On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 1:02:17 PM UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes, I'd agree. When I could see to take pictures, we were still using film
of course, and one did not want to waste exposures with flash illuminating
the inside of somewhere when you were actually taking the outside through a
window.

Maybe they have not read that part of the manual yet?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.236...
On a couple of recent holidays to sunny places I have been amused by
people
with large expensive SLR cameras using flash to take scenic photos in
bright sunlight. (I do know about fill-in flash!)

A recent example was someone on a coach tour using a long lens and a large
accessory flash gun to take photos through the coach window on the
opposite
side to where he was sitting!

Of course many will still come out despite the flash, but most cameras
will
select a particular shutter speed when flash is deployed which may not be
the best for the circumstance where flash is not the main illumination.

Personally, I wouldn't even take a decent camera to a beach location for
fear of sand damage - I leave it at home as it is one less thing to worry
about. My pocket compact is adequate for the usual snaps taken on holiday

Its the planks with their huge white lens permanently mounted on the front of their SLR that get me. To show off, only reason they buy them I suppose.

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.

And I scream with laughter at those photography sites where the letter writers have their equipment in their sig. Sad, really sad.

On Monday, 20 April 2015 13:51:49 UTC+1, fred wrote:
On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 1:02:17 PM UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes, I'd agree. When I could see to take pictures, we were still using film
of course, and one did not want to waste exposures with flash illuminating
the inside of somewhere when you were actually taking the outside through a
window.

Maybe they have not read that part of the manual yet?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"DerbyBorn" wrote in message
2.236...
On a couple of recent holidays to sunny places I have been amused by
people
with large expensive SLR cameras using flash to take scenic photos in
bright sunlight. (I do know about fill-in flash!)

A recent example was someone on a coach tour using a long lens and a large
accessory flash gun to take photos through the coach window on the
opposite
side to where he was sitting!

Of course many will still come out despite the flash, but most cameras
will
select a particular shutter speed when flash is deployed which may not be
the best for the circumstance where flash is not the main illumination.

Personally, I wouldn't even take a decent camera to a beach location for
fear of sand damage - I leave it at home as it is one less thing to worry
about. My pocket compact is adequate for the usual snaps taken on holiday

Its the planks with their huge white lens permanently mounted on the front of their SLR that get me. To show off, only reason they buy them I suppose.

I doubt that, those doing such things ffor a job need teh quality and the reach and speed those high end lens supply.


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.

And I scream with laughter at those photography sites where the letter writers have their equipment in their sig. Sad, really sad.

It's handty for those that want to learn by example and how to impove.

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 bump as the mirror goes up
faster response time
shorter time between shots

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

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

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 5:26:42 PM 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 bump as the mirror goes up
faster response time
shorter time between shots

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

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

The main advantage for me is the fact that I can pre-chimp. Instead of firing off a quick shot and then checking on the display on the camera back the eye level viewfinder shows me exactly what I will get. I'd find it very difficult to go back to a mirror and prism.

If you think pros don't use them check out Kirk Tuck's blog The Visual Science Lab.

and incidentally I have an A7.

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



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

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.

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



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

what do you mean by that ?



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.

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.

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.


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.



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.



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.

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.

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.


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

which one is that then ?



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.


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.


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.


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

they still are.


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.

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.

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.

On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 18:25:10 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
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?

He doesn't so he won't buy one even if one was availble.
Can you shown me such a 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.

Doesn't matter.


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.

That's because you're not meant to use them at the same time there's no point each has a use. The're no point in using a hot shoe viewfinder on a SLR..
Those that buy such things use them because teh EVF on cameras is so crap and unusable.




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,
The lag in DLSR is quite low and not really significant for most pros.
Cabn you explain what sort of delay such a system has and how that will seriousl hod, back a pro wedding photographer who'll likely take 5mins framing the subject. I've done wedding photography before, you don;t need the worldss fastest camera and lenses. You certainly don't need a 500mm F2.






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.

yes and with burst firing to make sure. Pre-triggering is mopre useful anyway.




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!

prove it.


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?

Every camera has to record to something. That's what pros and everyuone else wants.



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.

So, it's not exactly a pro camera is it.
and it's a superzoom camera can't even change the lens
so you can't put a 500mm F2 on it.
only goes up to 6400 ISO and relatively tiny sensor.
and I can;t even find any refernece to it being able to do RAW.

and a fastest shutetr speed of 1/1200 most pro camera go to 1/4000
if not 1/8000.
Even my old 1970s mechanical camera can do 1/1000, and it'll work without a battery.



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.

Pros manage it, when pros shoot fast they want a speed higher than 1/1000.



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.

You don't have to in fact most pros don't that's the point.




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,

which is why pros like manual focus too which your tz40 doesn't have.


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

they still are.

Not for all uses.

for the uses most put them to. Another problem with EVF is that they use a lot of battery power cutting down the amount of shots you can take.



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.

and that's why pros tend to still choose DLSRs over mirror-less, or superzooms.
Because for teh majority of things they do they need a DLSR.



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.

and thre asre lots of disadvantages too. If the sony camera is so good you'd think that they'd make lenses for it rather than relying on Nikon and canon for a decent lens range.

things that pros won;t like about the A7
Noisy high ISO images compared to full-frame competitors, Control dials are small, and too recessed. Subject tracking in continuous AF can be unreliable
There is no silent shooting mode and the shutter is quite loud, especially for a mirrorless camera.

On 22/04/2015 13:39, whisky-dave wrote:

8

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

They don't need d3x cameras either and frequently don't use them.


He doesn't so he won't buy one even if one was availble. Can you
shown me such a lens ?

Yes.
Put a telecompressor on one of these
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-s...n-ota/p1527790
Less than £1k too.


8

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

Doesn't matter.

Of course it matters, do you not understand basic optics?
Why do you think lenses perform worse at small apertures?



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.

That's because you're not meant to use them at the same time there's
no point each has a use. The're no point in using a hot shoe
viewfinder on a SLR. Those that buy such things use them because teh
EVF on cameras is so crap and unusable.

