ultra-popular lens for all those things you're talking about, and that's not a light lens in any system. It's almost the same size and weight as Canon's 100-400LII. Also, it's not like 16-35 and 24-70/2.8's are small lenses.
And if we're talking big aperture super telephotos, one might argue that these are likely to be used on monopods/tripods, and the ergonomics equation is a little different. But I don't think current generation mirrorless in these use cases will be a hot seller anyways, because EVF just blows through batteries too quickly when you have to keep the EVF running for hours.
I won't buy a Canon mirrorless FF, at least not any time soon, that isn't EF, ergonomically comfortable for the stuff I like to shoot, and has a superb EVF. I cannot imagine any set of features they could pack into a FF MILC that would compensate for a shortfall in any of those categories.
-1 for me. Every top tiered camera needs to be weather-sealed.IglooEater said:
It's not that everyone who uses a top tiered camera will always need weather-sealing, and it's not that every high end camera needs to be weather-sealed. But if it's not in your top tiered camera, what are you going to do, stick it in your second tiered camera? That just sounds kind of crazy. More likely, you get the Sony thing... where none of your top tiered cameras have competitive weather sealing, and that's a terrible thing.
Even me... almost exclusively fair weather or indoor photographer... If I'm going to spend $4000+ on a camera, it's going to have decent weather sealing.
I agree that there are lots of professional photography doesn't require a 400mm lens. No argument there.AvTvM said:
But a 70-200/2.8 is an ultra-popular lens for all those things you're talking about, and that's not a light lens in any system. It's almost the same size and weight as Canon's 100-400LII. Also, it's not like 16-35 and 24-70/2.8's are small lenses.
And if we're talking big aperture super telephotos, one might argue that these are likely to be used on monopods/tripods, and the ergonomics equation is a little different. But I don't think current generation mirrorless in these use cases will be a hot seller anyways, because EVF just blows through batteries too quickly when you have to keep the EVF running for hours.
Just Canon won't make separated and dedicated professional camera models for studio work or weddings. They'll make one model for each tier, and each model will have to cover many different needs. It's cheaper to add weather sealing to a single model than to have to make more models with only a few differences like weather sealing and align production to demand - after all those features won't be a disadvantage for those not needing it every day.AvTvM said:
Moreover, I think a lot of studio work today is also made with higher megapixel cameras like the 5DS, the top-of-the-line camera is less an all-round camera today than it was a few years ago.
I will buy a FF mirrorless only WITH the possibility to use
- FD lenses
- maybe a tilt adapter for EF lenses
- to be open to adapt other (scientific) optics
The adapter has to be designed to stay well in place (e.g. optional 4 M3 screws) for
those who want use the EF lens line-up, delivered with the camera and
shaped to support ergonomics well.
The EF-XYZ mount of the camera body could have a larger diameter to avoid
mirror box bokeh and other side effects. A shutter window of 27 x 39mm would
help too.
Mirrorless with EVF is well suited for video - I think it will be a hybrid cam.
A unique feature (as far as I know) would be a global shutter mode for
video in a well priced FF mirrorless. The announced Super 8 camera from Kodak
is a strange being but it has global shutter and the videos - while having
bad resolution - showed very natural motion. Most video cameras do not
due to rolling shutter. The effects are sublime if the camera/objects move slowly,
they cannot exactly be seen but there is always some feeling of unnatural motion.
As videographer I would hope for a camera which is as innovative like the 5D mark ii
for the video section of the camera.
- FD lenses
- maybe a tilt adapter for EF lenses
- to be open to adapt other (scientific) optics
The adapter has to be designed to stay well in place (e.g. optional 4 M3 screws) for
those who want use the EF lens line-up, delivered with the camera and
shaped to support ergonomics well.
The EF-XYZ mount of the camera body could have a larger diameter to avoid
mirror box bokeh and other side effects. A shutter window of 27 x 39mm would
help too.
Mirrorless with EVF is well suited for video - I think it will be a hybrid cam.
A unique feature (as far as I know) would be a global shutter mode for
video in a well priced FF mirrorless. The announced Super 8 camera from Kodak
is a strange being but it has global shutter and the videos - while having
bad resolution - showed very natural motion. Most video cameras do not
due to rolling shutter. The effects are sublime if the camera/objects move slowly,
they cannot exactly be seen but there is always some feeling of unnatural motion.
As videographer I would hope for a camera which is as innovative like the 5D mark ii
for the video section of the camera.
If you are not reducing the weight and size of the lenses and the body - why going mirrorless in the first place? Just to have an EVF instead of an OVF?
