Cameras with electronic viewfinder

[Panama Hat & Camera]

What is the difference between how the light reaches the sensor (and electronic viewfinder) in a DSLT, a mirrorless and a compact camera?

Cheers,

Antonio

[rpcrowe]

I don't know the technicalities but, I don't really like the electronic viewfinder in my son-in-law's Canon SX-50. This is especially noticeable when I am swinging my the camera from one point to another quite fast. It doesn't seem to follow smoothly as my TTL Canon 7D viewfinder.

Perhaps this is because the SX-50 is a low line camera but, perhaps it is inherent in electronic viewfinders...

[Shadowman]

It's discussed here:

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...lr-cameras.htm

[NorthernFocus]

If you shoot any kind of action photography, the electronic viewfinder is very difficult to use. Every time the "shutter fires" the image in the viewfinder freezes momentarily. Makes it very difficult to track a moving target. But for landscape photography there is the advantage of no vibration caused by "mirror slap".

[Black Pearl]

DSLR - Digital Single Lens Reflex - light reaches the viewfinder via a 45º mirror that flips out of the way to allow the light to reach the sensor direct during exposure. A good old fashion design that is tried and tested, loved by many and thought by some to be a dying breed.

DSLT - Digital Single Lens Translucent - some of the light reaches the viewfinder via a 45º mirror but most passes through to the sensor. Been around a while in a limited numbers of film bodies and now championed by Sony. Advantages over a SLR are less camera shake and a faster frame rate as you don't need to move the mirror, also the viewfinder doesn't momentarily black out during exposure but less light is reaching the sensor so you run the risk of the camera having to use higher electronic gain to keep the exposure nominal.

CSC - Compact (mirrorless) System Camera - Usually the viewfinder is electronic so the light simply hits the sensor which is always on, is converted into a digital signal and either sent to the electronic viewfinder or recorded as a photograph. Fuji make a few bodies that offer hybrid viewfinders that allow optical viewing via a second window in the body - similar to a range finder system as used by say Leica - as well as the usual electronic view. There are many pro's and cons to mirrorless. They can be smaller, you can directly view the exposure, WB, colour mode and everything else you can set on a camera as the viewfinder displays these live before taking the shot. On the flip side they have a tendency to lag slightly, can be low resolution which makes manual focusing etc difficult and can pause during/after a shot is taken. They are bandied about as the future and while many traditional photographers don't like them they are going to become more mainstream and they are getting better at a very fast rate.

Compact. Pretty much like the CSC (mirrorless) but you do (very) occasionally get an optical only viewfinder. Main difference is you can't change the lens so what you buy it with is what you'll always get.

[jcuknz]

If accuracy and exactness in what you are shooting is important you will find that most DSLRs do not show the whole image being recorded whereas the EVF is normally 100%.

Since the EVF image is being continually replaced there is what is known as the 'refresh rate' ... this is very fast with modern EVFs so normally problems are due to the operators reaction times, solved myself by using one eye to frame and the other to watch the action ... first learnt when photographing children who mimic and might close one eye like I USED to

Some photographers judge their exposures through the viewfinder but most EVF give a constant brightness irrespective of the subject matter ... some consider this a problem. My Panasonic MFT permit me to adjust exposure three stops either way before they compensate.
I have read reports with regard to focusing that some Contrast Detection is as fast as Phase Detection these days and some cameras have both systems to solve the problems of PD not working ... when you add a telephoto converter to increase the focal length and the result is effectively a small aperture. I know PD doesn't suffer this problem.

In all this one needs to appreciate that every feature in any camera has its pro's and con's, some is real and some comes from the personal preferences and prefered manner of working of the operator.

How much this is answering your question Antonio I am not sure .... there is the SLR system where a mirror sends the image to the eye until the moment of exposure [ or on mirror lift] and there is the optical viewfinder system which suffers from being not in-line with the shooting lens which is usually accepted as in-accurate to some degree.... then there is the EVF where the eye sees [normally] 100% of what the sensor is seeing on a screen whose image is generated from the sensor.

Over a decade of use I have become used to the EVF/LCD combination and would hate to use a SLR system ... that is my bias

EDIT ... I think Robin answered your question better than any of the rest of us Never thought about an DSLT and assumed it was a typo on your part

[ajohnw]

Robin's answered the question as asked.

