nick_g

<blockquote>

<p><em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19054">Ilkka Nissila</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Dec 30, 2013; 03:32 p.m.</em><br /> <em>While some people say SLRs still have better image quality, mirrorless (cameras) have improved to the point where they're equivalent, if not superior</em><br /><br /> That's amazing, coming from a guy working for Fuji . ;-) I disagree.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both DSLR and Mirrorless capture images on electronic sensors. As long as the Lens and Sensors are of the same quality, how does having a mirror and not having a mirror affect IQ? What I see is that you are disagreeing to is the push for making cheaper cameras, and one of the ways to make a camera cheaper is to reduce components such as the mirror, and cheaper lens. You cannot write off mirrorless cameras with what is represented in the market right now.</p>

<p>The biggest advantage of using a LCD screen instead of a OVF or EVF is the ability to be part of the event while you shoot the picture. The moment you put you eye into the EVF/OVF, it is like putting blinders on. You only see what you are capturing. Works if you do not want to be part of the party, and are attending only as a photographer. But as an enthusiast, I want to take pictures without taking myself out of the activities. Think about it.</p>