Woody said:
Generalized Specialist said:
Like I said, Canon is the new Kodak.
Are MILCs game-changing like film to digital sensors, or are they are merely another evolutionary step in the digital sensor era?
Doesn't matter what you say. Canon just needs to secure another year of 50% market share.
Going from analog/film photography to digital was the biggest step transferring imaging from 18th century tech into the 21st century. Similar to the control of fire for mankind.
Getting rid of mechanically moving elements - basically the 19th/early 20th century stuff in imaging gear - is akin to mankind inventing the wheel. Finally we get "thru the lens" autofocus, auto-metering and wysiwg viewfinders without needing any of the follwing: no more clunky mirrors, submirrors, heavy prisms, dislocated AF-systems out of plane of focus of image.
Why is mirrorless an total win?
* vibration-free operation [as soon as mech shutters are finally eliminated]
* absolutely silent operation
* no more back-/front focus issues
* WYSIWIG viewfinder
* no lubricants/oil splatters [ (c) Nikon], no grit/abrasive particles from mech movement in camera settling on sensor
* easy to wheatherseal, robust, solid state cameras
* significantly lower manufacturing cost - 100% robotic assembly possible, much simpler calibration and QC
* potentially (!) lower cost of cameras - if we, the customers - stand up and don't allow manufacturers to just pocket all of the cost savings themselves / for shareholders
* significantly smaller & lighter cameras
* significantly smaller lenses in most commonly used focal length range [about 20 to 85 mm FL range] - if mount parameters [FFD, throat width] are chosen wisely and matched to image circle [i.e. not using mounts designed for APS-C for FF sensors]
plus a few more advantages that all make a difference every time we pick up a camera, lug it around and with potentially every image we take.