Just because you don't need one doesn't mean others don't have a use for
them, what doyou think they use when under water and you can't see
anything through the pentaprism?

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,
The lag in DLSR is quite low and not really significant for most
pros. Cabn you explain what sort of delay such a system has and how
that will seriousl hod, back a pro wedding photographer who'll likely
take 5mins framing the subject. I've done wedding photography before,
you don;t need the worldss fastest camera and lenses. You certainly
don't need a 500mm F2.

The lag in SLRs is slower than in good compact and mirror-less cameras.
It has to be due to the mechanics need to move stuff about that doesn't
move on mirror-less cameras.


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.

yes and with burst firing to make sure. Pre-triggering is mopre
useful anyway.

A good photographer doesn't rely on doing a burst and hoping for a good
picture, he may as well video it and select a frame if that's what he is
doing. You decide when the picture will be best and predict when it will
happen and press the release allowing for the system lag.


But they can!

prove it.

Even the £150 zr800 will do 40 fps in still mode and several hundered in
various movie modes.


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.

So, it's not exactly a pro camera is it. and it's a superzoom camera
can't even change the lens so you can't put a 500mm F2 on it. only
goes up to 6400 ISO and relatively tiny sensor. and I can;t even find
any refernece to it being able to do RAW.

That's because I misstyped tz60.


and a fastest shutetr speed of 1/1200 most pro camera go to 1/4000 if
not 1/8000. Even my old 1970s mechanical camera can do 1/1000, and
it'll work without a battery.

But its a focal plane shutter so any movement will create distortion in
the image, this is because the shutter exposes different bits of the
sensor in sequence and the subject can have moved.

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.

Pros manage it, when pros shoot fast they want a speed higher than
1/1000.

Yes I have seen the distortion you get, some pros use it artistically,
if you don't like it you can buy lenses with shutters built in but there
is an increase in lag as you have to fully open the focal plane shutter
and then expose the image and then close the focal plane shutter.
There is a corresponding drop in frame rate and more time spent with a
black image in the viewfinder.

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.

You don't have to in fact most pros don't that's the point.

I see a lot of pros holding the camera above their heads, how do you
think they are framing if not by using live view?

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,

which is why pros like manual focus too which your tz40 doesn't
have.

TZ60 does.



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

they still are.

Not for all uses.

for the uses most put them to. Another problem with EVF is that they
use a lot of battery power cutting down the amount of shots you can
take.

So does all the extra electronics in pro cameras which is why they tend
to be bigger so they can have more batteries.




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.

and that's why pros tend to still choose DLSRs over mirror-less, or
superzooms. Because for teh majority of things they do they need a
DLSR.

There are very few uses they could just use a compact system camera for,
they just haven't been around long enough for the majority of pros to
get rid of their DSLRs yet.



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.

and thre asre lots of disadvantages too. If the sony camera is so
good you'd think that they'd make lenses for it rather than relying
on Nikon and canon for a decent lens range.

things that pros won;t like about the A7 Noisy high ISO images
compared to full-frame competitors, Control dials are small, and too
recessed. Subject tracking in continuous AF can be unreliable There
is no silent shooting mode and the shutter is quite loud, especially
for a mirrorless camera.

You have the wrong a7.
have a look at the a7s.

Which pro DSLR has a quite shooting mode? Is it silent like some of the
compact system cameras or just quiet?

On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 16:29:09 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 22/04/2015 13:39, whisky-dave wrote:

8

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

They don't need d3x cameras either and frequently don't use them.

Pros use the cameras they want to for the task in hand.


He doesn't so he won't buy one even if one was availble. Can you
shown me such a lens ?

Yes.
Put a telecompressor on one of these
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-s...n-ota/p1527790
Less than £1k too.

So, pro photographers wouldn't buy them, astronomers might.


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

Doesn't matter.

Of course it matters, do you not understand basic optics?
Why do you think lenses perform worse at small apertures?

Doesn;t matter to the normal pro as they won't use such a long lens stopped right down. Thre's just not that muvh light to be able to do 1/2000 at f16
and wiuth a long lens like that you will get camera shake.





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.

That's because you're not meant to use them at the same time there's
no point each has a use. The're no point in using a hot shoe
viewfinder on a SLR. Those that buy such things use them because teh
EVF on cameras is so crap and unusable.

Just because you don't need one doesn't mean others don't have a use for
them, what doyou think they use when under water and you can't see
anything through the pentaprism?

an underwater housing, typically uses a wire frame.


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,
The lag in DLSR is quite low and not really significant for most
pros. Cabn you explain what sort of delay such a system has and how
that will seriousl hod, back a pro wedding photographer who'll likely
take 5mins framing the subject. I've done wedding photography before,
you don;t need the worldss fastest camera and lenses. You certainly
don't need a 500mm F2.

The lag in SLRs is slower than in good compact and mirror-less cameras.
It has to be due to the mechanics need to move stuff about that doesn't
move on mirror-less cameras.

Mirroless camera still have shutters.



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.

yes and with burst firing to make sure. Pre-triggering is mopre
useful anyway.

A good photographer doesn't rely on doing a burst and hoping for a good
picture,

They do, that ios why thery are used.


he may as well video it and select a frame if that's what he is
doing. You decide when the picture will be best and predict when it will
happen and press the release allowing for the system lag.


But they can!

prove it.

Even the £150 zr800 will do 40 fps in still mode and several hundered in
various movie modes.

so what my fuji HS10 can do that. But it not a pro camera.




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.

So, it's not exactly a pro camera is it. and it's a superzoom camera
can't even change the lens so you can't put a 500mm F2 on it. only
goes up to 6400 ISO and relatively tiny sensor. and I can;t even find
any refernece to it being able to do RAW.

That's because I misstyped tz60.

Not a lot of differnce it's not a pro camera.



and a fastest shutetr speed of 1/1200 most pro camera go to 1/4000 if
not 1/8000. Even my old 1970s mechanical camera can do 1/1000, and
it'll work without a battery.

