[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/p/ - Photography - DSLR VS MIRROR-LESS

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

DSLR VS MIRROR-LESS Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)12:38 UTC+1 No.2349410 Report

DSLR VS MIRROR-LESS Thread
>as of current time both are relatively same camera and delivers same result (depends on camera, entry level/mid-range/fullframe)
>DSLR now is fashion like thing, made to please hipster who want to look like a photographer.
>If there is low entry level dslr (say Nikon 3200) and full-frame Sony NEX 7, hipster will choose Nikon 3200 because it is big.
>Traditional DSLR is like Desktop (big and bulky) , MILC is like laptop (small & delivers same performance)
>For almost 10years, size and weight of DSLR hasn't changed.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)12:39 UTC+1 No.2349412 Report

ughh fuck off with these utterly useless threads
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)12:41 UTC+1 No.2349414 Report

>>2349412
fuck you
>>
BJDrew 06/26/14(Thu)12:42 UTC+1 No.2349415 Report

Thanks for a rewarding read. Incomprehensible, but amusing as a whole.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)12:58 UTC+1 No.2349419 Report

>>2349410
>Traditional DSLR is like Desktop (big and bulky) , MILC is like laptop (small & delivers same performance)
/g/ don't approve
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)13:01 UTC+1 No.2349420 Report

DSLR are big, but comfortable and ergonomic. You have tons of keys that you can press fast like a ninja without event look at it
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)13:54 UTC+1 No.2349451 Report

>>2349419
if you're only browsing facebook, or only taking snap pics, you're right, if you're working with one, than there is a reason to choose the bulkier
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)14:00 UTC+1 No.2349456 Report

>>2349451
if I only want to browse facebook, I'd buy a macbook.
>>
BJDrew 06/26/14(Thu)14:02 UTC+1 No.2349457 Report

I hate to equivocate, but in this instance there really is no winner. These designs address different priorities to different degrees.

When I want to shoot long lenses, or birds, sports - I easily recognize what I'm missing with a DSLR. At the same time, I love the smaller form factor with all my heart for pictorial and landscape shooting.

How can one really declare total victory?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)14:08 UTC+1 No.2349459 Report

>>2349456
$3000 facebook machine
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)14:32 UTC+1 No.2349480 Report

>>2349410
Get both. Seriously I don't get all these DSLR vs. Mirrorless and both have their own pros and cons.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)14:36 UTC+1 No.2349485 Report

>>2349457
>How can one really declare total victory?

They can't, but fanboys will try to do it anyways.

>>2349480
Good point. I actually feel the same way about Canon vs. Nikon shit. I don't know why people think they need to be locked into one system and can only ever own and use one system from one company at a time. Makes no damned sense.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)14:38 UTC+1 No.2349486 Report

>>2349457
By realizing that the "smaller form factor" is for casual faggots.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)14:45 UTC+1 No.2349491 Report

>>2349485
>>2349457
usually it's because buying equipment from only one system is cheaper than buying for 2 or 3

I am a user of Canon, at today technology, unfortunately, for me, Nikon has the best sensor, if I were to change from Canon to Nikon, I would have to invest serious cash, 5 cameras plus lenses, you can picture it.

In my opinion, DSLRs are for people who work as photographers, sure you can take good pictures with a mirrorless, but it's not as reliable as a DSLR. The entire DSLT system is much more solid, with dedicated lens and flash.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)14:54 UTC+1 No.2349501 Report

>>2349491
>sure you can take good pictures with a mirrorless, but it's not as reliable as a DSLR.
Depends on what kind of DSLR are we talking about. There aren't any mirrorless cameras of 1DX/D4s level for well-paid professionals, but in the so-called "semipro" segment (whatever that means) mirrorless cameras in the last couple years became able to do everything DSLRs can do with the same quality and reliability.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)15:14 UTC+1 No.2349515 Report

>>2349491
>5 cameras plus lenses

Why 5 cameras? Why not just get one that you can use when you feel like you really "need" better sensor performance, e.g. for landscapes?

For that matter, most of Nikon's sensors are made by Sony, and the D600 and D800E sensors can be found in the A7 and A7r cameras respectively. Adapt those with your Canon glass. Problem solved.
>>
BJDrew 06/26/14(Thu)15:22 UTC+1 No.2349523 Report

>>2349486
Using a 1Dx size body with a Summicron 35/2 is pretty stupid. But if that's what it takes to be a certified enthusiast...
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)15:31 UTC+1 No.2349530 Report

My X-T1 raw files don't ever look as crisp and clean as my 5D2 files. I use my 5D2 when it matters, and my X-T1 for wandering around and casual fun, because it's smaller and less obnoxious to have attached to my shoulder.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)15:46 UTC+1 No.2349545 Report

>>2349530
This is because Fuji has baked-into-raw noise reduction.

Try an E-M1 out, and see if that fixes your problem.

>>2349491
>In my opinion, DSLRs are for people who work as photographers, sure you can take good pictures with a mirrorless, but it's not as reliable as a DSLR.
If you are using a 1Dx / D4s, sure. There are no mirrorless cameras of that level quite yet.
But if you are using a 5D3, D600, 7D, etc, you can switch to mirrorless. The E-M1 is a solid choice with super fast AF, top notch build, and great lenses. The X-T1 is a solid choice, with some nice lenses, great out of camera ISO performance, and good handling.
Both of the above cameras are slathered in manual controls, so thats not a problem. Both are large enough to use comfortably for all but the gigantist of hands. Both have dedicated flash units available. People also keep talking about how much better "full frame" is than APS-C and M4/3, when in reality the difference is 1-2 stops at high ISO depending on which cameras you compare.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)15:47 UTC+1 No.2349547 Report

battery in mirror-less is shit and kind of slow auto-focus.. other wise they are ok.
there isn't wide-range of lens of it is increasing and what they have now is OK for most.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)15:49 UTC+1 No.2349548 Report

>>2349410
I have big hands, so I use a Sony A3000. It's a MILC in a DSLR's body, but it's very, very light.

MILC is easier to clean sensor because it's not so deep in the body, but at the same time, sensor is always exposed, which means easier to get dirty and more prone to overheating when exposed to the sun.

Also, using beer can lenses on a teeny NEX looks fucking stupid, as does using a tiny lens designed for NEX on a large DSLR.

DSLR body is instant credibility because it makes you look "pro."