I've seen all sorts of comments about better quality cameras that are mirrorless and use the sensor to generate the image in the viewfinder. I include Pen's in that as they use a much larger sensor than a compact.

One crazy one is lag in the view. Not something I have seen and I would have to wonder how people who reckon this happens get on watching TV and lower frame rate video's.

Real problems improve.

Noise in the viewfinder when light is low. Easy to get on an E-PL1, no where near as easy to get on an E-P3. Not had it at all on an EM 5. On that one there is the choice of having a constant light level in the viewfinder or a view that reflects how the shot should turn out. in constant light mode the camera can easily see more in darker corners than I can.

Manual focusing / auto focus check. There are a lot less pixels in the viewfinder than on the sensor so in principle the viewfinder could be used directly to focus to produce say a 1mp final image size as there are 1.4mp or more in the viewfinder. I have always intended to try this but haven't. I have seen other people attempts and they are mixed. That may be down to the way the image is produced. The alternative is a magnified view but that makes the apparent focal length of the lens a lot longer. I found 7x worked well with a 1.4mp view and a 12mp sensor even at pixel peeping levels - Even tried it with a 500mm lens but couldn't keep the camera steady enough by hand to focus accurately and missed by about 150mm at probably 40m or so. The entire frame can't be seen either making life even more difficult. Then along comes focus peaking. Not used it but there are some indications about that this is already better than traditional manual focusing aids such as Fresnel and range finder arrangement at least in respect to the light levels it will work in.

Continuous finger on the button shooting. Only tried this on the E-PL1 so far and had a bit of a shock as I had to track something. The view finder just went blank and wasn't updated. On the other hand no problem shooting video. I aught to try this on my other cameras as I would hope for some improvement. This area is a problem on dslr's too - that clanking mirror needed to get the view.

Live view problem - sensor heat up. Probably common to all forms but the biggest complaints about Sony NEX is from people who shoot long video's. My son is usually a source of reliable info. The heat up can increase sensor noise a lot. The cameras shut down quickly to get round this which is ok providing they get out of sleep mode quickly and easily.

That's about it really. They have a big plus on metering as such a lot of measurement points are available. Some people don't like Pen metering. It favours keeping highlights and the sensor keeps plenty of usable info in the dark end that will be inclined to come out dark without processing. I think this is great for obvious reasons. One big plus is that the shot comes up in the viewfinder immediately after it's been taken and any clipped areas blink. This way way better than trying to use a rear camera screen preview even with the same features as sunlight etc has no effect. Makes me lazy, it's so easy to take another shot, even several of them.

Contrast against phase detect auto focus. This aspect is not as distinct as it was but phase is better at the darker end going on my cameras. I have a feeling that this advantage may not last. For many things given an AF assist lamp it already isn't an advantage. I might be inclined to say phase looses out then.

The interesting thing about these cameras is that they can still be improved. DSLR's are at a dead end trying to keep up and in real terms have no where else to go. There are several features that could still be added to mirror less cameras.

John
-

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Robin,
Thank you for your answer.
I wrote some comments after your explanations.

DSLR - Digital Single Lens Reflex - light reaches the viewfinder via a 45º mirror that flips out of the way to allow the light to reach the sensor direct during exposure. A good old fashion design that is tried and tested, loved by many and thought by some to be a dying breed.

I think You're right. The SLR / DSLR solution (a 45º mirror that flips out of the way to allow the light to reach the sensor direct during exposure) is a good old fashion design, but is a only solution for a TTL optical viewfinder of a single lens camera.

DSLT - Digital Single Lens Translucent - some of the light reaches the viewfinder via a 45º mirror but most passes through to the sensor. Been around a while in a limited numbers of film bodies and now championed by Sony. Advantages over a SLR are less camera shake and a faster frame rate as you don't need to move the mirror, also the viewfinder doesn't momentarily black out during exposure but less light is reaching the sensor so you run the risk of the camera having to use higher electronic gain to keep the exposure nominal.

I understood your explanation, but, once the viewfinder is electronic, I can't find any advantage of using a translucent mirror.

CSC - Compact (mirrorless) System Camera - Usually the viewfinder is electronic so the light simply hits the sensor which is always on, is converted into a digital signal and either sent to the electronic viewfinder or recorded as a photograph. Fuji make a few bodies that offer hybrid viewfinders that allow optical viewing via a second window in the body - similar to a range finder system as used by say Leica - as well as the usual electronic view. There are many pro's and cons to mirrorless. They can be smaller, you can directly view the exposure, WB, colour mode and everything else you can set on a camera as the viewfinder displays these live before taking the shot. On the flip side they have a tendency to lag slightly, can be low resolution which makes manual focusing etc difficult and can pause during/after a shot is taken. They are bandied about as the future and while many traditional photographers don't like them they are going to become more mainstream and they are getting better at a very fast rate.