In order for this to make sense they must come up with a new mount and new lenses. Otherwise why bother.
In order for this to make sense they must come up with a new mount and new lenses. Otherwise why bother.
Hi
I strongly disagree about a Mirrorless with EF mount.
What is the difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless ?
The names says it: The mirror.
Which has a few consequences:
- You need another way to view at the scene. Electronic viewfinder
- You need an AF that uses the main sensor itself, instead of a separate sensor
- You may decrease flange distance
I think we may all agree that Sensor improvements - which are certainly needed - make sense for DSLR as well as for mirrorless. So let's keep that outside of the discussion for now.
Today, a DSLR is able to do almost everything a mirrorless can do.
Add an electronic viewfinder, either internal -which Canon is working on with several patents to allow switching between reflex and electronic viewfinder- or external -think of the EV-DC2 attached to a DSLR- and you have it.
Then you have best of both worlds, don't you ?
Take a 1DXII with an EV-DC2 or - better - an internal switch to a secondary EVF, and you get best of both worlds.
I'd love to see that, by the way.
No improvement in size and weight for sure. But a beast of a camera.
So what do you MISS ? Why do you want a mirrorless, except for the EVF ?
A shorter flange distance.
That's a key reason why mirrorless makes a difference.
And what difference does it make ?
You may mount ALL other (older or not) lenses -including Leica M- and you may seriously reduce size of lenses with short focal length.
Because if flange distance makes no difference in terms of size for lenses with, say, 60mm focal length or more, it may make a HUGE difference in size, weight, price (not to say quality) for shorter lenses.
Because you won't need that huge retro-focus.
Think of the 11-24mm with a 18mm flange distance mount. It could be 3 times smaller !
So, in my opinion, Canon should
- Work on sensor technology for sure (Dynamic range. Instant Electronic shutter. IBIS. ...They have DPAF already.) that would benefit both DSLR and Mirrorless
- Allow EVF on big pro DSLR, with full EF mount, to extend possibilities for Pros (and keep their investment)
- Add a true Mirrorless with Full frame sensor AND SMALLER MOUNT with serious EF adapter
- Do the last without compromising on ergonomic and reliability - 2 area where Sony obviously is nowhere close to Canon and that makes a huge difference for Pros and serious enthusiasts. I speak from experience.
Just my 2€cents...
I strongly disagree about a Mirrorless with EF mount.
What is the difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless ?
The names says it: The mirror.
Which has a few consequences:
- You need another way to view at the scene. Electronic viewfinder
- You need an AF that uses the main sensor itself, instead of a separate sensor
- You may decrease flange distance
I think we may all agree that Sensor improvements - which are certainly needed - make sense for DSLR as well as for mirrorless. So let's keep that outside of the discussion for now.
Today, a DSLR is able to do almost everything a mirrorless can do.
Add an electronic viewfinder, either internal -which Canon is working on with several patents to allow switching between reflex and electronic viewfinder- or external -think of the EV-DC2 attached to a DSLR- and you have it.
Then you have best of both worlds, don't you ?
Take a 1DXII with an EV-DC2 or - better - an internal switch to a secondary EVF, and you get best of both worlds.
I'd love to see that, by the way.
No improvement in size and weight for sure. But a beast of a camera.
So what do you MISS ? Why do you want a mirrorless, except for the EVF ?
A shorter flange distance.
That's a key reason why mirrorless makes a difference.
And what difference does it make ?
You may mount ALL other (older or not) lenses -including Leica M- and you may seriously reduce size of lenses with short focal length.
Because if flange distance makes no difference in terms of size for lenses with, say, 60mm focal length or more, it may make a HUGE difference in size, weight, price (not to say quality) for shorter lenses.
Because you won't need that huge retro-focus.
Think of the 11-24mm with a 18mm flange distance mount. It could be 3 times smaller !
So, in my opinion, Canon should
- Work on sensor technology for sure (Dynamic range. Instant Electronic shutter. IBIS. ...They have DPAF already.) that would benefit both DSLR and Mirrorless
- Allow EVF on big pro DSLR, with full EF mount, to extend possibilities for Pros (and keep their investment)
- Add a true Mirrorless with Full frame sensor AND SMALLER MOUNT with serious EF adapter
- Do the last without compromising on ergonomic and reliability - 2 area where Sony obviously is nowhere close to Canon and that makes a huge difference for Pros and serious enthusiasts. I speak from experience.
Just my 2€cents...
I'm not an expert and I am especially ignorant with reference to other brands' gear.