Currently MILC's seem like "fake" pro cameras at the moment. Not true.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)15:54 UTC+1 No.2349551 Report

>>2349420
That's a good point. Lots of surface areas for lots of instant controls. Touch screens or "simple" layouts are rubbish in certain conditions.

>>2349457
Find an in-between. A decently-sized, light, MILC with a DSLR body. Sony makes them I think. Or buy both.

>>2349480
/thread

Buy both bodies, and buy two nice adapters to interchange lenses of both mounts.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)15:57 UTC+1 No.2349553 Report

>>2349410
>hipster will choose Nikon 3200 because it is big.

>hipster may also choose Leica M9 for it's vintage look
>>
BJDrew 06/26/14(Thu)16:07 UTC+1 No.2349558 Report

>>2349551
For me, I'm happy with an A7r and every now and then, adding a big honking lens to it with an adapter and a grip.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)16:10 UTC+1 No.2349560 Report

>>2349558
You're lucky they make grips for that camera. I have to make my own for my A3000 once I start using giant lenses.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)16:16 UTC+1 No.2349564 Report

>>2349420
E-M1, X-T1 provide these manual ninja contols. As an E-M1 owner, I can say that it has more buttons than a 7D. And they are customizable as well.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)16:19 UTC+1 No.2349566 Report

>>2349564
E-M5's buttons are pretty cramped and awkward to use if you have big hands. E-M1 is bigger and thus should be better in this regard, but not by much.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)16:25 UTC+1 No.2349570 Report

>>2349547
>kind of slow auto-focus
Single-shot AF is very fast on most modern mirrorless cameras, as good as any midrange DSLR. Even tracking AF, which was very problematic with contrast-detection AF, has been fixed on cameras with hybrid AF like A6000 and E-M1.

>>2349566
Not all mirrorless cameras try to be as small as possible. GH3 and GH4 are bigger than rabals, and I believe you can attach a fatter front grip to X-T1 and a couple others.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)16:28 UTC+1 No.2349572 Report

>>2349566
I have large hands, and I find the E-M1 to be a great fit to them. The front mounted buttons near the lens mount are awesome. I have the curve adjustment button set to ISO as well. My only gripe is that the dedicated shooting mode (burst, bracketing, timer, single) is on the left side of the camera, but this can be adjusted with a custom set, if you desire.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)16:35 UTC+1 No.2349573 Report

>>2349564
>>2349572
>As an E-M1 owner
Are you that assburgers guy who thinks m4/3 is full frame?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)16:36 UTC+1 No.2349574 Report

>>2349573
I'm not the only E-M1 user on /p/.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)16:50 UTC+1 No.2349578 Report

So satisfying
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)16:52 UTC+1 No.2349580 Report

>>2349578
you're a real badass
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)17:00 UTC+1 No.2349585 Report

>>2349501
not for me

>>2349515
i have more people working for me, i need backup, threre are a lot of reasons for having 5 cameras, i worked with a Wedding Photographer who had 12, let me repeat, 12 Canons 5D, and the reason is, if you work as a photographer, you have to be reliable, and if your camera stop working, well, you better have a backup

>>>>2349545
I have used an E-M1, it's a great camera, but it's not near a Canon 5D in my opinion, the lens selection from Canon, plus the reliability, that it showed me, since none of my 5 cameras never stopped working, are enough reason for me to stick with this system, as I said previously, if today, I would go for Nikon, but since I already have invested, I can't put all that money down.
And as a plus, since DoF is important for some of my works, having a full frame plus a cheap 85mm f/1.8, makes the system even better.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)17:05 UTC+1 No.2349591 Report

>>2349585
So you have 5 Canons and they work fine. What makes you think that if you had 5 lolympus (or Fuji, or whatever) cameras, they wouldn't be working fine as well?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)17:06 UTC+1 No.2349592 Report

>>2349580
Why? Because I know how a filter work? Not really a badass thing, but I'm glad you think so. The board is pretty nice all around when you tell your filters who you don't want to hear from.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)17:07 UTC+1 No.2349593 Report

>>2349410
>>DSLR now is fashion like thing, made to please hipster

That's not how you spell mirrorless.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)17:09 UTC+1 No.2349594 Report

>>2349593
+1, wanting a MILC because DSLR are hipster is doing things like a hipster
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)17:10 UTC+1 No.2349595 Report

>>2349578
>la la la la la, I refuse to accept that M irror less is surpassing the DS LR, so I'm just going to f ilter anyone who might like M irror less.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)17:12 UTC+1 No.2349596 Report

>>2349591
I'm getting tired of repeating myself...
Buy the FUCKING system you want, I have 5 Canons that work very fine for me, and this is the reason I continue with this system.

It's usually called Empirical knowledge, I don't need to try every camera in the world to decide, as I don't need to put my hand in all the flames to see if all of them burn.

Canon has proven reliable for me, and as so, it's the system I use, but it's not the system I would go for, if I started all over again.

The start of my argument was about why people don't buy from more than 1 system.

Made myself clear?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)17:21 UTC+1 No.2349603 Report

>>2349596
You can use anything you want. But since you claimed that "mirrorless is not as reliable as a DSLR", we'd like to see some evidence of that beyond "I use DSLRs and they haven't broken so far".
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)18:24 UTC+1 No.2349641 Report

>>2349485
>I don't know why people think they need to be locked into one system and can only ever own and use one system from one company at a time. Makes no damned sense.
Camera brandfaggotry is like a religion. No, seriously. If someone is a Canon user, then they will only have Canon cameras and lenses. If someone is a Nikon user, then they will only have Nikon cameras and lenses. The Pentax ans Sony users seem a bit more open-minded about brands (lol, who am I kidding, there are no Sony users).
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)18:33 UTC+1 No.2349646 Report

>>2349641
or it might be because while you can adapt lenses, there is always some trade-off, so why would I buy a Canon body when I mostly intend to buy Nikon lenses?

third party lenses made with multiple mounts are a thing, but again, you still have tradeoffs. most often it's in iq or build quality ( yes there are some 3rd party lenses that are better than first party lenses, but that is the exception and not the rule).

tl;dr when most people buy into a system they are doing it for lenses.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)18:33 UTC+1 No.2349647 Report

>>2349641
I am a sony user.

I used to be a canon user, but they can't seem to get their shit into the 21.145st century.

I bought into sony because they are the cheapest way to get into a dslr-surpassing sensor with a lens mount you can adapt any lens to.

