[PuxaVida]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309514659' post='9685']

What is exactly objectively "better" when using an optical VF in low light ? It provides an even darker VF image ... wow ... now what exactly do you do with that ?

An EVF shows an amplified images. Yes, it's noisy. Yes, it has a slow refresh rate. Yet ... you can actually evaluate your scene. Personally I rather prefer to see "something" than very little.

[/quote]



I didn't mean OVF at low light, I meant OVF and low light capabilities of the sensor. Actually, I believe that the EVF will get better and better but personally I find the visual capabilities of OVF still unsurpassed. What I see as a drawback for MFT is the low light capabilities of the small sensor with tiny pixels. And there, maybe the MFT might utilize the back side illuminated sensor technology (as Fuji did for EXR models).



So, I believe that they will be the new stars in the near future, I just can't accept that for now <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' /> (provided that I invested a lot on DSLR technology). The new models you've enlisted were really encouriging, and I'm not a conservative DSLR lover type. But frankly (and as a very subjective opinion), I think the low light capabilities of the sensor and shallow DoF are essential as I can still carry my big old & heavy D700 set with me. Surely right now this subjective opinion make me omit the advantages of these new MFTs, but when I get older I guess MFT will be the choice (regardless of technical details).



Serkan