wdross wrote:
It is not that one is better than the other, but that they are different designs. Most everyone understands the design of a mirror camera. But Olympus and Panasonic heard their customers wanting smaller, lighter, and less costly. They realized that a smaller format allowed the cameras to start being smaller. Then they asked the question of what are the various cost and weight of certain parts/assemblies. They realized that the pentaprism was a source of both size, weight, and cost. If they got rid of the pentaprism, they would have no need for the mirror box assembly, another source of size, weight and cost. But then how does one view the image at the sensor? Then someone thought, why not take the signal off the sensor and send it to a small TV screen for viewing? With that, the mirrorless camera was born. By taking out the mirror assembly and pentaprism, the body thickness was reduced and the height was reduced. Potential mechanical problems disappeared with the mirror box. A chunk of weight disappeared with the pentaprism. And the size for a camera shrunk and the weight of a camera lessened. Less material was needed for building a camera and, therefore, the camera became less costly. For the same sensor size a camera became smaller, lighter, and less costly. Then one shrinks the sensor size for more savings. This is why the Canon costs $7350 and weights 7.6 lbs. while the equivalent of this costs $4500 and weights 4 lbs. in the Olympus. There are pros and cons to each format, but these are some of the major differences.
It is not that one is better than the other, but t... (
show quote)
Please stop pontificating on this site. This was a response to the question as to why one is better than the other. And it doesnt answer the question. All it does is spout off about something that everyone knows.....