>>3912441>Lenses aren't better and cheaperYes they are, as they don't need a retrofocal section for lenses 20mm-50mm (you need a retrofocal section if your focal length is shorter than your flange distance). Which is why mirrorless has faster, lighter, higher resolution, cheaper lenses from 20-50mm.
You're also welcome to use your old EF and f mount lenses on mirrorless, the Sony A9 with an adapter is actually faster and more accurate than a 1dx iii with canon lenses.
>The minute you go FF or use FF glassAt equivalent focal lengths, full frame is usually lighter and cheaper. A mirrorless 35mm f2.8 on FF is £230 and 80g, an Oly 17mm f1.8 (34mm f3.6 equivalent) is £280 and 120g.
You're welcome to try and list some options that full frame isn't cheaper and lighter. Not sure why you're malding over mft though when we're discussing SLR Vs ML.
>Evf's are horrible in low lightNo they're not, or you're just exposing yourself as only using 10+ year old cheap cameras. Pic related is a well respected website pointing out how much better evf's are than ovf's in low light, and this was even back in 2017.
>DSLR has every lens you could wantI want the canon 28-70 f2, can I get that on EF or f mount? What about a 12-24 f2.8? How come mirrorless is already getting lenses DSLR's never had, when they've had about 10% as long to do so?
>Not always more affordableGive me any example.
>How does it make flash easierBecause you can set your ambient light with the viewfinder, and your subject lighting with flash compensation. Chimping isn't nearly as necessary, and the steps to get to the shot you want are a lot less.
