[thxbb12]

Let me clarify a few points.

I never said mirrorless is good at AF tracking. I only stated, like many people who use both DSLR and mirrorless, that mirrorless is more accurate at focusing a given target. Nothing more. It's not about the tracking ability, but the ability to reliably and consistently focus correctly.

 

I never claimed that a DSLR cannot focus properly. I only state that a DSLR is much less consistent than mirrorless when it comes to reliable focusing accuracy. Brightcolors, I can also show you tons of well focused images I shot with my Nikon or Pentax DSLR gear. That's not the point. What your pictures don't show is the percentage of accurately focused shots you get of the same subject, repeatedly.

 

As Joju said (as well as Nasim Mansurov in the link above), there are many factors at play when a DSLR focuses. Unless everthing is perfectly aligned, one is at the mercy of some focus inaccuracy.

Brightcolors is lucky to have a DSLR camera that focuses perfectly every single time with every lens in every condition. That's quite remarkable and borderline miraculous.

 

Now, I challenge anyone with a DSLR, preferably high-end, to perform the following test:

• Setup 3 still targets at 3 different distances.
  
• Shoot each target using your DSLR's PDAF.
  
• Before each shot, reset the lens twice: at close range and at infinity.
  
• Shoot every target several times.
  
• Use different lenses and shoot them all wide-open:
  <ul><li>Fast ones (f1.8 or below)
  
• Zoom lenses (preferably f2.8)
  <ul><li>Set your zoom lenses at 3 different focals: wide-end, long-end and in between.
  

</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>Once you've done this. Look at all your shots and get back here with your findings.

You'll notice that many shots will be off. I'd actually be interested to know what % of shots are actually dead on. I'm sure you'll be surprised by the number.

 

Now, if you do exactly the same with a Fuji system (for instance), pretty much all the shots will be dead on regardless of the focal or the target distance.

 

I'm saying this because that's exactly what I did a while back. With a friend of mine who is a wildlife photographer, we spent several days calibrating our lenses using FoCal. At the time, I shot with a D800 with the following: Nikkor 50 f1.8, Nikkor 85 f1.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8, Nikkor 20 f2.8, Nikkor 35 f2, Tamron 70-300, Tamron 90 SP f2.8, Nikkor 24-120 f4, Sigma 50-500. My friend had a D4 with several lenses, but I remember mostly the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8, and 200-400 f4, Nikkor 85 f1.4 and Sigma 35 f1.4.

Let me tell you this: focus reliability, even after calibration, was much worse than what you get today with mirrorless. Mind you, this was with a D4. Is this body high end enough?

The worse part was that with zoom lenses, you needed different micro-ajustment at different focal lengths. After these findings I was so fed up that I decided to give mirrorless a try. What I found in terms of AF accuracy was a revelation. Some time later I decided to fully move to mirrorless.

 

I'm not saying mirrorless is the silver of bullet or that it's for everyone. Today, wildlife and action shooters are still better served with DSLRs because of their AF tracking ability and the lens selection.

However, in other use-cases, mirrorless is better IMO. Portraits shot at f1.2-1.8 is definitely one of them, unless you don't mind taking 10 shots and hope that half of them will be dead on.

 

Does this (long) explanation make sense?