My question is: are there Non-EF lenses that a Canon user should want to use and that are not available with a Canon EF Mount?
If the answer is Yes, than a different mount + adapter should be the right choice.
If Canon glass is unmatched / unmatchable, who needs an adapter to use inferior glass?
_________________________
Another strategic option:
i. Canon will deliver in 2018 (and in the following years) more than one FF Mirrorless, both with EF Mount and with "short flange", compatible with adaptor (let's call it "EF-MFF")
ii. Canon will deliver, in the next months/years, the EF-MFF native version of all its existing EF lenses.
iii. Canon will eventually (2030?) stop selling EF Mount and EF Lenses.
=>
a. Canon users with EF-MFF mount will be able to use other shorter flange lenses via specific adapters (and EF lenses with the native adaptor, of course)
b. The investment needed to develop the EF-MFF lenses will be lower than starting from scratch
c. Canon users with EF Lenses or EF bodies won't be hurt
____________________________
If you like my idea, feel free to recommend me as a future member of Canon's Board of Directors.
My question is: are there Non-EF lenses that a Canon user should want to use and that are not available with a Canon EF Mount?
If the answer is Yes, than a different mount + adapter should be the right choice.
If Canon glass is unmatched / unmatchable, who needs an adapter to use inferior glass?
_________________________
Another strategic option:
i. Canon will deliver in 2018 (and in the following years) more than one FF Mirrorless, both with EF Mount and with "short flange", compatible with adaptor (let's call it "EF-MFF")
ii. Canon will deliver, in the next months/years, the EF-MFF native version of all its existing EF lenses.
iii. Canon will eventually (2030?) stop selling EF Mount and EF Lenses.
=>
a. Canon users with EF-MFF mount will be able to use other shorter flange lenses via specific adapters (and EF lenses with the native adaptor, of course)
b. The investment needed to develop the EF-MFF lenses will be lower than starting from scratch
c. Canon users with EF Lenses or EF bodies won't be hurt
____________________________
If you like my idea, feel free to recommend me as a future member of Canon's Board of Directors.
Why Canon should be interested in lenses it stopped to make thirty years ago (and which needs mechanical couplings to transfer settings from/to the camera), while making its actual remunerative line more cumbersome to use? Companies follow a business logic - not only a technical or nostalgic one. A new camera has to sell itself and its related products - lenses especially.mb66energy said:
And I write this owning several FD lenses which I still happily use on my FD cameras.
Good luck trying to use live view handheld using the 100-400neuroanatomist said:Except in Live View. Just sayin'.
I agree with most of this. However, as a user who has years of first hand experience with various mirrorless cameras from different manufacturers, I'd say there are a couple of things missing which most mirrorless users will expect, or pass the camera by -
- First and foremost, Canon must get 4K video at least on par with, if not significantly better than, their main rivals. They need to start taking this seriously again, because the people buying a mirrorless camera expect it. This requires no R&D, they already have the technology. This should be an obvious slam-dunk. The sensor should be designed with in mind this from the ground up. No significant crop and at least 10-bit 4:2:2 internal with a decent bitrate. And low rolling shutter.
- As a component of the above, they need focus peaking, zebras and LUT previews as a minimum. Scopes, etc. would put them ahead of Sony's Full Frame offerings.
- Eye-AF. Almost every prosumer level mirrorless has had this for at least 2 generations now. For someone of Canon's stature, it needs to be at least as good as the Sony A9/A7riii. Sony is killing it with this. Canon's Dual Pixel AF is probably inherently better than Sony's overall system. It just needs to be fast enough to compete with the competition on a full-on mirrorless model, with the subject's eye priority included. This needs to be for video too, then the system will be the best in the world.
- Weather sealing. One of the big advantages Canon has for pros is that the L-series lenses are nearly all weather/dust sealed (the competition lag a little currently in this area) so the body must be too to take advantage of this.
- Same compatibility with flash and other accessories as the current top of the range EOS line. Again, this is a huge advantage to Canon. Some, like Fuji and Sony are still struggling to get full flash compatibility.
- Must be speedy and responsive all round.
- IBIS is starting to be almost a universal standard in mirrorless. Fuji are about to release it, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic have had it for years. Again, Canon should go in right from the start and not play catch up. And not digital IBIS, that's BS. It needs a sensor which actually moves, like the competition.