I think that mirrorless cameras with a good electronic viewfinders and phase auto focus will be serious competitors of DSLR. I've read that mirrorless cameras focuses faster than DLSR using live view. (Is it true?).

Compact. Pretty much like the CSC (mirrorless) but you do (very) occasionally get an optical only viewfinder. Main difference is you can't change the lens so what you buy it with is what you'll always get.

I agree with you. Some compact cameras have electronic viewfinders, but generally the mirrorless cameras are better and more sophisticated.

[Black Pearl]

Well we're going beyond the original question about simple facts and possibly into relative qualities and preferences so this is my opinion (mixed with facts) and open to discussion:

I think You're right. The SLR / DSLR solution (a 45º mirror that flips out of the way to allow the light to reach the sensor direct during exposure) is a good old fashion design, but is a only solution for a TTL optical viewfinder of a single lens camera.

Yep. If you want the advantages of an optical viewfinder and still have all the light available to reach the sensor then a reflex mirror is still the answer.

I understood your explanation, but, once the viewfinder is electronic, I can't find any advantage of using a translucent mirror.

Speed. You can cycle the shutter mechanism as fast as you can make it hold together and be accurate without the viewfinder blacking out. With an electronic viewfinder you will get a pause as it dumps information to the processors.

I think that mirrorless cameras with a good electronic viewfinders and phase auto focus will be serious competitors of DSLR. I've read that mirrorless cameras focuses faster than DLSR using live view. (Is it true?).

They are serious competitors now - though many don't like electronic viewfinder and still prefer optical ones.
Most DSLR's for reasons I've never been able to fully understand don't have good phase detect AF systems when running in live view mode while mirrorless systems manage very well. Honestly I don't know why but I think it is a reluctance by the brands who believe (possibly rightly) that their customers will use the optical (contrast detect) solution 99% of the time so can't be bothered to sort out a good alternative.

I agree with you. Some compact cameras have electronic viewfinders, but generally the mirrorless cameras are better and more sophisticated.

Horses for courses. You can but a compact camera for £50 with an optical viewfinder and a 3/4/5x zoom that will take a family snap that many will be happy with.
You can also buy a (bridge) compact with a 50x optical zoom and an electronic viewfinder that can throw its own against a DSLR/mirrorless system with massive reach, decent AF and excellent video. Many amateur wildlife shooters go for a bridge compact as they can get the equivalent to a 1200mm lens for £400 - the cost of something like that for a Nikon/Canon might make you take a step or two back.

[rpcrowe]

If you shoot any kind of action photography, the electronic viewfinder is very difficult to use. Every time the "shutter fires" the image in the viewfinder freezes momentarily. Makes it very difficult to track a moving target. But for landscape photography there is the advantage of no vibration caused by "mirror slap".

However, if you are shooting a non-moving image like a landscape (and if your shutter speed is slow enough to require it) just use mirror lock-up. Then you are not cramped with a camera that is less than optimum for fast moving subjects - unless you never have any desire to shoot anything that is moving fast.

There is another thing that I hated about my Son-in-Law's SX-50 and that is electronic controlled zoom. IMO, that is a big-big, PITA. Of course, that is most likely a factor of the camera rather than the electronic viewfinder.

Actually, I am glad that I fooled around with his camera. I was contemplating getting an SX-50 as a carry-around camera because of its size. However, the small size doesn't make up for the problems with the electronic viewfinder and electronic focus.

I will admit however, that I am comparing a very low cost hobby camera with a relatively high cost full size DSLR camera. Still, as a guy who started with 4x5" sheet film cameras and then evolved into 6x6 cm medium format film gear, the weight of my 7D cameras and top-line lenses is a burden that I will happily carry.

[ajohnw]

I have to wonder if NorthernFocus has used one or just read that some where. On aspect is continuous shooting mirrorless achieve rather high frame rates and maintain the view (now I'm glad to say) where as a dslr has to loose the view for good or keep flipping the mirror. When a shot it actually taken I some how can't see an electronic transfer of the shot taking as long as a mirror takes to return to the view position.