But its a focal plane shutter so any movement will create distortion in
the image, this is because the shutter exposes different bits of the
sensor in sequence and the subject can have moved.

so what.


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.

Pros manage it, when pros shoot fast they want a speed higher than
1/1000.

Yes I have seen the distortion you get, some pros use it artistically,
if you don't like it you can buy lenses with shutters built in but there
is an increase in lag as you have to fully open the focal plane shutter
and then expose the image and then close the focal plane shutter.
There is a corresponding drop in frame rate and more time spent with a
black image in the viewfinder.

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.

You don't have to in fact most pros don't that's the point.

I see a lot of pros holding the camera above their heads, how do you
think they are framing if not by using live view?

Guess work, I've done it myself. Pros have been doing this for 50 years or more.




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,

which is why pros like manual focus too which your tz40 doesn't
have.

TZ60 does.



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

they still are.

Not for all uses.

for the uses most put them to. Another problem with EVF is that they
use a lot of battery power cutting down the amount of shots you can
take.

So does all the extra electronics in pro cameras which is why they tend
to be bigger so they can have more batteries.

because that's what pros want.

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.

and that's why pros tend to still choose DLSRs over mirror-less, or
superzooms. Because for teh majority of things they do they need a
DLSR.

There are very few uses they could just use a compact system camera for,

which is why they tend not to have them.

they just haven't been around long enough for the majority of pros to
get rid of their DSLRs yet.

they don't want to get rid of their DLSR until compacts come up to that standard. It's the sensor size that matters to them.

Go ask in a photograhy group NOT a DIY group.

On 22/04/2015 17:19, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 22 April 2015 16:29:09 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 22/04/2015 13:39, whisky-dave wrote:

8

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

They don't need d3x cameras either and frequently don't use them.

Pros use the cameras they want to for the task in hand.


He doesn't so he won't buy one even if one was availble. Can you
shown me such a lens ?

Yes.
Put a telecompressor on one of these
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-s...n-ota/p1527790
Less than £1k too.

So, pro photographers wouldn't buy them, astronomers might.


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

Doesn't matter.

Of course it matters, do you not understand basic optics?
Why do you think lenses perform worse at small apertures?

Doesn;t matter to the normal pro as they won't use such a long lens stopped right down. Thre's just not that muvh light to be able to do 1/2000 at f16
and wiuth a long lens like that you will get camera shake.





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.

That's because you're not meant to use them at the same time there's
no point each has a use. The're no point in using a hot shoe
viewfinder on a SLR. Those that buy such things use them because teh
EVF on cameras is so crap and unusable.

Just because you don't need one doesn't mean others don't have a use for
them, what doyou think they use when under water and you can't see
anything through the pentaprism?

an underwater housing, typically uses a wire frame.


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,
The lag in DLSR is quite low and not really significant for most
pros. Cabn you explain what sort of delay such a system has and how
that will seriousl hod, back a pro wedding photographer who'll likely
take 5mins framing the subject. I've done wedding photography before,
you don;t need the worldss fastest camera and lenses. You certainly
don't need a 500mm F2.

The lag in SLRs is slower than in good compact and mirror-less cameras.
It has to be due to the mechanics need to move stuff about that doesn't
move on mirror-less cameras.

Mirroless camera still have shutters.

Its the mirror that they don't have, its the mirror that causes the
majority of the shake and the delay. Its what causes the viewfinder to
blackout for about a tenth of a second every time you take a picture.

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.

yes and with burst firing to make sure. Pre-triggering is mopre
useful anyway.

A good photographer doesn't rely on doing a burst and hoping for a good
picture,

They do, that ios why thery are used.

Not a good one then.
Why don't they just use 4k video?

he may as well video it and select a frame if that's what he is
doing. You decide when the picture will be best and predict when it will
happen and press the release allowing for the system lag.


But they can!

prove it.

Even the £150 zr800 will do 40 fps in still mode and several hundered in
various movie modes.

so what my fuji HS10 can do that. But it not a pro camera.

So what if its not a pro camera, it does something a pro camera can't so
a pro that needs it will buy one, then it must be a pro camera.
Just what do you think makes a pro camera?

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.

So, it's not exactly a pro camera is it. and it's a superzoom camera
can't even change the lens so you can't put a 500mm F2 on it. only
goes up to 6400 ISO and relatively tiny sensor. and I can;t even find
any refernece to it being able to do RAW.

That's because I misstyped tz60.

Not a lot of differnce it's not a pro camera.

I never said it was, what have you got against non pro cameras that do
the job just as well as the pro cameras?




and a fastest shutetr speed of 1/1200 most pro camera go to 1/4000 if
not 1/8000. Even my old 1970s mechanical camera can do 1/1000, and
it'll work without a battery.

But its a focal plane shutter so any movement will create distortion in
the image, this is because the shutter exposes different bits of the
sensor in sequence and the subject can have moved.

so what.

Movement distorts the image even on pro cameras.

8


I see a lot of pros holding the camera above their heads, how do you
think they are framing if not by using live view?

Guess work, I've done it myself. Pros have been doing this for 50 years or more.

So have I, but they use live view now.





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,

which is why pros like manual focus too which your tz40 doesn't
have.

TZ60 does.



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

they still are.

Not for all uses.

for the uses most put them to. Another problem with EVF is that they
use a lot of battery power cutting down the amount of shots you can
take.

So does all the extra electronics in pro cameras which is why they tend
to be bigger so they can have more batteries.

because that's what pros want.

Funny I thought a pro wanted any camera that takes the image that gets
him paid. There aren't many big DSLRs used by pro newspaper men these
days, they are too big.


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.

and that's why pros tend to still choose DLSRs over mirror-less, or
superzooms. Because for teh majority of things they do they need a
DLSR.

