A.R.S.E.

To compete with the plethora of mirrorless cameras offered by the likes of Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Nikon, Canon have finally announced that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em:

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/review/di ... iew/431375" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm a Canon shooter but if I were ever to get into this field, it would probably be with a Panasonic GX1.

I wonder how it would go with a 500mm on the front of it

Probably not as well as the 7D.

I'd be looking at the Canon G1x over most of the mirrorless options. There's a market for these types of cameras, those that want an improved image quality without the size of an SLR, but I can't help feeling they are a compromise. Digital viewfinders are horrible in my opinion. And I really don't much like using a back screen to compose images either. They can shout all they like about being comparable to SLR quality. But the flexibility often isn't there, and that is a significant part of what determines quality.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

I'd be looking at it from the point of view that it would be like an old rangefinder.

I wouldn't be trying to emulate what I do with a dSLR.

Not all EVFs are the same. I look through one every day of my working life and like them or not, you actually get used to them (of course, it's a matter of personal preference and even I like optical over electronic).

In then end though, that Canon wouldn't tempt me anyway.

The Olympus OM-D is meant to be pretty good. But always skeptical of Olympus gear of late.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.

I last used an electronic viewfinder back when they were pretty new, and it was utter gash, possibly because I was insisting on using manual focus, but they may have improved ... I would hope so!

It's one of the reasons I think the Sony Alphas are horrible. Transmissive mirror allows light to pass through it, and to be reflected up to a second sensor for the digital viewfinder. Firstly that's optically flawed and will reduce contrast. And secondly... It's a digital view finder! I know why they do it. It's easier for people to see what's happening to images in real time when they change settings. But it's not the ideal solution for image quality.

I once asked at the Sony launch how it would hold up for astro photographers given that it can be hard for the cameras to AF in those conditions and manual focus would be really tricky with the view finder making noise in low light. His response was "I guess you'd use a different camera." but it's not just stars etc. what about shooting landscapes or cityscapes at night? I'm not convinced.

JD, for some reasons I think it's a little different for video recording. Those drawbacks are trumped by the need to see exactly what's happening to the image in regards to exposure in real time. For your specific role that makes more sense. Also, if I remember correctly, it's a monochrome sensor working your viewfinder? They are much more sensitive in low light.


Sent from Han Solo using TK-421's phone.