Panning. Using a 110mm equiv lens on a wall 2m away and swinging my head as fast as I can maybe I can detect something isn't exactly right. The subject is moving too fast to be sure. I really can't see it being a problem in practice.

All I can say is try an EM-5. 9 fps or 4 1/2 with continuous AF.

I've already posted the weight of an EM-5 and lenses to cover 9 - 300mm - 4 in my case if I feel I need the lot. I don't have to carry the 40-150 but it can be useful. It comes out similar to certain cameras and one moderate lens. So far all of the lenses can stand pixel peeping at pixel densities that are way over even aps sensors levels. I sometimes have my doubts about the 12-50mm but I suspect it's down to me. But then there is the 14-42.

The really big advantage though is what ever can appear on the rear screen can also appear in the viewfinder. It even has more pixels.

I posted some test shots taken at 25600 ISO too. One person thought I was cheating.

John
-

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Thank you for your answer.
I wrote some comments after your explanations.

If accuracy and exactness in what you are shooting is important you will find that most DSLRs do not show the whole image being recorded whereas the EVF is normally 100%.

Thank you for your advice, but the 95% viewfinder coverage of entry level DSLRs is enough for me.

Since the EVF image is being continually replaced there is what is known as the 'refresh rate' ... this is very fast with modern EVFs so normally problems are due to the operators reaction times, solved myself by using one eye to frame and the other to watch the action ... first learnt when photographing children who mimic and might close one eye like I USED to

I don't know the delay of a mirrorless camera, but I measured the delay in the presentation of a Nikon bridge superzoom P510 LCD screen of an event. The delay was calculated as 50~60 ms. Another issue is the shutter lag of P510: according to snapsort.com/compare, the P510 shutter lag is 380 ms.
It is a good idea using one eye to frame and the other to watch the action. Some times, I use this procedure.

Some photographers judge their exposures through the viewfinder but most EVF give a constant brightness irrespective of the subject matter ... some consider this a problem. My Panasonic MFT permit me to adjust exposure three stops either way before they compensate.

I verified that my Canon SX50 HS permit me to adjust exposure three stops either way before they compensate (Aperture and Shutter priorities). On Manual mode the electronic viewfinder shows the (true??) darkness / brightness of the scene.

How much this is answering your question Antonio I am not sure .... there is the SLR system where a mirror sends the image to the eye until the moment of exposure [ or on mirror lift] and there is the optical viewfinder system which suffers from being not in-line with the shooting lens which is usually accepted as in-accurate to some degree.... then there is the EVF where the eye sees [normally] 100% of what the sensor is seeing on a screen whose image is generated from the sensor.

Over a decade of use I have become used to the EVF/LCD combination and would hate to use a SLR system ... that is my bias

EDIT ... I think Robin answered your question better than any of the rest of us Never thought about an DSLT and assumed it was a typo on your part

I want to buy a new camera with a larger sensor. My tendency is buying an Entry Level APS-C DSLR because of the optical viewfinder and fast autofocus, but I'm studying the mirroless systems and I will keep my compact cameras.
All the best,
Antonio.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

John,
Thank you for your extensive explanation. After reading it, I realized that I have to know more about the MFT system before deciding if I buy an Entry Level DSLR or a MFT camera.
For me a viewfinder is essential. In the past, I photographed with a SLR camera (Olympus OM-2) and my tendency is buying an Entry Level DSLR.
All the best.
Antonio.

[Panama Hat & Camera]

John,
How many points has the EVF of the Olympus OM-D E-M5 and what is its size?

Cheers,
Antonio.

[NorthernFocus]

I have to wonder if NorthernFocus has used one or just read that some where...

I'd think it is obvious from my participation here on CIC that all of my knowledge of photography is purely theoretical.

[kaneohebud]

Antonio:
There has been a lot of technical discussion here about optical viewfinders vs EVF's, mirrorless value, yada yada. At the risk of being labeled a Sony fanboy (), I suggest you take a look at the Sony A77. The price has dropped a lot and it would be a powerhouse for you as an entry DSLR.

