fabriziogiudici

<p>Which lens were you using?</p>

<p>In some cases there's light leakage and it can be a problem. True, but in my experience it happens only in a few cases.<br /> On the other hand, two days ago I was able to manually focus with the A-6000 on a flock of wild geese well after the sunset, and I could hardly see them with the naked eye - so I couldn't have done that with an OVF.</p>

<p>Well, the point is just that the 18-200mm is not the same quality of the other lenses. <br> Changing lenses on the field with mirrorless is not problematic (at least where I live). I experienced a dust grain only once in several months with my NEX-6, so it wasn't worse than with the DSLR. If one brings a cleaning package (not on the field, it can stay in the hotel), the thing can be controlled before it turns into a problem, really.</p>

<p>I only kept an AFS 300 f/4 from Nikon for wildlife and birds in flight. For that kind of subject, I agree that AF in mirrorless cameras might not be enough. But just for the record, the A6000 seems capable to deal with sports such as cycling (e.g. http://petapixel.com/2014/08/18/mirrorless-sports-photography-capturing-tour-de-france-sony-a6000/), thus it could be ok for kids (BTW I switched to Sony and I do own an A6000, but I've not used it yet for fast moving subjects, so I can't add my perspective).<br> Given that, I expect that other competitors, including Fuji, will keep on improving their AF systems and it's not unlikely that dealing with fast moving objects becomes a feasible thing with many mirrorless models in 2015. So, I second the idea of start moving to your favourite mirrorless system keeping Canon for action, and keeping also an eye on the market.</p>

<p>"Totally useless" is not referred to your post, but to the post that you linked. In fact I understand you are on the same opinion as me.</p>

<p>It's a troll post - totally useless. It's quite common to be sharp at the centre for a lens, a bit stopped down. If a lens is not sharp at the centre stopped down, where is it supposed to be sharp? And what would be the meaning of a lens that is never sharp? I have a kit lens of my (now older) Nikon system that had a good sharpness reputation, and in fact it is very sharp at the centre. I suppose many lenses are not so far in sharpness at the centre from the Otus. High-class stuff is so expensive because it's sharp at the corners and possibly wide open.<br> Not to defend the Otus - I won't ever buy such an expensive lens. It's to defend the obvious.</p>

<blockquote> <p>less items and surface area for debris to accumulate</p> </blockquote> <p>I agree, good point. </p>

<p>I own a NEX-6 and the shutter stays open when changing lens. I was worried too for the risk of getting more dust, but I can say that in the past 9 months I've taken almost 10.000 shots with a number of lenses, changing them on the field. So far, dust has been a problem no more than with my previous DSLRs whose sensors was protected by the mirror: I had to apply Lightroom corrections only a handful of times. The cleaning mode of the camera seems to be very effective.<br> Of course, the experience with dust on the sensor can be different from place to place (different characteristics of dust in the air, moisture, etc...) but I can compare my experience with mirrorless and DSLR since I'm using them in the same places. I've also spent four days, recently, in the countryside with white roads and lots of dust - my car is still dusty inside - and no problems with photos.<br> I do plan of buying a second camera for minimising lens switches on the field, just as I did with my two DSLRs, but I say that dust is not a big trouble with mirrorless.</p>