[wim]

So, om one hand you want to criticise FF mirrorless for vignetting at large apertures, on the other hand you do not care about the large apertures when you look at MFT. Convenient .

 

Also, you complain about the loss of DR when we touch on correcting vignetting on FF, but you do not care about that MFT has less DR to begin with. You want to argue both ways, as long as it is in MFT direction, it seems?

 

I do not care about mirrorless and EVF much. it hinders my creativity a lot. I own no Sony FF mirrorless or MFT, I try to assess things honestly. Equivalence is a big indispensable part of that.

 

Oh yes, and I also do not care about silly big DR figures.

 

The 6D follow up will be a FF DSLR. It won't have the ergonomic issues of small mirrorless cameras, and maybe Canon will also develop a FF mirrorless camera, either with EOS M mount or with a wider mount. Time will tell.

 

I didn't criticize FF mirrorless for vignetting at large apertures: I am only worried about too small a flange distance and non-retrofocus lenses in combination with the current structure of sensors, causing all kinds of issues towards the outer parts of images. I reckon with FF the limit currently is around 40 MP before it starts to get bad with some sensor/lens combinations, especially with WA lenses. Please, don't put any words in my mouth.

 

Essentially, I would be worried about loss of DR going from the centre of an image towards the edge, which is inherent to the same stuff I mention above. No more, no less. Do note that this can be in the order of 4 stops or more, and it gets worse with larger sensors, especially at high MP-numbers. Current MFT suffers less from vignetting, based on my own experience. For me, getting into MFT always was entirely about smaller size. It still is, but it has become really good too, although even the GF2 I got first really delivered the goods anyway. It already was quite a bit better than my old 350D.

 

BTW, what do you mean by "assess things honestly"? How, in what way? And do you seriously think that can only be done with an OVF or that this is always possible in the first place?

I am sure that that is not possible, as an OVF darkens very rapidly, and has a limited DoF preview possibility, caused simply by the way the focusing screen works, even with the laser mattes. No such problems with EVFs, and AFAIAC, an EVF actually helps in many cases because you can actually see what the camera is registering in full glory, unlike an OVF.

 

The importance of equivalence is whatever you assign to it, to be very honest. The only important thing could well be noise, but then, let's pixelpeep film, shall we? Noise levels are so low, they are totally irrelevant, unless you go over 3200 to 6400 iso with modern MFT cameras, and that happens to be the case with my 5D II too. Personally I don't have a problem with that, I have never needed faster ISO anyway .

 

Good you don't care about silly DR figures, neither do I. The best printing techniques still only give you a DR of around 6 stops anyway, and a screen 8 . Film gave you 10 stops at best, with very compressed ranges at the bottom and the low end. This limited DR range, compared to digital, was one of the reasons why the Zone System was invented.

 

Ergonomic issues are very personal. What may be a problem for one person, may not be for another, and vice versa. Often it is also a matter of getting used to a different layout, positioning and/or size. That's my experience anyway.

 

As to what Canon will do, indeed only time will tell. I won't hold my breath .... .

 

Kind regards, Wim