C'mon let's wake this forum up

[arthurking83]

I'm the same as Brad .. with a possible difference in that I'll be thrown around in my incapable 4WD on those pot holed side tracks.
I hate the main roads, and only use them because I have too, or I want to get back quickly.

The other point about most mirrorless(apart from the Sony A7's potential) .. is for something like wider angle(FOV) with shallow DOF.

My main pet hate of smaller formats is and has always been a loss of subject separation for many fields of view. About the only FOV equivalent you can achieve a similarly shallow DOF is the 50-ish mm FOV, where some lens makers offer a fast ish aperture 25mm lens.

A major premise of a smaller camera system, which may or may not also include a smaller sensor is that the the system is small.
If you attempt to create a lens with a similar FOV + equally capable shallow DOF, you just end up with a huge lens, on a small body! .. thus missing the entire point of the small size of the system to begin with.

ps. you don't need to do sports photography to see the benefit of the speedy focus acquisition times that a SLR system is capable of.
Any situation(sports included) will benefit from speedier AF reaction. Some need it more than others. Others don't really care too much.

As for the driver .. no matter which vehicle they drive(small sensor mirrorless, or large sensor DSLR) .. there are technical points that simply can't be ignored.
Equally good drivers exist in all forms of photography .. as well as equally bad drivers, I guess.

As for the Sony A7 .. again mentioned in my reply above too .. while it is a large sensor format compact camera, it's problem is a distinct lack of lenses which allow for technical equality at least in one sense.

Speed of AF will eventually come to mirrorless cameras too. Apparently they're getting better and better with every iteration of model. In short time they will have at least caught up to SLR type AF systems(if SLR AF systems stagnate).

ps. I don't think the die hard DSLR user simply argues against change. I consider myself a die hard SLR type users.
I don't like change for the sake of change .. change HAS to bring with it only advantages. For me(or more accurately to my eyes) the EVF screen is a backward step to usability as of current technology levels.
When the first EVF/mirrorless type system came to market, I was probably the first to wax lyrically for it's potential to change the way we use the camera.
Liveview did that for me actually .. but I've yet to see any EVF that offers a better alternative to a well made and setup OVF.

[davsv1]

Show me what mirrorless offering will give comparative results to my D750 with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, let alone a D4S

Can you show me a photo you can take with your dslr that I can't take with my mirrorless..any subject will do.

[MissionMan]

Can you show me a photo you can take with your dslr that I can't take with my mirrorless..any subject will do.

What camera do you have? The reason I ask is that everything on mirrorless is about compromise. The only compromise with DSLR is size and even that is getting smaller.

What I mean by this is that autofocus on mirrorless is a mixed bag. If you want low light focus, you lose dynamic range, if you want fast autofocus, its contrast based. Most mirrorless focus won't work on objects moving directly towards the camera, or low contrast situations like kitesurfing where the 3D focus system on a DSLR is also confused (but the normal 9 or 21 point still works). Think of an example like kids running on a lawn with the child running towards the camera.

But on the issue of examples, here is a quick one. It's not a great photo because it was contrived for the purpose of showing the dynamic range. The top half is the photo out of the box, the bottom half is the photo with 5 stops adjustment in lightroom.

[swifty]

To be fair, the example you showed MM is of the ability of the sensor. Nothing really stops the same sensor being used in a mirrorless camera. And I would hazard a guess that the A7s or one of the other A7 series could do similar/same/better.

But in practice, there probably are photos that a DSLR can do that a mirrorless can't (at this current point in time).
Think 600mm FOV and 800mm FOV wildlife and sports shots. Of course mirrorless can't do these by virtue that lens of these telephoto calibre with AF don't exist in the mirrorless realms yet. We get to see a 300/4 (600mm FOV) in action soon for m43 though.
But more accurately it's not that mirrorless can't do any of this. It's just that currently the keeper rate would be much better with a DSLR rig. When mirrorless AF catchup/exceeds current DSLR, I doubt any wildlife/sports photographer wouldn't make the switch or at least experiment/run dual systems.
Whilst I've seen BIf photos from mirrorless cameras of subjects flying across the frame, I've yet to see one approaching the camera, like an eagle at the moment of striking a prey or something similar with great subject isolation. Again, not saying mirrorless can't do it, but if u shot those subjects right now would u pick any mirrorless system over current DSLR?

- - - Updated - - -

In relation to the earlier post about Samsung, here's some commentary that is relevant:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/how-internet-news-distorts.html
Bear in mind Thom is a Nikon guru and no commentary can be considered truly unbiased but I think Thom's usually pretty good. He also uses quite a number of mirrorless systems, m43 moreso, so he does know his way around mirrorless systems pretty well.

