This sub-thread started with a claim by Bernard that to get adequate battery life, an EVF camera would need a battery so big that it would be as bulky as a DSLR in the same format with the same battery life, and related speculations about the cost of EVF vs OVF kits in the same format size. All that those of us "on the EVF side" are arguing is that Bernard's size comparison is wrong.
… and spurious, at best.
Sorry, I don't follow your argument.
Because you're incapable of rational thought or being obtuse ? I doubt the former so I can but presume the latter.
This whole thread and tiresome undercurrent of trying to nitpick deficiencies in EVF cams purely based on a dubious power requirement, is becoming tiring and turning this forum into a dpreview variant.
You want, need or prefer to use a DSLR, that's fine – go right ahead. But complaining about battery capacity, with no thought as to how to circumvent, what for many is a minor limitation, borders on cognitive impotence.
My original Eriksson mobile lasted days on a single charge, my iPhone doesn't get through a whole day without a top-up. So ?
A Nikon D3/D4 battery is about 2600mAh, the Nikon EN-EL314a: 1230mAh ( up from 1030mAh) and a Sony NP-FW50 Lithium-Ion: 1020mAh. The last two are about 1/10th the capacity of a Mophie Powerstation XL (12,000 mAh) – which not only recharges in situ (even in your handbag) but can also power the A7x series directly. It'll charge your IPhone and iPad as well - no extra chargers required.
Can you do that on a dslr ? - nope.
So which one now is the more disadvantaged ?
The attraction of this new breed of diminutive CSC's is, IMO, similar to the original appeal of the first Leica M's – they were small, discreet, quiet and, at the time, unobtrusive.
Pretty much the same today, except now, far more accomplished and versatile than one could ever have imagined then and now with vastly improved IQ, even over many current DSLR's. A certain aesthetic appeal, reminiscent of the early 70's slimline Nikon and Canons ( a particular nod to Olympus in this department) didn't do any harm either – particularly to those of us tired of the ubiquitous, modern 'polycarbonate blob' look. Tie that to vastly improved IQ and a winning breed was created.
The Leica M's were not a panacea for every photographic 'requirement' any more than this new breed is. But as the new kid on the block – they're here to stay.
Your choice.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/09/24/candid-cameraEdit:
For the record, some advantages of the A7x series compared to dslr's:
Free of lens calibration.
Quiet, discreet, unobtrusive (add weight to this one).
Canon lenses on a Nikon, let alone autofocus with them ?.
Ditto Leica M's.
Ditto any number of legacy and modern lenses.
Superior 'motion' capability.
IBIS with ALL lenses.
Focus Peaking.
Live View, EFCS ? - ( yes, I know Nikon has it, but you need to get used to pressing the shutter button , twice – great!)
All a bit more substantive than CIPA battery data, IMO.