| Joined: | Wed Apr 11th, 2012 |
| Location: | Denham, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 293 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
GeoffR wrote:
the maid of all work that the SLR is.
But is it?
It's heavy and somewhat clumsy. We have got used to it for interchangeable lens cameras and accepted the downsides because there were no real alternatives. The mirror slap is a real pain at times. With digital it should be possible to have a fully usable silent shutter and get rid of the primitive mirror.
For wide angle and long lenses single lens reflex viewfinder is pretty well essential, but why should it need a mirror nowadays?
The fewer working parts, the less need making, assembling and carrying about. Also less to go wrong, if it isn't there, it can't go wrong, or need cleaning or adjusting. Simple is good.
The deep mirror box also impedes lens design, a shorter lens flange depth allows better design for the sensor requirements, film was less fussy. More freedom for the lens designer means better image quality and perhaps reduced costs.
Another two pence worth, maybe...Did you deliberately exclude the word "Yet"?There are some areas in which the mirrorless camera isn't the equal of an SLR, will the gap be closed? I wouldn't say never but it may take a while depending on manufacturer priorities. Sony will be wanting to regain/retain their advantage and may well have the technology in development.
As to bulk, any full frame camera fitted with a 24-70 f2.8 is going to be relatively bulky.