C'mon let's wake this forum up

[MissionMan]

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.

Sorry, no, what I was trying to say (not sure if I wasn't clear in the original post) is that I would assume the AF has dependencies on what the sensor can "see" based on the ISO capability. I.e. if the camera sensor only goes to ISO1000, I would assume that it would have terrible low light focus as the AF system would have very little information to use from the sensor to determine AF due to the sensor sensitivity, but because the A7S goes to ISO400,000 the sensor would have a phenomenal amount of information (along with better quality of information with less noise to adversely impact the quality of the feed to the AF system) at it's disposal in very little light which would help improve focus in these conditions.

[swifty]

Ic, so what you're saying is that the A7s can only achieve a -4EV lower AF sensitivity by sacrificing DR and pixel count because it is seeing more/cleaner info by doing so?
I don't think its that simplistic. How would you explain the -4EV on the GX7? Surely the GX7's read out is not nearly as clean or abundant as the A7s and the GX7's ISO range is also far more limited.
Do you have references to where CDAF speed/sensitivity range are dependent on sensor attributes such as high ISO performance or sensor DR? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but haven't heard this before so it would be good to read your source.

[MissionMan]

Ic, so what you're saying is that the A7s can only achieve a -4EV lower AF sensitivity by sacrificing DR and pixel count because it is seeing more/cleaner info by doing so?
I don't think its that simplistic. How would you explain the -4EV on the GX7? Surely the GX7's read out is not nearly as clean or abundant as the A7s and the GX7's ISO range is also far more limited.
Do you have references to where CDAF speed/sensitivity range are dependent on sensor attributes such as high ISO performance or sensor DR? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but haven't heard this before so it would be good to read your source.

I don't, it's an assumption I've made because of how the AF works, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, I think we're sidetracking the original discussion so I'll create a separate topic for the AF discussions and we can continue there.

[Nick Cliff]

Hi swifty,
I feel if I were to purchase an auto focus lens I would be after a 200 mm or longer focal length for bird photography however the lenses you have mentioned are superb. If you do try manual lenses the Metabones mounts are excellent as are the Polish cieco adapters, having had problems with cheaper mounts(i.e. mount arrives without screws to stop mount rotating, from a supposedly better more expensive Chinese brand) I found the money well spent. I feel with young families these auto focus lenses are the go, as my targets are more stationary the old primes are great, regards Nick.

[swifty]

Thanks Nick
I wasn't aware of the Cieco adapters but with regards to Metabones it's really the speedboosters I was keen on.

Davsv1: this isn't anything too rational but I actually find current MF aids distracting and disconnects the shooting experience for me. It feels great when all you see in the finder is your composition and the image snapping into focus whether AF or MF. Just that currently I have no confidence in my own ability to judge focus manually. For some reason the split prism or the rangefinder method where two image snap together is also quite satisfying and I think there's a MF-aid focusing mode on the X100T (or was it the XT1?) that simulates this. I haven't tried this but if it works well I can see myself trying more MF lenses if it gets implemented in future m43 models.

[Arg]

Very quiet forum here! Surely there are more mirrorless camera users on Ausphotography than this?

Post in this thread if you are into your new wave camera gear, say hi. This thread can be a kind of register of DSLM (i.e. mirrorless) camera photographers.

I got into it with my new Lumix kit almost a year ago. Sold all my Canon gear and went 'cold turkey'. How about you?

We are the only growing segment in new camera sales right now -- it's time we started talking!

In a desperate attempt to return this thread to the topic I started, ......

Of the contributors to this thread so far, who is using mirrorless cameras as their main shooting kit? There's me....

[arthurking83]

ps. at the risk of taking this thread 'back off course' again .. just one more thing I'd like to point out.

This supposed 'new way' .. 'new tech' .. 'future of' .. or whatever, is actually the old wave, old way, old fashioned way of camera design.

reflex type cameras only really came into practical existence about 100 years after the initial invention.
Officially the mid 30's was when the first reflex SLRs came into being, but they had some serious drawbacks.

I think the Pentax(then Asahi) SLRs in the mid 50s had the modern system of instant return mirrors that made an SLR practical and what we sort of use today.
(there was a low volume, obscure brand manufacturer that invented the instant return mirror, but Asahi/pentax are4 credited with the first mass market high volume camera designed so)

if you view mirrorless cameras in the traditional manner, they are technically an iteration of a view camera .. a possible derivation of a rangefinder as some people like to call them, but more so they are a view camera type, as you see an aerial image of what the sensor sees(albeit remotely) directly through the lens.

Anyhow .. all this is probably not important .. just pedantic, and apologies for taking the thread off your intended direction again.

[bcys1961]

I am . I dropped out when the discussion became one about which format focusses a micro second quicker than the other, which has the greater dynamic range, blah , blah...... . As I said in an earlier post- largely irrelevant to me. I think a much better question to ask than "What was your shutter speed?" or "How quickly does you camera auto-focus on that setting" is " Given the light, what camera settings have you used to try and replicate the emotion you were feeling when you took that photo?".

[Arg]

Thanks Brad --- welcome mate.

Your 'replicate the emotion' question is a good one. I'm not sure how many photographers take the time to even feel the emotion before starting the conscious process of translating it to camera. I've been guilty of that: sometimes not getting past "oh, that could be a good photo" before starting the translation. Being a bit rushed-for-time.

