[Brightcolours]

The problem with mirrorless lenses really is with non-retrofocus lenses, especially wide-angle ones. The angle of incidence of light rays just gets too high, this si why I suggested a reasonable, not too short flange distance.

 

Personally, I'd like to get rid of the mirrorbox - EVFs have come of age, they are plenty detailed, and they even allow one to view things as they are outside, light level wise, or choose to see it as the image will be recorded.

 

As to aperture equivalence: I don't really care about that. One chooses a system for a reason. For extreme shallow DoF one choses a FF camera, or Medium or Large format. Besides, I don;t know whn you last shot  a fairly tight portrait, but if you want more than a few eye lashes in focus with a lens normally used for portraiture, on FF you really need at least F/4 to achieve that, so an F/2 MFT lens will suffice, no problem.

 

If I really want very large apertures on MFT, I use my metabones adapters with my Canon glass, no problem, but in that case I specifically choose to do so.

 

I love FF shooting (own a 5D II after all), but I don't always want to carry it around when I am on the move, which is most of the week these days. And the IQ of MFT is very good indeed. In the end, in order to make a photograph, you need to carry a camera - and in my case I always do and want to do so, but not always a FF with the relatively heavy lenses I own.

 

Time will indeed tell what mirrorless FF will do in the market. The way it is now there are relatively few users, however. If Canon would come out with a 6D variant that is mirroless, I think uptake would become a lot better.

 

Kind regards, Wim

So, om one hand you want to criticise FF mirrorless for vignetting at large apertures, on the other hand you do not care about the large apertures when you look at MFT. Convenient .

 

Also, you complain about the loss of DR when we touch on correcting vignetting on FF, but you do not care about that MFT has less DR to begin with. You want to argue both ways, as long as it is in MFT direction, it seems?

 

I do not care about mirrorless and EVF much. it hinders my creativity a lot. I own no Sony FF mirrorless or MFT, I try to assess things honestly. Equivalence is a big indispensable part of that.

 

Oh yes, and I also do not care about silly big DR figures.

 

The 6D follow up will be a FF DSLR. It won't have the ergonomic issues of small mirrorless cameras, and maybe Canon will also develop a FF mirrorless camera, either with EOS M mount or with a wider mount. Time will tell.

[wim]

So, om one hand you want to criticise FF mirrorless for vignetting at large apertures, on the other hand you do not care about the large apertures when you look at MFT. Convenient .

 

Also, you complain about the loss of DR when we touch on correcting vignetting on FF, but you do not care about that MFT has less DR to begin with. You want to argue both ways, as long as it is in MFT direction, it seems?

 

I do not care about mirrorless and EVF much. it hinders my creativity a lot. I own no Sony FF mirrorless or MFT, I try to assess things honestly. Equivalence is a big indispensable part of that.

 

Oh yes, and I also do not care about silly big DR figures.

 

The 6D follow up will be a FF DSLR. It won't have the ergonomic issues of small mirrorless cameras, and maybe Canon will also develop a FF mirrorless camera, either with EOS M mount or with a wider mount. Time will tell.

 

I didn't criticize FF mirrorless for vignetting at large apertures: I am only worried about too small a flange distance and non-retrofocus lenses in combination with the current structure of sensors, causing all kinds of issues towards the outer parts of images. I reckon with FF the limit currently is around 40 MP before it starts to get bad with some sensor/lens combinations, especially with WA lenses. Please, don't put any words in my mouth.

 

Essentially, I would be worried about loss of DR going from the centre of an image towards the edge, which is inherent to the same stuff I mention above. No more, no less. Do note that this can be in the order of 4 stops or more, and it gets worse with larger sensors, especially at high MP-numbers. Current MFT suffers less from vignetting, based on my own experience. For me, getting into MFT always was entirely about smaller size. It still is, but it has become really good too, although even the GF2 I got first really delivered the goods anyway. It already was quite a bit better than my old 350D.

 

BTW, what do you mean by "assess things honestly"? How, in what way? And do you seriously think that can only be done with an OVF or that this is always possible in the first place?

I am sure that that is not possible, as an OVF darkens very rapidly, and has a limited DoF preview possibility, caused simply by the way the focusing screen works, even with the laser mattes. No such problems with EVFs, and AFAIAC, an EVF actually helps in many cases because you can actually see what the camera is registering in full glory, unlike an OVF.

 

The importance of equivalence is whatever you assign to it, to be very honest. The only important thing could well be noise, but then, let's pixelpeep film, shall we? Noise levels are so low, they are totally irrelevant, unless you go over 3200 to 6400 iso with modern MFT cameras, and that happens to be the case with my 5D II too. Personally I don't have a problem with that, I have never needed faster ISO anyway .

