Quote:
I have not held a E-M1. Funny thing about grips: in the time of the successful 350D, people in forums would keep hammering on how bad thin/small its grip was. Now people claim that the similar E-M1 grip is the best they know. Right. The 6D's grip is by most accounts very comfy, by the way. Have you held one yet?
Nope, but I used to have a D800 which is fairly similar in shape. I find the E-M1, despite its smaller size, more comfortable to use.
Quote:Ergonomics are not about the grip, though. It is about how easy the camera is to handle/operate. I don't find cramped small camera bodies the most ergonomic, controls need to be closer together and smaller. Only quibbles I have about the 6D's ergonomics: The AF point change could be easier implemented and no direct WB button. That last thing is easily circumvented by just using the Q button to go to WB every time, just one button press more. Funny thing about that Olympus: it is not really a very compact MILC, so not pocketable. There goes one advantage. And then it only has a small sensor (2x crop), which makes its not so small size less sensible too.
Absolutely, which is why I think Pentax DSLRs have the best ergonomics. A well configured E-M1 is close in operation although still not as good.
I've never been interested by Canon DSLRs in the past for 3 main reasons:
- Lack of dual wheel operation
- The dumbest auto ISO implementation in the industry. However, I hear recent models starting with the 5DIII or the 1D-X are better in this regards
- Lower DR than the competition
Quote:That you only have used DSLRs which had less than optimal AF performance does not say much. You have not tried a 6D, a 70D, a 1D-X, a D4s, a 5D mk II or a D750. There are HUGE differences between cameras in tracking performance, and in single shot AF accuracy. Like I wrote above, Foto Magazin found that the Canon EOS 70D outperformed the mirrorless cameras when using PD AF in accuracy. And my 6D is very accurate.
I owned several Pentax DSLRs and agree they were probably the worst brand in terms of AF.
However, when I switched to a D800, I was surprised to see the inaccuracy problem wasn't fully gone. Far from it in fact.
I can't care less about what Foto Magazin claims. The fact remains: for a DSLR to offer perfect AF accuracy, lenses have to be calibrated to the body. Roger Cicala wrote a great article on this very topic supporting what I've been saying from the beginning.
His conclusion is particularly revealing:
- LiveView (contrast-detection) AF on a still target is more accurate than phase-detection AF. It should be so. Contrast detection is using the actual sensor to determine focus; phase detection is not. Overall we found about one shot in 10 was out of focus with phase detection.
- LiveView AF is as accurate as Roger View MF. You may be better than this, or you may not.
- Phase-detection AF has more shot-to-shot variation than contrast detection. It's not huge, but it's real. This shouldn't surprise anyone. Phase detection was developed for fast AF speed and to detect subject movement. It wasn't developed to be more accurate.
- Microfocus adjustment pulls good phase-detection AF results up to a par with LiveView, but it doesn't eliminate the small amount of shot-to-shot variation that phase-detection AF has.
I can shoot my 56 f1.2 wide open all day long and enjoy 100% focused photos. It's really liberating. Try doing that with a DSLRs. I've read many blogs/articles written by photographers shooting FF Canon complaining about not being able to use their very fast glass wide-open because of AF inaccuracies.
The issue is real whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Quote:Now, why is the "whole mirror mechanism" on a DSLR limitation? It allows for very good and fast AF (PD AF via powerful AF module), and allows for a real view on the world without limitations like noise, lag, frame rate, screen clutter, studio flash photography problems, heat generation by the continuous live view sensor operation.
OVF and EVF both have upsides and downsides. The advantages you mention are real. However, for me, they downsides of an OVF are greater: you don't have any realtime feedback of what you're actually going to capture. I love being able to see in the VF what areas are under/over exposed. I love having a very accurate level or having whatever info I need displayed. Or to be able to display the image I just shot in the EVF instead of trying to squint at the LCD screen in harsh sun light, etc. The list goes on and on.
If I were a sport photographer, maybe I'd prefer to have an OVF, but I'm not and few of us are.
I think for most uses, an EVF is better. It's easier to get it right before actually taking the shot. This is especially true for landscape and portrait work.
Quote:You seem to have chosen the wrong DSLR brands in the past. The OVF allows for a more artistic experience, and when needed one can simply use live view (including remote live view via an iOS/android device).
I must admit that I am more of an artist than a snapshooter, and I can very well understand that a DSLR is not for everyone. And that the ability to shoot with shallower DOF is not for everyone either.
Go tell this to all the Nikonians out there ;-)
Sorry but LV is pure crap (at best) compared to the mirrorless experience.
I don't see how using an OVF has anything to do with being an artist...
In which way does an EVF prevent you from being creative and artistic?
If by artistic you mean shallow DOF, this has absolutely nothing to do with mirrorless vs DSLR.
I love shooting shallow DOF, especially for portrait which is the exact purpose of my Fuji 56mm f1.2 (which I can fully enjoy shooting wide-open with AF).
Quote:But the idea that DSLRs are somehow inhibited by limited technology... is just a close minded blanket statement, in my opinion.
Not being able to objectively perceive their limitations is being in denial and shortsighted, in my opinion.