Opps MM you got that wrong the 7D is five years old and the 7DMK11 was released last year September actually.
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 194
Opps MM you got that wrong the 7D is five years old and the 7DMK11 was released last year September actually.
I shoot with Olympus Cameras.. Sometimes Canon and My iPhone SE 2020
True on the 5 years but It was announced September but availability was only November for preorders which is why I said now. Recently probably would have been a better term, but either way, comparing autofocus with a 5 year old camera isn't exactly a fair reflection.
Yes that was for Australia orders as I picked mine up on November 3rd. No recently would not have been my choice of the correct word.
You must be tired of all this researching you have been doing today, so I will wish you a restful evening.
The M 4/3 system is great for grabbing quick landscape photos and macro photography with classic lenses in my experience.For birds flying or very low light perhaps that is not their forte.Thank god I don't have to get involved in this resolution war, in reality there is no point printing my photos now, and am happy with the resolution of the Olympus EP-5 for personal use.I enjoy photography with all manual lenses, and have given away my auto focus lenses as the tactile experience is for my purposes great.For old school photography this system is fun, ( nickhcliff on flickr has all manual lenses photos only), regards Nick.
Threadstarter
Mods, please help keep this thread on topic and remove all the DSLR discussion. It is unwarranted and unwelcome: as the OP says, "Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. ". Instead of being a convivial meet-and-greet space for our small community of mirrorless fans, to share what they like and how to get the best from their cameras, the thread has become a war zone, primarily initiated by DSLR lovers who want to preach their choice, putting mirrorless users on the defensive -- which usually results in the second person getting into trouble. Which would be unfortunate and unfair.
Or, if the DSLR posts are deemed to be important posts for some reason, please open another thread under 'Cameras' called "DSLR beats mirrorless in every way except weight", and move all the DSLR posts there.
Pro-mirrorless posts and banter are of course welcome and will continue to be.
You are right. I can't think of any that will do that so anecdotally there appears to be no examples currently. And I won't argue that it is possible or impossible either because I simply don't have evidence either way however I'm just not convinced that having good DR and good contrast AF (or on-sensor PDAF) sensitivity in low light are exclusive. I'm not talking about tracking btw, just acquisition in low light.Originally Posted by MissionMan
I speculate however that this is more of a design decision for sensor specs based on practical shooting.
When autofocusing in -3EV levels of light you're not likely to be shooting at base ISO where there are distinct DR advantage to cameras such as D8xx, D750. You're likely to be pushing the ISO limits and DR at high ISO is a different story where cameras such as D4/s are better. I haven't looked into how the A7s performs exactly but it does AF down to -4EV and is no doubt optimised for high ISO shooting so the high ISO DR may be a different story.
On the tripod, if you do use base ISO in very low light (-3/-4 EV levels), if the DR is that wide then there will be sources of light that will allow less sensitive AF to work.
So whilst your example of shadow lifting is impressive, ISO 100, f8, 1/320 adjusted 5 stops would be ISO 100, f1.4, 1/320. Not exactly low light levels and not testing the lower range of AF sensitivity of a D750.
So not arguing one way or another but let's just say the jury's still out on this one IMO.
Nikon FX + m43
davophoto.wordpress.com
Any discussion about the various gear benefits, comparable to other gear is always relevant. It is only an issue when people denigrate others for their posts, information and opinions. All members are entitled to post in this forum, it is not the exclusive domain of only those who have mirrorless gear. Reading through the thread, the DSLR comparisons are relevant. The only ones who seems to see it as a war zone is those getting defensive, rather than considering the information provided as being worthwhile to the whole discussion. There is a lot of difference between information sharing and preaching!
How about keeping the discussion about the gear, not comments about members?
Last edited by ricktas; 18-01-2015 at 8:20pm.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compa...___975_949_945
Going by DXO it appears the DR cross over point is between 400 and 800.
So both the D4s and A7s beat the D750 for DR above ISO 800.
Whilst I haven't used any of these 3 cameras, based on this one aspect alone it would appear Sony might be the best pick if I were to be operating AF in very low light situations shooting contrasty subjects.
Or maybe this one might trump them all http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2014/11...camera-updated and it is "mirrorless"
Regards
David
Missed that bit of news. Lets see what happens in 2015.
And it's also only 12MP in a full frame sensor. Who is going to buy a 12MP camera in 2015 that only does 5fps and is still large because it sports a full frame sensor and offers slow AF in low light? The D4s and D750 would suit pretty much anything but my guess is the camera is aimed at videographer's due to the 4K video.
Actually, I think the DSLR members were being very civil (or at least I was) in the discussions until this post from you arrived. My posts relating to DSLR's being better were actually raised in response to this because irrespective of skill level, your post seems to insinuate that mirrorless are currently better and those who are using DSLR's are simply doing so because they are stuck with their investment rather than by choice. You then suggested I read more of the marketing material from one of the mirrorless manufacturers (which I did only to find out you missed the footnote).
