If I'm spending my money, then it is about what I want. If there are too few people that also buy what I want, the product might not be developed, but otherwise, I do count. I vote with my money.bfitzgerald wrote: It's not about what you or I want, but what the general public want.
Depending upon the preferences of the user, it could be an alternative, a replacement, or an addition. Or unnecessary.I don't have a problem with mirrorless, but I see it for what it is, an alternative and in some cases it might make an ok addition to DSLR users.
If you have to boil it down, I think it's mostly size and weight. There are events where size doesn't matter and I could have a larger camera, but a lot of the time, I appreciate the reduced weight walking around, and other times where the small size means I can stuff it into a jacket pocket, carry more easily on a plane, etc. Yes, travel was a big factor -- travel with something a bit more manageable. I think this could be a big motivator for some people.What I don't see is a compelling reason for users like myself to ditch their DSLR type bodies and go for an ILC model. I just don't see the advantages.
If you need small that's great travel shooter completely understand it.
If you half-press and pre-focus, there's almost no lag time. It's fast, but maybe unnecessary. Now that I'm used to DMF and the focus magnification, it's hard to go back to an OVF. You just can't have peaking and focus magnification in a normal DSLR OVF, and while people have long praised OVF over EVF, the OVFs in small DSLRs are smaller, so it's not like everything DSLR is perfect.But from a practical perspective what does mirrorless offer me that I can't do with DSLR?
But in general, I'd say that if you like the size and weight of the DSLR, there's no advantage. The DSLR generally has an advantage with tracking AF, and overall speed if you get the more expensive models, but the mirrorless models are getting better at this.
I don't think it's even just "bargain hunters" that want legacy glass, but a lot of collectors and enthusiasts, many of which used such lenses with manual focus years ago. The A-mount adapters give the E-mount access to a full range of lenses; this is especially important at the tele end of things, IMO.Bar a far smaller range of lenses. There are adaptors out there for older glass fine bargain hunters might find some use for it.
Once attached, the flash is not glued to the system -- you can remove it for times in which you don't want the bulk. Same for long, tele lenses. Most of the time, the built-in flash is sufficient, and in some models, you can actually "bounce" it. You might be thinking the built-in flash is not as good as the unbalanced external flash, and you'd be right -- there is some compromise, but not everything needs to be the ultimate quality ready for publishing in National Geographic. You might be surprised at how well high ISO can make up the difference for both large lenses and flashes.How small is small enough? If I put a flash on a mirrorless body it's unbalanced big time.
Look at it, though -- it's styled like an old SLR, with retro dials. I think this is a niche product that's going to appeal to a certain user and not others. I don't think Fuji is even bothering to compete in the mainstream.I've expressed a passing interest in Fuji in the past and I do have an interest..but
Looking at the lenses coming out that 16-55mm f2.8 (broadly equivalent to either the Sony or Tamron fast zooms)
77mm filter?
http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Fuj ... 521-2.jpg/
Def looks quite a lot bigger than the Tamron I have. And I'd expect the price to be quite a bit higher.
Even looking at their 18-135mm lens, again bigger filter and it looks larger to me than the Sony I have, and again I suspect it's going to cost more than the other makers equivalent lenses (they all do lenses in this range now)
Meanwhile, they claim really good AF performance. It doesn't seem as if it loses much to a DSLR, and probably performs better than some low-end DSLRs. You still get some size advantage.
They still have some notable gaps, but I think they did a reasonable job of bringing out the most useful lenses first, for the most part. What's left? An 85mm might be nice, but then again, Sigma has a 60mm that might do. A couple of things seemed odd -- coming out with the 30mm macro and then the separate 35/1.8, and then Sigma had the 30/2.8 -- that's a lot of overlap in that range. But it seemed like whenever someone had a complaint about something missing in the line, Sony would (eventually) answer; which was unsurprising as they had laid out a lens roadmap that they worked on for years. Maybe some people thought Sony was just kidding?So where is the size advantage? Only body really.
Biggest problem is wallet. Cost of moving to something like X mount would cost me a fortune trying to replicate my current line up of lenses (they do have some interesting lenses and the 35mm f1.4 isn't a bad price)
Onto Sony they've never really developed the E mount APS-C lens range that well anyway.
Now Sony is bringing out some higher-end zooms, and the lens line is looking pretty full. Personally, I'd rather have more budget lenses. Nothing's perfect.
If you already have a number of lenses in a system, it's going to be difficult to switch regardless of how compelling an alternative might be. But now you're staying with the system because you're trapped, not because it's ideal. Seriously, though, if it works for you, I'd say stay with whatever you have. Why change? Back in the film days, we kept cameras for many years, and they took photos just as good as the year before. Why should DSLRs be any different?I saw a NEX 6 on ebay brand new for £399, I can get it if folks pick one of those up not a bad price and a nice enough camera on a deal.
As for buying into the system I'm not seeing it, no real advantage bar MF glass adaptor users.
Same for all the ILC systems I'm just not seeing why a DSLR users (who might not necessarily be using a huge sized body anyway) would dump their current rig and lenses. Until ILC makers find a real reason to tempt people I for one remain quite unconvinced with the entire strategy.
I think size, weight, and to some extent, even cost might be reasons to go with a compact mirrorless system.