Select Models wrote:

Yep... that's Britney with Al's Harley at the Hotwheels Supershoot in Fontana... and fur sure... Lacie Marie was ON FIRE at the SM Beverly Hills Supershoot... here's her pic from that shoot.



I used to have a Fuji many moons ago... but it was a DSLR Fuji S3...

Ah yes the S3, the Fuji version of the D100 which I still have.

Fuji has come a long ways since then and are basically innovating the mirrorless systems with sensor, EVF/OVF hybrid and lens technology, and not to forget customer feedback implementation on design and free firmware updates.

I was going thru some of shots today of Lacie Marie from three of your Select Model events. What a doll and beauty she is, and that sweet southern charm of hers is intoxicating.
Lacie Marie and Britney were a couple of your go-to girls for a while there.

Jason Haven wrote:
Anyone that knows me, knows I'm a big fan of mirrorless at this point.

Right before I jumped ship to Fuji's XF lineup, I was using a Canon 7D, some decent lenses... and a Fuji X100.

I found myself basically never using the 7D, because it was big and heavy, and as much as the focusing was nice, it was largely irrelevant, because I ended up not taking it anywhere.

Fuji introduces the X-Pro1 and a couple lightweight/high quality primes, and the rest is history.

Currently using an X-E2, along with a handful of lenses, and am enjoying it.

Some pros:
-size
-weight
-live exposure preview
-manual focus aids (makes using 'flawed' manual lenses a breeze)
-focus accuracy

Cons:
-focus speed*
-future security and stability

* - cameras like the A6000 and X-T1 certainly beat out some entry level DSLRs, but they can't keep up with your super pro bodies. BUT, on sensor phase detect is in it's infancy, and is already making pretty big strides. Combining phase detect with contrast detect also makes focusing incredibly accurate. No more frustratingly slightly back or front focused images.

DSLRs will continue to have advantage in certain genres. Mirrorless will have advantages in other genres.

I'm just happy there's choice. And I hope Fujifilm is around long enough to keep developing, improving, and producing equipment. They've been fairly quick to ditch some of their digital endeavors in the past, but it's looking good so far for the XF lineup, even if they aren't the most popular (Olympus and Sony basically own the market, as far as I know).

I couldn't agree more, I love my Fuji X system but will always have my Nikon DSLR waiting in the wings for that time I need to shoot the occasional sports event.

One thing you left out is the way Manual modes and legacy lenses works with the Focus Peaking and Split imaging for manual focus.
Also new higher end bodies like the X-T1, X100T are equipped with wi-fi control and intervalometer for those star gazing or clouded landscape motion shots.
The up coming X-Pro2 sometime late next year is "rumored" from reliable Fuji sources to have all the latest stuff along with a 24mp APS-C X-trans sensor. I'm guessing that will translate to a 24mp X-T2 this time next year.
The CEO and president of body design at Photokina touched on this for a second but saying it's sticking with 16mp "for now" and also stated that FF is not in the discussion as it would change the footprint or form factor of present bodies and lenses.
Fuji looks fully committed to the X series line and feedback and sales has kept that alive.

Art Silva wrote:
Big recognition for Mirrorless cameras from National Geographic.

Their choice for top 10 cameras for travel.
X-T1 and X-E2 tops the list

http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/tr … l-cameras/

I just had to chuckle at this since once again we have the dreaded raw v jpeg debate going on...AGAIN.  And here is a Nat Geo guy commenting on not only jpegs but from a crop sensor as well.  The horror!! 

"I love the X-E1 [precursor to the X-E2]. I love how portable it is, and the lens quality is outstanding. But the picture is the big thing—the images are really strong. I'm amazed at how little I have to correct them on the computer. Usually I shoot in RAW, but these Fujifilm cameras produce amazing JPEGs straight out of the camera." —Jonathan Irish, program director for National Geographic Adventures and contributing photographer for National Geographic Traveler

Mike Collins wrote:
I just had to chuckle at this since once again we have the dreaded raw v jpeg debate going on...AGAIN.  And here is a Nat Geo guy commenting on not only jpegs but from a crop sensor as well.  The horror!! 

