Opticallimits

I don't mean this to add fuel to the EVF vs OVF debate.  I actually just stumbled on it because I wanted to see if anyone made an EVF that would work with a DSLR.

 

My search pointed me to an article in Photography Life that was brilliant.  For one thing it agreed with my recent proposition that it would be a good idea.  But also because it appears that Nikon has already applied for a patent for a hybrid EVF/OVF.  It's very interesting to me because if Canon has the same capability then it would give me all of the main advantages of both types of cameras.

 

See https://photographylife.com/transitional...capability

 

Can one camera do it all?

In a Fuji X-Pro there is already OVF and EVF. Just no stupid mirror. Nasim want's to have a sports-car with 4-wheel drive and extra gears to make it over the rocks.

 

And nobody will produce Nasim's phantasm, because it would increase the price of the camera and not doing much of a benefit. The way Nikon did the AFMA onboard of D5 and D500 is about as far as they can think. Complicate solutions to a basically very simple problem.

 

Quote:Lucky DSLR users almost have best of both worlds.

This sentence is naïve. Except for a equally precise focusing in LiveView, on the Nikon side of things, each slow mirrorless just outrun LV for normal shots. The time between pressing the shutter and getting the picture to the memory card makes it unpredictable of what will be happening at the time. While on the contrary a decent mirrorless doesn't loose extra time to swing the mirror up, you will soon see mirrorless action cameras competing with standard and prosumer-level DLSRs.


The defense of DSLR has much parallels to the defense of film vs. digital. Interestingly, none of the DSLR-defenders has much experience with mirrorless, just read enough to join the debate.


Lately I've seen an exhibition of Andrés Serrano, who is, according to his statement, still using a 25 year old Mamiya RB 67 to make his remarkable work. I was watching the pictures and found myself looking to the eyelashes which were as blurred as to be expected. Other pictures were out of focus and I doubt it happened on purpose. I was asking myself, would it had been better in digital Phase One quality? "Better" in terms of more powerful impact to the audience? I doubt it. But was "film" the reason, I liked some of his work? No, it sometimes was the reason to look closer and see the missing sharpness, then start the argumentation chain of "content vs. technique". At the end of the day, the personality of a photographer decides if there are great or okay pictures coming out. And within the limits of traditional portraits, it's not a question of the medium and I'm sure, the large prints involved a good amount of digital scanning and printing.


The mirror once was increasing speed. Instead of inserting and changing the plate, view matte-screen and film were separated, which worked fine if the whole thing is done precisely and not too small in dimensions. A pixel size in one digit µm range IS too small for normal camera production. Now a mirror became the missing precision and speed because it's movement is time-consuming. 12, 14, 16 fps? So what. Look at them when the subject is moving constantly or unpredictably. How much of the series will show sharp pictures? next to the fact, that this DSLR-machines don not belong to the class of

 

Quote:I can b

u

y a decent DSLR and a couple of L lenses for what they charge for an underweight FF MILC.

I really would like to see the decent DSLR and a couple of L-lenses for the 1700 $ Sony is asking for an A7II and if it has more than 24 MP then ^_^

Well Canon has already a patent for a DSLR and mirrorless functions in the same camera at the same time. Dunno when will we see it for real.

It's a competition between two technologies and the one that would have better marketing and financing that will prevail. In today's world it's hard to survive without those.

I've had plenty of experience with mirrorless cameras.  Every digital camera I've owned before my first DSLR was, of course mirrorless.  When I bought my Rebel XTi, I found all the ways it was superior to the cameras I used to have.  A battery life that was ten times longer.  Very small lag time between pressing shutter release, burst shooting, higher ISO, and all of the rest.

 

One of these old digitals, a Sony, had a EVF.  Fast forward a few years and I got the Rebel T1i, which was my first DSLR with live view.  Fast forward to now and I have a dual pixel cmos imager.  So, yes, I am struggling with some of the concepts.  I have some experience.  But in order for me to invest my money in a whole new camera system I have to understand at what point all the old weaknesses have been overcome and they can compete on the same level as a DSLR, particularly one that seems to have a very good live view system.  I really don't care about video capability.  So I have a lot of experience.  I do like my DSLR.

 

The DSLR + two decent L lenses comment derives from my recent encounter with a proud Sony MILC owner.  He had a FF Sony with a Zeiss 85 1.4.  I admit he got on my nerves, so maybe I am all to happy to trash his system, but here's the deal.  This was his new set-up.  His only lens, and there was duct tape over his EVF for reasons unknown to me.  I'm there with my 70D with its 70-200mm F/4 IS USM.  I asking him about his camera and all he could say was that the camera plus lens cost over $4,000 and the lens had great focus in low light using face recognition to focus on the eyes.  That was the total information I received.  So, yes, my first thought was I could get a get a Canon 6D, and not two, but three decent L lenses for that price.  I just said two because knowing the way some people spend money your are willing to pay retail price, plus might think that the 20 pixel sensor is somehow not good enough to take photos with.  Not have one single focal length and a camera that was wearing duct tape the same week he bought it.  So my statement is sort of anecdotal but in effect it is true.