There are very few uses they could just use a compact system camera for,

which is why they tend not to have them.

orry the speil checker got that one, it should read couldn't use.


they just haven't been around long enough for the majority of pros to
get rid of their DSLRs yet.

they don't want to get rid of their DLSR until compacts come up to that standard. It's the sensor size that matters to them.

Go ask in a photograhy group NOT a DIY group.

But I know all about sensor sizes and stuff.
The majority of pros don't need 24 Mpixel full frame cameras for the
pictures they produce. Some do but then some need more. But you are
trading different qualities depending on the sensor size and the number
of pixels. Did you look at the r7s, it trades pixels for sensitivity, it
will produce far better low light results than a d3x.

On Friday, 24 April 2015 11:45:26 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:

Pro cameras and their types aren't fixed in stone, it is a loose term
that generaly terms a camera that a profesional photographer is likely to use in his work. These camera are usually expensive and high end and FF DLSRs.
Where as pink compact camerqa with a hello kitty camera is NOT considered a Pro camera as professional photographers are unlikey to use it in his professonal role as a photographer.

What?? Dammit I've been had!


NT

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 12:21:51 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2015 11:45:26 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:

Pro cameras and their types aren't fixed in stone, it is a loose term
that generaly terms a camera that a profesional photographer is likely to use in his work. These camera are usually expensive and high end and FF DLSRs.
Where as pink compact camerqa with a hello kitty camera is NOT considered a Pro camera as professional photographers are unlikey to use it in his professonal role as a photographer.

What?? Dammit I've been had!


NT

All this talk about pros this and pro that. Would someone like to try defining what a pro is ?
Portrait photographer?
Landscape photographer ?
Wedding photographer?
Sports photographer?
Fashion photographer ?

This is anything but an exhaustive list but the requirements of all of the above differ so what one requires of a camera will differ from the next.

It is absolute bollix nonsense to say 'Pros' don't use mirrorless cameras. I mentioned one well known blogger who uses nothing else (Kirk Tuck @ The Visual Scinece Lab) but there are many many more. The market for DSLRs is dropping every year much to the chagrin of both Nikon and Canon. There is a very good reason for this.
All this nonsense reminds me of when auto focussing cameras first came into being. Oh the pros will never use this. They can focus so much quicker etc.. Right.
Same with the introduction of digital cameras. Oh the pros will never use them.Quality isn't good enough etc. Right, again.
The LX100 will allow still images be extracted from 4k video of a quality suitable for 90% of all work, be it pro or otherwise. They had an interesting lecture on the Panasonic stand at the last Photokina where a pro wedding photographer showed images from 4K video he regularly uses in his photo albums.
Sony are gradually introducing 'E'lens for their 7 range and they are of excellent quality. But as has been pointed out 1000s of existing lenses can be mounted on the 7 body. I bought a few M42 screw thread Pentax lenses for pennies to play with and find the quality more than adequate for what I want.

On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:47:48 -0700, fred wrote:

All this talk about pros this and pro that. Would someone like to try
defining what a pro is ?

Very simple. Somebody who is paid for their photos, no matter what
they're of or what kit they're taken with. No more, no less.

On Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 10:17:12 AM UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:47:48 -0700, fred wrote:

All this talk about pros this and pro that. Would someone like to try
defining what a pro is ?

Very simple. Somebody who is paid for their photos, no matter what
they're of or what kit they're taken with. No more, no less.

The point I was making was that I thought it nonsense to talk about pros in general terms with regard to what they would or wouldn't use.

On 25/04/2015 10:17, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:47:48 -0700, fred wrote:

All this talk about pros this and pro that. Would someone like to try
defining what a pro is ?

Very simple. Somebody who is paid for their photos, no matter what
they're of or what kit they're taken with. No more, no less.

I'd make a slight refinement to that : somebody who takes photos with
the intention of being paid for them.

Amateurs can be paid for their photos sometimes :-)

On Saturday, 25 April 2015 09:47:51 UTC+1, fred wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 12:21:51 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2015 11:45:26 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:

Pro cameras and their types aren't fixed in stone, it is a loose term
that generaly terms a camera that a profesional photographer is likely to use in his work. These camera are usually expensive and high end and FF DLSRs.
Where as pink compact camerqa with a hello kitty camera is NOT considered a Pro camera as professional photographers are unlikey to use it in his professonal role as a photographer.

What?? Dammit I've been had!


NT

All this talk about pros this and pro that. Would someone like to try defining what a pro is ?

I did that above.

A pro is considered to be someone that makes money from what they do and that money isn a significant part of their income.

Portrait photographer?
Landscape photographer ?
Wedding photographer?
Sports photographer?
Fashion photographer ?

This is anything but an exhaustive list but the requirements of all of the above differ so what one requires of a camera will differ from the next.

Yep and a pro would choose the camera that they see is best for the work they do.


It is absolute bollix nonsense to say 'Pros' don't use mirrorless cameras.
No one said that.

I mentioned one well known blogger who uses nothing else (Kirk Tuck @ The Visual Scinece Lab) but there are many many more. The market for DSLRs is dropping every year much to the chagrin of both Nikon and Canon. There is a very good reason for this.

Yep phones.

All this nonsense reminds me of when auto focussing cameras first came into being. Oh the pros will never use this. They can focus so much quicker etc.

Corect and the pros didn;t use them until they became good enough for them in their job.

Right.
Same with the introduction of digital cameras. Oh the pros will never use them.Quality isn't good enough etc. Right, again.

and it wasn;t so they didn;t the pros waited until the quality was high enough to ditch film.

The LX100 will allow still images be extracted from 4k video of a quality suitable for 90% of all work, be it pro or otherwise.

Maybe 90% is just not good enough.

They had an interesting lecture on the Panasonic stand at the last Photokina where a pro wedding photographer showed images from 4K video he regularly uses in his photo albums.

They say one swallow doesn't make a summer.

Sony are gradually introducing 'E'lens for their 7 range and they are of excellent quality.
But as has been pointed out 1000s of existing lenses can be mounted on the 7 body. I bought a few M42 screw thread Pentax lenses for pennies to play with and find the quality more than adequate for what I want.

