Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

EVF is Electronic View Finder and OVF is Optical View Finder. The former is a miniature TV screen and the later is a system of mirror and prism (usually) that directs the image from the lens to your eye. As of now the OVF still has preference in professional equipment. But the EVF has made great strides to reduce the lag time of the image (Smear etc.) as you pan or move the lens around. It will be catching up soon I am sure and become viable professionally.

mjgoulet

Do you wear glasses to see far or close??

BuckeyeBilly Loc: St. Petersburg, FL

I'm just asking, not accusing. Who else besides Sony and Leica have a FF mirrorless on the market to buy this very day?

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

I’m so intrenched with Nikon I was seriously hoping for a ML from Nikon but Sony was there

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

APS-C comparison...Fuji only makes APSC and Medium.

However note the Fuji lacks a grip which can be added but that bulks it up a bit. All the weight will be in the glass especially for 300+, wide aperture <f/2.8 and superzooms, so the weight and size advantages of the bodies are insignificant with larger lenses whatever the sensor size (perhaps M43 Olympus/Panasonic might have an advantage there.) Weight and size would not be a selling point for me for ML, but rather "look ma no mirror" - less noise & vibration (especially), faster recovery between shots, faster fps for action shots, faster in camera focus stacking, instant exposure preview and other niceties along those lines. I like reasonable heft in the body with a nice grip (or grips for vertical), ML or DSLR.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I've never seen weight as a real concern with DSLRs. That's what I'm used to carrying - a D750 with probably a 28-300mm lens. If I have to bring a compact camera, then I bring a compact, but weight is never a concern. Really, there isn't much difference, especially with a longer lens on a compact.

My D750 weighs 1 lb 7 oz, while my Sony A6000 weighs 1 lb 1/2 oz. A difference of 5 1/2 ounces (without lenses) is nothing.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

There’s well over 1000 pages of posts on this site (by using the search feature) and if they were to simply use a google search they’d find 10x that amount of articles written.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

Looking at the quality of images and the low light high iso from Sony A9 and so many of the other innovations it brings to the table Canon & Nikon need to sit up and take notice!
I’ve seen where the A9 is a Nikon & Canon killer, where Nikon & Canon have a huge advantage is in the glass side of things but I can tell you, the Zeiss and the G and GM lenses are every bit as sharp as my Nikkors so I’m thinking that there isn’t the “big two” any more but rather the “big three”!
Soooo when I’m shooting a concert a play something that has a quiet audience and I’m no longer “CLUNKING” every shot with my D5, I’m totally silent with my A9 and I’m not disturbing the audience.

mrtaxi Loc: Old Westbury NY, Fort Lauderdale, FL

If one is comparing weight FF mirrorless vs Ff DSLR the FF mirrorless is significantly less however this comparison is meaningless without real life comparisons with lenses. The glass is about the same weight and is often longer for FF mirrorless than the same type for a FF DSLR. Therefore weight and size differences are not relevant because with their lenses on you will find them to be too close in both weight and size. Compare a 5d mark iv with canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II to the Sony’s top of the line FF with their 24-70 f/2.8. The Sony glass is 22 mm longer than Canon and 81 g heavier than canons. Therefore the Sony kit is actually the same size and just a tad heavier in weight. Shocking! The canon L glass is rated higher and is better. The weather sealing and durability on the canon is better. The Sony has other advantages in resolution, and slight performance advantages. But until canon glass works as good on a Sony as it does on a canon I will wait. I am too vested in canon L glass.

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

If I want a mirrorless I would by a high end video camera. You can take high resolution videos and still take stills or capture stills from the video. Mirrorless like Sony is just another piece of electronics not a triditional SLR. Triditional and the art of photography are what it's all about. But who am I to say anything. I still shoot film from time to time.

Albert2000

I have a Fujifilm XT-20. It's body is much smaller and lighter than a comparable DSLR. The silent shutter feature is helpful when you must reduce noise. The electronic viewfinder is great. Low light performance, especially at its price point, is wonderful. Yes if you need to use a loooong zoom lens the weight of the lens and the associated camera balance becomes an issue. If you use a "kit" zoom lens and / or a wide angle lens - there is no comparison for the serious amateur photographer who does not want to lug lots of heavy gear. These cameras can be little gems.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

Yes, a camera with a heavy lens is heavy. And it will be heavy and pitch forward. But it has always been our choice of what lens we put on the camera.
If you are a pro you need certain lens for a project. I carry mirrorless camera's everywhere. Mostly my a6300 with 16 70 zeiss lens. A good rig. Their are lighter alternatives. My first release Sony 70 200 f4 is very light for a big lens. Shot a whole afternoon of kids soccer with this lens and my Sony a7s II great camera
with most weight built strong. I was reading the other day about a documentary style photographers will tell you their is a big difference with a low profile smaller rig.
With my RX100 IV I can shoot anywhere. I won't do rude stuff like shoot girls in bikini's or others peoples children. Can't do that anymore. But a volleyball game
on the beach in slow motion or interesting character maybe. The 16 70 zeiss apc s is not big but handle almost any situation. If it was a 1.2 it would probably be big.
My full frame a7s II is terrific. I use it when I want to get cinema style video and great images with more fiddling.
Camcorders like the Sony XDCam PWXW 70 is a pro camera but quite small. It can do anything and put out pro footage. New shooters like these.
I will shoot 3 days of running festival next week mostly with this camera. It is the tool you need and our choice to pick what we want to shoot and equipment.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Jeff, Thank you. This level of detail helps me. Appreciate it.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Tom, sorry about the name mix up.

gwilliams6

I used big-body pro SLRs and DSLRs for 40 years,yes 40 and then switched to Sony mirrorless full-frame back in January 2017. Yes there is a marked weight advantage in the Sony mirrorless bodies, due to no need for that bulky mirrorbox and mechanism . On the lens side, there are some really excellent compact mirrorless lenses that do weigh less than their DSLR equivalents . But there at also some heavier mirrorless lens that are about the same weight as DSLR lenses. The real lens weight savings with mirrorless lenses seems to be in the normal to wide angle focal lengths. As you go up the telephoto ranges there is less a weight advantage .

Ultimately there is a definite weight savings system-wide in my Sony mirrorless gear now vs my Canon DSLR system . Trust me, my old back knows and appreciates the weight difference after an eight hour shoot or when trekking through the mountains with my gear.

Some mirrorless camera makers like Fuji are using bigger and heavier bodies than the more compact Sony bodies. Those camera bodies have less weight advantage over traditional DSLRs. Expect Canon and Nikon to keep their big bodies when they release their full-frame mirrorless systems. They will do that so their lens owners can still use their current Nikon and Canon lens on their new full-frame mirrorless systems, and keep these folks from switching to another system. Those bodies wont be that much lighter than their current DSLR bodies.