 

Good you don't care about silly DR figures, neither do I. The best printing techniques still only give you a DR of around 6 stops anyway, and a screen 8 . Film gave you 10 stops at best, with very compressed ranges at the bottom and the low end. This limited DR range, compared to digital, was one of the reasons why the Zone System was invented.

 

Ergonomic issues are very personal. What may be a problem for one person, may not be for another, and vice versa. Often it is also a matter of getting used to a different layout, positioning and/or size. That's my experience anyway.

 

As to what Canon will do, indeed only time will tell. I won't hold my breath .... .

 

Kind regards, Wim

[obican]

 

The 6D follow up will be a FF DSLR. It won't have the ergonomic issues of small mirrorless cameras

 

6D has more ergonomic issues than most of the small mirrorless cameras.

 

-LCD is fixed.

-You have to use a left hand to turn the camera on/off (Although you don't need to turn it off as much as mirrorless cameras because battery consumption is much lower).

-Needs left hand off the lens to change shooting mode.

-No pop-up/small external flash supplied to trigger other flashes.

-AF point joystick too far down and harder to reach. Not that it's really worth it to move the AF point around to use other few, crummed in the middle, ancient AF points.

-Viewfinder is smaller than most higher end mirrorless cameras, most of the time with smaller sensors.

-Viewfinder is very dim in a dim environment, like all DSLR.

-Viewfinder does not show actual DOF for apertures wider than f/2.5 or so.

-Almost impossible to judge critical sharpness by viewfinder.

-You need to remove your eye from the viewfinder to see most settings and preview an image.

-Only 97% coverage inside the viewfinder.

-No rule-of-thirds grid or anything else inside the viewfinder.

-Awful live view AF.

-Awful face detection and none without live view.

-No touchscreen.

-Only single axis in-camera-level that is too large and covers most of the screen when used and needs left hand to activate.

-Can't exit magnified live view with half press of shutter release.

-Will not automatically re-enter live view after turning on. Needs an extra button press.

-No histogram in viewfinder.

-No histagram in live view neither?

-No NFC for fast pairing with phones and tablets.

 

There are film cameras from decades ago which don't have most these issues. How can you even use a 6D?

 

You see, once you change your expectations, your ergonomically-almost-perfect 6D looks quite different.

[wim]

6D has more ergonomic issues than most of the small mirrorless cameras.

 

-LCD is fixed.

-You have to use a left hand to turn the camera on/off (Although you don't need to turn it off as much as mirrorless cameras because battery consumption is much lower).

-Needs left hand off the lens to change shooting mode.

-No pop-up/small external flash supplied to trigger other flashes.

-AF point joystick too far down and harder to reach. Not that it's really worth it to move the AF point around to use other few, crummed in the middle, ancient AF points.

-Viewfinder is smaller than most higher end mirrorless cameras, most of the time with smaller sensors.

-Viewfinder is very dim in a dim environment, like all DSLR.

-Viewfinder does not show actual DOF for apertures wider than f/2.5 or so.

-Almost impossible to judge critical sharpness by viewfinder.

-You need to remove your eye from the viewfinder to see most settings and preview an image.

-Only 97% coverage inside the viewfinder.

-No rule-of-thirds grid or anything else inside the viewfinder.

-Awful live view AF.

-Awful face detection and none without live view.

-No touchscreen.

-Only single axis in-camera-level that is too large and covers most of the screen when used and needs left hand to activate.

-Can't exit magnified live view with half press of shutter release.

-Will not automatically re-enter live view after turning on. Needs an extra button press.

-No histogram in viewfinder.

-No histagram in live view neither?

-No NFC for fast pairing with phones and tablets.

 

There are film cameras from decades ago which don't have most these issues. How can you even use a 6D?

 

You see, once you change your expectations, your ergonomically-almost-perfect 6D looks quite different.

 

Actually, the viewfinder only shows an approximate DoF of around F/5.6, it only gets to around F/2.5 when using a laser matte focusing screen. Does the 6D have exchangeable focusing screens?

 

Kind regards, Wim

[obican]

Yes it does, that's also the only way to have any kind of grid inside the viewfinder.

 

I think it's f/2.5 with standard screens and f/1.2 with special manual focusing screen, which is pretty pointless most of the time because either the lens or the mirror or the screen won't be in calibration with the image sensor, giving you back/front focus.

[wim]

Yes it does, that's also the only way to have any kind of grid inside the viewfinder.

 

I think it's f/2.5 with standard screens and f/1.2 with special manual focusing screen, which is pretty pointless most of the time because either the lens or the mirror or the screen won't be in calibration with the image sensor, giving you back/front focus.

