On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 1:06:04 PM UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 12:11:36 UTC+1, fred wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 9:23:10 AM UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 29/04/15 09:13, fred wrote:
Strikes me you are the owner of a very old dslr and are now just miffed.

Or that you are in possession of a mirrorless and cant accept its not
the whole solution.

Years and years of rollieflex cameras taking superb portraits did not
eliminate the SLR for sports use, for example.


On the contrary. Up until recently I used a Nikon D300 with a selection of lenses. The current Sony 7 and Panasonic LX 100 beat the Nikon on many counts.

So not on all counts , in other words your Nikon beats the Sony 7 and Panasonic LX 100 on some things although you don't give a scale that you're measuring against so it's pretty meaningless.

Now you're just being childish. My meaning is perfectly obvious. No doubt you'd like me to list them so you could cherry pick your way through them refuting the ones that suited. I have neither the time or the inclination for such a meaningless task

In my time I have used and owned a Super Ikonta folding camera, (2 1/4 x 3 1/4 negatives ) Rolleifles and Rolleicord, Yashicamat 124G. Mamiya C330 all mostly used as a professional in wedding and portraiture. Had my own darkroom. Developed all films and made countless prints.

I've done a similar things as an amateur.


I've owned and used various Canon and Nikon SLRS as an amateur,so I think I could claim a modest amount of experience in camera usage.

Yep, that seems reasonble.

My entry into this discussion was due to what I perceived to be erroneous out of hand dismissal of mirrorless cameras as being not fit for professional use.

Well every camera is fit for professional whether or not an individual professional will chose one depends on what he's intending to photograph or the market.

Now you're repeating what I have previously said.


use Every iteration of mirrorless since its inception, and my first one was a Minolta about 14 years or so ago, has see rapid improvements. The technology is now maturing. Modern evfs are exceptionally good. The lenses are the same as those used by the dslra, via adapters if necessary. The sensors are the same if not better than the dslr ones. assuming Sony keep the best for themselves. Someone above claimed that 4k video was the equivalent to 200ASA which nonsensical statement might indicate the quality of some people in this discussion.

I couldn't work out how the speed of film could be linked to 4k video in any way, especailly without mentioning whether it was 35mm or 70mm.

This is the statement made:

" Its 4k resolution, about as good as 200 ASA film was. "

There is no sensible relationship to be made betweem 4k video and film speed

I never claimed that mirrorless was the whole solution only that it offered an excellent alternative to a standard dslr and that it has/is replacing the dslr in many markets.

Yes that goes for most things fast food places have replaced resturants too.
More non sequiturs,

The market share of dslrs has declined greatly and that has sweet f.a. to do with competition with phone cameras.

it has a lot to do with it.

No It has nothing to do with it. You go one to claim you have a Pro wandering around with a 4D over his shoulder claiming that his clients would not accept him if he started shooting with a phone camera so how are you working out that the phone camera is replacing dslrs ?


Extrapolating from the figures many are finding mirrorless preferable to the dslr.

yes there's a pro photographer here. He's walking around with a Nikon D4 at the moment he admits that what he's doing at the moment he coul,d do with a phone but tehy wouldn;t have employed him to take pictures with his phone.
A pro going around using a phone doesn't inspire much confidence and his phone can't do the things he's Nikon can.

A real pro will let his work speak for itself. If he is depending on his equipment to give him kudos he's a poor example of the breed.

I don't quite get your comments re Rolleiflex and SLRs. In the right hands a Rollei could produce excellent results for certain sports. The straight through viewfinder allowed on to observe the action outside the frame and plan accordingly.

I keep both eyes open when doing such things, framing through the viewfinder but watching with the other eye.


Bollix you do. Perhaps with a 50mm lens but beyond that and you'd be cross eyed. Anyway this would not be easy while using the camera in landscaoe mode unless your eyes are very far apart
Unfortunately it didn't have interchangeable lenses and the Mamiya C330 which did have interchangeable lenses was really too big and clumsy for such work IMHO.


Horses for courses.

Yep some horseare better than others on some courses.

The TLR excelled in portraiture thanks to its waist level finder and its use of 120 film.

This is where DLSRs and mirrorless don;t replace a TLR as the TLR forces yuo to use a difernt perspective other than eye level fotogrphy which is what most do.

More rubbish.

The TLR is not always used at waistlevel.

The amateur crouch (down on one knee) gives the same perspective as the waist level finder.

One of the exclusive features of the mirrorless is the flip up/down/sideways screen that many have.


But its an interesting point. In its day the TLR boys looked down on the 35mm users claiming their larger film gave better results.

Well that was the case wasn;t it, 120 film of teh same type could be enlarged far greater than 25mm or half frame or 110

You're repeating me again

The TLR is now more or less dead having been replaced by the DSLR which in turn is now being replaced by mirrorless.

Most sports DLSR users aren't replacing them with mirrorless.

Can we have some evidence of this please.

You just have to observe sporting fixtures to see that.

Perhaps in your neck of the woods.

One day they may well do like pones have replaced compacts or P&S's
but for most pros are still buying DLSRs.

Remains to be seen. Nikon and Canon are both reported to be cutting back on their dslr manufacturing side. The writing is on the wall.

As for the nmirroless 4k it's still a gimmick of sorts.
look at TV studios have you seen a mirrorless being used by the BBC or sky ?

Who knows what the future will bring.