C'mon let's wake this forum up

[ameerat42]

Sorry. Didn't see

[ApolloLXII]

And the SLT Pellicle mirror system has one big issue, the loss of 1/3 to 1/2 stop of light.
While in many applications it's not a big deal, I figure any loss of light is ultimately not a good thing.
The less stuff between the subject and the sensor/film is generally better.

It works for me .

[MissionMan]

Sorry. Didn't see

You have focus issues. You must be using a mirrorless.

[ameerat42]

Yep. No reflection on me!!
[ASIDE]
Actually I have 2 mirrorless, fixed lens cameras, and a DSLR. But that's beside the point(-and-shoots I also dabbled in along the way).
The two ML cams are compacts, not P&Ss. I make that distinction based on sensor size (APSC, not microscopic) and resultant IQ.
[/ASIDE]

Am(generally )

[Arg]

Are we really going to open up this can of worms again after you specifically asked to keep the subject to Mirrorless and avoid comparing them to DSLR's?

Need I remind you of Dpreview (which is considered to be one of the best and most detailed review sites currently) who also stated the following which highlights the issue of mirrorless AF systems and autofocus on objects moving towards or away from the camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pana...mix-dmc-gh4/12

"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. As you can see, the DFD focus does a good job of correctly following the subject distance."

"When we tested the focus tracking in the video section of this review we found that it could be difficult to get the camera to consistently recognise a subject, meaning that it couldn't then track that subject. The same proved to be true of our (admittedly single-scenario) cycling-towards-the-camera examples.After repeated attempts (including setting the subject with the rider close to the camera, then backing up, to retain the subject-lock), we couldn't get the camera to reliably lock or stay locked onto the subject. However, specifying a series of focus points and letting the camera prioritize the subject of its choice (probably the closest object), resulted in a pretty successful sequence of in-focus or acceptably sharp images."

In conjunction to this, their conclusion had the following cons for the camera:

• DFD system limited to Panasonic lenses
• Focus tracking poor at subject identification
• Focus peaking often too subtle to assess focus point

How's the focus peaking going in your D750?

Clearly you have an anti-mirrorless agenda that you want to pursue via this mirrorless-owners-meet-and-greet thread. Compare any 2 camera models and you will find they are each better or worse than the other in different areas. Dpreview found the GH4 focus tracking is the next area for further improvement, although the CAF is great, and Digitalversus found the GH4 is already way ahead of the D750 for AF acquisition speed. Accept that even in the area of AF, there are pros and cons between the two systems. Give an inch.

BTW dpreview mostly assessed the GH4 as a video camera: they made the beginner's mistake of thinking you wouldn't buy a GH4 if you are primarily into still images.

[ricktas]

How's the focus peaking going in your D750?

Clearly you have an anti-mirrorless agenda that you want to pursue via this mirrorless-owners-meet-and-greet thread. Compare any 2 camera models and you will find they are each better or worse than the other in different areas. Dpreview found the GH4 focus tracking is the next area for further improvement, although the CAF is great, and Digitalversus found the GH4 is already way ahead of the D750 for AF acquisition speed. Accept that even in the area of AF, there are pros and cons between the two systems. Give an inch.

BTW dpreview mostly assessed the GH4 as a video camera: they made the beginner's mistake of thinking you wouldn't buy a GH4 if you are primarily into still images.

Something to remember too, is that DPReview is owned by Amazon. How do Amazon make money? they use advertising and selling as the main basis for all their income. Whilst the reviews on DPReview once were very accurate, since Amazon acquired it, those that have been into photography long enough to recall, have seen a shift in reviews on the site to be more positive and promotional. Simply Amazon makes more money out of being positive about a product than it does about being negative about one.