I still get buttmad inside when I see people raging about nex lenses sucking and all that. Who the fuck buys those things for the native lenses? everyone knows they are only made to mount legacy glass to!!

That is all.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)18:49 UTC+1 No.2349651 Report

>>2349641
I have a Sony, Nikon and Canon, the Sony being my newest. I think the whole brand religion is the same as anything else: you have to defend what you have, because you do not want to regret paying for it.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)18:51 UTC+1 No.2349652 Report

>>2349647
>everyone knows they are only made to mount legacy glass to!!
Thats a great feature, but hardly the point of the camera. Legacy glass typically is prone to softness and aberrations that modern native lenses would not be, so a lot of the time image quality goes out the window. Then you have the fact that it is APS-C, ruining the field of view of the lens, unless you use a speedbooster.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)18:52 UTC+1 No.2349654 Report

>>2349652
>Then you have the fact that it is APS-C, ruining the field of view of the lens, unless you use a speedbooster.
nigger wat?
do you even m-mount wideangle?

obviously not.

legacy glass soft? carl would like a word with you.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)18:54 UTC+1 No.2349655 Report

>>2349654
Show me some MTF charts of vintage glass adapted vs decent native glass.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)18:56 UTC+1 No.2349656 Report

>>2349655
there's your fuckin mtf charts.

>mtf charts
for gearfags, by gearfags!
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:02 UTC+1 No.2349657 Report

>>2349585
>you have to be reliable, and if your camera stop working, well, you better have a backup

Oh of course, I understand that. I was just saying you don't need to replace all 5 cameras, in fact if you got the A7 and adapted glass you wouldn't need to replace any of them, you'd just have an additional body for landscapes, architecture, or whatever you might want the Nikon sensors for. I realize that's not the most ideal thing, but you said you liked the sensors in the Nikon cameras. You could use those sensors with your current lenses by adapting, instead of "jumping ship". Just a thought.


>>2349596
HOLY SHIT SO MUCH FUCKING THIS.

When will Mirrorless fanboys learn that new technology doesn't make the older technology any worse? There is absolutely no reason to ever stop using your current gear if it has satisfied your needs and kept you happy.

We've had so many fantastic photographs produced up to this point in time with much older cameras, but Mirrorless fags don't care about photography, they care about MUH FOCUS PEAKING and MUH I CAN TAKE IT ANYWHERE WITH ME
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:07 UTC+1 No.2349659 Report

>>2349655
>all he cares about is MTF
you know there's a lot more to lenses than sharpness?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:08 UTC+1 No.2349660 Report

There are 4 main reasons why DSLRs are still better than MILCs.

>autofocus
Contrast detect, and even the newer hybrid autofocus systems are not, and will probably never be, as fast as phase detect. This is the big problem with MILCs. No matter how much their contrast detect technology improves, MILCs will forever lack "big boy" autofocus.

>form factor/size
The MILC form factor is great for the tourist, or the hiker who is hurting for pack space. However, it just doesn't offer the same kind of gripping surface as a DSLR, which makes balancing large lenses awkward, if not laughable. Fitting the camera in your hand and accessing the controls often requires hand acrobatics with these cameras.

>controls/adjustments and viewfinders
Depending on the MILC and the kind of photography you want to do, this may not be as bad as it's made out to be, but most people still prefer having an optical viewfinder that you can look through while adjusting everything that needs to be adjusted to take the picture. Other users are content with the fact that they can see an exposure preview on the rear screen of their MILC or in an EVF. The live view screen also offers some unique focusing tools: zooming and focus peaking.

>native lenses
Any DSLR system will have decades' worth of lenses to choose from, ranging from budget to premium. With MILCs, you can choose from the handful of native lenses available to you (which may be quite nice, or may be mediocre, depending on the system), and you can use old rangefinder lenses as well, but if you want autofocus, you're pretty limited with the MILC.

And that's it. MILCs are still nice, and still the ideal solution, IMO, if packing space is at a premium. Systems like the EOS-M actually have a few very sharp native lenses available for cheap, and systems like the NEX have an above average form factor for gripping. Olympus and Fuji make excellent MILCs if the old rangefinder was your ideal. Honestly, I don't see what the whole controversy is.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:09 UTC+1 No.2349661 Report

>>2349456
Fucking shitty idea. If you only want to browse Facebook, buy an old used iPod touch
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:11 UTC+1 No.2349663 Report

>>2349641
I think it would be great if every camera company agreed on a universal camera mount, so we could interchange bodies and lenses like crazy. Hell, bring it up a notch by letting us replace the sensor without replacing the entire body. You could customize your camera like you would with a computer, by choosing a body, a sensor, and lenses that match your needs.

So if you enjoyed the 5D III body, but prefer the sensor in the D600 , and want to use it with old Olympus 35mm film lenses (just as an example), you could do just that.

Thing is, I'm sure it'd a complicated process. The various companies have done things a little differently overtime, with their mounts and their in body camera tech. I'm sure there's complicated answers as to why they can't (and can, but don't) do this sort of thing.

One can dream, though..
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:13 UTC+1 No.2349665 Report

>>2349647
>21.145st

>5st

heh
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:13 UTC+1 No.2349666 Report

>>2349663
That would literally be financial suicide, and nobody in their right mind would do that to their cameras.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:14 UTC+1 No.2349667 Report

>>2349660
I will reply to your comment:

SLR Cameras are superior for people who need the features that SLR cameras alone can offer.

Mirrorless cameras are superior for people who don't care about autofocus, long lenses, and for people who are primarily coming from a film rangefinder background.

I'd say that the mirrorless camera (aka 'digital rangefinder killer') is ideal for the street shooter, vacationist, adventure sporter, and tinkerer. The SLR is ideal for the wildlife, wedding, and event photographer.

I sold my SLR for a nex, but I don't need an slr.

People just get defensive because they don't realize that other people don't like the same things they do. They also think that other people should do things the way they do.

All the stuff about AF, features, lenses, controls is all subjective.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:16 UTC+1 No.2349668 Report

>>2349657
>Mirrorless fags don't care about photography, they care about MUH FOCUS PEAKING and MUH I CAN TAKE IT ANYWHERE WITH ME

He does - Trey Ratcliff
Sony Nex 7R

>Hello Sony. Goodbye Nikon. The Story of why I am Switching from Nikon to Sony.

search for it.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:21 UTC+1 No.2349672 Report

>>2349666
>financial suicide
Not in my dream world it wouldn't be.