Perhaps somne would find using thos eold lenese on old camera are more than a adequate and don't feel the need to spend money on a new body.


Flogging a dead horse setting DSLRS against mirrorless. There will always be
a few die-hards just as there is those who continue to extoll the virtues of film but really its all over now.

Not yet it isn't when all you can do is compare it with a 6 year-old camera.
I doubt 4k Pro film makers will be buying the sony mirror-less.

On Monday, April 27, 2015 at 11:06:04 AM UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:
On Saturday, 25 April 2015 09:47:51 UTC+1, fred wrote:
On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 12:21:51 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2015 11:45:26 UTC+1, whisky-dave wrote:

Pro cameras and their types aren't fixed in stone, it is a loose term
that generaly terms a camera that a profesional photographer is likely to use in his work. These camera are usually expensive and high end and FF DLSRs.
Where as pink compact camerqa with a hello kitty camera is NOT considered a Pro camera as professional photographers are unlikey to use it in his professonal role as a photographer.

What?? Dammit I've been had!


NT

All this talk about pros this and pro that. Would someone like to try defining what a pro is ?

I did that above.

A pro is considered to be someone that makes money from what they do and that money isn a significant part of their income.

Portrait photographer?
Landscape photographer ?
Wedding photographer?
Sports photographer?
Fashion photographer ?

This is anything but an exhaustive list but the requirements of all of the above differ so what one requires of a camera will differ from the next..

Yep and a pro would choose the camera that they see is best for the work they do.


Streuth. Talk about changing horses mid stream. There you are wittering about how pros wouldn't use mirrorless and now you're saying they will use what most appropriate for the job. Why are you repeating what I just said. Is this an admission that you were incorrect ?
The point is, and you fail to grasp it, that current mirrorless cameras meet the requirements of many pros which is why many pros use them.

It is absolute bollix nonsense to say 'Pros' don't use mirrorless cameras.
No one said that.

Oh dear. Re read and inwardly digest.

I mentioned one well known blogger who uses nothing else (Kirk Tuck @ The Visual Scinece Lab) but there are many many more. The market for DSLRs is dropping every year much to the chagrin of both Nikon and Canon. There is a very good reason for this.

Yep phones.

No Not phones you twit. Phones are replacing the point and shoot market, not the dsalr one. The traditional dslr is rapidly becoming a dinosaur.
All this nonsense reminds me of when auto focussing cameras first came into being. Oh the pros will never use this. They can focus so much quicker etc.

Corect and the pros didn;t use them until they became good enough for them in their job.


Which is exactly what is happening now with mirrorless.

Right.
Same with the introduction of digital cameras. Oh the pros will never use them.Quality isn't good enough etc. Right, again.

and it wasn;t so they didn;t the pros waited until the quality was high enough to ditch film.

Which is exactly what is happening now with mirrorless.

The LX100 will allow still images be extracted from 4k video of a quality suitable for 90% of all work, be it pro or otherwise.

Maybe 90% is just not good enough.

But if it is being used it obviously is good enough. The right tool for the jobn many cases

They had an interesting lecture on the Panasonic stand at the last Photokina where a pro wedding photographer showed images from 4K video he regularly uses in his photo albums.

They say one swallow doesn't make a summer.

You point being ? Do you think I should trawl through the interent to turn up myriad examples of this to show you ?

Sony are gradually introducing 'E'lens for their 7 range and they are of excellent quality.
But as has been pointed out 1000s of existing lenses can be mounted on the 7 body. I bought a few M42 screw thread Pentax lenses for pennies to play with and find the quality more than adequate for what I want.

Perhaps somne would find using thos eold lenese on old camera are more than a adequate and don't feel the need to spend money on a new body.


Excuse me. I'm using them on a Sony 7. A full frame mirrorless camera of recent origin


Flogging a dead horse setting DSLRS against mirrorless. There will always be
a few die-hards just as there is those who continue to extoll the virtues of film but really its all over now.

Not yet it isn't when all you can do is compare it with a 6 year-old camera.


^ year old camera. Whta 6 year old camera.

I doubt 4k Pro film makers will be buying the sony mirror-less.

Strikes me you are the owner of a very old dslr and are now just miffed. You've demonstrated your knowledge of the current mirrorless market is very very little. Have you even handled one of the latest mirrorless cameras never mind used one?

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.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

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.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. - Erwin Knoll

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.

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 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.

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. 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 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. The market share of dslrs has declined greatly and that has sweet f.a. to do with competition with phone cameras. Extrapolating from the figures many are finding mirrorless preferable to the dslr.

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. 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. The TLR excelled in portraiture thanks to its waist level finder and its use of 120 film. But its an interesting point. In its day the TLR boys looked down on the 35mm users claiming their larger film gave better results. The TLR is now more or less dead having been replaced by the DSLR which in turn is now being replaced by mirrorless.

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.


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.


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.



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..

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.


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.



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.

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.

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

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.
You just have to observe sporting fixtures to see that.
One day they may well do like pones have replaced compacts or P&S's
but for most pros are still buying DLSRs.

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 ?

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.

On 29/04/2015 13:45, fred wrote:
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

That's not true, there could be if film suppliers/manufacturers were
brave enough to publish their film resolution at specified light levels.
There are lots of claims of achievable no. of lp/mm but funnily I can
never see numbers published for a film that is actually on sale.

One thing, that surprises me if you claim to have expert knowledge in
the field, is one advantage not having a pentaprism and mirror
combination, it unties the hands of lens designers, leading to simpler
and more efficient lenses.

On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 14:21:57 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/04/2015 13:45, fred wrote:
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

That's not true, there could be if film suppliers/manufacturers were
brave enough to publish their film resolution at specified light levels.

I assume they would if that's what was required.

There are lots of claims of achievable no. of lp/mm but funnily I can
never see numbers published for a film that is actually on sale.

