Well, I don't see it that way. To me, no manufacturer of mirrorless systems ever promised anything more than all DSLRs marketeers also promised. No world leadership, no automatic burst in creativity. The longer I take the pictures I like to take, the more I think, these marketeers have an easy game with us, as we always doubt what we see and need second, third, fourth, fiftieth opinions to confirm the decision of buying an item.
First, we were hunting for the lowest prices and killed all local dealer's businesses. So we took away our opportunities to compare before buying. In the meantime, superstars of lens comparison suites grew up and start to influence us and our dreams. Be it DPReview, Ken Rockwell, Roger Cigalla, Chris Nicholson, all of them tried their best to do a good job - and also to create more traffic as the payments of their jobs directly follow the number of views.
I think before we start to complain about unfulfilled promises, a little bit self-criticism would do as all good. There are pro and cons for every system, but if the DSLR is well adjusted to the lenses I use the keeper rate only depends of the speed of action in front of it. The mirrorless system only cuts away the process of calibration, no matter how fast a lens is. Back- or frontfocus in general is no issue. It's either tack sharp or blurred, but the "nearly sharp, if the lens focused just 1 cm more to the foreground" moments don't happen with mirrorless.
Please keep also in mind: DSLRs were not perfect right from the beginning, it took decades to build the current flagships. Mirrorless systems have a faster pace. I am very surprised about each firmware update of the Fuji's. They still do some basic things in a weird way, but AF-C now is at the same level as most DSLRs (in the same price regions) are. Who knows how the development would have happened, if DSLR manufacturers like Nikon would have introduced their AF auto calibration earlier?
At the moment I'm in Latvia. Yesterday night in Rīga I stumbled in a flame artist show given to a wedding couple. The keeper rate was low - unpredictable movements and lighting in between very dark and bright and I tried to switch between long and short shutter speeds - a lot things to do in the very short time the flames had enough fuel - I'm not sure if the X-T2 would have shown the same keeper rate or lower or even higher. Sharpness or resolution advantage was literally gone to smoke. For some quiet street scenes I was happy to have enough noise reserves, but the fire show which found me unprepared?
![[Image: i-qj6C8VG-L.jpg]](https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-qj6C8VG/1/0b790a0d/L/i-qj6C8VG-L.jpg)
![[Image: i-nPpfJRG-L.jpg]](https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-nPpfJRG/1/4ce60be6/L/i-nPpfJRG-L.jpg)
It was very dark, when I saw the boats coming. Neither I, no the X-T2 would have been able to focus on that dark boat. That's the advantage of having two systems in a camera - one very sensitive to AF, the other to take the picture. At ISO 25600 there's a lot of color noise - on APS-C, there would only be color noise...
![[Image: i-84Z7Lqx-L.jpg]](https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-84Z7Lqx/1/a3398f44/L/i-84Z7Lqx-L.jpg)
Oh, and WEBMASTER: Is there a very good reason, that I see my linked photos only when I edit my post or when I log out of the forum?
First, we were hunting for the lowest prices and killed all local dealer's businesses. So we took away our opportunities to compare before buying. In the meantime, superstars of lens comparison suites grew up and start to influence us and our dreams. Be it DPReview, Ken Rockwell, Roger Cigalla, Chris Nicholson, all of them tried their best to do a good job - and also to create more traffic as the payments of their jobs directly follow the number of views.
I think before we start to complain about unfulfilled promises, a little bit self-criticism would do as all good. There are pro and cons for every system, but if the DSLR is well adjusted to the lenses I use the keeper rate only depends of the speed of action in front of it. The mirrorless system only cuts away the process of calibration, no matter how fast a lens is. Back- or frontfocus in general is no issue. It's either tack sharp or blurred, but the "nearly sharp, if the lens focused just 1 cm more to the foreground" moments don't happen with mirrorless.
Please keep also in mind: DSLRs were not perfect right from the beginning, it took decades to build the current flagships. Mirrorless systems have a faster pace. I am very surprised about each firmware update of the Fuji's. They still do some basic things in a weird way, but AF-C now is at the same level as most DSLRs (in the same price regions) are. Who knows how the development would have happened, if DSLR manufacturers like Nikon would have introduced their AF auto calibration earlier?
At the moment I'm in Latvia. Yesterday night in Rīga I stumbled in a flame artist show given to a wedding couple. The keeper rate was low - unpredictable movements and lighting in between very dark and bright and I tried to switch between long and short shutter speeds - a lot things to do in the very short time the flames had enough fuel - I'm not sure if the X-T2 would have shown the same keeper rate or lower or even higher. Sharpness or resolution advantage was literally gone to smoke. For some quiet street scenes I was happy to have enough noise reserves, but the fire show which found me unprepared?
It was very dark, when I saw the boats coming. Neither I, no the X-T2 would have been able to focus on that dark boat. That's the advantage of having two systems in a camera - one very sensitive to AF, the other to take the picture. At ISO 25600 there's a lot of color noise - on APS-C, there would only be color noise...
Oh, and WEBMASTER: Is there a very good reason, that I see my linked photos only when I edit my post or when I log out of the forum?