With the lens mount, I think it needs to be fully EF compatible with no compromises in performance or image quality. That said, I think it would be OK if it were somehow adapted - not in a clunky way, but fully integrated, weather sealed, etc. Or some kind of 'dual mount'. The reason being, a lot of mirrorless guys like the ability to adapt lenses. Personally, having been there/done that, I'm not so keen with a modern sensor for all sorts of reasons, but I can't deny a percentage of the market does love that aspect. Combine with the benefits of EVF like focus peaking or electronic split view (like Fuji) for actually using old MF lenses fully and you have a winner. That said, personally, I'd be happy with EF mount - like you say, the huge advantage is the massive selection of great lenses already there.
Size/weight - Somewhere between the M5 and 5D would be perfect, I think. Weight is more important than size I think. Style-wise, I think an upsized M5 would be just dandy - very nice design, somewhere between retro and modern, and I speak as a Fuji fan, but I think gradually the move will be away from full-on retro and towards a subtle blend. Canon already nailed this with the M5. Looks are important in the mirrorless market, like it or not.
And for those who wonder why do this at all - that's clearly the view of someone who has not extensively used a well-designed mirrorless camera. There are many, many reasons which is why the market has grown so fast and I have no doubt whatsoever is the future of ILC photography, but the one I now find it hard to live without is purely technical - I get sharper handheld pictures due to lack of mirror slap. Oh, and some photographers who like to use ND filters love them because they can still see what they're doing and even shoot portraits with flash and AF/see their subject.
- First and foremost, Canon must get 4K video at least on par with, if not significantly better than, their main rivals. They need to start taking this seriously again, because the people buying a mirrorless camera expect it. This requires no R&D, they already have the technology. This should be an obvious slam-dunk. The sensor should be designed with in mind this from the ground up. No significant crop and at least 10-bit 4:2:2 internal with a decent bitrate. And low rolling shutter.
- As a component of the above, they need focus peaking, zebras and LUT previews as a minimum. Scopes, etc. would put them ahead of Sony's Full Frame offerings.
- Eye-AF. Almost every prosumer level mirrorless has had this for at least 2 generations now. For someone of Canon's stature, it needs to be at least as good as the Sony A9/A7riii. Sony is killing it with this. Canon's Dual Pixel AF is probably inherently better than Sony's overall system. It just needs to be fast enough to compete with the competition on a full-on mirrorless model, with the subject's eye priority included. This needs to be for video too, then the system will be the best in the world.
- Weather sealing. One of the big advantages Canon has for pros is that the L-series lenses are nearly all weather/dust sealed (the competition lag a little currently in this area) so the body must be too to take advantage of this.
- Same compatibility with flash and other accessories as the current top of the range EOS line. Again, this is a huge advantage to Canon. Some, like Fuji and Sony are still struggling to get full flash compatibility.
- Must be speedy and responsive all round.
- IBIS is starting to be almost a universal standard in mirrorless. Fuji are about to release it, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic have had it for years. Again, Canon should go in right from the start and not play catch up. And not digital IBIS, that's BS. It needs a sensor which actually moves, like the competition.
With the lens mount, I think it needs to be fully EF compatible with no compromises in performance or image quality. That said, I think it would be OK if it were somehow adapted - not in a clunky way, but fully integrated, weather sealed, etc. Or some kind of 'dual mount'. The reason being, a lot of mirrorless guys like the ability to adapt lenses. Personally, having been there/done that, I'm not so keen with a modern sensor for all sorts of reasons, but I can't deny a percentage of the market does love that aspect. Combine with the benefits of EVF like focus peaking or electronic split view (like Fuji) for actually using old MF lenses fully and you have a winner. That said, personally, I'd be happy with EF mount - like you say, the huge advantage is the massive selection of great lenses already there.
Size/weight - Somewhere between the M5 and 5D would be perfect, I think. Weight is more important than size I think. Style-wise, I think an upsized M5 would be just dandy - very nice design, somewhere between retro and modern, and I speak as a Fuji fan, but I think gradually the move will be away from full-on retro and towards a subtle blend. Canon already nailed this with the M5. Looks are important in the mirrorless market, like it or not.
And for those who wonder why do this at all - that's clearly the view of someone who has not extensively used a well-designed mirrorless camera. There are many, many reasons which is why the market has grown so fast and I have no doubt whatsoever is the future of ILC photography, but the one I now find it hard to live without is purely technical - I get sharper handheld pictures due to lack of mirror slap. Oh, and some photographers who like to use ND filters love them because they can still see what they're doing and even shoot portraits with flash and AF/see their subject.
Your comments in the initial post align well with my own views.
+++1 regarding your comments on the EVF. A fully featured EVF on a FF body is key. Over half my EF lenses are MF and I use manual focus more often than not. An EVF with features that assisted MF, for example being able to zoom in on the EVF image to nail focus would be really useful. The M5 EVF is an encouraging step by Canon in this respect.
