[Guest]

But I thought, let us assume you would start afresh and don't have a camera or lenses anymore. Then what would you do?

 

I would stick to mirrorless. Probably Sony, Fuji is interesting indeed but clearly overpriced, just like the more advanced M43 cam bodies (e.g. the EM-5 II). Too bad, that Panasonic lost its edge.

[goran h]

MFT or Fuji. I have no interest in DSLR dinosaurs.

[Brightcolours]

Ergonomics are very subjective.

The two cameras with the best ergonomics I've ever used were the Pentax K5 and Olympus E-M1. The way the Pentax operated was amazing. I know some people tend to like large cameras, but I don't. It's very personal. Did you handle an E-M1 ? The grip is perfect IMO, better than any DSLR I've ever used.

 

As far as AF goes AF inaccuracy is inherent to the technology used in DSLRs, except if the AF sensor is on the imaging sensor. All the DSLRs I have used suffered from some inaccuracy (I didn't try a Canon 6D, but the technology does still suffer from the same limitations).

 

The fact mirrorless works on the final image is extremely more powerful and flexible. The whole mirror mechanism in a DSLR is a major limitation, you really can't argue with this simple fact.

 

Now, regarding OVF vs EVF. Again, it's personal. I consider it to be an advantage. You actually see what you're going to capture. I don't care if it's not exactly what my eyes see. What I want to know is what my camera sees, so I can adjust the exposure accordingly! Furthermore, anything can be added to the EVF as it's just a matter of implementing it in software. This is not the case with OVF which is why the info in it is extremely archaic and limited.

 

DSLRs have just way too many shortcomings. They are greatly limited by the legacy of the mirror. In other words, they are technology limited. This doesn't even include the cost issue related to manufacturing, alignment, tolerances, etc. of the whole mirror AF mechanism.

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

But the idea that DSLRs are somehow inhibited by limited technology... is just a close minded blanket statement, in my opinion.

[popo]

This thread does seem to be falling towards a "this is the only solution, everything else is useless" type argument. To put a bit of perspective on this, FOR MY USES I'm going to give various bodies a relative score, taking the 7D mk1 as benchmark at a score of 100. It doesn't do everything I want it to do, so if I camera does more, it scores higher, and if it does less, I will score it less.

So where would I put other cameras on this score?
My shiny new 7D mk2, I'd score 105. Yes, it is a tiny bit better than the mk1, but not radically different. Maybe when I get to grips with the more advance tracking AF settings I'll rate it even higher, but right now, it is functionally near enough the same.
My old 5D mk2. It is full frame, but the AF system is rather basic, so overall I'd rate it lower, perhaps 95. Similarly I have a 600D still in regular use, which I'd give a score of say 90.
The original Olympus E-P1 I still have. It is really old in technology terms, and its current cash value is even less than some filters I own. I'd score that perhaps 75.
The latest mirrorless cameras from the likes of Olympus and Sony, without having used them, I'd guess they would score around 85. Panasonic and Fuji models aren't as interesting to me due to lack of IBIS so they would rate slightly lower.

My point is the overall ranking of the bodies above isn't important, but look how tight the scores are. For most applications, most cameras are good enough. I still need and want to cover the edge cases so I seek out that performance. If I only have a compact or smartphone on me, I'll use them to the best of my abilities. I might not get every shot chance, but I'll get something.

If Fuji deliver on their hints as given in the interview earlier, they have a chance at taking my cash in future. Then again it may still be challenging, as catching up in itself isn't going to make people switch, they need to offer something more.

[thxbb12]

 

 

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.

 

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
  

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.
  

Nothing you can tell me about Canon AF will make me believe it's more accurate than what I used to get with MFT and now what I'm getting with Fuji.

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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.

[Brightcolours]

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.

 

 

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
  

 

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.
  

Nothing you can tell me about Canon AF will make me believe it's more accurate than what I used to get with MFT and now what I'm getting with Fuji.

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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).

 

 

Not being able to objectively perceive their limitations is being in denial and shortsighted, in my opinion.

The 6D is more comfortable to hold than a D800.

Lack of dual wheel operation? Huh?

Auto ISO? Why?

Lower DR is a problem why?

The D800 is a camera with certain AF problems. 

Foto Magazin actually did a real test. That you don't care says enough?

I don't care that I can't convince you that my 6D performs well with AF. It is how it is. And with my 55mm f1.2 wide open, I nail focus any time. With MF. Through the OVF. My 200mm f4 close up has a bigger aperture, and I nail focus every time.