You've also made me think about the raw vs jpeg thing. Not the technical aspects blah blah, superiority blah blah, but the simple fact that some of the camera settings that might best replicate the emotion can only be captured on jpeg at the time. Trying to do it later with PP on raw might be too much of a time delay, too many other photos in between, too hard to remember the emotion and the idea for each photo.

[bcys1961]

Thanks Brad --- welcome mate.

Your 'replicate the emotion' question is a good one. I'm not sure how many photographers take the time to even feel the emotion before starting the conscious process of translating it to camera. I've been guilty of that: sometimes not getting past "oh, that could be a good photo" before starting the translation. Being a bit rushed-for-time.

You've also made me think about the raw vs jpeg thing. Not the technical aspects blah blah, superiority blah blah, but the simple fact that some of the camera settings that might best replicate the emotion can only be captured on jpeg at the time. Trying to do it later with PP on raw might be too much of a time delay, too many other photos in between, too hard to remember the emotion and the idea for each photo.

I shoot raw , as you have more flexibility to create the emotion you are after . Look at the "El Alemain" photo just posted. I shifted the WB to the right in LR5 to give a more golden glow , warmer colours. Also the tint slider shifted to the right put a nice red streak in the sun burst going through the middle of the photo. It was a hot afternoon so I wanted the warm colours. I could shift sliders the other way and give the photo a cool feel, but that's not how I felt at the time . I'm trying to take less photos but put more thought into each one and play with them a little more . Ultimately there are no prizes for taking the most photo's and the best create a mood or emotion in the viewer. I follow a guy called David Duchemin and he is really big on all this stuff , but I'm sure we all have our own "guru's".

[Bennymiata]

The Sony 7 series were supposed to be THE camera that would change the minds of DSLR users and convert them to mirrorless.
However, because of its poor low light focussing, its high price, shutter shake, lack of native lenses and because it is not a pleasant camera to use, it has almost stopped selling.
Most of the people I know that bought a mirrorless, soon tired of the fiddly controls, and lack of direct access for some controls.
A couple of years ago I bought a Canon G1x as I wanted a small camera to carry around instead of my SLR. I've taken around 300 shots with it and it now sits in my cupboard while my DSLRs get a heavy workout.

[Arg]

It's not the camera though. It's us. There are just as many anecdotes from people whose DSLR languishes in the cupboard since they got a DSLM. The real variant is the owners and their likes. That's why there is more than one camera for sale at each price point.

[bcys1961]

The Sony 7 series were supposed to be THE camera that would change the minds of DSLR users and convert them to mirrorless.
However, because of its poor low light focussing, its high price, shutter shake, lack of native lenses and because it is not a pleasant camera to use, it has almost stopped selling.
Most of the people I know that bought a mirrorless, soon tired of the fiddly controls, and lack of direct access for some controls.
A couple of years ago I bought a Canon G1x as I wanted a small camera to carry around instead of my SLR. I've taken around 300 shots with it and it now sits in my cupboard while my DSLRs get a heavy workout.

Maybe that is more a reflection on Sony than the whole mirrorless genre. I'm sure there are some DSLR brands/models that are considered "dogs". I'm happy with my OMD and don't have any of these problems . I don't think there should be any desire to "convert" users , just a desire to open up new markets to those who have not yet committed to any particular brand or type of camera.

[ricktas]

I am awaiting the announcement of the Nikon1 J5, which is supposed to happen (if rumours are to be believed) around 12th February, as the J5 is supposed be Nikon's foray into the full-frame mirrorless market.

[swifty]

Does 50:50 count? At one stage I would say mirrorless had graduated to become my main rig but it's roughly half-half these days as I enjoy the perks of each camera type.

[ricktas]

It's not the camera though. It's us. There are just as many anecdotes from people whose DSLR languishes in the cupboard since they got a DSLM. The real variant is the owners and their likes. That's why there is more than one camera for sale at each price point.

@Arg; after 4 1/2 years of AP membership and 362 posts, perhaps you could post your first photo on the site, so we can see how good you really are with this gear? You keep telling us how great it is but we are not getting to see the proof.

[Arg]

Thanks for the invitation, Rick, but my photos will never prove anything about my gear. That's not why I take them, either.

[MissionMan]

I am awaiting the announcement of the Nikon1 J5, which is supposed to happen (if rumours are to be believed) around 12th February, as the J5 is supposed be Nikon's foray into the full-frame mirrorless market.

If they go with a full frame sensor, I assume they would provide the same mount as their DSLR gear which in turn may open the door to a wider group of users. It may also promote the take on of buyers looking for a second smaller body who don't want to invest in more glass or existing DSLR users who want to replace their gear with something smaller without reinvesting in lenses. The carry of a smaller body would work well for the smaller primes.

[Arg]

50:50 definitely counts, @swifty! Welcome to the club! (you know what I mean)

So far it's me, Brad and swifty. There must be more?

[ricktas]

Thanks for the invitation, Rick, but my photos will never prove anything about my gear. That's not why I take them, either.

So what you are saying is you will argue the benefits of your gear, but you won't show us the very reason for owning photography gear in the first place?