YYV_146
Well-known
I agree with the merits of the OVF - I don't think it's a worse tool, just something different with a different set of advantages.
But I wasn't talking about the image itself when I was praising the EVF - I realize it is foolish to judge the dynamic range of a RAW file by looking through a tiny display. And that is why we have Zebra lines in newer digital bodies.
I use them to prevent the highlights from tearing on my files all the time.You can get WB in the ballpark by calibrating the EVF. A difference of 50, 100k does no damage to a photo. The issue is when the camera balance goes crazy (and most, if not all the digital cameras I've used sometimes do) and goes out 5,000k, then you have irrecoverable detail loss in the regions most affected. Using an EVF prevents that. If you see that the camera meters wrongly in the EVF, simply switch to a manual profile.
Meanwhile, An RF-style OVF has parallax, which is a big issue for many circumstances, and doesn't play well with long lenses. A DSLR-style OVF necessitates the use of a mirror box, which limits the performance of the camera. I don't care about 12FPS vs. 9, but I want peaking even for AF lenses, and that's something OVFs can't provide.
I'm all mirrorless at this point. Never really cared for SLRs, whether digital or film, but always liked Leica RFs. I don't use a Leica anymore because it does;t fit the way I like to work, but I still like them.
kuuan
loves old lenses
"The mirrorless revolution", a video at luminous landscape:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras/the_mirrorless_revolution.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras/the_mirrorless_revolution.shtml
Ronald M
Veteran
Size is nice. TV screen viewing is not. Pixelated and there is a delay.
DSLR remain viable forever. MIRRORLESS ???
I use my Leica M (8 or 9) and carry with one two or more lenses for when I want small. I will put in a plug here for the 28 2.8 ASPH.
If the location is a bit dodgy, I take a D40 Nikon. Not worth much today, but the pics are good as ever.
DSLR remain viable forever. MIRRORLESS ???
I use my Leica M (8 or 9) and carry with one two or more lenses for when I want small. I will put in a plug here for the 28 2.8 ASPH.
If the location is a bit dodgy, I take a D40 Nikon. Not worth much today, but the pics are good as ever.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Actual Statistics say not yet. Mirrorless is still a fraction of the CaNikon Camp.
BillBingham2
Registered User
And now for something completely different.
Mirrorless = Electronic View Camera
Think about it.
B2 (;->
Mirrorless = Electronic View Camera
Think about it.
B2 (;->
Scrambler
Well-known
I agree entirely.
Bill, with your B2 signature I can't resist saying "Are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananas_in_Pyjamas
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
EVF's are getting better and better each iteration. I looked through a Sony A7 EVF yesterday and it was very, VERY nice. And the information shown around the edges was much easier to see than in my Nikon D600. AND, with the EVF I can see, real time, what a change in exposure looks like. AND, EVF cameras are a lot quieter. AND, the lenses are smaller. AND, autofocusing is getting faster and faster with each iteration. AND, I can mount M-glass on it without having to break the bank buying a Leica. AND, a lot of pro photographers are switching to "electronic view cameras" (thanks, Mr. Bingham) for all these reasons.
In my humble opinion, DSLR cameras may live on but only as a niche camera for some Pros that have so much invested in big SLR lenses that they can't afford to switch.
Last edited:
Mcary
Well-known
Clyde Butcher has posted some image to his Face Book Time line showing the A7R fitted with a set of bellow and a Mamiya RZ Medium format lens.
Mcary
Well-known
Must admit that I haven't been the biggest fans of EVF but with the price for a used Sony A7 approaching $1100 I think I can learn to live with an EVF.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I have been using the Sony NEX-5n and Sony A6000 quite a bit. Here's what I'm finding:
- Smaller is a definite advantage. For portraits, compare A6000 w/50mm f/1.8 to a D300 w/50mm f/1.8G to a D600 w/85 f/1.8G. Size definitely matters.
- For portrait shooting, I really like the camera at my chest or lower, composing on the articulated screen. YMMV, but I like this a lot, much more than looking into a viewfinder. Feel I can keep more contact with my subject without a camera in front of my face.
- I can use all my lenses, from any era and with any mount. What a pleasure!
- MF focusing with focus-peaking works very well for me. Usually with the full view, and sometimes, if critical and a stationary subject, at the 10x view. It's great on the Sony; I didn't like it as much on the Fuji.
- The A6000 does 11 fps. I find bursts are helpful (e.g. people blink, kids move). Can't touch this in an SLR for 5x the cost!
- The Speed Booster (MetaBones, design by Brian Caldwell) is quite nifty. It's only possible with the shorter flange to image measure of mirrorless. Still experimental for me, but looks interesting for using my Nikon wides and fisheye.