Perhaps because it's not that important or relivent to film, in the same way you don't see the grasin size mentioned when talking about high ISO in DLSRs it's called noise now. I don't remmebr buying HP4 or 5 or kodachrome having a noise rating funny that. Perhasp because they didn't priduce noise.





One thing, that surprises me if you claim to have expert knowledge in
the field,

which I don't, most is common sense and knowing a little bit about it.


..is one advantage not having a pentaprism and mirror
combination, it unties the hands of lens designers, leading to simpler
and more efficient lenses.

Lens designers have always strived to improve their designs.
pentaprism and mirrors have nothing to do with that.
most P&S and compact cameras didn;t have pentaprism and mirrors,
but they also didn't have interchangable lenses.

snip

One thing, that surprises me if you claim to have expert knowledge in
the field, is one advantage not having a pentaprism and mirror
combination, it unties the hands of lens designers, leading to simpler
and more efficient lenses.

Yes. The lens designer doesn't have to make allowance for the clearance required for the mirror. Lenses can be more compact and wide angles are simpler to make

snip
There are lots of claims of achievable no. of lp/mm but funnily I can
never see numbers published for a film that is actually on sale.

Perhaps because it's not that important or relivent to film, in the same way you don't see the grasin size mentioned when talking about high ISO in DLSRs it's called noise now. I don't remmebr buying HP4 or 5 or kodachrome having a noise rating funny that. Perhasp because they didn't priduce noise..

Grain size is dependent on the development procedure. Of course one doesn't hear grain size mentioned on dslrs. That because they don't have grain. They have noise instead which is a different beast entirely.
Equally film doesn't have noise as noise is a by product of digital processing so how in heavens name would they have a noise rating.

snip


.is one advantage not having a pentaprism and mirror
combination, it unties the hands of lens designers, leading to simpler
and more efficient lenses.

Lens designers have always strived to improve their designs.
pentaprism and mirrors have nothing to do with that.
most P&S and compact cameras didn;t have pentaprism and mirrors,
but they also didn't have interchangable lenses.

As stated before the absence of the mirror box gives a lens designer much greater freedom in his design choices

But for the camera manufacturer the absence of the mirror box and pentaprism eliminates two of the most precise parts of an slr. One of the reasons dslrs will eventually disappear. Once the evf reached satisfactory resolution any benefit of the mirror and pentaprism were gone.

Now one can see in the viewfinder a true representation of what will be captured. No more chimping to check the shot. Exposure and colour rendition can both be checked before pressing the shutter button. Workflow is much faster now one doesn't have to keep checking the captured image. Faster 'motor' speeds can be achieved with continuous viewing as there is no mirror to flip up out of the way blocking the view.

On 29/04/2015 12:11, fred wrote:


Someone above claimed that 4k video was the equivalent to
200ASA which nonsensical statement might indicate the quality of some
people in this discussion.

That was me and if you think 200ASA film was any better than 4k video
frames then show me one that is. I doubt if a 100 ASA film would
actually be better than the 3840 x 2160 pixels of 4k video.

On 29/04/2015 14:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 14:21:57 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:

snip

One thing, that surprises me if you claim to have expert knowledge in
the field,

which I don't, most is common sense and knowing a little bit about it.


.is one advantage not having a pentaprism and mirror
combination, it unties the hands of lens designers, leading to simpler
and more efficient lenses.

Lens designers have always strived to improve their designs.
pentaprism and mirrors have nothing to do with that.
most P&S and compact cameras didn;t have pentaprism and mirrors,
but they also didn't have interchangable lenses.

That shows you ignorance of lens design. I can assure you that back
working distance for the lens has a significant impact in lens design.
Generally the closer you can get an element to the image plane, the
better the lens in terms of simplicity and overall efficiency.

On 29/04/2015 15:37, fred wrote:
snip
There are lots of claims of achievable no. of lp/mm but funnily I
can never see numbers published for a film that is actually on
sale.

Perhaps because it's not that important or relivent to film, in the
same way you don't see the grasin size mentioned when talking about
high ISO in DLSRs it's called noise now. I don't remmebr buying HP4
or 5 or kodachrome having a noise rating funny that. Perhasp
because they didn't priduce noise.

Grain size is dependent on the development procedure. Of course one
doesn't hear grain size mentioned on dslrs. That because they don't
have grain. They have noise instead which is a different beast
entirely. Equally film doesn't have noise as noise is a by product of
digital processing so how in heavens name would they have a noise
rating.

Grain size and the probability of whether a grain is exposed or not does
lead to a noisy looking photo. Noise in a photodiode is quantifiable and
predictable. A grainy image has many of the same features, but where
film has the further complexity of a non linear response. If there's
the will it can be measured:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain


snip


.is one advantage not having a pentaprism and mirror
combination, it unties the hands of lens designers, leading to
simpler and more efficient lenses.

Lens designers have always strived to improve their designs.
pentaprism and mirrors have nothing to do with that. most P&S and
compact cameras didn;t have pentaprism and mirrors, but they also
didn't have interchangable lenses.

As stated before the absence of the mirror box gives a lens designer
much greater freedom in his design choices

But for the camera manufacturer the absence of the mirror box and
pentaprism eliminates two of the most precise parts of an slr. One of
the reasons dslrs will eventually disappear. Once the evf reached
satisfactory resolution any benefit of the mirror and pentaprism were
gone.

Now one can see in the viewfinder a true representation of what will
be captured. No more chimping to check the shot. Exposure and colour
rendition can both be checked before pressing the shutter button.
Workflow is much faster now one doesn't have to keep checking the
captured image. Faster 'motor' speeds can be achieved with continuous
viewing as there is no mirror to flip up out of the way blocking the
view.

It seems we agree on some points.

On 29/04/2015 14:35, whisky-dave wrote:

8

Perhaps because it's not that important or relivent to film, in the
same way you don't see the grasin size mentioned when talking about
high ISO in DLSRs it's called noise now. I don't remmebr buying HP4
or 5 or kodachrome having a noise rating funny that. Perhasp because
they didn't priduce noise.

