07-01-2011, 09:25 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1309511616' post='9676']
Actually there are no reasons for a mirror full frame body (other than the possible lack of maturity on the mirrorless side although you may discuss this already).
SLRs were introduces as a workaround and it is time that this workaround dies. It's a past concept.
[/quote]
Well, not ready to die yet. It will take a long time I believe. Just like you have suggested, there is very crutial reason for a mirror viewfinder today: Quality of the view. Despite all the improvements having been done recently, even the best EVF is still behind the optical VF as far as the view quality is concerned. Hope you won´t question that ;-).
For the other topic, yes: the wildlife/long telephoto photography is the only area where APS-C body makes certain sense (only due to 1.5 "telephoto gain", though) over FF body... Although I know two such photographers who still prefer FF for IQ (resolution, high ISO quality).
p.s. Sony, while being very innovative, is not convincing concerning their Full Frame program.... A900/850 bodies were more or less failure due to excessive noise issues and also the crutial lenses - like 16-35 or 70-200 - leave something to be desired for the money. Personally I only saw 70-200G to be honest... and to be honest again, it was worse than Canon 70-200IS II or Nikon 70-200VRII... Both the sharpness at f2.8 and the bokeh quality (yes, I know, I´m the "shallow DOF" guy ;-). I have also heard many to complain about centering issues in their Sony-Zeiss 24-70/2.8, which is 2000EUR lens... (!). While their line of primes is very good/excellent, I think there is no big play for Sony in FF market until they update their pro zoom lenses to the competitive level + create a pro FF body with competitivne noise/res. ratio.
Actually there are no reasons for a mirror full frame body (other than the possible lack of maturity on the mirrorless side although you may discuss this already).
SLRs were introduces as a workaround and it is time that this workaround dies. It's a past concept.
[/quote]
Well, not ready to die yet. It will take a long time I believe. Just like you have suggested, there is very crutial reason for a mirror viewfinder today: Quality of the view. Despite all the improvements having been done recently, even the best EVF is still behind the optical VF as far as the view quality is concerned. Hope you won´t question that ;-).
For the other topic, yes: the wildlife/long telephoto photography is the only area where APS-C body makes certain sense (only due to 1.5 "telephoto gain", though) over FF body... Although I know two such photographers who still prefer FF for IQ (resolution, high ISO quality).
p.s. Sony, while being very innovative, is not convincing concerning their Full Frame program.... A900/850 bodies were more or less failure due to excessive noise issues and also the crutial lenses - like 16-35 or 70-200 - leave something to be desired for the money. Personally I only saw 70-200G to be honest... and to be honest again, it was worse than Canon 70-200IS II or Nikon 70-200VRII... Both the sharpness at f2.8 and the bokeh quality (yes, I know, I´m the "shallow DOF" guy ;-). I have also heard many to complain about centering issues in their Sony-Zeiss 24-70/2.8, which is 2000EUR lens... (!). While their line of primes is very good/excellent, I think there is no big play for Sony in FF market until they update their pro zoom lenses to the competitive level + create a pro FF body with competitivne noise/res. ratio.