 

EVF shows what the settings are. OVF shows the scene through the lens, open for your interpretation.

[thxbb12]

The 6D is more comfortable to hold than a D800.

Lack of dual wheel operation? Huh?

Auto ISO? Why?

Lower DR is a problem why?

The D800 is a camera with certain AF problems. 

Foto Magazin actually did a real test. That you don't care says enough?

I don't care that I can't convince you that my 6D performs well with AF. It is how it is. And with my 55mm f1.2 wide open, I nail focus any time. With MF. Through the OVF. My 200mm f4 close up has a bigger aperture, and I nail focus every time.

 

EVF shows what the settings are. OVF shows the scene through the lens, open for your interpretation.

 

I pretty much only shoot in aperture priority in auto ISO mode (ie. the camera choose the lowest ISO as long as a min. shutter speed is possible, otherwise it bumps the ISO up).

One wheel is used to control de aperture and the other can be programmed for any other important thing (exposure compensation, ISO, etc.). The access is much more direct than using buttons.

 

As far as ISO is concerned, I believe that because historically, photographers used to use films, in their head ISO must be a fixed parameter like shutter speed or aperture.

In reality, in the digital age there is little reason for ISO to not be dynamic. The prime example is when selecting a specific aperture and a specific speed: auto ISO allows for the shot to be automatically properly exposed. Your exposure will be spot on regardless whether the light changes or not, whether the background changes, etc.

It then becomes very important to have a good auto ISO implementation where the camera selects the lowest ISO possible to maximize IQ. A good implementation should take in account the focal length of the lens to prevent shake and also bias this calculation (like what Pentax does). So you can bias it toward higher or slower shutter speeds depending on your needs or the situation at hand.

For instance, say you're shooting static subjects in a dimly lit environment. You want your aperture to be f2.8 and you have a zoom lens. Fixing the ISO is sub-optimal unless the lighting or scene never changes. Setting a specific shutter speed is sub-optimal because the focal length may change given you're using a zoom lens. You also don't want to use a too high shutter speed if it's not necessary. So you want auto ISO, but you want it to select the lowest possible ISO while avoiding camera shake.

In a another scenario, you want to shoot people, so you want a minimum shutter speed of say 1/100 while using the lowest possible ISO. The lighting is not constant, nor the background. Anything other than auto ISO will be sub-optimal.

Do you now understand the importance of a good auto ISO implementation?

 

The DR issue has been beaten to death here and elsewhere. Basically, I don't want to see banding when pulling data from shadows.

 

As far as AF goes, did you even bother reading the article from Roger Cicala? If you did, then you'll understand that the technology is flawed when it comes to single shot accuracy. If you didn't, then there is no point in me repeating the same thing over and over. I couldn't care less about MF as I never use it except perhaps for macro. I want AF, period.

[stoppingdown]

I had a considerable set of Nikkor lenses and was shooting Nikon since 2002. Then I moved to Sony (with the exception of 300mm). So, clearly, if I had to start now I'd go with a mirrorless system (Sony, Fuji, MTF: all good systems, some are better or worse in some respects, it's a very personal choice). Weight makes a lot of difference to me and I'm in the camp of EVF fans.

[Brightcolours]

I pretty much only shoot in aperture priority in auto ISO mode (ie. the camera choose the lowest ISO as long as a min. shutter speed is possible, otherwise it bumps the ISO up).

One wheel is used to control de aperture and the other can be programmed for any other important thing (exposure compensation, ISO, etc.). The access is much more direct than using buttons.

 

As far as ISO is concerned, I believe that because historically, photographers used to use films, in their head ISO must be a fixed parameter like shutter speed or aperture.

In reality, in the digital age there is little reason for ISO to not be dynamic. The prime example is when selecting a specific aperture and a specific speed: auto ISO allows for the shot to be automatically properly exposed. Your exposure will be spot on regardless whether the light changes or not, whether the background changes, etc.

It then becomes very important to have a good auto ISO implementation where the camera selects the lowest ISO possible to maximize IQ. A good implementation should take in account the focal length of the lens to prevent shake and also bias this calculation (like what Pentax does). So you can bias it toward higher or slower shutter speeds depending on your needs or the situation at hand.

For instance, say you're shooting static subjects in a dimly lit environment. You want your aperture to be f2.8 and you have a zoom lens. Fixing the ISO is sub-optimal unless the lighting or scene never changes. Setting a specific shutter speed is sub-optimal because the focal length may change given you're using a zoom lens. You also don't want to use a too high shutter speed if it's not necessary. So you want auto ISO, but you want it to select the lowest possible ISO while avoiding camera shake.