But yeah, this current segregation of camera systems is mostly to blame (IMO) for the current camera brand /format wars. I mean sure, there's people who have a D-SLR and then, say, an X100S as backup. For financial reasons, it makes the most sense to commit to one system for most people, which means making compromises and tradeoffs with features compared to other systems. So in order to justify their purchase and feel like they got the best thing they could, they argue about it.

Typically, it means that all the things your camera does well are important, and the things it sucks at or doesn't do at all doesn't matter.

Shooting a D800? MP and dynamic range are the most important thing. Nobody needs a better burst rate but shitty photographers who don't know what they're doing.

Got a M 4/3 kit? Pffft, fuck high ISO performance and shallow DoF. Those things are for amateur gearfags and bokeh whores.

Oh and did I mention my 5 AXIS IN BODY STABILISATION IN MY OLYMPUS OM?!?! CAN YOUR CANIKON DO THAT??? I DIDN'T THINK SO. FAGGOT.

etc.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:21 UTC+1 No.2349673 Report

>>2349667
All that stuff will subjectively factor into a person's decision about what camera they buy, but it's not all subjective. A slow autofocus or an inherently slower interface to adjust settings can result in losing shots. An awkward form factor can result in the camera being held less steadily, and getting motion blur in your shot. Having to work with a 200mm lens because there is no 400mm lens, or working with an f/2.8 lens because there is no f/1.4 lens, can result in not getting the shot you wanted.

Of course, if the kind of photography you do is not dependent on any of these things, then they won't factor into your decision to buy whatever camera you buy, but they are objective limitations, nonetheless.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:26 UTC+1 No.2349674 Report

>>2349668
>Trey Ratcliff

Lol he's such a joke. He wrote the "DSLRs are a dying breed" comment after the D4 was announced. He then renigged it for a while because he really liked the D800 and no other camera like it was out at the time. Now he's going back on his words again and "completing the transition", and he's pretending he stuck to his guns with the "dying breed" argument the whole way through.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:27 UTC+1 No.2349677 Report

>>2349673
They may be objective limitations, you're right. My point is that if you're buying a d4s for street, it's probably not the best choice, and you might not have done your research. Same goes for buying an a6000 for studio work, or to cover your city's football team- probably not a good choice.

It's all about getting the right tool for the job, and not trying to force shit on other people.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:34 UTC+1 No.2349679 Report

>>2349657
I wouldn't adapt my lens, if you're comfortable doing this in a paid job, congrats, but it's not how I would go in this kind of situation.

Image made with a Canon 6D plus 24-105, as you can see, it's enough quality, and as much as a good sensor make a difference, try getting this photo without ilumination.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 6D
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
PhotographerAugusto Tomasi
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3637
Image Height5461
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2014:06:26 13:19:39
Exposure Time0.6 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length32.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width666
Image Height1000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:37 UTC+1 No.2349680 Report

>>2349657
Sorry, I read your first post, and though it were meant for me.

My bad.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:44 UTC+1 No.2349684 Report

>>2349674
His article did say that they were a dying breed, not a dead breed. The D800/e was the only camera that had the resolution he wanted. He exchanged that for an aps-c nex pre-A7R, and now that the A7R is a thing, it's his same D800E but mirrorless. He clearly states that he liked the D800 for the resolution, not because of dslr-related things.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:46 UTC+1 No.2349686 Report

>>2349684
The sad part, is this kind of retard gets attention saying, "Look, DSLRs are for idiots", and than next week, their fame has gone, and they need to change systems.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:49 UTC+1 No.2349689 Report

I am "upgrading" from my D60, should I get a D5100 or the cheapest NEX?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:51 UTC+1 No.2349690 Report

>>2349689
Nikon D5300
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:52 UTC+1 No.2349692 Report

>>2349686
Have you even read the article? He says extensively that DSLRs are better in some ways; and only that he thinks in the future overcome the issues that make DSLRs better for some people. And on his "Hello Sony, Goodbye Nikon." article, there's a section dedicated to ways that Nikon cameras are better.

I think your hyper-sensitivities just got a little butthurt.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:58 UTC+1 No.2349697 Report

>>2349692
Oh sorry, I forgot that, as a former poster in this thread, I should read every post referred here.

Let me post here wikipedia.org.

Now as me, you should everything posted in this site referred above.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)19:59 UTC+1 No.2349699 Report

>>2349684
>His article did say that they were a dying breed, not a dead breed.

I guess, but I remember reading it the first time and he was pretty certain of himself. He all but wrote off the SLR as ancient, inferior technology, citing how you could get "D-SLR quality" from the NEX. He then proceeded to preemptively strike out at all the people who would inevitably disagree with him and his ramblings by using the same old tired "your camera doesn't matter" argument (which is why you'd write a big blog post about why SLR's suck and mirrorless is better in every meaningful way just prior. Right?)

When the D800 was coming out, he basically went crawling back to Nikon with his tail between his legs. Yeah, he got to eat his own words. It's a little embarrassing to talk a whole lotta shit about SLRs as a whole, saying you'll never purchase another Nikon camera again, only to completely change your mind not too long after when you realize that the camera company you just wrote off for good, has exactly the kind of image quality you want for your line of work.

Still, I may have been a bit too hard on him. That last article you showed me does seem a lot more humble and objective. Instead of spewing venom at Nikon and SLR's as a whole, he made reasonable comparisons between the two systems, explained why he preferred what he has, and even threw Nikon a bone by saying they might just put both feet in the mirrorless door soon. Definitely a welcome attitude, when pretty much every other mirror less user on the internet seems thoroughly convinced that their very new system is da future and Canikon is doomed forever.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:00 UTC+1 No.2349700 Report

>>2349697
Oh no, there's no need for you to read Ratcliff's articles at length, I just want to let you know how childish you sound making blanket statements about an author without having read the article in question.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:00 UTC+1 No.2349701 Report

>>2349647
>complain about Canon being outdated
>talks up sony because of outdated legacy glass
It's like you don't even know glass is more important than sensor on a camera.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:03 UTC+1 No.2349702 Report

I heard people talking about how they love mirror for their viewfinder.

But isn't the ability to see exactly what the sensor will capture a greater ability than having absolutely 0 lag?

(It's a serious question, I have my first camera since 2 weeks and it's an alpha 6000. I have to move my camera like a violent retard to detect the lag between the image of the viewfinder and the reality.)