I also agree about your statements on size/weight. Sure I like lighter gear - I use the 6D presently and would be happy for a FF mirrorless to be a similar or lighter weight. However I also value Canon ergonomics and reducing the body size too far is likely to be counter productive as regards controlling and holding the camera with many existing EF lenses. A body in the weight/size zone of current lighter DSLRs offers flexibility either to handle relatively larger lenses (e.g a fast prime or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom) but can also be a relatively compact and light setup if used with one of the smaller lighter EF lenses currently available (eg 40 f/2.8 or 24 f/2.8 IS).
As has been observed on multiple occasions on CR, Canon will not be able to keep everyone happy with one FF mirrorless body and it will be interesting to see how their mirrorless range unfolds going forward.
+++1 regarding your comments on the EVF. A fully featured EVF on a FF body is key. Over half my EF lenses are MF and I use manual focus more often than not. An EVF with features that assisted MF, for example being able to zoom in on the EVF image to nail focus would be really useful. The M5 EVF is an encouraging step by Canon in this respect.
I also agree about your statements on size/weight. Sure I like lighter gear - I use the 6D presently and would be happy for a FF mirrorless to be a similar or lighter weight. However I also value Canon ergonomics and reducing the body size too far is likely to be counter productive as regards controlling and holding the camera with many existing EF lenses. A body in the weight/size zone of current lighter DSLRs offers flexibility either to handle relatively larger lenses (e.g a fast prime or 70-200 f/2.8 zoom) but can also be a relatively compact and light setup if used with one of the smaller lighter EF lenses currently available (eg 40 f/2.8 or 24 f/2.8 IS).
As has been observed on multiple occasions on CR, Canon will not be able to keep everyone happy with one FF mirrorless body and it will be interesting to see how their mirrorless range unfolds going forward.
Keep it the same size....keep the EF mount.....so, what's the point?
I try to think about what a mirrorless camera could provide that I do not already have and all I come up with is spread of AF points and seeing exposure through an EVF. It would be nice to be able to look through a viewfinder and be able AF on close to the entire frame and see a representation of the image I am about to take.
Otherwise, I really do not read much of anything here that cannot also be applied to a dslr. As neuro has already said, switch to live view and our current bodies are mirrorless, even for my AF spread. I also like the talk about a modified hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder. That would be interesting. And by projecting information on the OVF screen, we already are starting to trend toward that hybrid situation.
So, very basic questions to ask, but "Why does removing the mirror make this better?" If you take size off the table, keep the EF mount, then I am not reading anything that necessitates removing the mirror. And I agree, I like the ergonomics of the current dslrs and I'd prefer an EF mount. Which is why I am happy with my dslr.
Conversely, "Why is the mirror better?" When the answer to this basic question is "it isn't better" then I can finally see the dslr to mirrorless transition. And then, it will mostly be to save money, moving parts, etc. Get into the mirror box, dedicated PDAF sensor, dedicated processor, etc, there probably is some savings.
So, this is a long way of saying, they had better nail that EVF and have it not only better than anything I've seen on the market to date but also mimic an OVF and save me some money while doing so. Otherwise, I'll never leave my dslr.
I try to think about what a mirrorless camera could provide that I do not already have and all I come up with is spread of AF points and seeing exposure through an EVF. It would be nice to be able to look through a viewfinder and be able AF on close to the entire frame and see a representation of the image I am about to take.
Otherwise, I really do not read much of anything here that cannot also be applied to a dslr. As neuro has already said, switch to live view and our current bodies are mirrorless, even for my AF spread. I also like the talk about a modified hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder. That would be interesting. And by projecting information on the OVF screen, we already are starting to trend toward that hybrid situation.
So, very basic questions to ask, but "Why does removing the mirror make this better?" If you take size off the table, keep the EF mount, then I am not reading anything that necessitates removing the mirror. And I agree, I like the ergonomics of the current dslrs and I'd prefer an EF mount. Which is why I am happy with my dslr.
Conversely, "Why is the mirror better?" When the answer to this basic question is "it isn't better" then I can finally see the dslr to mirrorless transition. And then, it will mostly be to save money, moving parts, etc. Get into the mirror box, dedicated PDAF sensor, dedicated processor, etc, there probably is some savings.
So, this is a long way of saying, they had better nail that EVF and have it not only better than anything I've seen on the market to date but also mimic an OVF and save me some money while doing so. Otherwise, I'll never leave my dslr.