 

Hmm, last time I checked it actually was around F/5.6 and around F/2.8, the latter with the laser matte precision focusing screen, the one that loses approximately a stop and a half in the viewfinder. Unless you want a really dark viewfinder, it won't get any better - the coarser the finish, the brighter and the more DoF you see, the finer, the darker and less DoF. However, in order to be able to focus manually, you still need to be able to see what is going on .

 

I think this is a real beauty when it comes to judging DoF in a viewfinder - you can't, essentially, unless you always shoot at the apperture apprpriate for a specific focusing screen . Do note that the aperture of the lens does not matter at all, except when it is smaller than whatever the focusing screen is made for - another reason why it is approx. F/5.6 for the standard focusing screen - it'll work just fine with all EF lenses.

 

Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

6D has more ergonomic issues than most of the small mirrorless cameras.

 

-LCD is fixed.

-You have to use a left hand to turn the camera on/off (Although you don't need to turn it off as much as mirrorless cameras because battery consumption is much lower).

-Needs left hand off the lens to change shooting mode.

-No pop-up/small external flash supplied to trigger other flashes.

-AF point joystick too far down and harder to reach. Not that it's really worth it to move the AF point around to use other few, crummed in the middle, ancient AF points.

-Viewfinder is smaller than most higher end mirrorless cameras, most of the time with smaller sensors.

-Viewfinder is very dim in a dim environment, like all DSLR.

-Viewfinder does not show actual DOF for apertures wider than f/2.5 or so.

-Almost impossible to judge critical sharpness by viewfinder.

-You need to remove your eye from the viewfinder to see most settings and preview an image.

-Only 97% coverage inside the viewfinder.

-No rule-of-thirds grid or anything else inside the viewfinder.

-Awful live view AF.

-Awful face detection and none without live view.

-No touchscreen.

-Only single axis in-camera-level that is too large and covers most of the screen when used and needs left hand to activate.

-Can't exit magnified live view with half press of shutter release.

-Will not automatically re-enter live view after turning on. Needs an extra button press.

-No histogram in viewfinder.

-No histagram in live view neither?

-No NFC for fast pairing with phones and tablets.

 

There are film cameras from decades ago which don't have most these issues. How can you even use a 6D?

 

You see, once you change your expectations, your ergonomically-almost-perfect 6D looks quite different.

That is the most silly post of you in a while. With either silly or bullcrap points. Don't do that.  :blink:

 

Not walking into the trap of going point by point, or making a real list of ergonomics issues of whatever mirrorless thing, as by now I know your style. But again, just don't do that... 

[Brightcolours]

Yes it does, that's also the only way to have any kind of grid inside the viewfinder.

 

I think it's f/2.5 with standard screens and f/1.2 with special manual focusing screen, which is pretty pointless most of the time because either the lens or the mirror or the screen won't be in calibration with the image sensor, giving you back/front focus.

There is no issue reported by any 6D owner on any forum that I have seen of calibration issues with a changed Canon Eg-X screen, obican. I have no such issues with my Eg-S either, nor the standard one. Issues of that kind usually arise when people use 3rd party focus screens which originally came from different cameras.

And you are correct, with the Eg-S you can judge large aperture lenses being in focus like f1.2.

[toni-a]

There is no issue reported by any 6D owner on any forum that I have seen of calibration issues with a changed Canon Eg-X screen, obican. I have no such issues with my Eg-S either, nor the standard one. Issues of that kind usually arise when people use 3rd party focus screens which originally came from different cameras.

And you are correct, with the Eg-S you can judge large aperture lenses being in focus like f1.2.

Allow me with my humble knowledge to intervene here: Any focus screen needs calibration, even the one that came with your brand new camera, of course industry precision made things easier, but whatever lens and whatever camera whatever focus screen will benefit from calibration, in mirrorless world since you are using the same sensor for viewing focusing and capturing your pictures you don't need it.

All depends on how picky you are and your degree of tolerance for imperfections... As I can imagine from your posts you seem to be a perfection seeker...

[Brightcolours]

Allow me with my humble knowledge to intervene here: Any focus screen needs calibration, even the one that came with your brand new camera, 

You have no basis for what you wrote there, to be frank. 

Again, annoying to have to repeat this, but the Eg-S screen does NOT need "calibration" by shims in a 6D, nor do other Eg screens. There are no shims in Canon DSLRs for that purpose, so the notion that new cameras would need the focus screen calibrated is a bit odd? The manufacturing tolerances are high enough to make sure that every screen has the same thickness, every screen sits the same optical distance from the mount.

 

The Eg-S in my 6D makes it much faster to judge focus with big aperture shallow DOF lenses with for instance  f1.2 on FF (that would be f0.6 on MFT) than with focus peaking. Depending on the state of one's eyes, of course  :wacko: