A couple of questions showing my ignorance

[Sash]

Mirrorless have one huge advantage over DSLRs - manufacture costs. As soon as they catch up with DSLRs in AF , the laws of economics will make it very difficult for DSLRs to compete. It is cheaper  to manufacture a mirrorless camera of the same class, and it is cheaper to manufacture a similar lense for a mirrorless camera. Whatever way you look at DSLR, regardless of how much you admire it, it is still a XX century film camera with a sensor stuck into it.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Nobody denies mirrorless cameras might be simpler and hence less expensive to produce. Still quite moot as long as their finder(s) are problematic. EVFs are getting better, though. And handling any camera outside the envelope the manufacturer envisioned, for example, in cold weather, often finds a bigger camera better. Try using gloves or mittens when shooting to illustrate this aspect.


" it is cheaper to manufacture a similar lense for a mirrorless camera" - not necessarily true. For some lenses, probably the opposite.

These DSLR/Mirrorless discussions really lead nowhere. We cannot predict the future. Digital photography is still in its infancy. Really the current state of the  digital  art is like film-based photography 100+ years ago.

Besides, 100-150 years ago, people used the gear at hand to make great images. The same is possible today no matter what technology or format one uses. Much better use of time than discussing which system is old-fashioned or not.

[Erik Lund]

Erik. Why is that so? And why should it not be possible on a Sony?

It is definitely possible with/on a Sony but for several reasons it's an unlikely route for Sony and for third party lens designers.

Price, the Leica M lenses are super expensive, around three times that of Zeiss. The cost goes to cover the Leica M philosophy; Range Finder, simple to use, very compact, discrete and super high image quality also a more or less manual production line... designing and actually being able to produce in small series, lenses with floating elements that small and with so tight tolerances is no easy task...
The lens and camera/sensor is an integral designed part for Leica, the micro lenses, extremely thin sensor cover glass...
These are also why they keep getting into trouble.
M8 IR issues, M9 sensor cover glass corrosion etc...
But apparently Leica gets away with it despite the prices and the hick ups...

Sony is aiming at super high technology with all the bells and whistles; super auto focus, WiFi, tons of special functionality in the menus, etc... sure they want compact but not that small... and not at the price

Zeiss aim for super high image quality, but are not able to cut the size and weight at the price level they are on, to be competitive with the original manufacturer prices...

[Erik Lund]

Mirrorless have one huge advantage over DSLRs - manufacture costs. As soon as they catch up with DSLRs in AF , the laws of economics will make it very difficult for DSLRs to compete. It is cheaper  to manufacture a mirrorless camera of the same class, and it is cheaper to manufacture a similar lense for a mirrorless camera. Whatever way you look at DSLR, regardless of how much you admire it, it is still a XX century film camera with a sensor stuck into it.

Sorry you miss the point completely! We are not preaching here!

It has very little to do with cost of manufacturing or AF catching up...

It's about over all usability!

If an EVS system comes along that is better or equal to an OVF we will see a change but so what...

Why is it you think the world is DSLR vs Mirrorless? - They live superbly side by side already 

[Sash]

Besides, 100-150 years ago, people used the gear at hand to make great images. The same is possible today no matter what technology or format one uses. Much better use of time than discussing which system is old-fashioned or not.

I rarely talk about cameras and do not understand much about it. I do not like just two things - darkroom and big heavy bodies/lenses. Other than that I do not mind shooting with whatever Is at hand.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Sometimes having a heavy camera is an advantage. Sometimes having a heavy lens is an advantage. Sometimes the previous is the opposite thus showing the fallacy of blanket statements.

[Erik Lund]

... Other than that I do not mind shooting with whatever Is at hand.

Then you have found the right site to join

We will shoot with anything here!

[Frank Fremerey]

Erik. Thank you.

The Otus series shows that Zeiss can get away with  Leica Style pricing. Yet  they did not manage to make the lenses
small. For Fuji X the Zeiss lenses are much smaller.

then we have exceptional small AF glass from Olympus like the 75 Zuiko. You say  longer focal lengths are no problem though.

also the 40 to 150 pro Zuiko can obviouly fulfil  highest  expextations.

there was a time when Oly was one of the best lens manufacturers in the 24x36 qmm world also in wide angles like the famous 3.5/21 Zuiko.