"I love the X-E1 [precursor to the X-E2]. I love how portable it is, and the lens quality is outstanding. But the picture is the big thing—the images are really strong. I'm amazed at how little I have to correct them on the computer. Usually I shoot in RAW, but these Fujifilm cameras produce amazing JPEGs straight out of the camera." —Jonathan Irish, program director for National Geographic Adventures and contributing photographer for National Geographic Traveler

How is that funny?

I too have the X-E1 and I totally agree with every word in that quote. This is NOT a RAW vs. JPEG issue as you might think it is but rather the options you have that Fuji engineered to where you do not always need to shoot RAW to get great IQ.

I am an HUGE advocate of the virtues of shooting RAW but since shooting with the X-Trans sensors I find myself shooting 80% Jpeg full res. The out of camera quality and range is amazing and admittedly has since changed my tune but if I know I will be doing some pixel editing in post I will switch it to RAW, no question... but I guess you have to experience it for yourself to know what I and Mr. Irish are talking about. It is NOT a bash on Raw but rather the improvements made with Fuji Jpegs to give you a very high quality compressed option.

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
I'm hoping Olympus will tinker with a FF mirrorless to compete with Sony. They already have a lot of mirrorless technology when it comes to auto focusing speed and EVF.

Crossing my fingers!

The chief engineer at Fuji mentioned something about that when asked if "he" would have a FF out soon.
Interesting thing he said is that going FF would not only take up more power and memory and speed but it will also make the bodies bigger and the whole idea behind mirror less is to get DSLR quality in a much smaller package.
Lens and sensor dimensions/distances would change a bit on top of costing us much more.

Olympus from what I see are tiny little beasts and they to would have to increase in physical size as well as put out a new lens line if they went FF.

From what I have seen in the last two years, for most applications FF is overkill when the APS-C sensors are just as good and sometimes better than some FF sensors in IQ.

Before I went mirrorless I was hoping FF would make its way in but now I see no reason for me to consider FF. My APS-C is the best sensor I have used to date and for a compact street camera, you need nothing more.

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
I'm hoping Olympus will tinker with a FF mirrorless to compete with Sony. They already have a lot of mirrorless technology when it comes to auto focusing speed and EVF.

Crossing my fingers!

If they do, I'm probably going to jump ship. I shoot Sony now because the print quality is the best, at least at large sizes. But for a guy who primarily used manual cameras from 6-19, and then again from 25-31, the Fuji cameras just feel more 'correct' than anything else. Not counting nitty-gritty menu controls, I think the learning curve on the X-E2 was about two minutes for me!

Art Silva wrote:
Interesting thing he said is that going FF would not only take up more power and memory and speed but it will also make the bodies bigger and the whole idea behind mirror less is to get DSLR quality in a much smaller package.

Well Sony had no trouble:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#520,488

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
I'm hoping Olympus will tinker with a FF mirrorless to compete with Sony. They already have a lot of mirrorless technology when it comes to auto focusing speed and EVF.

Crossing my fingers!

And that focusing speed comes from using tiny sensors that can run really fast.
Won't scale up to FF

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
I'm hoping Olympus will tinker with a FF mirrorless to compete with Sony. They already have a lot of mirrorless technology when it comes to auto focusing speed and EVF.

Crossing my fingers!

I for one hope they do not!!

The micro four thirds technology has a real future where FF is at a dead end without actual innovation. It's really just a matter of the lenses now...the Otus stuff is amazing and bests many offerings from the MF sector.

Smaller lenses, smaller accessories, 5 Axis IS, better build/weather resistant, far more useful features and a pretty good tethered shooting software.

For FF cameras there are plenty of choices...I wish people would stop trying to turn Honda's into Ferrari's.

Art Silva wrote:

How is that funny?

I too have the X-E1 and I totally agree with every word in that quote. This is NOT a RAW vs. JPEG issue as you might think it is but rather the options you have that Fuji engineered to where you do not always need to shoot RAW to get great IQ.