An other great feature of mirroless is that the viewfinder can be anywhere on the camera. And, for me, the perfect position is to the extreme left. I kinda don't understand why Oly and Fuji (and Sony on the A7) put the viewfinder on the top center. It negates one of the strong points of mirrorless.

Discuss. I suppose.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:07 UTC+1 No.2349703 Report

>>2349702
>But isn't the ability to see exactly what the sensor will capture a greater ability than having absolutely 0 lag?
It depends on you. Both work in nine out of ten situations. EVFs are better for product photography, as there's zero risk of parallax and the depth of field is true to what you'll get. OVFs are better for fast sports, especially indoors, because of EVF noise and lag. Other than these two specific areas, it doesn't matter.

There are DSLRs with the EVF of the far left, it just isn't very popular... Pic related. One of my favorite cameras of all time.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:08 UTC+1 No.2349704 Report

>>2349702
Yes, it would be, if you're a hobbist, who doesn't use flash.

Me, as a professional with live view, still choose to see through the viewfinder, since my eye has a bigger Dynamic Range.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:10 UTC+1 No.2349706 Report

>>2349701
>outdated legacy glass
It's almost as if you didn't realize that Zeus, Leica, and sometimes even voigtlander are superior optically than your silly retrofocus lenses.

Redo.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:10 UTC+1 No.2349707 Report

>>2349702
>But isn't the ability to see exactly what the sensor will capture a greater ability than having absolutely 0 lag?
Try shooting into the sun, and try to focus on anything. IMO, an experienced photographer doesn't need to see a live view exposure preview to know what a photo will look like. Any shot with a high dynamic range (where you might expose only for the sky and recover the shadows in post) is going to give you problems on an EVF.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:11 UTC+1 No.2349709 Report

>>2349706
Now, imagine a lens from Hades, it's going to be hella good.

Sorry for the bad joke, couldn't lose this oportunity.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:12 UTC+1 No.2349710 Report

>>2349703
>and the depth of field is true to what you'll get.
What do you mean? No it's not. MILCs show you the depth of field of having the aperture wide open, just like DSLRs, unless you activate a depth of field preview (not all MILCs even have this feature).
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:13 UTC+1 No.2349712 Report

Fucking-ay What's with all of the mirroless fags coming out in droves the last couple of days?

Your camera is smaller, we get it. Some of us not shooting them might even convert over. Others won't. It won't matter to either of.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:15 UTC+1 No.2349713 Report

>>2349710
DSLR reflex mirrors and ground glass screens don't show you an accurate representation of the depth of field you'll get, even when using the depth of field preview. It can look sharp in the viewfinder, and then be muddy on the computer. They have a tendency of having shallower depth of field than you can see in the EVF. Look that shit up.

Any MILC worth using has a stop down button, and the good ones can use that as their default state.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:16 UTC+1 No.2349714 Report

>>2349713
I meant OVF there, obviously.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:16 UTC+1 No.2349715 Report

>>2349660
>Contrast detect, and even the newer hybrid autofocus systems are not, and will probably never be, as fast as phase detect.
Hybrid autofocus does include phase detection. And while mirrorless cameras aren't as good as a high-end pro DSLR yet, the newest ones are as competent as DSLRs in their price bracket (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU )

>The MILC form factor
There is no single "MILC form factor". There are many shapes and sized, from tiny Q to massive GH3 with vertical grip, some of them small and flat and some that can fill even the biggest hands.

>if you want autofocus, you're pretty limited with the MILC
You can use the entire catalog of AF SLR lenses with Sony, Canon and and lolympus mirrorless cameras, though AF performance varies depending on body, lens and, in Sony's case, the adapter used.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:16 UTC+1 No.2349717 Report

>>2349713
That's completely beside the point.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:17 UTC+1 No.2349718 Report

>>2349668
All this Ratcliff guy says (in his terribly written hackjob of an article, once you scrolled down through all the bullshit 'keep reading! keep reading! I'm going to get to the point very very soon! keep reading' nonsense) is "muh focus peeking", "muh size" and "muh 14 MP is too little and 36 is too much OMG only mirrorless cameras can into the idea 24MP pickle count"
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:18 UTC+1 No.2349719 Report

>>2349717
No, it's not. Ground glass VFs can't show you your depth of field accurately. That's problematic to product photographers who need sharpness over their entire subject, but need to blend as few exposures as possible for sharpness.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:18 UTC+1 No.2349720 Report

>>2349709
Not him, but I laughed. Well done.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:19 UTC+1 No.2349721 Report

>>2349709
>>2349709
You fucking got me.....

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width640
Image Height1136
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:19 UTC+1 No.2349722 Report

If only DSLR's had an LCD screen with a live feed from the sensor.
Then you could have the best of both worlds.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:21 UTC+1 No.2349723 Report

>>2349706
>silly retrofocus lenses.

The Sigma engineers would like to have a word with you.
>>
BJDrew 06/26/14(Thu)20:21 UTC+1 No.2349724 Report

>>2349719
This is important - for a few reasons. DoF preview and "final image" preview are both very helpful.

The ability to focus accurately wider than f/2.8 is a nice bonus you get with the EVF vs. a standard DSLR screen, now that you can't swap out on most bodies.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:21 UTC+1 No.2349725 Report

>>2349702
>isn't the ability to see exactly what the sensor will capture a greater ability than having absolutely 0 lag?

1. Depends on what you're shooting. Sometimes real-time tracking is more important.
2. Currently, mirrorless cameras cannot show you *exactly* what they will capture, since live view is frozen as the capture happens, and it can remain frozen longer than the OVF blackout on a DSLR. But with the advent of electronic shutters, we should eventually see mirrorless cameras that capture the exact moment you press the shutter button without view interruption.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:24 UTC+1 No.2349726 Report

>>2349703
L1 did not have an EVF.
Part of the reason why it was widely derided was that it used the hybrid finder optics from E-330, but left out the LCD panel and only left the small and dim OVF.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:24 UTC+1 No.2349728 Report

>>2349715
>Hybrid autofocus does include phase detection. And while mirrorless cameras aren't as good as a high-end pro DSLR yet, the newest ones are as competent as DSLRs in their price bracket (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU)
Yes, I know what "hybrid" means. But if you're going to try to tell me that "slow + fast" is as fast as "fast" then I'm going to call you delusional. Maybe under certain conditions they are practically as fast, but they are not equal.