B&H has a great deal on A77's now for camera and battery grip for $798 US. See http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...r_digital.html

I had a complete Canon kit for years with many "L" lenses etc. and made the switch to Sony last year. I have been exceptionally pleased with the move. I LOVE the A77's electronic viewfinder that allows me to shoot all manual all the time. The fully articulated LCD allows me to compose ground level shots without having to lie flat myself. At 12 fps, it is as fast as any camera on the market and as an APSC (1.5) it provides plenty of reach for wildlife. Its 24MP sensor does very well with landscapes too. Its only drawback is it's a bit noisy above ISO 800. I liked mine so much, I bought another so I'm set up for wildlife or landscapes without having to switch lenses.

Now for full disclosure - I have no affiliation with Sony or B&H Photo. I just happen to like Sony. Now I'll post this and wait for the howls from the Canikon crowd.

P.S. - Anyone who wants to challenge Dan on photographic knowledge better take a look at his web site [northernfocusphotography.com] first.

[davidedric]

Kept my powder dry till now, but since the debate has moved on beyond the original question, I'd like to add a couple of things. After many years of slr's and dslr's (with a couple of forays into compact and bridge) I bought a micro 4/3 system back in November.

I've just come back from a week's holiday in Lanzarote, and I just took the body (a mid-range Panasonic G5) and a single lens 14-140mm, 28-280mm equivalent. The lens is reckoned a very good one, though not pro glass.

I've just been reviewing the images and I am delighted. They are sharp, even when viewed 1:1, and pleasing colours (shot in RAW, pp in Lightroom). There have already been lots of comments on the weight savings, and for me personally that is a big plus. The G5 is also way more configurable than my Canon 600D.

So for this kind of shooting I have good images, one lens, a good focal length range, in a light package - what's not to like? My big dilemma is going to come when I next go after wildlife. No, it won't be quite as good, but add a 100-300mm, and I'd have a very nice package, with 600mm equivalent reach.

As for the EVF, I very quickly got used to it and after a couple of days didn't even think it.

As for the electronic zooms. I wouldn't want one since I take stills, but these mirrorless interchangeable lens systems (especially the higher end Panasonics) are being sold to serious, even professional, videographers when I understand the smooth zooming is very important.

Make no mistake APS-C and FF users (including myself), these are serious systems, and getting better all the time.

Dave

[John 2]

I'm late into this thread as well so I'll keep it brief. I use a Fuji X-Pro1. It's now approaching 2 years old and so it suffers some of the disadvantages described above (slow AF, slow EVF refresh rate etc.) but I will still pick it up in preference to my Nikon D7100 for anything other than wild life and I will use the EVF in preference to the OVF (it has both). The truth is that in real world use, the disadvantages rarely show themselves and the convenience of a smaller camera out weighs them anyway. Two years on, the latest generation of cameras e.g. the recently released Fuji X-T1, don't suffer the same problems. I'm not pushing Fuji here, other current generation cameras will soon follow and a choice of camera is very personal. The fact is that the reasons for buying an DSLR are evaporating quite rapidly. One remains however and that is cost. Some of the lower end DSLRs give you a lot of quality for a much lower price than the current high end mirrorless cameras but keep in mind that once you invest in a particular system, changing horses down stream inevitably will be expensive in its own right. - I said I would be brief but I guess I got that wrong.

[ajohnw]

Sorry Dan. I should have put a question mark after my comment and also asked which model. But people do just read something at times. I try to tell it as it is. On the EM-5 the lack of view after a shot is taken is clearly longer than it need be when preview in the view finder is on. Actually I have never turned that off but going on updates and 9 frames per second the lag could well be less than 100mSec which would hardly be noticeable. When I tried continuous I panned as well and couldn't really see any problem

Here's me pointing out the advantages of mirrorless having just upgraded/downgraded my dslr to a D7000. That involved switching to Nikon. Why Nikon. I do use some manual lenses on M 4/3 and it seems sad to not have another camera that I can use them on. Nikon AF-D are ideal for this The main aspect is macro. I have used a Pentax macro lens on them but it only goes to 2:1 and I have no option of using a converter on it to get extra working distance. The other aspect is telephoto. While 2x300mm sounds great a lot more can be useful. Again no access to converters to extend them. Focusing them is TBD. It can be done with a magnified view but with rather a lot of difficulty. As yet thanks to the UK weather I don't know if focus peaking will help. On the other hand 1.4x or 2x on 300mm on the D7000 is another option and not too bad to carry around but no IS. An E-P3's image stabilisation will cope with 500mm on with care but unlike the E-M5 the stability is only on when the shot is taken making focusing with a magnified view even more difficult.