[MissionMan]

To be fair, the example you showed MM is of the ability of the sensor. Nothing really stops the same sensor being used in a mirrorless camera. And I would hazard a guess that the A7s or one of the other A7 series could do similar/same/better.

But in practice, there probably are photos that a DSLR can do that a mirrorless can't (at this current point in time).
Think 600mm FOV and 800mm FOV wildlife and sports shots. Of course mirrorless can't do these by virtue that lens of these telephoto calibre with AF don't exist in the mirrorless realms yet. We get to see a 300/4 (600mm FOV) in action soon for m43 though.
But more accurately it's not that mirrorless can't do any of this. It's just that currently the keeper rate would be much better with a DSLR rig. When mirrorless AF catchup/exceeds current DSLR, I doubt any wildlife/sports photographer wouldn't make the switch or at least experiment/run dual systems.
Whilst I've seen BIf photos from mirrorless cameras of subjects flying across the frame, I've yet to see one approaching the camera, like an eagle at the moment of striking a prey or something similar with great subject isolation. Again, not saying mirrorless can't do it, but if u shot those subjects right now would u pick any mirrorless system over current DSLR?

- - - Updated - - -

In relation to the earlier post about Samsung, here's some commentary that is relevant:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/...-distorts.html
Bear in mind Thom is a Nikon guru and no commentary can be considered truly unbiased but I think Thom's usually pretty good. He also uses quite a number of mirrorless systems, m43 moreso, so he does know his way around mirrorless systems pretty well.

But the phase detection systems in mirrorless cameras are built into the sensor so it is all about the sensor. The point is, they either can't do low light focus, or when they do, they don't have dynamic range. It's autofocus related as far as I am concerned, it goes back to compromise.

[bcys1961]

I just think the discussion is largely irrelevant. As you have already said the driver is more important than the car. Vision trumps gear anytime.

[MissionMan]

I just think the discussion is largely irrelevant. As you have already said the driver is more important than the car. Vision trumps gear anytime.

How so? This whole portion of the discussion was started by Arg commenting that DSLR fans were stuck in the dinosaur world one or two pages back). The response was simply that at this point in time, there are very few, if not any things that mirrorless does better than DSLR's. At some point they may, but right now, people using DSLR's users are not compromising anything other than size by using the system.

[bcys1961]

Well I don't really agree with that view either . Everyone buys their camera at different points over time depending on their budget , what the current technology is , what their needs are etc.... Some upgrade over time, some don't. Regardless of if you buy mirrorless or DSLR , the fact is the quality of most camera's far exceeds the skill of most people using them so the technical specs become largely irrelevant. Learning to see the world and then being able to convey what you see to a viewer through composition and lighting is more important than what gear you use , as most gear will do the job.

[davsv1]

But the phase detection systems in mirrorless cameras are built into the sensor so it is all about the sensor. The point is, they either can't do low light focus, or when they do, they don't have dynamic range. It's autofocus related as far as I am concerned, it goes back to compromise.

Well I've never shot -5 intentionally and can't see why I would ( any example of why I would in real life?). As Swifty said that is more about sensor anyway. As far as auto focus goes, yes I can't focus in complete dark without the focus assist lamp, in dim light with the right lens I can though and whats more with my EVF I can actually see what I'm focusing on. And no, my auto focus is nothing compared to a 1dx or D3 but then mine didn't cost $5000+ body only either , it only means I will have to work a lot harder and won't get as many keepers but I can still take photos.
The point is there is nothing practical that mirrorless can't do it just may not be as easy as dslr and the more difficult the situation the more expensive your gear needs to be, how does you D750 stack up to a 1dx auto focus?
As far as lens selection goes mirrorless (m4/3 anyway) has lenses from 7mm (14 in 135 ) to 300 f2.8 (600 in 135)currently available in native mount or 1 + adapter, also a wide array of 3rd party lenses for cine or standard use are available plus if you like to get an OM adapter you have access to all the OM lenses ever produced, tilt shift, fish eye, bellows, microsopes etc. Oh and there is still a 50-500 sigma in 4/3 to be had second hand from time to time.

[Ian Brewster]

There is now an eBook "The Lesser Photographer" just out. A read might make much of this discussion of lesser importance?

[bcys1961]

There is now an eBook "The Lesser Photographer" just out. A read might make much of this discussion of lesser importance?

Yes it's a great book. As he says , the extra 2 or 3 thousand you plan to spend on the latest piece of gear would probably be much better spent on some plane tickets to an awe inspiring place where you can take photos with your existing gear , or just some workshops on how to improve your skill at using what you have got already.

[arthurking83]

..... how does you D750 stack up to a 1dx auto focus?
.....

Actually .. you picked the wrong (Nikon)camera to highlight a point here.
D750 is about as good as Nikon gets(if it gets it right! ).
D750 uses the latest Nikon AF tech .. which is D4 based. Also used in the D810 too.

How this compares to the D1x .. I'd say the D1x should be better going by the specs it provides(F/2.8 accuracy, uses all cross type pattern across all points, etc).


I think the thread is taking a turn for the worst(as these format philosophical discussions tend to do).

It's all relevant to a degree(the differences of opinion), but we should try to maintain a sense of respect for each others needs.(before it gets out of hand, that is.)

[Arg]

But to answer your question, the autofocus system with sports. Simple.

Show me what mirrorless offering will give comparative results to my D750 with my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8, let alone a D4S

A Lumix GH4 with equivalent lens would be comparable, except it would be shooting at about twice the framerate of the mid-speed D750.

- - - Updated - - -

ps. you don't need to do sports photography to see the benefit of the speedy focus acquisition times that a SLR system is capable of.
Any situation(sports included) will benefit from speedier AF reaction. Some need it more than others. Others don't really care too much.

If I recall the marketing claims correctly, m43 cameras have been the world's fastest at AF acquisition for some years now, going back to early Olympus PEN days. Please do keep up!

- - - Updated - - -

But the phase detection systems in mirrorless cameras are built into the sensor so it is all about the sensor. The point is, they either can't do low light focus, or when they do, they don't have dynamic range. It's autofocus related as far as I am concerned, it goes back to compromise.

Stick to CDAF if you want low light AF. My humble GX7 can AF in lower light than any Nikon DSLR ever made.

- - - Updated - - -

at this point in time, there are very few, if not any things that mirrorless does better than DSLR's. At some point they may, but right now, people using DSLR's users are not compromising anything other than size by using the system.

That's just wrong. I don't think you did your research.

[MissionMan]

Well I've never shot -5 intentionally and can't see why I would ( any example of why I would in real life?). As Swifty said that is more about sensor anyway. As far as auto focus goes, yes I can't focus in complete dark without the focus assist lamp, in dim light with the right lens I can though and whats more with my EVF I can actually see what I'm focusing on. And no, my auto focus is nothing compared to a 1dx or D3 but then mine didn't cost $5000+ body only either , it only means I will have to work a lot harder and won't get as many keepers but I can still take photos.
The point is there is nothing practical that mirrorless can't do it just may not be as easy as dslr and the more difficult the situation the more expensive your gear needs to be, how does you D750 stack up to a 1dx auto focus?
As far as lens selection goes mirrorless (m4/3 anyway) has lenses from 7mm (14 in 135 ) to 300 f2.8 (600 in 135)currently available in native mount or 1 + adapter, also a wide array of 3rd party lenses for cine or standard use are available plus if you like to get an OM adapter you have access to all the OM lenses ever produced, tilt shift, fish eye, bellows, microsopes etc. Oh and there is still a 50-500 sigma in 4/3 to be had second hand from time to time.

You obviously never shot a photo into the sun. Or used bracketing. Because essentially that is what we are talking about. The ability to do bracketing without having to take multiple photos. that's dynamic range. Go out, meter for highlights and bring up the shadows.

On the issue of $5000+ body, I'm not sure why you guys keep thinking the only bodies that can beat mirrorless are the D4s and 1Dx. The 5D, D800 and D750 all have the same autofocus systems. The D750 is a third of the cost of a new D4s/1DX and almost as good. In fact, the D750 can focus in lower light than the D4S and 1DX. The point is, as mirrorless is improving, so is DSLR. As DSLR's get better autofocus systems at the top end, the bottom end gets better and the lower level full frame cameras that go for $2000 have autofocus systems that are very bit as good as the top of the range cameras from a couple of years ago.

A Lumix GH4 with equivalent lens would be comparable, except it would be shooting at about twice the framerate of the mid-speed D750.

- - - Updated - - -



If I recall the marketing claims correctly, m43 cameras have been the world's fastest at AF acquisition for some years now, going back to early Olympus PEN days. Please do keep up!

- - - Updated - - -



Stick to CDAF if you want low light AF. My humble GX7 can AF in lower light than any Nikon DSLR ever made.

- - - Updated - - -



That's just wrong. I don't think you did your research.

A GH4 still wouldn't be as accurate in low contrast environments or with an object moving directly towards the camera.