And once again you seem to be trying to create a mirrorless is better than DSLR debate with your comment at Missionman about focus peaking. How's your mirrorless high ISO performance compared to a Nikon D4? All camera equipment has pro's and con's. I see this time you also make comment about dpreview making a 'beginners mistake'. Which is similar to your 'thoughtless upgrade to full frame' comment in another thread you started that got the ire of many.

Why do you repeatedly feel the need to denigrate those who choose a different equipment path to what you have chosen?

[arthurking83]

FWIW: focus peaking is actually available on the D750 .... so the humour is a little ill
concieved.

focus peaking isn't some magic cure for achieving critical focus.
It can help to focus on a subject, but at it's best it's still a guesstimate that is critically dependent on the ability of the focus system!
If you are confused as to how or why a D750 can have focus peaking, then I don't think you fully understand that it's not some magic pill limited to EVF only cameras.
I used to use it regularly on my D300 with the Nikon 50/1.2 attached.
But it was still only a guesstimate.
I noted, and it has been commented on in some reviews of the Sony A7 with a very fast lens attached .... the focus peaking feature is not dead accurate 100% of the time.

I still find that a properly designed OVF with appropriate focus aides is both more accurate more consistent and overall nicer to use.

I replaced the focus screen on both the D800E and D300 to what I want.
If a more perfect focus screen comes to market in the future then I maintain that advantage in viewfinder ability.
What option do you get for bettering an EVF?
(that I can find ... none!)

If you haven't experienced a Katzeye screen you've missed out massively!
They are a couple of orders of magnitude better than any standard manufacturer screen.

Just because manufacturers OVF render a scene the way they do, doesn't strictly imply that they can't be bettered. This is just what the manufacturers deem to be both financially and technically appropriate.
Once you try a properly designed accessory of this quality level, it's hard to stick with the manufacturer's spec type.

Think of it in terms of vehicle suspension.
You can stick with the price/performance compromise that the manufacturer deems to be sufficient, or you could change to a higher quality aftermarket type, which improves comfort/ride, handling and probably tyre wear.

Given the choice between an A7's EVF and a D300 with the katzeye screen I'm 99.9% sure that most would prefer the D300+Katzeye screen.
And yes I have tried the Sony A7 + Sony 55mm f/1.8 combo.
Tried manually focusing with peaking and it was hit and miss o too many instances to be deemed 100% perfect.

Of course the problem with aftermarket focus screens is that you are subject to the vagaries of these companies supplying the products.
If they don't supply those products, the advantage of what is possible becomes moot.

eg. Katzeye don't make screens for the D800 series cameras, so while I know what is possible, it's useless as knowledge only. I still pray that one day they will come to their senses and create one.
At the moment I'm currently using a screen from focusing screen dot com ... which is OK... but only ok. Nowhere near the ability of the katzeye screen.


As for the quoted AF speed numbers!
You don't want to get me started on how they can be manipulated to suit any flavour of bias on an as needed basis.

[Arg]

@ricktas, my apologies. I will amend the post in question if I can figure out how. The 'LOL' smiley clearly looks worse than if I typed LOL, even though it is the same meaning. A meaning that is a million miles from ridicule in the modern world of online communication. I think someone thought I was unconscionably rude when I used it in post #6, based on what happened since then. I never meant that -- please treat me as someone with a cheeky sense of humour.

Regarding 'my' mirrorless is better than reflex debate, it is a misread to think I am pursuing it. All did earlier in this thread I started, was mention that mirrorless is the only growing segment in camera sales, and from that moment on it has been assumed I think they are the best cameras in the world. Post #3 I was told I by Andrew that I am gear obsessed and need to change my hobby. That's a pretty aggressive attack and built on zero information (have a look a that quoted part of my post that leads Andrew to make that statement about me and where I should go). Yet if I show the slightest frustration or post in a similar vein, I am in big trouble.

