C'mon let's wake this forum up

[CoolyCafe]

I don't know much about them. What do you think? Do they take good still images or basically a camcorder? Cameras like the Panasonic GH4 are blurring the line between still cameras and camcorders. The future is going to open new doors for image enthusiasts IMHO.

It is a cinematic camera but obviously stills can be extracted from the footage. It is capable of capturing data with 13 stops of dynamic range.

[arthurking83]

I really don't have any 'position' on the matter .. my curiosity is always in many and varied topics related to photography.

A few thoughts to ponder(and/or research if one is inclined to do so).

Mirrorless cameras can be as fast, or even faster, to focus than a DSLR ... if you choose the appropriate system!(Nikon V1)
If someone wanted a small, light and very fast focusing(and shooting!) camera for birds in flight, the Nikon V1(with an AF-S type lens) is supposedly recommended in good light

....

As you're choice of mirrorless camera is Panasonic, I assume you see this from the perspective of a m4/3rds system user.

If this previously referred too high quality demanding photographer was such an idealist as to never crop their images, but their choice of camera system were a m4/3rds + 300mm lens .. is this any different to using an APS-C camera + 300mm lens and cropping?

If they instead chose to use a full frame camera(of any make model and system type) .. were to do the same and crop to 1/2 the original frame .. is it any different to shooting with the m4/3rds + 300mm lens too?

If one perfectionist photographer(photographer A) were using an APS-C camera + 300mm lens and gets their image rendered perfectly sharp, and another perfectionist photographer(photographer B) using a m4/3rds camera + 300mm lens both from the same viewpoint on the same scene .. isn't photographer B's image cropped by comparison to photographer A?
Just because the image wasn't cropped .. does it mean that it's not cropped!
Looked at from the POV of photographer B, their image is not cropped.
But looked at from photographer A's perspective, B's photo is cropped, and A's photo is not?

Filling the frame is not a definition for 'high quality'. If this were the case, then all images shot and displayed without a crop must all be of the highest quality.

Any photographer with the idea that filling the frame is what creates high quality images is surely deluded!
They should simply use the appropriate gear(they have access too) for the situation .. and then process the image to it's final form.

Cropping, or not, should have no bearing on the standard of quality in the resultant image.

Having said that, I'm a habitual non cropper. I hate doing it. Actually I hate cropping more so for the fact that it requires more work in PP .. and I'm inherently lazy .. less is more!
But my resistance to cropping images .. and fussing over framing by a few cm's here and there has noting to do with high quality.
But I have used crop mode on the odd occasion(some Nikon cameras have a crop mode .. Fx to Dx, and the D7100 has a 2x crop mode .. give it basically a m4/3rds crop factor!)
Reasons I used crop mode were that I may have been out birding with my 300mm on my D800) and didn't want the extraneous periphery viewpoint.
I've also done it for when I used to use my APS-C only Sigma 10-20mm lens, as this lens never covered the full Fx frame size. But I've also not used Dx crop mode with this lens too and cropped to 1x1 format for those images.
Most of my cropped images will have been macro/closeups types. Again, not because of any quality advantage or disadvantage .. simply because that process may have given me the best image output option.

When I look at my D800+Siggy 10-20 Dx mode shots, I never cropped them. Yet I used crop mode on the camera. Are they cropped?




I've read about these so called high quality demanding non cropping perfectionist types too. I don't think that they're actually real people tho.
They're usually internet only persona's.



.... is there a particular statement of position you wanted me to explain?

[Arg]

Ok, I get your point now. You are saying that mirrorless = small sensor, so cropping is a relevant point about bird photography comparisons between the two technologies DSLR and DSLM.

In fact, mirrorless = whatever sensor size you want to buy! I certainly wasn't commenting only on my own current camera.

My point [2] about mirrorless and bird photography was that dedicated bird photo enthusiasts end up gravitating toward lenses that are currently only native to Canon and Nikon DSLR systems. No current mirrorless system offers them exactly what they would like, yet.

[arthurking83]

Ok, I get your point now. You are saying that mirrorless = small sensor.....

Sort of yes and no.

A photographer needs to understand some basic common sense principles about the gear they choose to use(or may need) for a particular situation.

I wasn't implying that mirrorless = small sensor camera .. not at all.
But, many times people confuse the idea that a 300mm lens on a m4/3rds camera is the same as a 600mm lens on a 135 format camera.
It's definitely not the same thing, but it appears to provide for a similarly framed photo!
But what needs to be realised is that the 600mm + 135 format image can be cropped to this 2x crop factor which then yields a 1200mm FOV image.