>There is no single "MILC form factor". There are many shapes and sized, from tiny Q to massive GH3 with vertical grip, some of them small and flat and some that can fill even the biggest hands.
The GH3 and other "SLR-sized" MILCs are the exception. This conversation is obviously about the smaller ones (hence the OP picture showing the NEX).

>You can use the entire catalog of AF SLR lenses with Sony, Canon and and lolympus mirrorless cameras, though AF performance varies depending on body, lens and, in Sony's case, the adapter used.
There are usually problems with doing this, though, ranging from massively increased bulk to even worse AF. Since most people are buying things like the NEX for the smaller form factor, I wouldn't say that it's a major plus for them to be able to use A-mount lenses.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:25 UTC+1 No.2349729 Report

>>2349724
>a standard DSLR screen, now that you can't swap out on most bodies.

You can attach a secondary screen though.
For example on a smartphone. - with added benefit of focus peeking.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:25 UTC+1 No.2349730 Report

>>2349726
1) I know; I'm showing the L1 as an example of a OVF DSLR with the viewfinder on the far left.
2) I also know; It was an awful camera. Beautiful, but awful.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:26 UTC+1 No.2349732 Report

>>2349724
Name one MILC where the live view shows depth of field preview by default.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:28 UTC+1 No.2349734 Report

>>2349732
Leica M typ 240
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:29 UTC+1 No.2349736 Report

>>2349734
Any camera with manual lenses
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:29 UTC+1 No.2349737 Report

>>2349728
> "slow + fast" is as fast as "fast"
You do realize that only one system is used at a time, right? So for tracking in particular, it's going to be "fast" (with "slow" disabled) vs "fast".

>Maybe under certain conditions they are practically as fast, but they are not equal.
Did you even watch the linked video? They test the cameras under many different conditions and they are indeed just as fast.

>The GH3 and other "SLR-sized" MILCs are the exception.
What about MILCs like E-M5 that can transform between small and DSLR-sized?

>massively increased bulk
Well, at worst, you'll get the same bulk as a DSLR.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:30 UTC+1 No.2349738 Report

>>2349736
>>2349734
Olympus cameras EP5 & newer (custom settings)
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:31 UTC+1 No.2349741 Report

>>2349734
>>2349736
Oh.... I get it. You fucks think that manual apertures limiting the amount of light coming in to the sensor for live view is actually a feature.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:32 UTC+1 No.2349742 Report

>>2349741
See >>2349738
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:32 UTC+1 No.2349743 Report

>>2349737
>You do realize that only one system is used at a time, right? So for tracking in particular, it's going to be "fast" (with "slow" disabled) vs "fast".
No, that's incorrect. Hybrid systems start focusing by contrast detect, and then switch to phase detect at the last minute.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:33 UTC+1 No.2349745 Report

>>2349743
You have that backwards, Phase (or FFDF) starts first to tell the camera which direction to focus in, and then contrast kicks in to nail critical focus.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:33 UTC+1 No.2349746 Report

>>2349743
>and then switch to phase detect at the last minute.

How many minutes does it takes before it reach that step?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:36 UTC+1 No.2349751 Report

>>2349743
I don't know about other cameras, but according to lolympus, E-M1 focuses exclusively with PDAF in tracking mode.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:36 UTC+1 No.2349752 Report

>>2349746
It's a MILC, so three or four.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:37 UTC+1 No.2349756 Report

>>2349745
No, I don't.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:41 UTC+1 No.2349760 Report

And what about sony's semi-transparent mirrors camera ?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:44 UTC+1 No.2349763 Report

>>2349760
The worst of both world.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:45 UTC+1 No.2349764 Report

>>2349756
>A newer form of a hybrid system is the combination of passive phase-detection auto-focus and passive contrast auto-focus
>Under their operational conditions, phase-detection auto-focussing is very fast, since the measurement method provides both information, the amount of offset and the direction, so that the focusing motor can move the lens right into (or close to) focus without additional measurements.
>However, the accuracy of phase-detection auto-focus depends on its effective measurement basis. If the measurement basis is large, measurements are very accurate, but can only work with lenses with a large geometrical aperture
>Contrast AF does not have this inherit design limitation on accuracy as it only needs a minimal object contrast to work with.
>Thereby, contrast AF makes arbitrary fine-focus adjustments by the user unnecessary.
>Typically, these phase-detection sensors are not as accurate as the more sophisticated stand-alone sensors, but since the fine focussing is now carried out through contrast focusing, the phase-detection AF sensors are only need to provide coarse directional information in order to speed up the contrast auto-focusing process.

>the phase-detection AF sensors are only need to provide coarse directional information in order to speed up the contrast auto-focusing process.

Yes, you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:45 UTC+1 No.2349765 Report

>>2349760
With phase detection integrated on the sensor now working pretty well, there's no need for the semitransparent mirror anymore, in the low to mid-range segment at least.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:46 UTC+1 No.2349767 Report

>>2349764
>wikipedia

Nice reputable source faglord.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)20:48 UTC+1 No.2349768 Report

>>2349767
>Can't admit he's wrong
typical
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:17 UTC+1 No.2349780 Report

>>2349765
>hase detection integrated on the sensor now working pretty well

It's still miles away from DSLR (or transparent mirror) quality AF.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:18 UTC+1 No.2349781 Report

>>2349780
No, it's actually pretty fucking good. See the video in >>2349728.
The problem is, only a few cameras come equipped with it.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:18 UTC+1 No.2349782 Report

>>2349780
Oh, and I'm not even convinced on-sensor phase detection could ever match dedicated phase detection sensors.
Since only a tiny portion of the sensor area can be used for phase detection before fucking up the pictures.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:20 UTC+1 No.2349783 Report

>>2349781
>See the video

Did you actually WATCH the video?

The DSLR completely annihilates the other cameras on auto focus.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:23 UTC+1 No.2349785 Report

>>2349782
The best available implementations can match cheaper DSLRs while offering far more flexibility with AF point selection, and so far the technology has been evolving quite fast. But only time will tell whether it can ever get good enough to outperform top pro DSLRs.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:28 UTC+1 No.2349788 Report

>>2349785
>the technology has been evolving quite fast.

My point is: regardless of "technology" you cannot change surface area so dedicated AF sensors will always have the edge.