In a another scenario, you want to shoot people, so you want a minimum shutter speed of say 1/100 while using the lowest possible ISO. The lighting is not constant, nor the background. Anything other than auto ISO will be sub-optimal.

Do you now understand the importance of a good auto ISO implementation?

 

The DR issue has been beaten to death here and elsewhere. Basically, I don't want to see banding when pulling data from shadows.

 

As far as AF goes, did you even bother reading the article from Roger Cicala? If you did, then you'll understand that the technology is flawed when it comes to single shot accuracy. If you didn't, then there is no point in me repeating the same thing over and over. I couldn't care less about MF as I never use it except perhaps for macro. I want AF, period.

Did you bother to read that I have no AF issue what so ever? Did you bother to read that the extensive AF test from Foto Magazin showed that the 70D with PD AF was more accurate than the mirrorless cameras they tested? No. Well, then stop mentioning your very own prefered choice of "information". You want to be biased and that is fine, fueled by the sub-optimal DSLR choices from the past.

 

I was mentioning MF tongue in cheek, because my 55mm f1.2 is MF and it works perfectly. If it was AF, I'd be getting fine results too.

 

The DR thing is beaten to death indeed. Why would one want to pull shadows, contrast is nice. And there is no banding what so ever with my camera. 

And no, I don't get that you use Auto ISO, it is something for non-photographers and newbies to me. I like to have the control, I like to determine what ISO setting in which situation. I am the one who determines how steady my hands are, which support is used, IS or not. So, the good ISO implementation in my FF DSLR never gets used.

 

I set ISO via a wheel, exposure compensation gets changed via a wheel, and what not.

 

Bottom line: my DSLR is not tiny and not big. It has nice ergonomics and a good and very nice feeling grip. It has none of the disadvantages of a small MILC: no EVF, well layed out controls which are easily accessible while looking through the viewfinder, good battery time, PD AF which is fast and accurate.

 

Your MILC has advantages (small and compact with small primes being the most obvious), and DSLRs have their advantages too. It is as simple as that. My answer to the original question makes sense and is valid.

[thxbb12]

Did you bother to read that I have no AF issue what so ever? Did you bother to read that the extensive AF test from Foto Magazin showed that the 70D with PD AF was more accurate than the mirrorless cameras they tested? No. Well, then stop mentioning your very own prefered choice of "information". You want to be biased and that is fine, fueled by the sub-optimal DSLR choices from the past.

 

I was mentioning MF tongue in cheek, because my 55mm f1.2 is MF and it works perfectly. If it was AF, I'd be getting fine results too.

 

The DR thing is beaten to death indeed. Why would one want to pull shadows, contrast is nice. And there is no banding what so ever with my camera. 

And no, I don't get that you use Auto ISO, it is something for non-photographers and newbies to me. I like to have the control, I like to determine what ISO setting in which situation. I am the one who determines how steady my hands are, which support is used, IS or not. So, the good ISO implementation in my FF DSLR never gets used.

 

I set ISO via a wheel, exposure compensation gets changed via a wheel, and what not.

 

Bottom line: my DSLR is not tiny and not big. It has nice ergonomics and a good and very nice feeling grip. It has none of the disadvantages of a small MILC: no EVF, well layed out controls which are easily accessible while looking through the viewfinder, good battery time, PD AF which is fast and accurate.

 

Your MILC has advantages (small and compact with small primes being the most obvious), and DSLRs have their advantages too. It is as simple as that. My answer to the original question makes sense and is valid.

 

Indeed, I don't consider Foto Magazin's AF "success story" relevant since it represents an outlier. The technology is still flawed. If you take 10 body/lens combination maybe 2 will happen to be perfectly calibrated, 2 will be totally off and the rest will be in-between. This is why Roger's article is much more relevant: he tested a large sample, not a single one.

Now tell me, why do you think a company like Reikan FoCal is still in business if the issue doesn't exist? http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/

Hint: that's because AF accuracy is indeed an issue with DSLRs.

 

Everything else you say is personal and opinion. I said it at the beginning: ergonomics are very personal. I agree to disagree and you should probably do the same since none of it is fact.

 

The last fact is that Canon's DR is sub-par compared to current sensor technology. You can choose to use a camera with comparatively low DR and be happy with it. That's all well. On the other hand, I want more in this regard.