A fussy bird photographer requiring the utmost in image quality will understand this concept properly.
Hence cropping should be of no consequence to them. As long as it's appropriate for the situation and the quality is acceptable cropping the image will still result in high quality images.

Also, the smart bird photographer will also realise that a full frame mirrorless camera is not going to give them any advantage for shooting birds(especially in flight!)
The only current mirrorless full frame camera is the Sony A7 triplets.
I've had a few brief minutes with this camera, and immediately I noticed that the focusing, while OK, was obviously not in the fast enough for BIF photography. It seemed to be more of a deliberate and accurate process .. than a 'quickly, get it in focus' operation.
So mirrorless bird photography is really limited to some m4/3 cameras, Sony a6000's and or Nikon V1's .. if you want any chance for speedy focus tracking.
Otherwise it's DSLRs which are either APS-C or fullframe.

I have no doubt that in the years to come once DSLR models will become mirrorless types ... not because it's better .. if it were it'd have happened many years ago.
It will happen because it will eventually become the cheaper way to make cameras. Simpler manufacturing = cheaper.

I think that (most)dedicated bird photographers tend to gravitate to Nikon/Canon more so because of the entire system rather than just the lens selection that suits their needs.
Both the cameras focusing and the lens choices are important .. as well as cost.

I remember years ago an ex member here who was a certifiable Nikon nutcase(as many of us tend to be ) .. was looking for a 500mm lens for birding.
Nikon's pricing scheme was so ludicrous back then(and probably still now!) that instead of purchasing a Nikon 500/4 VR for his Nikon DSLRs(2), this person purchased a Canon 60D(I think) and a Canon 500/4 because it was cheaper than the Nikon lens alone!

So there are many reasons why a person will choose a particular gear set to play with.

[swifty]

Ahhh... But Arthur, you've neglected the issue of pixel density.
Just as a 300mm lens on 4/3 is not the same as 600mm on 135, a photo taken with a 300mm 135 lens on FF cropped to 4/3 yielding a similar FOV as a 300mm on 4/3 is also not the same on a practical basis.
I can't do accurate aspect ratio conversions in my head but if it were the same then you're saying an ~4mp D4 crop at 300/4 is the same as an E-M1 with a 300/4 (upcoming lens, I know you can't buy it yet). Even a D810 would be at a disadvantage with ~9mp crop. If you believe the upcoming 50mp Sony and Canon rumours then we're getting closer purely from a resolution sampling POV.
And in the DSLR situation you're wasting bandwidth/buffer by shooting FF then cropping later (but with the advantage of freedom of crop), or if you're applying the crop in camera, you're looking at a pretty small box within your VF (but at the advantage of seeing what's coming or leaving the cropped frame).

But I feel we're straying off the discussion of mirrorless and mirrored and crossed over to size format advantages/disadvantages.

There will be pros and cons regardless of mirror/mirrorless camera types.
How many birders will take a 24mp theoretical D400 DSLR vs the excellent D810.
When AF (tracking) on mirrorless catches up or exceeds DSLRs, how many birders would take a completely silent mirrorless camera with up to video like FPS and pro DSLR like buffers over a DSLR.
In one, there's pixel density advantages, in the second example there are advantages by removing the mirror.

Point is there are advantages to both DSLRs and mirrorless. I really can't see what all the fuss is all about.

[Arg]

.....But I feel we're straying off the discussion of mirrorless and mirrored and crossed over to size format advantages/disadvantages.

Exactly!

Please guys..... let's not turn this into an equivalency thread.

DSLM/mirrorless comes in a range of sensor sizes, so you might as well move your posts on equivalency into the DSLR threads. They 'need' to know too.

[jev]

I have no doubt that in the years to come once DSLR models will become mirrorless types ... not because it's better .. if it were it'd have happened many years ago.
It will happen because it will eventually become the cheaper way to make cameras. Simpler manufacturing = cheaper.

I'm not saying the current technology is good enough to do fast subjecttracking, but IQ-wise the removal of the mirror also means removal of the mirror-slap and inherently removing mirrorslap induced camera-shake from the equation. In this respect, mirrorless *is* better.

Note that there are no camera's sold because they excel in shooting "birds in flights", sports maybe - but not "just sports" (not anymore) - the fastest dSLR's have become alround camera's for a reason.