I am an HUGE advocate of the virtues of shooting RAW but since shooting with the X-Trans sensors I find myself shooting 80% Jpeg full res. The out of camera quality and range is amazing and admittedly has since changed my tune but if I know I will be doing some pixel editing in post I will switch it to RAW, no question... but I guess you have to experience it for yourself to know what I and Mr. Irish are talking about. It is NOT a bash on Raw but rather the improvements made with Fuji Jpegs to give you a very high quality compressed option.

Man.  BIG hand going over my head.  I wasn't disagreeing with quote. I was pointing out that even people at Nat Geo don't have a problem with smaller cameras/sensors OR shooting in jpeg and here we mere mortal debate the jpeg v raw thing and crop sensor v FF on a weekly bases.   Good lord dude.  Get a sense of humor and look up the word "sarcasm". 

I shoot with cropped cameras AND jpegs professionally all the time.

Leighthenubian wrote:
The micro four thirds technology has a real future where FF is at a dead end without actual innovation. It's really just a matter of the lenses now...the Otus stuff is amazing and bests many offerings from the MF sector.

Full frame is at a dead end?

Lets see:

Worlds best lenses: Full frame. Leica, Zeiss Otus and 135mm f2, some Nikon and Canon. No 43 lenses that come close to Otus in both bokeh and LoCA. No 43 ons with the bokeh of the faster FF lenses.

Body innovation: Rdical... Sony A7, A7r and A7s, Leica Monochrome
Incremental: Nikon D800, D750, D810. Amazing image quality focusing system

Fred Greissing wrote:
Full frame is at a dead end?

Lets see:

Worlds best lenses: Full frame. Leica, Zeiss Otus and 135mm f2, some Nikon and Canon. No 43 lenses that come close to Otus in both bokeh and LoCA. No 43 ons with the bokeh of the faster FF lenses.

Body innovation: Rdical... Sony A7, A7r and A7s, Leica Monochrome
Incremental: Nikon D800, D750, D810. Amazing image quality focusing system

LOL ahh Fred...I saw you coming before you woke up out of bed.

I've used the 55 Otus on a Nikon body...and the A7r...

There will always be a market for those who want to breathe rarified air. I drive a Jag XKR...ragtop because I can but plenty of other rides will get me to my shoots, make me money etc.

The sweet spot in the market is shifting now to some point between M4/3 and APSc. There will be more "seasoning" of products as time goes on.

Just a thought or two:

Most of the people here don't make enough money to buy the top shelf stuff Zeiss makes for DSLR cameras and the truth is that most mainstream lenses from Canon and Nikon need to be stopped down to get the best performance.

Second...unless you are making very high quality large prints it's unlikely that most viewers will notice the benefits at WEB sizes. Matter of fact I think the overall image quality requirements in the marketplace will decrease in the future.

So where is full frame going from here without a significant retool?

Keep in mind, I still use a PhaseOne system..rarely. Used DSLRs for many years and now using M4/3 and APSc for paying work.

Leighthenubian wrote:
Second...unless you are making very high quality large prints it's unlikely that most viewers will notice the benefits at WEB sizes. Matter of fact I think the overall image quality requirements in the marketplace will decrease in the future.

IMO really nice bokeh makes a significant difference when images are printed or displayed small.
Gives more depth and a more dimentional look.

Leica Nocticron 1.2 micro 43 lens very poor LoCA IMO




Zeiss 135mm F2 FF lens

Way cleaner and much nicer bokeh




Leica/Panasonic Nocticron $ 1.600

Zeiss $ 2,100

Not a huge price difference.... big quality difference

Fred Greissing wrote:

IMO really nice bokeh makes a significant difference when images are printed or displayed small.
Gives more depth and a more dimentional look.

Leica Nocticron 1.2 micro 43 lens very poor LoCA IMO




Zeiss 135mm F2 FF lens

Way cleaner and much nicer bokeh




Leica/Panasonic Nocticron $ 1.600

Zeiss $ 2,100

Not a huge price difference.... big quality difference

Which M4/3 body was the lens tested on if I may ask?