I have been on the defensive the whole time, and based on an assumption about my opinions on cameras that is utterly wrong and made up. FWIW I think mirrorless cameras, combined with current lens kits, offer a few operational advantages and a few disadvantages against current reflex systems, plus a size and weight advantage. I have no problem with anyone's choice when they choose either type of system. But clearly some people don't want to accede that amount of credibility to mirrorless systems, arguing that the only reason to own one is size and weight. IIRC that exact statement has been posted in this thread.

I'll say it again: this thread was meant to be for mirrorless users to chat about their experiences, to help each other to transition from other systems, to be convivial. In that context I see and intend no harm or insult if it is mentioned that mirrorless cameras now acquire AF as quickly as reflex cameras -- it helps the actual mirrorless users to understand their growing performance and capability. And to feel more comfortable with staying with the system, and use the equipment more confidently. The 'debating' is all coming from the reflex owners' side. Instead of being asked questions about my experience (as a user and as one who has made the move from DSLR) by people who have or are interested in moving into mirrorless in a major way, I am personally put on the defensive by people who are not interested in mirrorless, or at most as a 'handy second kit' for when they don't need the best results. I understand it is pretty humourless here, in the sense of Australian humour, so I am trying to adjust so I fit in better.

[MissionMan]

How's the focus peaking going in your D750?

Clearly you have an anti-mirrorless agenda that you want to pursue via this mirrorless-owners-meet-and-greet thread. Compare any 2 camera models and you will find they are each better or worse than the other in different areas. Dpreview found the GH4 focus tracking is the next area for further improvement, although the CAF is great, and Digitalversus found the GH4 is already way ahead of the D750 for AF acquisition speed. Accept that even in the area of AF, there are pros and cons between the two systems. Give an inch.

BTW dpreview mostly assessed the GH4 as a video camera: they made the beginner's mistake of thinking you wouldn't buy a GH4 if you are primarily into still images.

I have a mirrorless agenda? Are you forgetting you started this up again by quoting my post and trying to one up?

It seems you are the one who seems intent on moving this post back to DSLR comparisons, so if you want people to stop comparing DSLRs to mirrorless, stop comparing mirrorless to DSLR. It's very simple.

[Arg]

FWIW: focus peaking is actually available on the D750 .... so the humour is a little ill
concieved.

Like MM for his knowledge of the GH4, I rely on the internet for my knowledge of the D750 and whether it has focus peaking. Or here. Perhaps MM can confirm, from personal experience. Looks like my lighthearted question to him a few posts back was actually in need of an answer!

==

Okay, I just saw MM's post on matters other than focus peaking. [1] I tried to have DSLR discussion removed from the thread, but was refused on the basis that it is relevant. On that basis, I have to address misconceptions posted by non-mirrorless users, who may have good intentions but lack experience. [2] Given [1] above, I think it's okay for an existing mirrorless user to discuss with others how they compare to the current benchmark and market leader (reflex cameras) (where they are catching up, where they are actually better, where they need to improve if they want to win over ever more reflex camera users) purely on the basis of understanding the mirrorless cameras we already own, or encouraging or educating photographers with a genuine interest in acquiring mirrorless cameras as a major part of their gear. I can't see very much constructive in bringing in a lot of negativity with no intention of learning or asking or moving significantly into mirrorless systems. In resisting that trend in this thread, and trying to manage it, I end up looking like the negative guy, ironically.

[ricktas]

. Instead of being asked questions about my experience (as a user and as one who has made the move from DSLR) by people who have or are interested in moving into mirrorless in a major way, I am personally put on the defensive by people who are not interested in mirrorless, or at most as a 'handy second kit' for when they don't need the best results. I understand it is pretty humourless here, in the sense of Australian humour, so I am trying to adjust so I fit in better.

See, that is where you and I disagree. You are again assuming that those of us with a DSLR who might be considering a mirrorless addition to our kit as wanting to use the mirrorless when we do not want the best results. I want a mirrorless for street photography. It is not cause I do not want the best results, but rather that I perceived I will get better results with mirrorless. Mainly because as I have said previously, holding a D800 and 70-200 attracts attention. A smaller kit is a boon for street photography where being inconspicuous can be a real advantage. Though as I have already stated I am awaiting the rumoured Nikon full frame mirrorless. Why? Because the benefits of a larger sensor are numerous, and have already been discussed.