[MissionMan]

I'm not saying the current technology is good enough to do fast subjecttracking, but IQ-wise the removal of the mirror also means removal of the mirror-slap and inherently removing mirrorslap induced camera-shake from the equation. In this respect, mirrorless *is* better.

Note that there are no camera's sold because they excel in shooting "birds in flights", sports maybe - but not "just sports" (not anymore) - the fastest dSLR's have become alround camera's for a reason.

The high end models were made for sports, it's just that sports are essentially what make the camera good for other aspects. I.e. Low noise at high ISO, high frame rate, top notch autofocus, etc.

[swifty]

I'm not saying the current technology is good enough to do fast subjecttracking, but IQ-wise the removal of the mirror also means removal of the mirror-slap and inherently removing mirrorslap induced camera-shake from the equation. In this respect, mirrorless *is* better.

Well.. that's not the full story though. Because the sensor must provide a live feed for the EVF or LCD, the physical shutter must be closed down then opened, then closed again for each actuation and hence mirrorless cameras can be susceptible to shutter shock.
Electronic shutters can get rid of that but has other side effects.
Until we get global electronic shutters, then some form of physical vibration is still at play during actuation.

- - - Updated - - -

The high end models were made for sports, it's just that sports are essentially what make the camera good for other aspects. I.e. Low noise at high ISO, high frame rate, top notch autofocus, etc.

However none of those qualities are inherent nor exclusive to a DSLR design with the exception of a sub-mirror PDAF system that is currently still king.
The inherent quality of a DSLR is the optical viewfinder. And it is very important to some and not important to others.

[coolie21]

I was an early adopter (2010) and have loved my panasonic gf1 and had some great shots, but there have also been occasions when it has been worse than useless (mainly low light). However I understand some of the more recent bodies have very good low light capabilities. I actually took full frame dslr and micro 4/3 on a recent trip, and ended up using the dslr most, despite its greater bulk.

[arthurking83]

..... In this respect, mirrorless *is* better.
.....

Well .. yes and no(mostly no, tho!)

All modern DSLRs do have access to Liveview. In other words the best of both worlds. Live view mimics mirrorless type cameras, and reflex for when such a system is more appropriate.
Of course in saying that some manufacturers have seen fit to design their Liveview mode in the worst possible manner(ie. D300 as an example) so that mirror slap when using Liveview on this camera(and any other similarly implemented Lv systems) .. is magnified at least twofold!
With the D300 I never used Lv mode to expose the image. Only focus, when critical focus was needed, and then switch Lv off and shoot through the vf.

A few cameras (even lower end) also have either mirror lockup for this purpose, or exposure delay(or both) to help combat mirror slap.

One important aspect on the topic of mirrorless cameras! Can you turn off both EVF and main LCD displays so that no image is shown during an exposure?

If(most likely when!) I end up with a mirrorless(or EVF type) camera, this is something that would be an important feature for me.
Not that I do a lot of long exposure photography, but when I do, I'd rather that the display weren't using any power as it's simply a waste.
Also(due to the way I do landscape) I'd rather that the camera just sit where I set it up and not use any power, but be ready to expose within a few milliseconds of pressing a remote trigger.

[jev]

Well.. that's not the full story though. Because the sensor must provide a live feed for the EVF or LCD, the physical shutter must be closed down then opened, then closed again for each actuation and hence mirrorless cameras can be susceptible to shutter shock.

The shutter shock is there with dSLR's too. Also, technically it would be possible to use a leaf-shutter which nullifies shutter shock. The mirror-slap however is much heavier.

The inherent quality of a DSLR is the optical viewfinder. And it is very important to some and not important to others.

I used to think that too. Than, I picked up a Fuji X-T1...

Sure, in some aspects, an optical viewfinder is superior to EVF's you find in today's equipment. Size mainly. Delay, for some. OTOH, there are advantages of an EVF too. In the dark for example, a good EVF can show much more than an optical viewfinder can.

The EVF in the X-T1 is really good, it just lacks on size. But technically, there's nothing an optical viewfinder provides than an EVF can't.

One important aspect on the topic of mirrorless cameras! Can you turn off both EVF and main LCD displays so that no image is shown during an exposure?

Yes.

[arthurking83]

...... But technically, there's nothing an optical viewfinder provides than an EVF can't.

At the risk of sending this thread off the rails .. this is not strictly true.

to some of us a non artificial view of the world is important.

