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.