On 21/04/2015 14:29, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 20 April 2015 17:26:42 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 20/04/2015 14:18, whisky-dave wrote:


I switched to mirrorless some years back and the day of carrying a hulking great SLR with its hulking great lenses is gone for me.

Most have gone to camera phones which are probbaly better than most SLRs were 20 years ago.

as is carrying about 10X8 plate camera, but for pros a mirror-less just inst't as good as a FF DSLR.

For a lot of pros a full frame mirror-less one is better..

No according to the pros otherwise they'd have one wouldn't they.

There was a time pros wouldn't use digital, most of them are dinosaurs.

For mopst pros the lenes that are availble for mirroless just aren't up to the job.

The lenses available are usually the same, most people don't need the
really expensive ones.
PS my 500 mm "lens" has better optical performance than most pro 500mm
lenses as its diffraction limited and optically correct (its a
telescope). I have access to an 1800 mm one too but I don't need to see
the pores in a footballers face at the other end of the field.

no bump as the mirror goes up
that's what mirror lock up is for or live view.

But you complain about EVFs lagging so live view is no good.


faster response time

slower respone time as you've waiting for the EVF to show the image you want to capture, which is one of the main reasons mirroless isnb;t used for sport.
You really can't beat the speed of light you know.

Don't be silly, do you really think the EVF is going to lag the amount
of time it takes to whip the mirror up?
Why do you think you can only do 10fps even on an expensive pro camera,
it takes about 100ms to move the mirror.
A mirror-less camera could be taking jpegs at 30 fps (no not movies,
stills)!
Some might even do RAW at that speed but you need one hell of a fast
card to keep up.
The wife's superzoom will do 10 fps in RAW but its only 16 Megapixel.


shorter time between shots.
Not relivent with burst firing of around 10FPS

At 10 fps the mirror is bouncing up and down at 10 fps, not much good if
you are trying to keep something steady.




It depends on whether the viewfinder is up to the job.

what do you mean by that ?

In a mirror-less camera there is no optical viewfinder so if its not a
good one it can be difficult to use.

Having said that a good mirror-less camera will allow you to see and
frame stuff that's just too dark to see through an optical viewfinder.
A year or two ago the opposite was true and optical ones were better
than electronic.

I want a Sony full frame mirror-less but I am not prepared to buy one ATM.

Most pros ise nikon and canon for DLSRs higher end pros prefer lieca, Hassblad
most would laugh at a sony camera for pro use. Years ago they were good for video cameras now they make good sensors but that's about it.



Just because you pay £6k for a d3x doesn't mean it takes better pictures
than a Sony a7.
You can probably get more system parts for it but that doesn't mean you
can't take the same photos in different ways, you just have to be creative.