I agree with Tim. Venkat, do try the mirrorless full frame cameras one more time. I have a Sony A7 and been very happy with it. In fact, I have completely given up on my film cameras. I use 35mm and 90mm fixed lenses, but I have shot it with longer lenses and it was very good both ergonomically and IQ wise. ~ashwin +919483466818
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:40 PM -0700, "Tim Bray" <tb...@textuality.com> wrote: Hm. It’s quite likely wrong to conclude from your experience that mirrorlesses are slow in general. Lots of people who've been using SLRs for years have been going the other way recently, drawn by the charms of mirrorless size and ergonomics. I think you'd find the recent offerings from Olympus, Panasonic, and Fujifilm probably would please you. Some people like the recent Sonys but I found the one I tried to be ergonomically painful, and they have HUGE sensors which means you wait forever while downloading and processing them. On the other hand, if you want to make 1 meter x 3 meter prints… Having said that, you can get a little more for your money in SLR-land, particularly in used-SLR land. Your question is a little unusual because many photographers, including some with very high visibility, have in the last couple of years switched from SLR to mirrorless. I don’t have high visibility but I did too (Fujifilm in my case) and can’t imagine going back. On May 1, 2015 7:36 PM, "Tim Bray" <tb...@textuality.com> wrote: > > Why would you want a larger, heavier camera that won't actually take better > pictures? Actually I found that the mirrorless was quite slow. During my recent trip, the camera and the rented lens (prime lens at that) was too slow. Besides, the buffer was not able to match the speed of the wildlife and birds that I typically try to capture. It was pretty frustrating. The mirrorless is good for relatively slower subjects and casual photos. -V