Leighthenubian wrote:

I for one hope they do not!!

The micro four thirds technology has a real future where FF is at a dead end without actual innovation. It's really just a matter of the lenses now...the Otus stuff is amazing and bests many offerings from the MF sector.

Smaller lenses, smaller accessories, 5 Axis IS, better build/weather resistant, far more useful features and a pretty good tethered shooting software.

For FF cameras there are plenty of choices...I wish people would stop trying to turn Honda's into Ferrari's.

I don't believe FFs are at a dead end. On the contrary, FF mirrorless cameras will create a larger market with a lower price.

Of course, in order for Olympus to go with a FF camera they will have to use a larger body but it would still have a smaller foot print than a conventional APS DSLR.

Given the financial difficulties Olympus is having, it's unlikely that they will make the move to developing a FF mirrorless camera, but I am crossing my fingers.

Bare Essential Photos wrote:

I don't believe FFs are at a dead end. On the contrary, FF mirrorless cameras will create a larger market with a lower price.

Of course, in order for Olympus to go with a FF camera they will have to use a larger body but it would still have a smaller foot print than a conventional APS DSLR.

Given the financial difficulties Olympus is having, it's unlikely that they will make the move to developing a FF mirrorless camera, but I am crossing my fingers.

my good man...all of the camera manufacturers are having financial issues even the MF guys. Noticed how "cheap" the new stuff is from Pentax, PO and Hassey are these days?

Olympus has no plans to go bigger. The E-M1 came from a larger APSC body and the market is rising for small form factor gear. If they did for some strange reason I would go back to Canon right away.

Leighthenubian wrote:
my good man...all of the camera manufacturers are having financial issues even the MF guys. Noticed how "cheap" the new stuff is from Pentax, PO and Hassey are these days?

Olympus has no plans to go bigger. The E-M1 came from a larger APSC body and the market is rising for small form factor gear. If they did for some strange reason I would go back to Canon right away.

The market that is rising for small gear has nothing to do with the 4/3 system or full frame. It's about the size factor. My point is, full frame is not going down due to whatever. And the 4/3 for damn sure isn't playing a factor in this. Sony and Fuji, like Olympus, found their niche. From my observation, the one that's benefiting from the small camera system is Sony. I see more non Sony user from Nikon and Canon, either switch or add the A and NEX series to compliment their other camera system than the other mirrorless systems.

Olympus has no plans to go bigger because they revamped their entire dslr system when they made the 4/3 system.

Fred Greissing wrote:

Well Sony had no trouble:

http://camerasize.com/compare/#520,488

Lens design for that format helps, where established crop sensor systems are optimized for that.
Optics and rear element to sensor specs would have to change drastically in order to drop a FF sensor in them... Sony had this planned from the beginning and went directly for the compact FF design... but also look at the price point, something Sony is able to afford to risk.

Mike Collins wrote:

Man.  BIG hand going over my head.  I wasn't disagreeing with quote. I was pointing out that even people at Nat Geo don't have a problem with smaller cameras/sensors OR shooting in jpeg and here we mere mortal debate the jpeg v raw thing and crop sensor v FF on a weekly bases.   Good lord dude.  Get a sense of humor and look up the word "sarcasm". 

I shoot with cropped cameras AND jpegs professionally all the time.

Sorry if I misread you but I'm usually the first to be the sarcastic one and usually pick up on others.
I don't know you or your camera choices but your post DID come across as a rip.
...Just so you know.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
Who dictates the new designs? Consumers or manufacturers?

Well, in broad daylight, do photographers prefer to look at what they're shooting at from an LCD screen on the back of the camera or into a viewfinder with an electronic screen on a mirrorless camera, or do photographers prefer to look at what they're shooting at through a viewfinder with the image reflected from a mirror?