Many posters in this thread have discussed the benefits and disadvantages of a range of camera parts, mechanics, physics, and electronics. Surely any discussion about both the benefits and restrictions of any camera gear is worthwhile? After all, someone might read this thread and learn something about camera equipment that they did not know and it may very well help them decide what camera (system) to buy into. An informed buyer has an advantage over an uninformed one.

Perhaps stop being on the defensive and read what has been written. There is some great information in this thread, that if you are defensive, you may overlook. If you are defensive when you start reading a longer post, you are starting at a disadvantage. Also by being on the defensive you then look to go on the offensive to 'regain ground', when you don't need to.

Have a read of your thread with a fresh approach and you might find there is some damn good information in it.

[Arg]

See, that is where you and I disagree. You are again assuming that those of us with a DSLR who might be considering a mirrorless addition to our kit as wanting to use the mirrorless when we do not want the best results. I want a mirrorless for street photography. It is not cause I do not want the best results, but rather that I perceived I will get better results with mirrorless. Mainly because as I have said previously, holding a D800 and 70-200 attracts attention. A smaller kit is a boon for street photography where being inconspicuous can be a real advantage. Though as I have already stated I am awaiting the rumoured Nikon full frame mirrorless. Why? Because the benefits of a larger sensor are numerous, and have already been discussed.

Many posters in this thread have discussed the benefits and disadvantages of a range of camera parts, mechanics, physics, and electronics. Surely any discussion about both the benefits and restrictions of any camera gear is worthwhile?

Perhaps direct that question to the writer of post #3, who said I am gear-obsessed and should change hobbies.

After all, someone might read this thread and learn something about camera equipment that they did not know and it may very well help them decide what camera (system) to buy into. An informed buyer has an advantage over an uninformed one.

Perhaps stop being on the defensive and read what has been written. There is some great information in this thread, that if you are defensive, you may overlook. If you are defensive when you start reading a longer post, you are starting at a disadvantage. Also by being on the defensive you then look to go on the offensive to 'regain ground', when you don't need to.

Have a read of your thread with a fresh approach and you might find there is some damn good information in it.

Yep -- some of it I even wrote myself. See if you can find anything I wrote that hasn't been argued to the n'th degree by others who, like you suggest for me, could do well to read without bias. Unfortunately, you directed the above to me alone, and not other posters in this thread.

I am not the raving ignorant loony you seem to imply. To quote myself from 3 or 4 posts up: "I think mirrorless cameras, combined with current lens kits, offer a few operational advantages and a few disadvantages against current reflex systems, plus a size and weight advantage. I have no problem with anyone's choice when they choose either type of system." Biased?

[ricktas]

I am not the raving ignorant loony you seem to imply.

Again, where did I imply that? You seem to think the rest of us have an issue with you. We don't.

[MissionMan]

Like MM for his knowledge of the GH4, I rely on the internet for my knowledge of the D750 and whether it has focus peaking. Or here. Perhaps MM can confirm, from personal experience. Looks like my lighthearted question to him a few posts back was actually in need of an answer!

==

Okay, I just saw MM's post on matters other than focus peaking. [1] I tried to have DSLR discussion removed from the thread, but was refused on the basis that it is relevant. On that basis, I have to address misconceptions posted by non-mirrorless users, who may have good intentions but lack experience. [2] Given [1] above, I think it's okay for an existing mirrorless user to discuss with others how they compare to the current benchmark and market leader (reflex cameras) (where they are catching up, where they are actually better, where they need to improve if they want to win over ever more reflex camera users) purely on the basis of understanding the mirrorless cameras we already own, or encouraging or educating photographers with a genuine interest in acquiring mirrorless cameras as a major part of their gear. I can't see very much constructive in bringing in a lot of negativity with no intention of learning or asking or moving significantly into mirrorless systems. In resisting that trend in this thread, and trying to manage it, I end up looking like the negative guy, ironically.

