Works for me with my X-E2, I wouldn't have suggested it otherwise.
350-400 shots? I only get about 250 on mine
I have 2 spare ex pro ones, but I find I often need them on a days shooting.
Pretty much how I use mine tbh.
and when/if that's possible you can shoot action with a lethargic compact 
Tbh M4/3 have an excellent lens line up and has just about everything for everybody. Fuji caters for most but I wouldn't say extensive, likewise Sony E mount. Sony FE mount is still severely lacking IMO but is growing.Just a quick plug for the excellent Sony A7 series before I get to my main point..
I have the original A7 which I bought with the kit lens but have only used the 55mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.8 and manual primes. It is in my opinion a fantastic system for general photography and the camera is very compact and light when fitted with the 55 or 35mm but note that I don't do action... apart from anticipating it
Anyway my main point is that mirrorless systems are often criticised for the relatively small number of lenses available but I wonder if this will matter to most people as the main focal lengths will probably be covered by most systems. Another point is that the Canon and Nikon range of APS-C lenses may look a bit weak in comparison to some mirrorless lens line ups but of course you can use full frame lenses on APS-C DSLR's... I just mention this because I think it's generally an advantage to use lenses specifically designed for the camera you want to use them on and maybe it's a shame that the DSLR market leaders APS-C line ups are comparatively weak given the length of time they've had to develop lenses
the-aproaching-sea by Alf Branch, on Flickr
This^
I'm not sure I agree with some of this tbh. When I got married I knew nothing about photography and didn't give a hoots what camera the tog used or turned up with, allA current issue (which by all means for the likes of the photographer are benefits) with mirrorless systems is they don't appear as "professional" as an SLR does (small, lights, unoffensive or intrusive to the general public), it is unfortunate as, primarily the quality of the images are almost entirely down to the photographer, but also mirrorless systems can create equally beautiful images. An example is people want to see a bloke and his assistant turn up with 100 kilos of kit, 2 huge incredibly offensive camera bodies and lenses getting swapped out left right and center to feel they have paid their good money for a professional photographer. If you didn't know any better and you paid £1000 for a photographer at your wedding would you be impressed if he turned up with something marginally bigger than a point and shoot, a second prime lens and 40 spare battery packs? which brings me to my final points - the choice of propitiatory and 3rd party lenses is much smaller than that of the long established SLR systems, and due to the high demand of power for operation you get about 1/3rd the number of shots using a mirrorless system. This doesnt matter if you are a landscape photographer, but shooting sports or events where you are firing shots off all day you will need a good few spares.
For me, if you can only own a single system, I would go with a DSLR and wait 5 years for the technology to improve and the lenses more available - particularly second hand.
To answer the question after all that dross,
You can look through an SLR without draining the power
You can compose a shot in mostly darkness with much less trouble with a mirrorless
Autofocus is snappier on SLR's - currently
There is ZERO lag when looking through the viewfinder of an SLR
the resolution of the SLR viewfinder is infinite whereas mirrorless is as good as specified in the handbook.
The pros and cons of both are very much bone picking, they are almost equal in performance and give it a few more years I'm sure....
I hope my post hasn't offended anyone
Cheers
Earl
)I'm not sure I agree with some of this tbh. When I got married I knew nothing about photography and didn't give a hoots what camera the tog used or turned up with, all
I looked at was his portfolio (although would have been a bit put off if he just turned up with a compact or iphone
Also, whilst I prefer the OVF in my D750 over the EVF of my EM5-II (and my previous A77-II), I prefer the EVF in the EM5-II and A77-II to OVFs in entry and mid level DSLRs. Also, the brightness of the OVF is dependant on your lens.
Tbh I've never had an issue with my eyes adjusting from looking at an EVF in darkness, but obviously it is brighter so I guess some might.
Whilst the technical stuff here might be close, the bits about 'professional gear' are a mile wide of the mark. Pro's get jobs based on their portfolio, not their gear. And during the job, they impress with their behaviour not their gear. But most importantly, they're judged by their results, never their gear.A current issue (which by all means for the likes of the photographer are benefits) with mirrorless systems is they don't appear as "professional" as an SLR does (small, lights, unoffensive or intrusive to the general public), it is unfortunate as, primarily the quality of the images are almost entirely down to the photographer, but also mirrorless systems can create equally beautiful images. An example is people want to see a bloke and his assistant turn up with 100 kilos of kit, 2 huge incredibly offensive camera bodies and lenses getting swapped out left right and center to feel they have paid their good money for a professional photographer. If you didn't know any better and you paid £1000 for a photographer at your wedding would you be impressed if he turned up with something marginally bigger than a point and shoot, a second prime lens and 40 spare battery packs? which brings me to my final points - the choice of propitiatory and 3rd party lenses is much smaller than that of the long established SLR systems, and due to the high demand of power for operation you get about 1/3rd the number of shots using a mirrorless system. This doesnt matter if you are a landscape photographer, but shooting sports or events where you are firing shots off all day you will need a good few spares.
For me, if you can only own a single system, I would go with a DSLR and wait 5 years for the technology to improve and the lenses more available - particularly second hand.
To answer the question after all that dross,
You can look through an SLR without draining the power
You can compose a shot in mostly darkness with much less trouble with a mirrorless
Autofocus is snappier on SLR's - currently
There is ZERO lag when looking through the viewfinder of an SLR
the resolution of the SLR viewfinder is infinite whereas mirrorless is as good as specified in the handbook.
The pros and cons of both are very much bone picking, they are almost equal in performance and give it a few more years I'm sure the decision should get easier.
I hope my post hasn't offended anyone
Cheers
Earl
Not sure you're using the right term there as arc eye is inflammation due to exposure to UV light, in effect sunburn of the eye. But having any kind of visual impairment from using a screen isn't ideal, glad you've found something that you can use without an issue.
Not sure you're using the right term there as arc eye is inflammation due to exposure to UV light, in effect sunburn of the eye. But having any kind of visual impairment from using a screen isn't ideal, glad you've found something that you can use without an issue.
It is strange how we all see different effects though. I remember when I had my A77 and thought the screen was perfect, but a long term Canon user I was out on a shoot with once tried it said that he could see the screen, particularly the sky flickering. I do however notice this with my EM5-II, and did see the rainbow tearing on the GX7
Yes and no. Yes, optical viewfinders give the most 'real' picture especially if they're a good size. No, in that an EVF will always present you with the brightest image possible, unlike the realm of darkness you get in an OVF when the light starts to go...
I admire your passion for the reality of it allWhilst the technical stuff here might be close, the bits about 'professional gear' are a mile wide of the mark. Pro's get jobs based on their portfolio, not their gear. And during the job, they impress with their behaviour not their gear. But most importantly, they're judged by their results, never their gear.
With a caveat: sometimes people attempt to judge a professional by their gear, but there's a name for those people and it doesn't get past the swear filter, idiot doesn't quite cover it.
Ahh right, I thought you meant the EVF caused your arc eye hence my confusion