That answer pretty much determines the market, and the one that sells more, is the one that will be manufactured in larger numbers.   Me, I can see the image much better through the viewfinder than I can on the back of a camera.

mophotoart wrote:
when I get to borrow a mirrorless camera and lenses from a pro, (and they have let me use their lenses and bodies for years) I might be able to chime in on this...but at this point...I do not know anyone that makes money in photography that has gotten rid of their dslr and lenses and are jumping onto the bandwagon...small sounds great, but its too new, and point/shoot and iphones are claiming the same quality..where will it go...well...when the pros start using it and the industry critics agree...then I might check it out

Well you should get out and meet more working professionals. I personally know over 50 published photographers who are completely mirrorless, including me.

I recently completed and entire portrait update for 400 key employees for one of our transportation services with an E-M1. Posters, intranet profile pics, etc. Countless other assignments in the last year with mirrorless too.

Making money in photography has very little to do with your camera choice by the way.

Art Silva wrote:
Sorry if I misread you but I'm usually the first to be the sarcastic one and usually pick up on others.
I don't know you or your camera choices but your post DID come across as a rip.
...Just so you know.

I said I chuckled because I read about a Nat Geo guy using and liking jpegs and crop sensors compared to the all the people on here who always debate these things is a rip? 

Read it this way.  "Hey all you jpeg and crop sensor haters.  Here is a Nat Geo guy saying you CAN get great jpegs out of your cameras.  Even your smaller body cropped sensor cameras.  If he has no problem with them I'm not sure why you guys do."

Better?  If anything, I was ripping on raw only and FF only shooters. 

Ironically, Forums can be the worst place for communication.

Mike Collins wrote:
Read it this way.  "Hey all you jpeg and crop sensor haters.  Here is a Nat Geo guy saying you CAN get great jpegs out of your cameras.  Even your smaller body cropped sensor cameras.  If he has no problem with them I'm not sure why you guys do."

36 MP travel images will have more marketability. Think double pages... think posters.

For personal use as a travel camera ... fine... unless you like to print some of those travel images large.....

A nice sidekick to a Fuji system for landscape would be a small robotic gigapixel tripod head. However one would have to use lenses that don't need much software correction. That eliminates quite a few lenses that are designed to have correction done to them.

Fred Greissing wrote:

36 MP travel images will have more marketability. Think double pages... think posters.

For personal use as a travel camera ... fine... unless you like to print some of those travel images large.....

A nice sidekick to a Fuji system for landscape would be a small robotic gigapixel tripod head. However one would have to use lenses that don't need much software correction. That eliminates quite a few lenses that are designed to have correction done to them.

But Fred...I've done all that with a 12MP camera...countless billboards were done with less than that too.

Still not hearing how FF has any more innovation left...I think it's time the manufacturers rip up the existing playbook and give us something truly new...

M4/3 is going open-source by the way. Perfect for smart people to build next gen camera systems that markets actually want/need.

Leighthenubian wrote:
But Fred...I've done all that with a 12MP camera...countless billboards were done with less than that too.

Anyone that has worked on traditional or digital billboards know they don't require very high resolution.


Billboards are viewed by the public from far away..... pretty much the equivalent of looking at a 1/8 or the page of a magazine.

Mike Collins wrote:

I said I chuckled because I read about a Nat Geo guy using and liking jpegs and crop sensors compared to the all the people on here who always debate these things is a rip? 

Read it this way.  "Hey all you jpeg and crop sensor haters.  Here is a Nat Geo guy saying you CAN get great jpegs out of your cameras.  Even your smaller body cropped sensor cameras.  If he has no problem with them I'm not sure why you guys do."

Better?  If anything, I was ripping on raw only and FF only shooters. 

Ironically, Forums can be the worst place for communication.

Gotcha, all good!

Fred Greissing wrote:

Anyone that has worked on traditional or digital billboards know they don't require very high resolution.


Billboards are viewed by the public from far away..... pretty much the equivalent of looking at a 1/8 or the page of a magazine.

Yes. I just did an assignment for a local real estate brokerage which is now displayed on a billboard. Mind you it's a composite of several images but shot with my E-M1.

I've done posters with it for Comicon for various clients...no problem.