Oh, they did.
and they produced different noise on the different layers.
It was caused by interaction in the silver producing bigger grains in
some light conditions than other so the noise would vary across the
image as well as the colour and the exposure time.

Digital doesn't produce the same sort of noise, its just one pixel being
more sensitive to heat than another and you can see it in low light.
Of course if you are going to do low light stuff with digital you could
always go the amateur way and cool the sensor to reduce the noise
effects. You can find youtube videos on how to fit cold fingers to stuff
like D50s if you want to try it.






One thing, that surprises me if you claim to have expert knowledge
in the field,

which I don't, most is common sense and knowing a little bit about
it.


.is one advantage not having a pentaprism and mirror
combination, it unties the hands of lens designers, leading to
simpler and more efficient lenses.

Lens designers have always strived to improve their designs.
pentaprism and mirrors have nothing to do with that.

Of course they do, the mirror makes you space the rear of the lens away
from the sensor, that may not be the best way to design a particular
lens, e.g. wide angles need more elements just to get the focus in the
correct place when there is a 50 mm gap behind the lens. It would be far
easier to make a 12 mm lens if the gap was about 10 mm which means no
mirror.

Its apparent that something is happening with lens designs as camera
manufacturers are removing the filters from the sensors to get better
resolutions, or at least they are doing so on compact system cameras.
If you are still using the old nikon and cnnon lenses designed for film
then you don't want to remove the filter as it hides the poor
performance of the lenses.

most P&S and compact cameras didn;t have pentaprism and mirrors, but
they also didn't have interchangable lenses.

On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 16:04:36 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/04/2015 14:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 14:21:57 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:

snip

One thing, that surprises me if you claim to have expert knowledge in
the field,

which I don't, most is common sense and knowing a little bit about it.


.is one advantage not having a pentaprism and mirror
combination, it unties the hands of lens designers, leading to simpler
and more efficient lenses.

Lens designers have always strived to improve their designs.
pentaprism and mirrors have nothing to do with that.
most P&S and compact cameras didn;t have pentaprism and mirrors,
but they also didn't have interchangable lenses.

That shows you ignorance of lens design.

I don;t needd to know about lensd desing niether do the majority of pros.

I can assure you that back
working distance for the lens has a significant impact in lens design.

So what do yuo think any of these pros worry about a few cms of lens lenght.

http://photorumors.com/2014/02/06/ca...eir-equipment/

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...c-venues-media

It's the ameteuers that'll worry about such a thing NOT the pros.
So it's not going to effect their choice of lens.

Generally the closer you can get an element to the image plane, the
better the lens in terms of simplicity and overall efficiency.

you realy think the above pros are going to ditch their DSLRs
for a mirror-less camera that has a lens which is better "in terms of simplicity and overall efficiency." they aren't.
That's teh thing aboyut pros they are ther to get a job done, if that means taking a lens that's a couple of cm larger that will do they job they will.

I have access to a fuji film HS10 30X zoom, that'd be great for all those pro sports photogrphers, wouldn't need that large grey lens that cost 5-10X the whole HS10 camera would they.

On 29/04/2015 16:32, Dennis@home wrote:

snip

Digital doesn't produce the same sort of noise, its just one pixel being
more sensitive to heat than another and you can see it in low light.
Of course if you are going to do low light stuff with digital you could
always go the amateur way and cool the sensor to reduce the noise
effects. You can find youtube videos on how to fit cold fingers to stuff
like D50s if you want to try it.

For thermally generated currents becoming significant you need long
exposure times such as those used in astronomy.

How long exposure times are you worrying about. I think I would be
worrying about image stability first!


snip

Its apparent that something is happening with lens designs as camera
manufacturers are removing the filters from the sensors to get better
resolutions, or at least they are doing so on compact system cameras.

What filters are these? Aren't most attached to the image plane?

If you are still using the old nikon and cnnon lenses designed for film
then you don't want to remove the filter as it hides the poor
performance of the lenses.

Aren't these filters flat pieces of glass? And close to the image plane?
Yes they do have power, but usually considered negligible, or can be
taken into account in the lens design.

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:48:32 -0700 (PDT)
whisky-dave wrote:

I don;t needd to know about lensd desing niether do the majority of
pros.

I fixed that for you:

"I don't need to know about lens design, neither do the majority of
pros."

Easy, really.

--
Davey.

On 29/04/2015 16:48, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 16:04:36 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/04/2015 14:35, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 April 2015 14:21:57 UTC+1, Fredxxx wrote:

snip

One thing, that surprises me if you claim to have expert knowledge in
the field,

which I don't, most is common sense and knowing a little bit about it.


.is one advantage not having a pentaprism and mirror
combination, it unties the hands of lens designers, leading to simpler
and more efficient lenses.

Lens designers have always strived to improve their designs.
pentaprism and mirrors have nothing to do with that.
most P&S and compact cameras didn;t have pentaprism and mirrors,
but they also didn't have interchangable lenses.

That shows you ignorance of lens design.

I don;t needd to know about lensd desing niether do the majority of pros.

I can assure you that back
working distance for the lens has a significant impact in lens design.

So what do yuo think any of these pros worry about a few cms of lens lenght.

Do you understand what the back working distance of a lens is, and how
reducing this makes lenses more efficient and easier to design?

Do you believe that it makes the overall length of a lens any shorter?

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 29/04/2015 12:11, fred wrote:


Someone above claimed that 4k video was the equivalent to
200ASA which nonsensical statement might indicate the quality of some
people in this discussion.

That was me and if you think 200ASA film was any better than 4k video
frames then show me one that is. I doubt if a 100 ASA film would
actually be better than the 3840 x 2160 pixels of 4k video.

ASA refers to the light sensitive of film. Not directly comparable to 4K which is a measure of resolution. The developing process will have enormous effect on the resolution of any film regardless of the ASA, though generally speaking the lower ASA rating the higher the resolution. I get what you are talking about just think the comparison poor.Generally speaking current sensors outperform film.