This is where I strongly disagree with your statements. You state you are trying to clear up misconceptions when you are actually perpetuating misconceptions, like your statement from a manufacturer that mirrorless have the fastest AF in the world when it excludes full frame DSLR's. You can't post something which is simply not true and expect people to shut up because it's directed in a mirrorless forum or for the mods to delete statements which contradict your own personal views. I would hope that people continue to clear up misconceptions, yours, mine or otherwise because we actually have a chance to learn.

And just to clear something up...no one ever said mirrorless AF was crap, they simply said it wasn't as good as pro DSLR's. Now I'm not 100% sure how this offends you in any form, given the cameras are twice the price or more in some cases? Welcome to the real world where a $600K car is better than a $100K one. Pro DSLR's are the benchmark. They are good and expensive because they have to be designed for pros who can't afford to miss a shot. They are the best in the world for action photography. If your camera that costs less than a third of the price doesn't match the grade of pro gear and you're offended, you need a reality check. I don't get offended if someone says a D4s has a better AF system, it simply does, and if I was prepared to pay twice the price, I could have had it as well.

Now on to whether I simply read, I have used mirrorless, I tested them for extended period and I like them. If a full frame mirrorless arrives that uses the DSLR mount arrives for Nikon, I will get one as a second body (I currently have a D700) because there are occasions I want something smaller. I won't get one now because I don't want to buy two sets of lenses and I don't believe a total move to mirrorless would be effective. I like being able to carry something compact with a 50mm f/1.4, 20mm f/1.8 or 85 /1.8 attached and a second body for me doesn't have to be a pro DSLR. When it comes to you, unfortunately, I have no idea what gear you use or have used. You haven't posted pictures which makes it difficult to ascertain what DSLR you came from, what lenses you were using and what mirrorless you are currently using.

[arthurking83]

Like MM for his knowledge of the GH4, I rely on the internet for my knowledge of the D750 and whether it has focus peaking. Or here. Perhaps MM can confirm, from personal experience. .....

You don't need confirmation from MM about focus peaking.

IIRC, you went from a Canon DSLR to mirrorless now.
If you had a Canon DSLR, you also had a focus peaking feature, although you may not have used it .. as most also don't.

All Nikon DSLRs have a focus peaking feature(that I know of).

This feature may not operate as you see it in your mirrorless(or any mirrorless cameras that do have it) , but it works in a similar or same manner.

The electronic rangefinder in a DSLR camera is for all intents and purposes a focus peaking feature.
It estimates when two contrasting elements achieve peak contrast situation.
It works via the focus module in a DSLR, and as I understand it in mirrorless, it works via the CDAF pixels on the sensor that estimate CDAF requirements.

The major difference between focus peaking on a DSLR compared with that of most mirrorless cameras(as I've experienced and understand them).

1. on a DSLR the focus peaking feature via the use of the rangefinder feature only operates on the selected focus point.
That is, it won't give you accurate focus estimation on the far RHS corner, if the focus point is set to the far LHS corner.
The confirmation indication in the viewfinder is the same as the focus peaking feature as used in the Sony A7(which I have tried) and not been overly impressed with when the DOF was narrow.

2. on (at least the Sony A7 I played with) a mirrorless camera, the focus peaking indicates a coloured area of where the camera thinks focus is(or more accurately sees greatest contrast).
The major difference is that on the A7, as the sensor is basically covered with AF points the focus points are almost omnipresent anyhow, so allows the feature you may be refering too as focus peaking.