We have long ago passed the point of sufficiency in camera gear. I think that was done with the original 5D classic...I'm just wondering where FF goes from here.

Leighthenubian wrote:

Yes. I just did an assignment for a local real estate brokerage which is now displayed on a billboard. Mind you it's a composite of several images but shot with my E-M1.

I've done posters with it for Comicon for various clients...no problem.

We have long ago passed the point of sufficiency in camera gear. I think that was done with the original 5D classic...I'm just wondering where FF goes from here.

FF and MF and all the other formats should just keep going with their evolution.

FF cameras are quieter, more affordable and waaaay better at high ISO than they used to be. And they beat smaller-sensor cameras in the ISO battles.

Both FF and MF accomplish things with DOF that is quite difficult to do with smaller sensors. Only a few lenses in the small-sensor field really produce the pleasing DOF available with, say, a D800 and an 85mm f1.4.

FF DSLR makers need to think long and hard about size. Do they really NEED all that bulk? I've noticed that Nikon and Canon are both slimming down some of their FF options.

They also have a ways to go in adapting their lenses. Too many are still too big and too cumbersome. Some manufacturers are making great glass that isn't quite as huge, but it's a mammoth challenge to the optics. And some lenses just never will be all that small.

I think FF DSLRs could be lighter. Not everything is better when it's heavier, so I think we may see some changes there.

Until the mirrorless cameras truly do exceed what the DSLRs can do, the inherent strengths in flexibility and ruggedness will attract a big enough market to keep them going.

To me, improvements in size and weight can keep the market living even longer. After all, a Nikon F wasn't a huge camera. Figuring out where to stuff all the electronics is the key.

Michael McGowan wrote:

FF and MF and all the other formats should just keep going with their evolution.

FF cameras are quieter, more affordable and waaaay better at high ISO than they used to be. And they beat smaller-sensor cameras in the ISO battles.

Both FF and MF accomplish things with DOF that is quite difficult to do with smaller sensors. Only a few lenses in the small-sensor field really produce the pleasing DOF available with, say, a D800 and an 85mm f1.4.

FF DSLR makers need to think long and hard about size. Do they really NEED all that bulk? I've noticed that Nikon and Canon are both slimming down some of their FF options.

They also have a ways to go in adapting their lenses. Too many are still too big and too cumbersome. Some manufacturers are making great glass that isn't quite as huge, but it's a mammoth challenge to the optics. And some lenses just never will be all that small.

I think FF DSLRs could be lighter. Not everything is better when it's heavier, so I think we may see some changes there.

Until the mirrorless cameras truly do exceed what the DSLRs can do, the inherent strengths in flexibility and ruggedness will attract a big enough market to keep them going.

To me, improvements in size and weight can keep the market living even longer. After all, a Nikon F wasn't a huge camera. Figuring out where to stuff all the electronics is the key.

Thanks for this..much more thoughtful answers than others here.

So I agree and disagree...I really do not think M4/3 and other mirrorless format (Sony excepted) are trying to beat the IQ of DSLR's. The best FF sensors don't do a very good job with mainstream lenses. You have to drain your line of credit for an Otus to see the very best that the D800 series can deliver. But then you have other factors such as the design around the sensor that holds you back. Shot discipline becomes very important..The Sony A7 series was a real good idea but the design around it sucks and they aren't exactly faithful in lens mounts/offerings.

When do you suppose "Keystoning" will be available on DSLR's?

Leighthenubian wrote:
So I agree and disagree...I really do not think M4/3 and other mirrorless format (Sony excepted) are trying to beat the IQ of DSLR's. The best FF sensors don't do a very good job with mainstream lenses. You have to drain your line of credit for an Otus to see the very best that the D800 series can deliver. But then you have other factors such as the design around the sensor that holds you back. Shot discipline becomes very important..The Sony A7 series was a real good idea but the design around it sucks and they aren't exactly faithful in lens mounts/offerings.

When do you suppose "Keystoning" will be available on DSLR's?

I have no idea what you're on about.  Really, I don't.  And looking over it, I'm not sure that you do.

