For some examples of better design choices, note that MFT has both some lenses that are smaller than SLR counterparts, intended to be paired with bodies also smaller and lighter than SLR bodies, and then the EM1 (and Panasonic GH models) for use with the brighter, bulkier MFT lenses, external accessories and so on. The EM1 has been criticized for its bulk, but for its intended use with the bulkier high-end MFT lenses, that deep hand-grip and abundant external controls look useful.
Agreed, but the sensors are twice smaller and the mount too.
Your words quoted below give a fascinating example of how people can project their own priorities and tastes onto others, as if believing that "all right-thinking people agree": complaining about modest differences in how often one needs to swap batteries (coming down at worst to owning and carrying one or two more spare batteries), and then deprecating the widely-discussed advantages of EVFs (for manual focusing and accurate previews, far larger and more detailed previews when zoomed, etc.), cost (look at the cheapest models in each format size), quieter operation (and its un-mentioned partner, reduced vibration) with put-down wording like "non essential" and "if you like that" might reflect your priorities and tastes, but I suspect a great many other competent camera users differ.
You may have read a bit too much in what I wrote.
My comments are of course derived from my needs, but I believe that they are a bit more generic than what you seem to think. I have of course never said or thought for a second that they apply to all, why would I want to discourage EVF usera happy about the tool their use? I am fully aware that compactness is key for some operations and that an EVF is by far the best solution in some shooting situations (low light,...).
On your comments:
- Although I didn't go through the list in details again, I clearly acknowledged that there were some advantages to EVFs (accurate manual focus is one of them, although I am not sold yet on the Sony implementation that seems to force you to lose track of the whole composition when you zoom to 100%, low light,...), and some, IMHO still important, downsides (contrast, battery drain, lack of resolution, "disconnection" from the reality of the scene, loss of shooting pleasure,...),
- My comment about batteries was not at all about the
time it takes to change batteries, it was about the
total weight of the system for those who need to take more than 1,000 (I wrote 1,500 above, still true at 1,000) images in a given session without having the opportunity to recharge. I mentioned my applications, but there are many others (sports, weddings,...) for which taking 1,000 images in a session without being able to charge is common. 1,000 images at 5 images per second represents... less than 4 minutes of continuous shooting. This was meant as another example of the main point, being that there are downsides to small size/low weight other than ergonomics, it isn't the magic bullet some claim it is,
- There are cheaper mirrorless cameras, but there are even cheaper DSLRs. Overall would you not agree that mirrorless are currently more expensive than their closest DSLR equivalent? The cost to produce them is clearly cheaper (less mechanical parts, faster assembly, less calibration, less recalls,...), yet they sell at at a higher price. Just facts. What it means is more margin for camera manufacturers, which is probably the main reason why Olympus is still in the camera business btw. I am not complaining at all, I find it good for them that they are able to sell on perceived value and not on cost. But it means that I won't spend that amount of cash for a a7rII although I think it would be nice to own one for some shooting situations. It is too expensive for the marginal value I would gain,
- The non essential comment was about other minor items that had not been listed (I realize that the way I built my sentence was confusing), it was not meant against EVFs.
Cheers,
Bernard