Something that an EVF can't provide us with.

While on a more technical point, LCD technology is not yet at a point that can provide as much dynamic range as the human eye can accept.
An OVF still allows the eye to view a higher dynamic range than an EVF can provide us with.
Another technical point(even if it is extremely specialised or possibly rare) is one of flicker.
The way any screen operates is that the display is not really a constant stream of information, but a series of alternating streams, with a specific refresh rate.
If scene has an alternating frequency of refresh rate that matches the display, then you get flicker in the display.
On a similar note, the refresh rates are still not high enough to fully eliminate smearing(or tearing) of a scene if the camera is panned quickly.

From memory the XT-1 uses a similar EVF LCD to the Sony A7 cameras(albeit with added features). Specs are basically the same tho.
My personal view(currently) is that the positives in EVF tech still don't outweigh the negatives inherent in the system. Hopefully one day soon they will.

[bcys1961]

I'm afraid I just tune out when the discussion gets to this level of technicalities.

[swifty]

The shutter shock is there with dSLR's too. Also, technically it would be possible to use a leaf-shutter which nullifies shutter shock. The mirror-slap however is much heavier.

Unless you're referring to DSLRs when in Liveview mode, then I'll have to disagree.
Shutter shock is insignificant in DSLR as the front and rear curtain both travel in the same direction during exposure. In mirrorless it is significant because the initial closing of the shutter to block off the sensor before the start of first curtain is in the opposite direction as the usual front and rear curtain.

I used to think that too. Than, I picked up a Fuji X-T1...

Sure, in some aspects, an optical viewfinder is superior to EVF's you find in today's equipment. Size mainly. Delay, for some. OTOH, there are advantages of an EVF too. In the dark for example, a good EVF can show much more than an optical viewfinder can.

The EVF in the X-T1 is really good, it just lacks on size. But technically, there's nothing an optical viewfinder provides than an EVF can't.

I probably used the wrong wording. Rather than quality I should have used the word 'feature'. The inherent feature of a DSLR (well it is what defines a D/SLR) is the optical viewfinder. And this feature is important to some and not to others.
For me, it is important and I have tried the X-T1 EVF many times. And I absolutely agree there are advantages to EVF and I've written about them in previous posts. I think I've also stated that I feel the X-T1 has the best EVF of any current camera on the market that I've tried and I've tried just about every mirrorless model except the new A7II and Samsung models.

We should really get excited when mirrorless tech start to apply to MF cameras. Imagine MF bodies that are sized similar to DSLRs like the D800 or D3 with EVFs covering the entire adobeRGB gamut and resolutions better than your computer screens.
But even when EVFs get to this level, an OVF may still be preferred by some.
This gets to an emotive relationship that some ppl have with photography. Though EVFs can exceed any measureable parameter of an OVF it still isn't the same and hence this is an unwinnable debate between EVFs and OVFs.
Some will just prefer one over the other.

[Arg]

Shutter shock is insignificant in DSLR as the front and rear curtain both travel in the same direction during exposure. In mirrorless it is significant because the initial closing of the shutter to block off the sensor before the start of first curtain is in the opposite direction as the usual front and rear curtain.

If that was the cause of shutter shock, then the Olympus EFSC wouldn't eliminate shutter shock -- but it does. Shutter shock is actually the first curtain -- which makes sense as it is the only 'shock' that occurs while the sensor is getting exposed. So, DSLR cameras are also susceptible.

[MissionMan]

I also think we're arguing about things that don't affect most people to a large degree. Optical viewer has a noticeable impact when you use it, focus speeds are noticeable, but I'd challenge anyone here to show how shutter shock or mirror slap may have destroyed an other amazing photo. Yes, they may have a minor impact, but until we start selling photos for a substantial amount and blowing them up to massive sizes, I don't think the impact will ever be considerable.

[swifty]

If that was the cause of shutter shock, then the Olympus EFSC wouldn't eliminate shutter shock -- but it does. Shutter shock is actually the first curtain -- which makes sense as it is the only 'shock' that occurs while the sensor is getting exposed. So, DSLR cameras are also susceptible.

I may have to eat humble pie but I did read an explanation attributing it to the former and it sounded logical. But apologies and I stand corrected if what I thought was the cause is wrong.

[ameerat42]

...I may have to eat humble pie...

You may want to reconsider: recipe for humble pie.

[swifty]

You may want to reconsider: recipe for humble pie.

You learn something everyday