Just as full frame sensors will always have the edge over smaller sensors (in b4 crying m43 fanboys - just deal with it you babies)
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:28 UTC+1 No.2349789 Report

>>2349783
It doesn't "annihilate" them, the mirrorless cameras get more than enough good shots - the DSLR simply has more consistency and a bigger buffer. But it would be an outrage for a $1000 mirrorless camera to beat a $4000 top pro DSLR, and no one here suggests that - just that those mirrorless cameras have a very capable AF for their price bracket.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:29 UTC+1 No.2349790 Report

>>2349788
>>2349782
Actually, the sensor in Canon 70D uses the ENTIRE sensor surface for phase-detection pixels, the more you know.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:31 UTC+1 No.2349791 Report

>>2349419
Yes, that made me rage a little inside. OP lost all credibility.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:33 UTC+1 No.2349793 Report

>>2349789
>more than enough good shots
>more than enough
This is rationalization. If the AF is causing you to lose shots at all, there is something wrong.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:33 UTC+1 No.2349794 Report

>>2349782
>only a tiny portion of the sensor area can be used for phase detection before fucking up the pictures.
...why? In most implementations, phase detection pixels can still record data like regular pixels. They're just more complex to make and require additional circuitry, so typically there's a limited number of them.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:34 UTC+1 No.2349796 Report

>>2349789
>It doesn't "annihilate" them

Yes it does

>more than enough
>But
>$1000
>for their price

Bla, bla, bla, Excuses.

And even then: a $1000 APS-C DSLR has much better AF as well.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:36 UTC+1 No.2349798 Report

>>2349794
>...why?

As I understand it, a phase detection pixel only sees one side of the aperture.
So they block half the light that hits them, which means worse ISO performance and it probably fucks up bokeh as well.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:36 UTC+1 No.2349799 Report

>>2349793
No AF implementation is infallible. Even a D4s or 1Dx will occasionally miss shots in difficult conditions, and even a $50 compact from 2003 will occasionally nail it. The difference between better and worse systems is always the proportion of good to bad shots.

>>2349796
> a $1000 APS-C DSLR has much better AF as well.
No, it doesn't. The guy specifically says at the end of the video that while it can't beat a D4, it's as good or better performance than cheapers DSLR can offer.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:38 UTC+1 No.2349800 Report

>>2349791
Same here.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:38 UTC+1 No.2349802 Report

>>2349798
Phase detection pixels typically come in pairs, one for each side, just like dedicated phase sensors. By combining the data from both sides, you can get pretty much the same data as from a regular monolithic pixel. In fact, 70D's sensor is completely built from these 2-sided pixels, with no regular ones, if Canon is to be believed.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:44 UTC+1 No.2349807 Report

>>2349799
>No, it doesn't.
Yes it does.

>cheapers DSLR
He means entry level.
Which have very crippled AF systems to keep cost as low as possible.

There is a HUGE difference between the AF system of a D3200 and a D7100.
Between the D7100/D600 and D800/D4 the only real difference is in coverage.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:47 UTC+1 No.2349808 Report

>>2349807
>He means entry level.
He said similarly priced, which isn't your entry-level rabal.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:49 UTC+1 No.2349811 Report
File: AF 1.jpg-(125x64)
>>2349802>one for...
>>2349802
>one for each side, just like dedicated phase sensors.

With dedicated AF sensors those pairs aren't next to each other, but on two separate strips. (cross type AF points consist of 4 strips of sensors and star type of 8).

Unless I've missed something this is still what a sensor with phase detection pixels looks like.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:50 UTC+1 No.2349812 Report

>>2349807
>There is a HUGE difference between the AF system of a D3200 and a D7100
And there's a big difference between D7100 and D4 as well as far as focus tracking is concerned. Tracking performance is one of the remaining few cornerstones of top pro DSLRs.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:53 UTC+1 No.2349814 Report

>>2349811
And here is what an auto focus point on a dedicated AF sensor looks like.

Note that the yellow and red highlighted areas combined are just one single AF point.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)21:55 UTC+1 No.2349817 Report

>>2349811
>With dedicated AF sensors those pairs aren't next to each other, but on two separate strips.

Yes, and? For the purposes of focusing, you can analyze "left" and "right" data from different pixels, not necessarily from adjacent ones.

>this is still what a sensor with phase detection pixels looks like

This is the most basic implementation. Nowadays you can have pixels that can both capture image data as a whole, and split light into left and right beams, so you don't have to make "holes" in the sensor pattern for phase detection.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:11 UTC+1 No.2349822 Report

>>2349707
>Any shot with a high dynamic range (where you might expose only for the sky and recover the shadows in post) is going to give you problems on an EVF.
What.
I love my EVF for this very purpose - I can do the EV adjustment, and see when the sky get exposed perfectly in the viewfinder, instead of having to guess, review histogram, take another, like one would do on a DSLR.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:29 UTC+1 No.2349829 Report

>>2349822
>instead of having to guess, review histogram, take another, like one would do on a DSLR.

That's what liveview be for breh
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:32 UTC+1 No.2349833 Report

>>2349822
>like unskilled photographers would do on a DSLR.

ftfy
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:51 UTC+1 No.2349843 Report

>People still trying to claim that good mirrorless cameras focus slower and less accurately than DSLRs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjnQ446OkhM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X61skNYI-3Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG8SLUTgXuY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU
They used a Panasonic lens on the E-M1 instead of an Olympus one, which may have caused it to perform slightly slower than it would with say, a Zuiko 12-40.
Also at 11:00, he says that the GH4 is basically as fast as the D4s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkhXFQIeJDE

Could go on all day. As you can see, mirrorless cameras, particularly the GH4 and E-M1, have -fantastic- autofocus speed, both tracking and single.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:52 UTC+1 No.2349844 Report

>>2349829
How do I activate live view in the viewfinder on the 5D III?
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)22:59 UTC+1 No.2349846 Report

>>2349843
>He says = Cientific proof
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:01 UTC+1 No.2349849 Report

>>2349793
Well, even my 5D miss focus sometimes.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:11 UTC+1 No.2349855 Report

>>2349846
E-M1 WINS : http://youtu.be/rDaj5svGjNo?t=15m18s
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:28 UTC+1 No.2349864 Report

>>2349822
My point was when you can't see your subject, or half of the frame is too dark, you can't confirm that it's in focus. Sucks donkey balls for all those manual lenses and focus-peaking.
>I can do the EV adjustment, and see when the sky get exposed perfectly in the viewfinder, instead of having to guess, review histogram, take another, like one would do on a DSLR.
Practice more. Although I sometimes do review shots, I rarely have to re-take them. Learn to use point metering.
>>
Anonymous 06/26/14(Thu)23:29 UTC+1 No.2349865 Report

>>2349849
The 5D is an 8 year old camera.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:08 UTC+1 No.2349879 Report

>>2349844
You use the back screen.

