idkdc wrote in post #17887634
Ok, so ignoring your hyperbolic false analogy on the horse drawn carriage:
It's not a false analogy.
Cars and horse-drawn carriages both do the same thing - they get you from A to B wherever there is a road. Cars do many things a lot better - they have the potential to be much faster and more comfortable and don't depend on the performance of the horse on any particular day. Just like mirrorless cameras have the potential to have far better AF than SLRs (with a combination of on-sensor phase detection and intelligent, AI-based subject acquisition and tracking) while achieving faster frame rates (electronic shutters), less vibration, retrospective shooting, true WYSIWYG composition and simultaneous video and stills - none of which are possible on SLRs. But cars also have their drawbacks - they need refined petroleum (and a network of shops selling it) and can't just run on any old vegetation, and early cars weren't much faster than a horse while having many other performance limitations. Just like how mirrorless cameras use more power and current, early mirrorless cameras have viewfinder lag problems due to slow, low-power processors and displays. It wasn't until all these limitations were ironed out that cars almost fully replaced horse-drawn buggies, but replace them they did. And it will be the same with EVFs and mirrorless displays.
After all, all remote-controlled vehicles - including very fast ones - are piloted via electronic displays rather than direct vision, many weapons systems are controlled via electronic displays and a camera rather than direct vision, and even some piloted vehicles in development now - aircraft and spacecraft - rely on electronic displays rather than windows. And viewfinder lag is important in all of these applications.
So make the battery bigger. What's that? Oh, two batteries! So I get to keep turning on and off my camera throughout a wedding day and replace the batteries 4-6 times per camera per wedding?
You must be awfully slow at changing batteries then, as well as very unaware of the current status of your camera. It only takes me a few seconds - easily accomplished between key moments.
I know quite a few wedding photographers who have completely switched to Sony and have no problem changing batteries as needed.
Even with a gripless D810 or 5D3, you still need to change batteries once during a long day.
I thoroughly enjoy having limitations just to tell the bride I don't need a big camera to shoot her wedding!
I never said anything about a camera being small.
Mirrorless doesn't mean small. It just means it doesn't have a mirror and displays the sensor image itself on a viewfinder.
So I'll buy one when that happens from a company with a solid repair and professional services track record. I'm not saying you are (other than through your false analogy), but some people who say "DSLR's are dead!" (this is what I mean when I mention group think and the bay of pigs) are getting off a bit prematurely on that and missing the point that it's business and consumer confidence not technology that drives the market.
After the debacle with the 100-400, then the 70-200, then the 500L, I have no confidence in Canon's professional services either.
In contrast, when my A7r failed (through no less than a lightning strike on a tree several metres away while shooting in a tropical thunderstorm), I got a loaner unit from Sony within the day.
Well, again, looking at the market so far, that seems to be a losing strategy if we're to take a look at the Samsung NX1 (this is significantly bigger than the A7rii, is it not?). Again, this can change in the future, but that future isn't here yet. Mirrorless companies tout and people buy mirrorless for the perceived weight savings, at least in 2015-2016.
Not any more.
Look at the new Sony FE-mount 85/1.4. 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. They're huge - the same size as Canon and Nikon's offerings - and dwarf the A7 bodies. Which strongly suggests a larger, full-featured E-mount body coming out soon.
And much of the success of the A7 series has not been from people buying them for their small size (people wanting that seem to gravitate towards Olympus and other M43 systems) but for their sensor performance and adaptability to many different lenses. That's why Metabones has been so successful since the A7r came out - particularly with the Canon-to-Sony adapters - yet few people had heard of them before then.
In the current form factor, we still sacrifice computing speed (try uncompressed RAW in burst; from what I hear, it slows down considerably) and battery life (that's not improving substantially any time soon to close the gap between 400 shots and 1200 shots per charge). Try relying on the a6000 or a77 ii autofocus systems (which some on POTN have said a year or two ago would kill the pro sports dslr market for some reason) while covering a tier 1 sport (PAC12/NCAA Div I) from the credentialed side line. I know a Sony Artisan who tried this and was absolutely terrible at it.
Which is a problem of small size and limited power (both processor and battery power) rather than the camera not having a mirror.
Make an SLR the same size as a mirrorless camera (other than a thicker lens mount to accommodate a mirror) and it'd also fail miserably in capturing action.
The laptop vs desktop analogy applies to current models. Newer models may change that. The newer models are not here yet. Consumer adoption of bigger mirrorless cameras is not quite here yet (at least DSLR-sized models).
You can't adopt something which hasn't come yet.
Ok, ignoring that what you just said dates you a little and/or reveals that you're an industry outsider, do you think Apple would be as successful as it is today if they outsourced their repair services to the equivalent of Precision Camera in Connecticut like Sony and Pentax have?
Apple's success is due to their consumer products - the iPod, then the iPhone, as well as iTunes and their online services. Not due to their repair services (which many non-Apple shops carry out around here anyway).
The perceived, if not real, value of in-house repairs and honoring of warranty add to the perceived value of an Apple computer (that and the "just works" impression given by vertically integrated software and hardware with minimal driver issues and hardware/software conflicts) that warrants the higher asking price.
This vertical integration and hermetically-sealed development pathway is one of the many reasons Apple hasn't taken off at a professional level, outside of a few creative industries which only run limited software and are happy with the pre-approved packages. The software and hardware may work well with each other, but neither is very adaptable. You can take a Windows or Linux platform and run almost anything on it; it's very easy for IT to get such a setup to run everything from network databases, to office software, to graphics software. It might be a clunky, A7r+Metabones+Canon-type setup, but it works and is adaptable in such a way that an Apple-based system could never be.
Sony doesn't have that yet, at least in North America, the strongest market on the planet right now for photographic equipment.
I don't know anything about North America.
Here in Australia, all of them are equally bad (the incident with the A7r I mentioned happened in Singapore, and the local support was great).