On 29/04/2015 16:56, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/04/2015 16:32, Dennis@home wrote:

snip

Digital doesn't produce the same sort of noise, its just one pixel being
more sensitive to heat than another and you can see it in low light.
Of course if you are going to do low light stuff with digital you could
always go the amateur way and cool the sensor to reduce the noise
effects. You can find youtube videos on how to fit cold fingers to stuff
like D50s if you want to try it.

For thermally generated currents becoming significant you need long
exposure times such as those used in astronomy.


Where do you think the noise comes from in image sensors then?

How long exposure times are you worrying about. I think I would be
worrying about image stability first!


snip

Its apparent that something is happening with lens designs as camera
manufacturers are removing the filters from the sensors to get better
resolutions, or at least they are doing so on compact system cameras.

What filters are these?

The ones they fit to some DSLRs to try and work better with old design
lenses.

Aren't most attached to the image plane?

If you are still using the old nikon and cnnon lenses designed for film
then you don't want to remove the filter as it hides the poor
performance of the lenses.

Aren't these filters flat pieces of glass?

No.


And close to the image plane?

Yes.

Yes they do have power, but usually considered negligible, or can be
taken into account in the lens design.

Well yes they can be but they weren't on all those old lenses so you had
better make sure you buy new lenses when you buy your DSLR because the
old ones don't know about the differences in image sensors and film.

On 29/04/2015 20:18, fred wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 29/04/2015 12:11, fred wrote:


Someone above claimed that 4k video was the equivalent to 200ASA
which nonsensical statement might indicate the quality of some
people in this discussion.

That was me and if you think 200ASA film was any better than 4k
video frames then show me one that is. I doubt if a 100 ASA film
would actually be better than the 3840 x 2160 pixels of 4k video.

ASA refers to the light sensitive of film. Not directly comparable to
4K which is a measure of resolution. The developing process will have
enormous effect on the resolution of any film regardless of the ASA,
though generally speaking the lower ASA rating the higher the
resolution. I get what you are talking about just think the
comparison poor.Generally speaking current sensors outperform film.


They started to outperform film a few years ago, most 35mm film is only
about 5 megapixels and has less dynamic range.

On 29/04/2015 20:30, Dennis@home wrote:
On 29/04/2015 16:56, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/04/2015 16:32, Dennis@home wrote:

snip

Digital doesn't produce the same sort of noise, its just one pixel being
more sensitive to heat than another and you can see it in low light.
Of course if you are going to do low light stuff with digital you could
always go the amateur way and cool the sensor to reduce the noise
effects. You can find youtube videos on how to fit cold fingers to stuff
like D50s if you want to try it.

For thermally generated currents becoming significant you need long
exposure times such as those used in astronomy.

Where do you think the noise comes from in image sensors then?

Most of it these days is readout noise and a small amount of thermal
Johnson noise which only becomes significant on long exposures. Early
CCDs had problems with a warm corner near the readout amplifier and
stray IR photons producing patterns on a 16s uncooled exposure. eg

http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/astro/dc120/orion.htm

Modern CCDs have much higher efficiency and lower noise than this early
Kodak chip in the Dc120 which was amongst the first megapixel digicams.

How long exposure times are you worrying about. I think I would be
worrying about image stability first!


snip

Its apparent that something is happening with lens designs as camera
manufacturers are removing the filters from the sensors to get better
resolutions, or at least they are doing so on compact system cameras.

They are doing it because sharpness sells and people don't seem to care
about image quality beyond naive lines per millimetre benchmarks.

What filters are these?

The ones they fit to some DSLRs to try and work better with old design
lenses.

They are the infrared hot mirror blocking filter and anti aliasing
filters to control the sharpness and make the Bayer demosaicing
algorithm better behaved. If you remove the former you will end up with
an out of focus mess since CCDs are sensitive out to around 1000nm and
the optics will pass enough of it to put a blurry IR mess round points.

Yes they do have power, but usually considered negligible, or can be
taken into account in the lens design.

Well yes they can be but they weren't on all those old lenses so you had
better make sure you buy new lenses when you buy your DSLR because the
old ones don't know about the differences in image sensors and film.

Rubbish. Old 35mm family lenses work perfectly well with modern CCDs as
the paraxial approximation is better on the smaller sensor.

Many modern digital lenses will not illuminate a full 35mm frame (and
use insane 35mm equivalent focal length marketing notation).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 29/04/2015 20:30, Dennis@home wrote:
On 29/04/2015 16:56, Fredxxx wrote:
On 29/04/2015 16:32, Dennis@home wrote:

snip

Digital doesn't produce the same sort of noise, its just one pixel being
more sensitive to heat than another and you can see it in low light.
Of course if you are going to do low light stuff with digital you could
always go the amateur way and cool the sensor to reduce the noise
effects. You can find youtube videos on how to fit cold fingers to stuff
like D50s if you want to try it.

For thermally generated currents becoming significant you need long
exposure times such as those used in astronomy.


Where do you think the noise comes from in image sensors then?

Oh dear. Will this help?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise


How long exposure times are you worrying about. I think I would be
worrying about image stability first!


snip

Its apparent that something is happening with lens designs as camera
manufacturers are removing the filters from the sensors to get better
resolutions, or at least they are doing so on compact system cameras.

What filters are these?

The ones they fit to some DSLRs to try and work better with old design
lenses.

Aren't most attached to the image plane?

If you are still using the old nikon and cnnon lenses designed for film
then you don't want to remove the filter as it hides the poor
performance of the lenses.

Aren't these filters flat pieces of glass?

No.


And close to the image plane?

Yes.

Yes they do have power, but usually considered negligible, or can be
taken into account in the lens design.

Well yes they can be but they weren't on all those old lenses so you had
better make sure you buy new lenses when you buy your DSLR because the
old ones don't know about the differences in image sensors and film.

What? Lenses are designed with the film or sensor size in mind. Why do
you imply otherwise?

Most sensor sizes are smaller than film as per:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format