As to criticizing the camera and not having experience with it.  Has it reached the price/performance level that makes me want to switch?  And I still have a lot of questions about  wide angle and low light performance.  I'm happy to be educated.


I also wonder about if the short flange to focal plane distance is a good thing or a bad thing.  They came up with a FFD distance.  Initially we were told this would facilitate lens design.  But I question that.  Initially they were seeking to make a lens that sat in between low cost point and shoot digital and high end DSLR.  I just wonder if the did not aim too low with the flange designs they adopted.  Now that FF is accessible to all the quality game has changed.  I'm guessing that Canon and Nikon know that professional quality is never going to be below FF.   Oly and Panasonic designed for a small sensor and did a great job.  I have no Idea whether the FF MILCS have a chance or not.  This isn't criticism.  I am asking questions because at this point in time if I had money for a full frame camera it would be the 6D without a doubt.  I had an offer through a photography teacher to buy 3 new 6D's for $750 each.  (I should have done it, but had just bought my 70D).  Still it's not hard to find a new 6D for around $1,000.  With the 24-105 f/4L for $1500.


My question remains what makes these MILCs so appealing that people go out and spend enough on the body alone that I could put together a decent system for?  I know there is something.

 

BTW Joju, brightcolors, Tonia, chrissw, wlm, and of course Klaus.  I love you guys!  I know there are big holes in my understanding.  For ten years my goal has been to shoot good photos with the best equipment for the money.  I know that (almost) all of you have done that, just maybe not as determinedly as I have.  But since stumbling on this sight I have bought 4 brand new lenses, 1 camera, 1 flash, and 1 MFA kit.  Because you managed to convince me I wasn't going to get where I wanted to be without them.  So don't feel bad if I question things.  I have no other way to find out.  In the end you don't know until you buy.  But I don't buy something new and different easily.  I like building on what I have.  I'm really hoping the 6D Xsr oe whatever they call it looks and feels just like the, well, 5D Miii, but without a mirror, and a very good EVF, and uses all the lenses I already own.

Well, the Sony A99 and A77 II are also hybrids albeit using a different concept.

As much as I liked them the concept wasn't really picked up by the market.

Arthur Macmillan, you comparing second hand prices of a widely available and slightly outdated system to the exaggerated price you were given.

 

20 or 24 MP? who cares? The Sony sensor has maybe some advantages in terms of dynamic range and the immanent downsides (low battery life) you already mentioned.

 

Now, comparing a new body paid as demanded and not second hand, together with a pretty decent but not very versatile 85 mm prime is kind of unfair. The A7II is also available with a 28-70 kit lens for less than 2000 $ new. And if you try, you will find cheaper second hand or grey market offerings. But seeing a camera treated with ductape, would also make me raise an eyebrow or two.

 

When I said "no experience" I meant no experience with current system bodies + lenses. And since you were not saying things like "always dust on a sensor when changing a lens", I concluded, there were bridge- and point and shoot cameras more involved in your experience.

 

Quote:My question remains what makes these MILCs so appealing that people go out and spend enough on the body alone that I could put together a decent system for?  I know there is something.

 

I can't answer this question fully. I can tell you what a colleague says, who gave all his Nikon DSLRs to his daughter because she is a pro photog and tries to establish herself. He was just fed up with the level of AF accuracy, he said, it's not reliable when shooting birds, sometimes the eyes are not in focus no matter what he calibrates before. Now he is fed up with the battery life of his A7R II (and this is a camera I also don't understand the price point). But he wanted to have a lot of MP because he's printing big.

 

Additionally he bought himself an A77 II with the concept Klaus already mentioned - the fixed semi transparent mirror which costs a lot of light. I don't know how happy he is, I haven't seen him during my holidays. The body itself was dirt cheap, although new. This will also be the flaw of Nasim's concept - to make the LCD or OLED shine through the pentaprism, he needs to sacrifice some mirror efficiency.

 

I don't know, if FF is the answer to everything and a D500 is placed as professional camera with advantage to tele-lenses. I also don't know, if these fps above 10/s are so relevant - in some cases 4K video with 60 fps might catch a better moment and is still printable. You can laugh, but for a lot of picture use a screenshot out of a video is decent enough.

 

When I tried mirrorless system-cameras first, it was a Panasonic Lumix, really cheap µ4/3. I liked some things at it, especially the touchscreen. But it had no EVF and high ISO quality was lower than anything else I had, so I gave it away. How I came to Fuji? Some discussions in this forum made me curious. At that time I spent days with calibrating AF from 10 lenses on 3 different bodies, and it really sucks. I still get out of focus shots, but easy to detect and to explain - the X-E2 has some great qualities, but fast AF tracking in AF-C mode is none of them. However, Fuji updated it's firmware much more often and with much more benefit to us users than I ever saw Nikon doing.

 

Out of focus on a Fuji is a really fat miss, while out of focus on a Nikon DSLR often tells me, the AF is not reliable, especially in faster bursts. Comparing a D810 against a X-E2 is unfair, too-  it's just, that if the picture is in focus on the Fuji, it's is nailed and on Nikon it occasionally happens that the nail is just mm in front of the target.