- Price: The A6000 is a great 24MPx body for a very reasonable price.
Downsides of mirrorless:
- In the Nikon world, I'm comfortable investing in lenses; I know the mount will go on and I'll be able to use the lenses. I don't have that comfort yet buying lenses in the Sony E mount, don't have the confidence it will be around for 20 years.
- DSLR AF is still better. The hybrid AF in the A6000 is getting closer. I think this gap will close.
- I don't get along with EVF. Try shooting a kid on a swing, six fast frames as they go by. The image freezes. There's a delay. Then the kid is gone, out of view. If I need to look into a viewfinder, I'd rather it be a DSLR.
- The LCD panel is hard to see in bright sunlight. Then I want to look into a viewfinder, and I'll do it with a DSLR.
- I can't imagine mounting a 300mm lens to the mirrorless for shooting birds. Maybe I'm missing something, but right now, I'll do that with a DSLR.
Summary: I'm using the mirrorless a lot and I like it.
- Smaller is a definite advantage. For portraits, compare A6000 w/50mm f/1.8 to a D300 w/50mm f/1.8G to a D600 w/85 f/1.8G. Size definitely matters.
- For portrait shooting, I really like the camera at my chest or lower, composing on the articulated screen. YMMV, but I like this a lot, much more than looking into a viewfinder. Feel I can keep more contact with my subject without a camera in front of my face.
- I can use all my lenses, from any era and with any mount. What a pleasure!
- MF focusing with focus-peaking works very well for me. Usually with the full view, and sometimes, if critical and a stationary subject, at the 10x view. It's great on the Sony; I didn't like it as much on the Fuji.
- The A6000 does 11 fps. I find bursts are helpful (e.g. people blink, kids move). Can't touch this in an SLR for 5x the cost!
- The Speed Booster (MetaBones, design by Brian Caldwell) is quite nifty. It's only possible with the shorter flange to image measure of mirrorless. Still experimental for me, but looks interesting for using my Nikon wides and fisheye.
- Price: The A6000 is a great 24MPx body for a very reasonable price.
Downsides of mirrorless:
- In the Nikon world, I'm comfortable investing in lenses; I know the mount will go on and I'll be able to use the lenses. I don't have that comfort yet buying lenses in the Sony E mount, don't have the confidence it will be around for 20 years.
- DSLR AF is still better. The hybrid AF in the A6000 is getting closer. I think this gap will close.
- I don't get along with EVF. Try shooting a kid on a swing, six fast frames as they go by. The image freezes. There's a delay. Then the kid is gone, out of view. If I need to look into a viewfinder, I'd rather it be a DSLR.
- The LCD panel is hard to see in bright sunlight. Then I want to look into a viewfinder, and I'll do it with a DSLR.
- I can't imagine mounting a 300mm lens to the mirrorless for shooting birds. Maybe I'm missing something, but right now, I'll do that with a DSLR.
Summary: I'm using the mirrorless a lot and I like it.
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
I'm really enjoying the a6000 also though the LCD screen is fairly useless in the sun even when cranked as bright as it will go.
I do appreciate the benefits of a DSLR though and plan to upgrade from a D90 to a D610 this year.
pluton
Well-known
... the EVF gives you unlimited live preview of the resulting image.
I have come to value the ability to compose absolutely precisely, preview exposure and white balance and confirm things such as highlight information loss while I am making the image. It makes my pictures better; I don't lose frames because the camera metered or focused on the wrong thing. You simply can't do all of that with any OVF - is that bad sushi?
The EVF will have to be improved so that it no longer is annoying. Latency and feeble brightness are first on the list.
My Fuji XE1 is all I have to go on, but there is no way that the EVF in my Fuji could ever, ever be construed...at any setting...as being a realistic, or a useful preview, of the eventual printed or displayed image.
It does facilitate focusing and seeing in dim light better than any SLR, however.
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
With a exception of Sports or fast moving subjects (planes, kids ) the mirror less will provide a good base for general photography and probably will dominate de market in less than a decade.
On my personal terms, it allowed to go back to my old Nikkor's S's, LTM's and Voigtlander's and have them running again and again.
I'm a happy camper with bodies that cost 300 €!
) the mirror less will provide a good base for general photography and probably will dominate de market in less than a decade.On my personal terms, it allowed to go back to my old Nikkor's S's, LTM's and Voigtlander's and have them running again and again.
I'm a happy camper with bodies that cost 300 €!
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
One addition
- Quiet. I like to shoot in social gatherings. The A6000 is much quieter when I trip the shutter than any SLR. Even shooting a burst is non-intrusive.