I appreciate that big kit DSLR owners are kind of stuck, if a better lighter smaller alternative comes along, that fully meets real needs, but means changing the whole kit. They will be the last to leave, and longest to argue against the change. I just hope one of them remembers to turn off the lights.
OTOH people who are perfectly happy with DSLR, why even be here discussing the new wave? Just keep driving in a straight line, stop looking down the alleys. Nothing for you here.
Well the initial discussion was irrelevant of sensor size, it was mirrorless/dslr and I never claimed that the 4/3 sensor was as good image wise in low light as a FF sensor. However a FF mirrorless will have just as good a result as FF dslr as far as image quality /dynamic range goes. Correct?
Yes, correct. My post was just to clear up some discussion regarding sensor size. My post was not directly aimed at anything you stated, but a contribution to the overall discussion taking place in this thread.
Hi Nick,
With the other side debates (and I'm certainly guilty of concentrating too much on detail and forgetting the big picture), your post was probably getting lost.
Thanks for sharing your usage style. I'm finding I'm constantly evolving my wants and needs from my m43 setup.
At first I wanted to replicate my prime shooting style with a series of small, fast primes.
I've gradually had a change in opinion and plan to head down the road of all zooms. More precisely getting the trio of Olympus PRO zooms: 7-14/2.8, 12-40/2.8 and 80-150/2.8. I feel this setup runs a nice balance between quality and overall travel weight. Perhaps leaving the 40-150 behind if its not a very photocentric trip.
I feel this should contrast well if I also complete my DSLR setup with a series of fast primes. Both setup does different things.
Unfortunately I'm a long way off from my current ideal setup and won't get there any time soon.
Also unlike you, I'm just no good at MF. I rely completely on the accuracy of my AF and unfortunately won't be able to appreciate the (often) better value MF lenses. I also haven't used an adapter I liked but have yet to try the (very expensive) Metabones ones.
It's probably worth noting that pixel count also has something to do with it (as Ricktas mentioned above) so it's not just the size of the sensor. It's one of the reasons why the A7S is so good at low light. I.e. it's a 12MP camera in a full frame sensor which is very low by today's standards, but offers the benefit of larger pixel site size.
Hi Swifty, I find MF so much easier with the EVF and esp the magnify function ( for macro anyway) I was fine MF in the old days with split prisms but with DSLR OVF I was crap even after I bought a Katzeye focus screen.
Well.. not me. But not for the reasons you suggested. 12MP and <5fps are A-OK with me 2015. I was merely raising an example that camera specs may be more of a design decision, driven by practical shooting reasons and the pursuit of better base DR and better AF sensitivity are independent parameters as there doesn't appear to be a large number of shooting scenarios that needs both at the same time.
My view is that as most/all cameras meet the 'good enough' bar for most photographers the higher end ones would become increasingly specialized, but still maintaining an overall 'good enough' level.
But where I would argue that it does become relevant, is if you are relying on the sensor to produce the AF as opposed to a dedicated AF engine, are you having to make compromises on your sensor to achieve this? I.e. Produce a lower resolution sensor to achieve low light focus. If the AF and the sensor are two separate components, you could have low light focus with or without high ISO performance and without having to make compromises on your sensor to achieve this.
Agree. Although I think the upper end cameras are becoming less specialised than they used to be other than the split of video and still, and far more accessible for the masses. I think technology has allowed it to do a complete circle from specialised gear back to "good for pretty much everything".
Oh dear.
I can appreciate what your saying
Go and take some photos and post them for CC everyone.
Took this with a ......., do you think it could have been done better with a ......?
I don't know for sure but for CDAF only mirrorless cameras I don't think there are any additions on the sensor since its just analyzing the sensor feed as the lens 'scan' back or forth and stops when the algorithm detects the greatest contrast. It usually overshoots slightly (detecting reduced contrast) and goes back a little before stopping. So I don't think the sensor's being compromised unless the constant feed generates greater heat or something like that.
Or perhaps you're referring to the 7DII (a DSLR ironically) that has a dual pixel AF arrangement where the design has definitely been modified (but compromised??) for live view autofocusing.
As far as I know, only the Olympus E-M1, Nikon 1 V# series and A7 and A7 II have on-sensor PDAF but to what extent they affect or compromise the sensor then I don't know. And we'd only be speculating but I suspect it would be quite small.
But ok, I'll concede that there may be compromises where the AF share the same space as the sensor vs dedicated AF units and leaving the sensor purely for image capture. Although there are also benefits to having AF sensors on the imaging sensor but lets just keep it there to avoid starting another spinoff discussion
Actually I kid myself when I said that practical shooting reasons may determine pursuit of various sensor specs.
Likely marketing is the greatest driver. Base DR has the biggest numerical figure and -3EV is better than -2EV so these factors probably drive R&D far more.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