So you say here that Sony is the only company trying to make a mirrorless with better IQ than DSLRs?  But earlier you said that aside from Sony, mirrorless cameras were just as good for professional work as DSLRs.  So which is it, because it can't be both?

Secondly, why is a mirrorless camera competing with an SLR a bad thing?  Seriously, please tell me, because I don't understand.  Is it necessary to have two different classes of camera when one will do?  You mentioned you drive an XK, but that's a luxury car ... why does it need to have a powerful engine?  Is it trying to compete with a sports car?  You bought a car that was sort of 'in between' ... so now why are you coming down so hard on people that bought a camera the same way?

Lastly, you don't need obscure lenses for a FF camera.  You just don't.  That's some bullshit the manufacturers tell you to sell more lenses.  Is it a better lens?  Hey, maybe!  But it's marketed as 'being designed to allow for full resolution from a full frame camera.'  They don't say that because it's true - they say that because people will hear that, and think the opposite:  that if they don't use that lens, they won't have full resolution.  It's marketing, and you've been had.

I'm going to be honest here ... your responses make it sound like you have some sort of a grudge.  Not against Sony - against anybody that shoots anything other than an Olympus m4/3rds camera, and fails to understand how backwards they are for doing so.  You won't convince anybody that way.

Great, you're happy.  Let it go.  The more you push the issue, the more we're going to think that you're the most transparent Olympus shill ever.

Zack Zoll wrote:

I have no idea what you're on about.  Really, I don't.  And looking over it, I'm not sure that you do.

So you say here that Sony is the only company trying to make a mirrorless with better IQ than DSLRs?  But earlier you said that aside from Sony, mirrorless cameras were just as good for professional work as DSLRs.  So which is it, because it can't be both?

Secondly, why is a mirrorless camera competing with an SLR a bad thing?  Seriously, please tell me, because I don't understand.  Is it necessary to have two different classes of camera when one will do?  You mentioned you drive an XK, but that's a luxury car ... why does it need to have a powerful engine?  Is it trying to compete with a sports car?  You bought a car that was sort of 'in between' ... so now why are you coming down so hard on people that bought a camera the same way?

Lastly, you don't need obscure lenses for a FF camera.  You just don't.  That's some bullshit the manufacturers tell you to sell more lenses.  Is it a better lens?  Hey, maybe!  But it's marketed as 'being designed to allow for full resolution from a full frame camera.'  They don't say that because it's true - they say that because people will hear that, and think the opposite:  that if they don't use that lens, they won't have full resolution.  It's marketing, and you've been had.

I'm going to be honest here ... your responses make it sound like you have some sort of a grudge.  Not against Sony - against anybody that shoots anything other than an Olympus m4/3rds camera, and fails to understand how backwards they are for doing so.  You won't convince anybody that way.

Great, you're happy.  Let it go.  The more you push the issue, the more we're going to think that you're the most transparent Olympus shill ever.

LOL dude...check your medicine cabinet for the valium.

I'm all for choices in the camera world. What I don't like is paying increasing amounts of money for warmed over technology year after year.

My point with mirrorless is that by scrapping all that old DSLR bs it forced some real innovation to take place. My objection to some of the things said was purely to the fallback argument about sensor size, dof yada yada yada. If those were the only things a camera was measured by then film would still be dominant.

All that discussion and the only thing you got was my car and you didn't even get that right...it's an XKR. Look it up, it's not an in-between anything.

Maybe you have a reading and comprehension problem?

Good Egg Productions wrote:
[snipped]
Here's one problem with using an EVF with strobes. I want to shoot at f/8 and 1/200 at ISO 200. With an EVF, I can't see what I'm shooting because at those settings, the EVF is black.  Luckily, my mirrorless also has an OVF (Fuji X100S) so I can see.

I found that out recently. Mine (EM1) has an auto luminance feature that brightens the viewfinder in those situations, and I have a "preset" that can be recalled for studio stuff with that feature turned on. But yeah, it's an extra thing to have to think about.

EDIT: Sorry I see this has already been covered in previous posts