Mirrorless vs DSLR

[Dave Throgmartin]

Besides cost reasons I guess I always assumed the real long term goal for mirrorless was to get to an electronic shutter. Then as video gets to the point of extremely high frame rates, then you could pull frames (grab frames) at any instant of the action. What if you could produce high res 200 (or more) frames a second and you could pull any one of the frames. Or even high speed video capabilty with super slow-moving mo or each frame can be pulled out for a photo. Aren't we getting close to that senarrio?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Long term I think mirrorless offers a lot of potential upgrades from DSLRs:

1) Much less complicated mechanically, more reliable
2) Less cost assuming economies of scale
3) Less size and weight, particularly with the scope of APS-C sensor sizes or non-tele lenses
4) WYSIWYG electronic viewfinder performance eventually should present more positives than negatives versus optical viewfinder
5) Greater autofocus accuracy

I'm sure I'm missing some.

Dave

[neuroanatomist]

Long term I think mirrorless offers a lot of potential upgrades from DSLRs:

1) Much less complicated mechanically, more reliable
2) Less cost assuming economies of scale
3) Less size and weight, particularly with the scope of APS-C sensor sizes or non-tele lenses
4) WYSIWYG electronic viewfinder performance eventually should present more positives than negatives versus optical viewfinder
5) Greater autofocus accuracy

1) Supported by Lensrentals repair data.
2) Less cost to produce – no guarantee that gets passed along to customers.
3) The smallest possible size (small body, pancake lens) is smaller for MILC than dSLR; small bodies present ergonomic challenges as lenses get larger (the new Sony 24-70/2.8G is bigger than its Canon equivalent).
4) More lag even with the fastest refresh, but the additional display options are great
5) More accuracy, but not necessarily more precision or faster AF b