[caption id="attachment_4680" align="alignright" width="300" caption="credit: dummies.com"]
[/caption]
The photo industry is changing at a rapid pace, cameras are getting smaller and more powerful. Professionals will always enjoy using a more durable and often larger cameras, but for the rest of the world, something smaller and lighter is probably more desirable. While I am one of those stuck up pros that likes to torture himself with a heavy camera, I am impressed by how small Sony, Olympus, and Panasonic have made their mirrorless cameras. There has never been another time in the history of photography where you get more bang for your buck. Just like any other sort of technology, we've seen massive improvements in digital photography since its inception in the late 90's. However the issue of the viewfinder has recently come up for debate. Mirrorless cameras do no have optical viewfinders (OVFs) so electronic viewfinders (EVFs) are the only viable option. EVFs have improved quite a bit. These aren't the EVFs from your dad's old huge VHS camcorder, but to me nothing beats composing photos through a good old fashioned piece of high quality optical glass. Sony on the other hand made one of the nicest and brightest optical viewfinders in the a900. Recently it has come up that Sony will no longer be using optical viewfinders and is transitioning their entire line of cameras to use SLT technology. I think this is a mistake, especially if Sony is trying to go after the higher-end photographer. I recently got a chance to test out the new Sony EVFs which use OLED technology. It has a faster refresh rate and does not smear/lag nearly as much as the older version. I was impressed, but let the Sony rep know that it was nice, but still not as good as an OVF. She contested this and said she thought it was better. I guess she has to say that, but what do all of you think? Is the old OVF technology still better than today's OLED EVFs? -MZ