On a smaller format camera system, focus peaking should be 'more accurate' as the DOF for a given field of view tends to be narrower. Narrower DOF masks the inaccuracy of an estimated focus point.
it would be a trivial matter for Nikon to have included focus peaking as you see it in a mirrorless camera on their D750, but they obviously deemed that it wasn't important or robust enough or whatever reason.
To add focus peaking as implemented in a mirrorless camera should be easy in the liveview feature already present in all DSLRs now.
My experience is that DSLR makers haven't added focus peaking in liveview mode as it's not as accurate as a proper visual focus aid can be.
I'm fairly confident that if such a feature were implemented in a DSLR(via liveview), I'd be less likely to use it to judge focus.
I prefer either a visual aide such as a microprism or split screen .. or simple visual confirmation via a magnified liveview image.

You need to remember!
Now as all DSLR cameras have a liveview function, we 'dinosaurs' do have access to a mirrorless camera at will. But at the same time we can use our cameras as per the regular non mirrorless or OVF modes as we deem to be appropriate.
I can tell you straight up, when Liveview was first brought to DSLR cameras, I was a major proponent of the system .. where others seemed to have baulked at the notion!
Same with video.. major breakthrough for DSLR digital cameras.
I have and will probably always be a heavy user of liveview on my cameras, and cant' imagine going back to non liveview cameras any time.
So much so in fact, I find myself in a slight predicament.
I want a broadband/full spectrum camera, and have one of two cameras to choose from to convert.
D70s or D300.
My head says convert the little used D70s, even tho it's old and diminutive and not worth selling as it's worth nothing . it makes the most sense.
This way it still leaves the D300 as a second stringer if and when I need it.
By my other head says that when I go to the trouble to convert the camera to non standard, I'm better off doing the D300 simply because the liveview feature will be required at times.
So I'm better off converting the D300. I know that if I convert the D70s, I'll be kicking myself when I either cant' see or have trouble with lenses that focus shift heavily in a non visible wavelength.
Liveview is therefore an almost an imperative.

But, there are times when liveview(and therefore by default) a mirrorless camera simply can't hold a candle to an OVF. I use the OVF at least 3x as much as I do the liveview feature.

So what's wrong with mirrorless? .. the actual feature that is commonly being espoused as it's greatest virtue .. the EVF.

It's still too low in both resolution and dynamic range, when compared to an OVF.

When both of these fundamental aspects have been addressed, where there is no shadow of doubt that EVFs are as good or better than an OVF .. there will be no reason to maintain a costly and inherently difficult to manufacturer DSLR camera any longer.
It will become the next film vs digital debate.

At the moment tho, there are too few pixels displaying too little detail in an EVF. Maybe at about the 5 to 8Mp EVF era (I don't know, just a guess) we may see no question about it .. there is no reason to stick with an OVF.
Just as we did with film vs digital. At the 8Mp era of digital sensors, the detail was there as proof .. no question about it .. digital in most, if not all aspects, was clearly a better medium for capturing photos.
That didn't make film totally useless tho nor did it stop people wanting to use film(as I did sometimes) .. Just as I love old cars and just about anything old really, I still like the idea of film. It's the nostalgic feeling it provides.
I'm personally not immune to new technology. I only succumb to it if it provides an advantage.(not simply because it's the new era, and I should follow the trend)

So when I bite the bullet and decide that a mirrorless camera is now what I need, it will be purely for the advantage it offers in whatever way over what I am or was using before this point.