They were not cheap but they were able to compete with Leica in quality without the exorbitant price tag

[Sash]

Sometimes having a heavy camera is an advantage. Sometimes having a heavy lens is an advantage. Sometimes the previous is the opposite thus showing the fallacy of blanket statements.

Where did I state that heavy camera is always a disadvantage??? I am just saying that I DO NOT LIKE heavy cameras and lenses. Please read again carefully before jumping to accusations. 

I just wrote one post about cameras here and was accused of preaching, of "seeing the world as Mirrorless against DSLRs"( I doubt you know how I see the world), of "showing the fallacy of blanket statements" and talking about cameras too much instead of going out and shooting.

Oh, thank you very much.

I have my opinions, my preferences and my shooting style, and it looks like I better keep it under wraps on this forum. Thank you.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Nobody has accused you of anything. Please read the posts again. I commented on a general level.

To be more specific, NG is supposed to be a forum in which people can disagree violently, yet still be friends. There is no need for everybody to march unison in one direction as it were.

[Erik Lund]

Sometimes having a heavy camera is an advantage. Sometimes having a heavy lens is an advantage. Sometimes the previous is the opposite thus showing the fallacy of blanket statements.

Where did I state that heavy camera is always a disadvantage??? I am just saying that I DO NOT LIKE heavy cameras and lenses. Please read again carefully before jumping to accusations. 

I just wrote one post about cameras here and was accused of preaching, of "seeing the world as Mirrorless against DSLRs"( I doubt you know how I see the world), of "showing the fallacy of blanket statements" and talking about cameras too much instead of going out and shooting.

Oh, thank you very much.

I have my opinions, my preferences and my shooting style, and it looks like I better keep it under wraps on this forum. Thank you.

Sorry you miss the point completely! We are not preaching here!

It has very little to do with cost of manufacturing or AF catching up...

It's about over all usability!

If an EVS system comes along that is better or equal to an OVF we will see a change but so what...

Why is it you think the world is DSLR vs Mirrorless? - They live superbly side by side already 

Please re read what I wrote! : We are not preaching here! as in: I am not and I know that neither is Bjørn!

It was not an acquisition meant at you!

[Erik Lund]

Erik. Thank you.

The Otus series shows that Zeiss can get away with  Leica Style pricing. Yet  they did not manage to make the lenses
small. For Fuji X the Zeiss lenses are much smaller.

then we have exceptional small AF glass from Olympus like the 75 Zuiko. You say  longer focal lengths are no problem though.

also the 40 to 150 pro Zuiko can obviouly fulfil  highest  expextations.

there was a time when Oly was one of the best lens manufacturers in the 24x36 qmm world also in wide angles like the famous 3.5/21 Zuiko.

They were not cheap but they were able to compete with Leica in quality without the exorbitant price tag

Yes the new Zeiss Otus approach Leica prices... SLR not short focal length...

The old OM lenses was/are similar in size to Nikkor F-mount lenses and yes before digital many of them where highly regarded on film... SLR not short focal length...

Should we try to write up an 'Executive summary'?....

[Frank Fremerey]

I feel it is not easy to understand complex matter that justifies a FAQ.

Erik. Feature Request. FAQ section on technicalities like these.

Also an article on formats and empty magnification by the fiercebear.

PS. Some claim the Zuiko OM Film optics are still very good on Digital bodies

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I occasionally use a Olympus OM 28/3.5 and Shift 35/2.8 on my Nikons. Both are very good, but a little lacking in getting top marks in their respective class. Still more than nice enough for their intended purpose.

[tommiejeep]

Interesting take on quality vs size (particularly lens size) from Fuji
 http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/

For what I shoot (fast action) and how I shoot , I cannot see myself giving up my DSLRs anytime soon. I really cannot live with the EVF at the moment.  Probably not in my lifetime  .  What I do like about the better EVFs, for certain types of shooting,  I seeing my setting adjustments to the image in real time.

 I still think that Nikon needs to compete.  Biggest waste of time for me is Nikon continuing to try and compete in Video.  Several other manufacturers are miles ahead.  Offer vid on consumer/entry levels but not on all high end bodies.  I can buy a great , small, high performance video camera for relatively little money. 
Just my 2 rupees,
Tom
ps Quite some time back I posted a size weight comparison of my gripped EM1,12-40 2.8 vs my D7100, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 |C on a well known Mirrorless Forum and had one reply .  Not what they wanted to see