The marketing claims talk about "fastest autofocus" have a minor little disclaimer you may want to read. I.e. They exclude DSLR's from their claim. In this case, you may want to keep up. It says "1 Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C image sensor as of February 12, 2014"

As mentioned, the cameras that have good low light focus still don't have good dynamic range. I.e. they're a compromise. Show me one camera that can autofocus at -3ev and pull 5 stops of shadows out (clean without them looking like they are ISO56000. There are none.

[Arg]

The marketing claims talk about "fastest autofocus" have a minor little disclaimer you may want to read. I.e. They exclude DSLR's from their claim. In this case, you may want to keep up. It says "1[COLOR=#555555][FONT=Helvetica] Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C image sensor as of February 12, 2014"

Please explain how that excludes DSLRs. Seems to include most models IMHO.

[ricktas]

Ultimately if you have 20MP m43 sensor, and a FF SLR sensor, both of 20MP, with all other aspects being equal, the DSLR sensor has a huge light gathering advantage and will have better low light performance. No matter how advanced an M43 sensor gets, the physical size of the sensor will always result in a disadvantage over a crop sensor or FF sensor.

Yes there have been great improvements in tech in recent years, but nothing can overcome the physical constraints of pixel site size.

[MissionMan]

Please explain how that excludes DSLRs. Seems to include most models IMHO.

It excludes all the full frame ones which are the ones that have the best autofocus systems and exactly the ones we are talking about (including the D750). But nice change of topic on the issues of not keeping up to date.

[Arg]

The quote you found would have included the 7D......

[arthurking83]

A Lumix GH4 with equivalent lens would be comparable, except it would be shooting at about twice the framerate of the mid-speed D750.

- - - Updated - - -



If I recall the marketing claims correctly, m43 cameras have been the world's fastest at AF acquisition for some years now, going back to early Olympus PEN days. Please do keep up!

- - - Updated - - -


....

I mentioned earlier that published facts and figures aren't really worth the stuff they're written on unless they actually mean something tangible!

Marketing claims aren't a source of fact .. they are a means to increase the likelyhood of sales.


On the topic of the GH4's apparent frame rate advantage, which on the whole sounds like a pretty good camera(if not for the high price!)

The GH4 is rated as being able to shoot at 12 frames per second without live view or focus

and

The camera does a pretty good job of re-focusing on a moving subject. Sadly we couldn't get the camera to lock onto the rider as a subject, which meant we weren't able to properly test the camera's focus tracking.

Quoted from DPR's GH4 review

What use are 12 frames per second if you can't lock focus onto the subject of interest?

once again .. don't concentrate on those 'marketing claims" .. reality is a much better indicator of the usefulness of a feature.

ie. given the option of a camera capable of 20fps but with with dubious AF tracking ability, or one that's limited to only 6fps with a more positive AF tracking ability .. I'd take the 6fps camera any day.

I'm sure Nikon could tweak the D750 to provide 12fps too, just as it does with the D4s with the added bonus of fill time AF.
The dilemma is that who would buy a D4s if the D750 has similar performance?
(once again the situation is not hardware/mechanical, but one of marketing/sales .. in this instance Nikon's).

Note that the Canon 7D does something like 10fps again, with full time AF. Canon has a different marketing approach to Nikon.

In this comparison(GH4 vs D750) the ability isn't one of one type of camera relative to another type, but simply one of strategic marketing points.

For high fps ability the crown currently goes to Nikon's 1 v3!
It does 20fps + the ability to focus during this time. No other camera comes close to this sort of performance.
All reviews of this camera seem to indicate it's about the only mirrorless camera that can AF as quickly as a DSLR.
(all indications are that this 1 series of Nikon cameras appear to be more of a testbed for Nikon to research OCPDAF systems, which is apparently much easier to do on a small sensor format)

Samsung's NX1 also has a high 15fps continuous rate. As yet I haven't seen any review that confirms if AF is available during high speed shooting.

As for CDAF .. don't forget that all current DSLRs have the added benefit of Liveview! (many seem to forget this for some reason).

Like MM said .. (almost), there isn't all that much a mirrorless camera can do that a DSLR won't be able too .. which includes CDAF!!

Even the once difficult realm of compactness isn't an exclusive one for mirrorless cameras either.

Compare the size of a D5500 to that of a say an Olympus OMD-EM5. Apart from the thickness of the Nikon, necessary for the flange focal distance, the D550 isn't all that much larger than, the once, diminutive EM5.
The question then becomes .. why are mirrorless cameras so freaking huge!

[MissionMan]

The quote you found would have included the 7D......

Which is still not a full frame and a 4 year old body, its replacement having only been released now.