Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
I think you're a bit unfair here, Guy. In my case, I pointed out that an EVF is a disadvantage for some kinds of sport. I've tried it countless times the last 4 years, and an optical viewfinder is far superior. I couldn't care less about the fps, but I know it's important to many. I never use more than 5fps anyway and more often than not I'm on single shots, also for sports. Manual focus lenses too, even a 500mm mirror. But I mostly prefer what has now become a "traditional" form factor, which is one of the reasons for using Panasonic, even after 30 years with Olympus OM. I thought I wanted to go back to that shape, but for work, I don't.
Why Sony is here should be obvious. They have launched a camera that is suitable for lots of professional uses, but has a totally different form factor than what has been dominant for more than 20 years, different viewfinder and different ergonomics. It's interesting to discuss where the limitations are, which style of camera is suitable for what kind of work. Obviously that will change as technology evolves, but that shouldn't stop us from discussing what is available at the moment and how they compare.
I do shoot sports with all kinds of old and new cameras, if I have time and no obligations. But if I'm at a car race and someone pays me to take photos of a certain car, I must use the gear that is the most suitable. That car might crash on the second lap, so I must assume that I have only one chance. The perfect camera to get that shot would be the D4s, but since I can't afford that, the D2Xs does the job beautifully. I would love to have something that was half the weight and size, like the A7, and some time in the future, a Sony or a Panasonic will probably do the job. But right now, they don't. Not for me.
And I am disturbed by the orange grunch. Colours are a part of the composition and if half the viewfinder is filled with alien stuff, it's harder to "see" the image, at least for me.
Why Sony is here should be obvious. They have launched a camera that is suitable for lots of professional uses, but has a totally different form factor than what has been dominant for more than 20 years, different viewfinder and different ergonomics. It's interesting to discuss where the limitations are, which style of camera is suitable for what kind of work. Obviously that will change as technology evolves, but that shouldn't stop us from discussing what is available at the moment and how they compare.
I do shoot sports with all kinds of old and new cameras, if I have time and no obligations. But if I'm at a car race and someone pays me to take photos of a certain car, I must use the gear that is the most suitable. That car might crash on the second lap, so I must assume that I have only one chance. The perfect camera to get that shot would be the D4s, but since I can't afford that, the D2Xs does the job beautifully. I would love to have something that was half the weight and size, like the A7, and some time in the future, a Sony or a Panasonic will probably do the job. But right now, they don't. Not for me.
And I am disturbed by the orange grunch. Colours are a part of the composition and if half the viewfinder is filled with alien stuff, it's harder to "see" the image, at least for me.