Again, we have different opinions based around personal requirements.
My requirements don't follow a path that size is important. Lighter would be nice, but a very low priority .. smaller is not really an option for me. I need a specific sized camera to hold onto.
Too small and it doesn't work for me .. in fact smaller is more of a pain.
viewfinder quality is where high priority lies for me.
Also AF speed too. GH4 may be the greatest AF speed freak in the history of camera kind, but I'm not so easily convinced.
Maybe I need to get to a shop to try one out one day.
What doesn't make sense about this implied super capability in the GH4's AF system, is why it doesn't get reported as DSLR beating performance all over the net.
I've gone back to Thom's site to see what he thinks thinking to myself that maybe I've missed some info posted about how much faster the GH4's AF is compared to the D750's
And you wouldn't have guessed it .. but nothing! No mention that the GH4 can focus at light speed, or is in any way up to the task of keeping pace with DSLRs ... when it counts!
The only mention of any mirrorless camera capable of claiming almost parity with DSLRs in terms of AF ability, is referring to the Nikon 1's ability.
But Thom does mention that on static subjects, the mirrorless cameras are anywhere from good to superb.

Again tho .. I can't see the need to differentiate.
Just as with film, or old cars, or anything that is not your cupp'a tea.
Why is it important that other users need to conform to the current trend?
I'd be more inclined to be thankful that there are these varying options.. just as I have the option to use a Samsung Galaxy Camera if I feel the need too.
This is the only real non DSLR type camera in my house(apart from the tablets/smartphones).
I don't use tablet/smartphones as cameras, even tho there really isn't much difference between them and the SGC.

If a photographer has a genuine interest in acquiring a mirrorless camera, this is their own personal choice, just as in my situation I just refuse to use a smartphone as a camera.
It's personal choice(but a deep seated one based on usability and controlability).

[ricktas]

The title of this thread is C'mon let's wake this forum up.

With 195 posts.. I think it is awake.

[mpb]

Definitely awake, and no doubt will gain self awareness at any moment now.
John Conner, where are you?

[Arg]

The First Impressions Review on DPR of the Samsung NX1 mirrorless camera says that its Tracking Autofocus is better than the new Canon 7D II DSLR.

Still not perfect, but

[MissionMan]

The First Impressions Review on DPR of the Samsung NX1 mirrorless camera says that its Tracking Autofocus is better than the new Canon 7D II DSLR.

Still not perfect, but

Wow, some selective reading happening there. Better when the subject is isolated. Probably worth pasting the entire statement on the autofocus to show what they really said:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/samsung-nx1/6

Subject tracking was generally reliable as long as a subject was reasonably well isolated. I didn't realistically expect the system to track an individual player running straight through a pack of 10 other people, but frustratingly I ran in to a number of cases where tracking would jump from my primary subject to a secondary subject far in the background even when my subject was well isolated.
I haven't been able to quantify it, but there seemed to be a brightness threshold at which the camera's phase detect AF system became less effective and it relied more on the contrast detect system. I noticed this in shadow areas and areas with dark background. Once I reached this threshold the camera would begin searching back and forth. A lot. In a few cases it just refused to focus on anything and I had to focus manually before the AF system would begin working again.
So how did the NX1 compare to the Canon 7D II at the soccer game? I nailed focus on more shots with the Canon (though not by a huge margin) and it struggled less in low light than the Samsung. The Canon AF system just felt more mature. In fairness, Canon's AF system has been evolving for years while the NX1 is still the new kid on the block. Where that new kid really excelled, however, was subject tracking. The NX1 wasn't perfect, but it was more adept at sticking with a subject than Canon's iTR tracking system.
I was also curious about the NX1's ability to maintain continuous autofocus while shooting at 15 fps, so I decided to photograph my colleague Richard (who happens to be a dedicated cyclist) as he rode on a local bike trail. Shooting opportunity for me, free photos for Richard. Win-win situation.
I was again shooting with the Samsung 50-150mm F2.8 lens, zoomed to the long end, and Richard was coming at me pretty fast, so even at 15 fps his position was shifting between shots. For the most part the NX1 kept pace with Richard, tracking him both toward the camera and across the frame, and I could see the cloud of AF points staying right on top of him. Only when he got very close did it begin to lose him. While not every shot was in focus, the percentage was high.

[MattNQ]

200 posts!

I've nothing to say but wanted to click it over

Wish I brought popcorn.....