4 ms·
I think the big difference is the viewfinder. A viewfinder with 100% coverage gives you the exact picture you are seeing. Its sharp its quick its perfect and do
by sigi45 10y ago
I think the big difference is the viewfinder. A viewfinder with 100% coverage gives you the exact picture you are seeing. Its sharp its quick its perfect and doesn't take up energy.
A digital viewfinder gives you the picture the camera gives you. This uses lots of energy and sucks in low light performance.
- timbray 10y agoWhere by "sucks" you mean "reveals what the actual picture you're going to get will look like", which on modern sensors is amazingly brighter than what your eyes think they see. EVFs are the future.
- marcusarmstrong 10y agoThey simply don't work for multi-second exposures, however.
- sigi45 10y agoNope. I can underexpose a picture without playing around with the dails and without blurines or similiar things.
- luckydude 10y agoNot until they can shoot sports. Go to any big sporting event and you will see a sea of Canon 1DX FF bodies. For the burst fanatics, it will do 14 FPS and refocus and re-evaluate exposure each time. Lock those two and it will do 16 FPS. I've played with mirrorless, bought one for my kid, I think they are a joke if you are shooting as a pro. I just don't see why I would want one. A phone or a point and shoot will fit in your pocket and they do a great job. If you want better results you step up to full frame. Mirrorless seems like a solution to a non-problem. To me.