Neglecting focus peaking - no comment until I try it out in practice - I need a viewfinder for 2 reasons. Manual focusing without a magnified view and deliberately focusing short to get some control of depth of field. I suspect it will be a long time before M 4/3 can cope with the latter. It's something I like to do now and again. Most say must have faster glass so it will probably never happen.


I'm having to watch my inclinations though. As you can gather the D7000 is a 2nd camera as far as I am concerned. I went for the twin lens kit to save money. I'm swapping out the 18-55mm for an 18-105mm. Fair enough but I started thinking maybe I should swap out the 55-300mm and even looked at 70-200mm as I could use it with a converter. Now I'm think why? I also thought maybe a 50mm F1.4 AF-D would be nice. I have a 50mm F1.4 Olympus for use on M 4/3 and it's probably a better lens. Hang on though I also have Oly 45mm F1.8 m 4/3 lens. I have also bought a Russian FF 16mm 180 degree lens for the D7000 that's different FUN.

Really a lot comes down to how much weight some one wants to carry around. I can get the m4/3 gear into a largish sized waterproof canvas shoulder bag. Some use the same bag for a dslr and 2 moderate lenses with a fair increase in weight. The downside in some respects is the availability of certain kit. Also more in camera correction especially on Panasonic but in real terms APS is no better. Taking the 18-105mm for instance. I always look at technical specs and found myself choosing between mainly even good resolution and chromatic aberration. I went for resolution. Oly have done one professional m 4/3 lens so far, currently 1000 quid and may drop to 750. On the other hand the 2 kit zooms are rather good. I have owned and used a couple of the Panasonic none kit zooms and feel that in both cases the Oly's are better. The in body IS allows some flexibility on lenses that can be used too but shooting macro with a 100mm lens and a magnified view takes a bit of practice and wont be for some. I haven't really tried Oly lenses and auto extension tubes yet.

I went through this lot to give some people food for thought, My son went another way and bought a Canon 100D. Bit compact like as far as controls are concerned but well thought out and made of plastic. I wonder what will happen when some one brings out a water proof mostly plastic dslr? Maybe even full frame - prejudices rule so probably wont happen even on m 4/3. It's small and light. I did mention that a tilt screen would be better but handy rather than better really. He went for the 18-55mm and I suggested he added a decent 70-300mm to that at some point or borrowed my now ancient film/ very early digital one with IS. If on the other hand he ever feels the need to go to 500mm I doubt if he will carry it around on the chance that it might get used.

My advice to some one starting out would be to spend moderately and get their feet wet and not be suckered into believing that a better camera will lead to better shots. It isn't as simple as that. A lot can be done with a camera and even one lens but 2 can be better. Market forces are pushing things to very high range zooms that are optically lacking in some respects. On the other hand it's now possible to buy zooms with a 3:1 range that aren't as good as they could be - near prime performance.

The power zoom is mainly for people who shoot video. My 12-50 has it and I hate it but fortunately just move the focus ring and it's manual. I feel the zoom is too fast for video work anyway but suppose practice cures that. That brings up a live view problem as well - long videos heating up the sensor and increasing noise levels markedly. Mirrorless use live view a lot ! The important thing is how quickly they switch the sensor off and back on again when needed for longer shooting sessions. I'm told that this is the biggest complaint about sony nex cameras. My son used an nex and bought the 100D as a better camera for straight shooting not video. So far he feels that it is. Pass. I don't know.

1.4mp in the E-M5 viewfinder, 2.? in the E-M1. Am I excited - no. On the other hand it might allow say final image sizes of 1mp with no focusing aids. 1.4mp is adequate for what the viewfinder shows - way more info than a D7000.

Not excited about the E-M1 either but do get tempted but feel Olympus should get their act together in terms of really serious glass or give the 4/3 converter away with the camera.

John
-

[Manfred M]

I think mirrorless cameras, particularly the higher end ones have finally come of age.

I had a chance to use someone elses Sony Nex-7 a couple of weeks ago, and was quite impressed with the viewfinder performance. Similarly, I had a chance to use Nikon 1 V1 at the end of last year and was quite disappointed.

I am going to have another hard look at the MFTs from Panasonic later on this year; I already have a couple of MFT lenses for my Panasonic video camera, so will have another look at their higher end stuff this summer. I might be doing a few weeks of backpacking in Europe with my youngest daughter and don't want to haul all my large gear with me.