 

Enlarging the view and override AF precisely is something, the roughly 6 times more expensive D810 can't do - except in LV, but there I have a bigger lag between release and shutter closing than on any mirrorless.

 

The question is now: Is it better to integrate both worlds in one body at maybe double price? And leave it to the user to decide which system he should activate? Or use the same money and improve AF and battery life in one body which comes without a mirror?

 

The battery issue is serious. However, I like the way Fuji is approaching it with the X-T2: Make it chargeable by USB (Sony does this for long time now and you can use the camera while it's charging! Nikon? Canon? Just buy enough batteries....) and add a vertical grip which really gives additional value, not just a look like a Nikon pro with only one extra set of battery and wheels and buttons. But then ask like 400 bucks for that bloody grip...

"And nobody will produce Nasim's phantasm, because it would increase the price of the camera and not doing much of a benefit."

 

Maybe...In fact I would go as far as to say it could not be implemented exactly the way he diagrammed it.  As to little benefit it would have quite a benefit if you consider looking at a view screen on the back of a camera on a sunny day (or dark night) apposed to looking through a viewfinder.  A second significant benefit would be that the EVF's image screen will be small.  Smaller than the area of the mirror since only the flux of the image as a projection onto the optical surface would be necessary.  That means that the power consumption will be smaller by a wide margin.  Another thing he mentioned is what some of us call "true mirror lock-up"  We know it is not a big hurdle since the cameras are doing it now.  That means a much lower power consuming mirrorless mode with better visibility allowing exposure preview, focus peaking, and striping and more to be used for the cost of a small internal screen.  It would also shut of the main screen with several advantages including less processing power to generate the smaller EVF image as well as allowing you to use Live View at night without blinding your self, and drawing attention to your self.  I would be excited to get one!

 

@ Klaus:  Yes, the market.  There is something I don't understand at all.  The target demographic for these cameras keep changing.  It's almost as if tripling the price of something drives up demand I was surprised when someone we know said the DSLR market is shrinking.  It's funny timing for me, because I have been on the fence.  But suddenly I am seeing really good lenses being made available for my team Canon DSLR.  I mean I should be able to maintain APS-C and FF Canons, sharing the same pool of long focal length lenses and flashes and whatnot.  And, I kid you not, a year or two ago they had the Canon mirrorless on sale with a lens for $100!  I didn't get it because I like what the interchangeable system can do.  Well, I'm finding out I left one thing out.  From all people are saying these damn little MILC's are very fun to use, and probably easier to use as well.  Damn!  I never thought of that! 

Don't get me wrong Joju.  I am impressed with MILC's!  But there's always something new.  I can wait.

 

I am trying to picture someone with a high end Nikon or Canon DSLR system feeling like they can't take a good photo.  When I had my XTi I marveled at the unbelievable image quality it was capable of.  I had a Tamron SP 90 Di  for macro and Tamron SP 500 mirror for telephoto.  The nifty fifty and a few other low dollar legends.  LOL I balanced the SP 500mm x2 x2 x1.4 (three tc's) x 1.6 crop factor = 4480mm on a fence post and got a pretty decent picture of some girls on a beach nearly 1/4 mile away.  I uploaded over 1,000 arthropod photos to various sites with images of things like globular springtails with a body length of 0.5mm.  All with a Rebel XTi with no live view, and a 10MP Sensor.


I happen to think my 70D is a modern miracle.  If I didn't think I could take great photos with it, or a 6D I think I would have to find another hobby.  I guess what I am saying is I like photography, I like my camera and my equipment.  I never imagined I would have gear this good.  Maybe it is semi-obsolete but it amazes me every day! 

"I can wait" appears to me a very good spirit at the moment 

 

Honestly, Photokina is approaching and although various rumours sites remain silent about mirrorless form CaNikon, I would be surprised if their magicians would not draw a rabbit out of their cylinders. There are already some good or ar least interesting offerings around but that can't be all.

 

Don't get me wrong, Arthur: At the moment I would not sell my DSLR, it still has some tricks the comparatively simple X-E2 has not. And some parts of Fuji's menu are just not well thought enough for me. Yes, they are constantly improving it and I need to become more flexible: Just because I could put everything what I needed in the Custom bank on a Nikon, it doesn't have to be exactly the same on a Fuji - but a bit of more usability and interoperability would be alright. If you have more than one body of the same type, the settings should be transferrable. Or being customized on a big PC screen.

 

I still like to have a big camera for the people who judge the photog my the weight and size of it and small ones because the same people don't take it serious - which gives me the pleasure of getting results I could not have with the big boy. Oh yes, and then there's my highly grateful back.

Quote:there was duct tape over his EVF for reasons unknown to me.  

 

 

The duct tape is there to keep the EVF/OVF switchover sensor sane. It is set to a very excited behavior by default, which sadly can't be changed. How Sony went from the excellent sensor in Nex 7 to that diarrhea of a sensor on A7 in 2 years is beyond me. How they failed to fix that in almost 3 years is beyond everyone.