08-13-2016, 08:05 AM
But really, brightcolors is right. Any way you slice it with a large FF lens, a MILC is just awkward.
And I am not dissing MILC's because their autofocus speed is not good. In fact, while I am not experienced with the different mirrorless autofocus technologies, I do really like the dual pixel live view focus of the 70 D.
I think I might get what you are saying. Would I trade EVF for OVF? Absolutely! The main problem I have is I can by a decent DSLR and a couple of L lenses for what they charge for an underweight FF MILC. And from my personal experience, none of my Canon DSLRs have ever broken**. They are super reliable. (**I did brake one, but it wasn't the cameras fault). Every Sony product I've ever owned had died within 3-4 years.
And this is just a question. Does the short flange to image plane have an actual advantage other than allowing for a lot of different adapters? Is there an optimal distance? I ask this because the shorter that distance, the wider the angle that light rays will have to go in order to cover the sensor. And that would put a limit on pixel density. So is putting a bigger sensor really going to make sense unless you maintain a similar FFD? And if you do that...Canon may as well continue development as part of the tradition DSLR, and simply remove mirror and add EVF when they are ready.
And I am not dissing MILC's because their autofocus speed is not good. In fact, while I am not experienced with the different mirrorless autofocus technologies, I do really like the dual pixel live view focus of the 70 D.
I think I might get what you are saying. Would I trade EVF for OVF? Absolutely! The main problem I have is I can by a decent DSLR and a couple of L lenses for what they charge for an underweight FF MILC. And from my personal experience, none of my Canon DSLRs have ever broken**. They are super reliable. (**I did brake one, but it wasn't the cameras fault). Every Sony product I've ever owned had died within 3-4 years.
And this is just a question. Does the short flange to image plane have an actual advantage other than allowing for a lot of different adapters? Is there an optimal distance? I ask this because the shorter that distance, the wider the angle that light rays will have to go in order to cover the sensor. And that would put a limit on pixel density. So is putting a bigger sensor really going to make sense unless you maintain a similar FFD? And if you do that...Canon may as well continue development as part of the tradition DSLR, and simply remove mirror and add EVF when they are ready.