7/10 since you're being deliberately obtuse
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)00:13 UTC+1 No.2349883 Report

>>2349844
Or read the owner's manual.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)01:36 UTC+1 No.2349927 Report

>>2349879
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)01:42 UTC+1 No.2349931 Report

>>2349927
>spending $3000+ on a DSLR
>not knowing all of its major functions
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:02 UTC+1 No.2349940 Report

>>2349931
Live view, histogram, and playback in viewfinder and features that the 5DIII does not have. Being able to use those features without taking your eye away from the screen is a massive boon.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:15 UTC+1 No.2349954 Report

>>2349940
Name one reason why you think you need live view in the viewfinder and I'll name one reason why you lack skills as a photographer. Go ahead... I'll wait.
>>
BJDrew 06/27/14(Fri)02:19 UTC+1 No.2349960 Report

>>2349954
I have fairly poor low light vision due to laser surgery, and in lower light, I can see much better with an illuminated EVF.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:25 UTC+1 No.2349961 Report

>>2349960
You're a blind faggot who couldn't find a cock in a cockfight. Therefore you suck at cameraing.
>>
BJDrew 06/27/14(Fri)02:27 UTC+1 No.2349963 Report

>>2349961
Well, you delivered as promised.

Would make an excellent guest post at Luminous Landscape
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:30 UTC+1 No.2349967 Report

>>2349963
In fairness to the anon who issued the challenge, I'm just a random anon popping in at what I thought was a good moment for some penis-related humor.
>>
BJDrew 06/27/14(Fri)02:33 UTC+1 No.2349970 Report

>>2349967
Your humor is far more welcome than some smug asshole that thinks using an optical viewfinder is some kind of badge of valour.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:38 UTC+1 No.2349974 Report

>>2349970
I can actually feel you on the eyesight thing. It's the reason I use autofocus basically exclusively (unless I'm shooting at infinity on a lens with a hard stop). I really, really, need to make time for an exam, but damn if I don't want to wear glasses.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:51 UTC+1 No.2349978 Report

>>2349970
Weren't you just going on here other day about how your Leica M240's optcial viewfinder was sooooo great though?
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:55 UTC+1 No.2349980 Report

>>2349978
>Weren't you just going on here other day about how your Leica M240's optcial viewfinder was sooooo great though?
You know, just because one thing is great, it doesn't immediately follow that anything that isn't that one thing can't be great as well.
>>
Anonymous 06/27/14(Fri)02:57 UTC+1 No.2349983 Report

>>2349980
Don't bother; this is the autism pit. Most arguments here exist because the poster's can't comprehend that two things can be simultaneously good.

As the sayings go;
"Stop liking what I don't like."
"It's shit because it's not the best thing ever made."
"No fun allowed."
>>
BJDrew 06/27/14(Fri)03:01 UTC+1 No.2349986 Report

>>2349980
>>2349983
Very wise.

>>2349978
For me, even though an M finder is bigger and brighter than most DSLRs, I still can't really use it in lower light.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)00:40 UTC+1 No.2350629 Report

Question:

I've tried the EPL5 and the Sony Nex 5 which I currently have. Comparing the pictures, the Sony photos look WAY better to me, the EPL5 photos always look out of focus and just not nearly as sharp. Both were shot in RAW. I've recently considered strongly going back to try Micro 4/3 because the Sony lens selection is just not there. Is there something I'm missing with M4/3? Surely there can't be THAT big of a difference like I was seeing.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)00:42 UTC+1 No.2350632 Report

>>2350629
Can you post examples with exif?
Images look poor on the LCD of my EP3, but great on the computer.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)01:04 UTC+1 No.2350639 Report

>>2350629
Google "shutter shock."
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)03:53 UTC+1 No.2350690 Report

>>2349679
Anon, that's 3DCG.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)04:24 UTC+1 No.2350696 Report

>>2350629

Yah, you're missing a big chunk of transistors with m4/3.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)06:49 UTC+1 No.2350779 Report

>>2350639
That was a problem with E-P5, not PL5 though.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)07:14 UTC+1 No.2350787 Report

>>2350779
It's a problem for all MFT users to contemplate, as I found out on dpreview's MFT forum.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)09:02 UTC+1 No.2350813 Report

>>2349689
D7000
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)09:22 UTC+1 No.2350815 Report

>>2349713
actually a good ground glass screen will be good up until about 2~1.8, at which point it won't get any brighter or show the DOF properly. If you're talking about modern micro-prism etched screens then yes, they won't show a true DOF representation past 2.8~2.5 because they're meant for brightness as opposed to DOF preview.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)09:27 UTC+1 No.2350816 Report

>>2349719
It's a small thing, but in you comment you say ground glass screens, when it should be etched screens. The screens now-a-days in DSLRs except for the higher end pro bodies tend to be etched, not ground glass, which is why they are terrible for DOF preview and true DOF representation in the viewfinder. A properly ground screen like those in film SLRs will give a much more accurate DOF representation up until about f2~1.8 at the cost of brightness at lower apertures.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)10:35 UTC+1 No.2350837 Report

>>2349485
>I don't know why people think they need to be locked into one system and can only ever own and use one system from one company at a time. Makes no damned sense.
It isn't really worth it for most to invest in multiple digital systems. Shit ain't cheap.
>>
Anonymous 06/28/14(Sat)10:43 UTC+1 No.2350842 Report

>>2350787
>>2350779
>>2350639
EP3
Never had a problem with it. Auto-antishock on timer or remote when getting the biggest print possible is the goal. Any other time, the softness I might gain is negligible compared to softness from using a wide aperture, or hand-holding without a viewfinder to brace against.
>>
castle 06/29/14(Sun)16:23 UTC+1 No.2351655 Report

>>2349410
>>2349410
or I'll choose a T2i because I can get it with a kit lens and a 50mm for $400 and I can't get the NEX 7 for less than $700
>>
Anonymous 06/29/14(Sun)17:47 UTC+1 No.2351672 Report

>Have 1kg D700 body
>Not a bitch nigga
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.