On 21/04/2015 17:15, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 15:31:01 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
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 most pros the lenes that aren't 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.

They aren't the same. But pros do that's the point isn;t it.

Most pros don't.
When does a wedding photographer need a f2 500mm lens?


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.

So.
Would you be prepared to say which lenses your're talking about ?
You won;t see p[ores on a footballers face with a 1800mm lens.
unless you can prove it of course.


It will resolve about 2/3 arc second so you can work out at what
distance if you want.

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.

No you use the optical viewfinder as that's what it for.

You can't with live view as the mirror is up and there is no optical
view unless you fit one to the hot shoe which sort of defeats the idea
of an SLR.

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?

Not relivent as it's teh time it takes the person to react to what they seen on teh screen.

Its that plus the lag in the system, its important that its consistant
as a good photographer will be able to predict when the best moment is
going to occur and will press the shutter just before it happens.


Why do you think you can only do 10fps even on an expensive pro camera,
you can do much more than 10FPS on a pro if yuo buy one for that purpose

it takes about 100ms to move the mirror.
A mirror-less camera could be taking jpegs at 30 fps (no not movies,
stills)!

but it can't due to the processing power of the current chips.

But they can!


Some might even do RAW at that speed but you need one hell of a fast
card to keep up.

Same would go for mirrorless. the same card specs.

We are talking about mirror-less did you mean something else?



The wife's superzoom will do 10 fps in RAW but its only 16 Megapixel.

which one is that then ?

tz40
It will go faster but at reduced resolution.




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.

You won't use it for steady shots that's what IS or VR are for.

IS doesn't work for high frequency shocks, however to be doing 10 fps
the SLR will probably have a shutter speed of about 1/1000, you won't be
able to see the shake unless there are straight lines which will become
slightly bent as the slit crosses the frame.


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.

yep one of the disadvantages or mirrorless.

Didn't you say you needed to use live view on the lcd screen on the
back, much worse than the evf for most things.



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.

depends on how the optical finder works doesn't it.
If it's too dark it'll have probl;ems focussing too.

That is exactly the same for any camera, they just use an IR illuminator
or a light if the lens design doesn't cope well with IR as it will focus
at a different place to visible light on many.



A year or two ago the opposite was true and optical ones were better
than electronic.

they still are.

Not for all uses.



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.

Doesn;t mean the sony A7 is better either.

I never said it was, they are all better at some things than at others.


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.

there's far less glasss for the sony A7 than the canon or nikon range.

But you can fit both nikon and cannon glass to the A7. You can even fit
it to a cheap micro 4/3 camera if you want. There are advantages in
having a smaller body, you can fit adapters between the glass and the body.