[yugi]

I wonder if the vast majority of his readership is American so that his This is most likely spam content represents the US market primarily. Don't think I've ever seen a Nikon 1 either here in the UK or on my recent travels in Oz and NZ. I saw quite a few NEX cameras there, far more than Canon DSLRs. But I was surprised in Oz/NZ to find a sizeable majority of tourists had entry level Nikon DSLRs with the kit lens. Mind you, most of those 'tourists' were from SE Asia and my findings may simply reflect Nikon's dominance in that part of the world.

I never seen Nikon 1 here in US. I usually look what people carry. I just did a trip to the national parks in Utah and Arizona, and I was looking closely what people carry on the hikes. Most of them carry those big DSLRs, and many of them carry something similar to EOS 5D or Nikon D700/800. Out of mirrorless it was Sony NEX who was leading the way. Sometimes I could see Olympus or Panasonic. I never saw anything else. Neither Nikon, nor Fuji. I've never seen any Samsung, except of mine.

[popo]

The habit of putting film in your camera died surprisingly quickly

Did it? Early (consumer) digital cameras were expansive, had serious operational issues such as short battery life. So although digital imaging was available in the early 90's, it wasn't until the late 90's before it had matured enough to really start to take off. Even then, it was mostly an attack from the bottom up, with the biggest reasons for taking over being not having to wait for processing, and cost of such processing.

The benefits mirrorless systems bring over a DSLR I'd argue are far smaller than the shift from film to digital. It has its place, but is not a revolution in itself.

[popo]

Based on that opinion I am surprised that mFT sales do not outnumber DSLR sales. Obviously many don't share my opinion.

I think we both are biased in our views due to the style of shooting we do.

Personally, I care about AF tracking a moving subject, so I'd take an entry level DSLR over even a high end mirrorless. And the SLR would probably be far cheaper. If I want small size without tracking, I could use a compact.

I'd definitely agree, if what you're after is a small sized interchangeable lens system with big(ish) sensor, micro4/3 has to be up there for choice. Even if it doesn't have tracking AF, the fast single shot AF would probably still be good enough to get me 90%+ of the shots I would have with a DSLR. But to look at it the other way, are the other advantages it gives me going to outweigh that? Weight and size have value in some cases, but not all.

Now if size is a big factor, I wouldn't rule out fixed lens systems and to me they are more interesting than m4/3, which would only come back into consideration for a given sensor related quality requirement.

Overall, it is a complex set of trade offs. Since I do often work on the longer focal length range, any body size benefits are significantly reduced. Also currently mirrorless systems don't really have premium lenses in that region.

To take a specific example, in the past I have had business trips to Munich. Last time, I decided to visit the zoo there. I took the 7D and 70-300L as well as a compact for wide angle. I managed to put the DSLR in my laptop bag, just. I know exactly the quality I would get, but carrying that on a short travel trip wasn't ideal. I'm likely to need to go back again. So I'm debating what's "good enough" in a small size. I recently bought another superzoom compact (SX240) and am still debating if that's "good enough" by itself. It is certainly small. I'm also still debating the SX50. Getting bigger, but it has a big-for-compact sensor and a massive zoom range. Key thing is, samples shown do show it is "good enough". That means I'm left only to wonder if the cost/size is going to be worth it.

[Klaus]

Digital has not caught up with Ektachrome in every aspect - still Ektachrome isn't any longer. 6x6 slides from a 1956 Rolleicord are a show.


I honestly think most people buying a DSLR kit would be better off with an mFT. Fast moving subjects is the area still justifying an SLR - and perhaps enlargements that can't be handled with 16MP. But how many cheap EOS do qualify here? Then all these bulky Nikons and EOS do not even feature IBS - which takes a lot of the potential low light edge. As I said my opinion.


Based on that opinion I am surprised that mFT sales do not outnumber DSLR sales. Obviously many don't share my opinion.


Thanks for contributing - I mean it.

 

Big is often beautiful because it stands for 'more' (although this isn't true anymore in this market).

 

I agree with your assessment otherwise.

[nandadevieast]

Personally, i'm getting increasingly fed up with the DSLR focussing...

 

DSLR: I have become resigned to shooting 4-5 pictures when i need just 1. Focus is just too iffy all the time. Its not easy to get a tack sharp image unless you take few shots. And here's the worst part: You find that the picture/expression you like is the one which is out of focus. You decide to go ahead with a mis-focussed shot because of course you can't go ahead with a perfectly sharp but bad picture. 

 

Mirror Less: 1 click, perfect focus. 6 shots, 6 variations

 

Example: 

 

Headshot with D800 and 180/2.8 wide open: needed to take 6 shots...

Headshot with OMD and 75/1.8 wide open: needed to take 3 shots, all tack sharp. 

[soLong]

Personally, i'm getting increasingly fed up with the DSLR focussing...

DSLR: I have become resigned to shooting 4-5 pictures when i need just 1. Focus is just too iffy all the time.......

Mirror Less: 1 click, perfect focus. 6 shots, 6 variations

Example: 

Headshot with D800 and 180/2.8 wide open: needed to take 6 shots...

Headshot with OMD and 75/1.8 wide open: needed to take 3 shots, all tack sharp. 

.....well actually i don't like to boast or anything but my dslr, lens wide open,  would have all 8fps in perfect focus and exposure to allow the pick of the perfect facial expression on the quickly passing beautiful object…..but i don't have an 800 or omd so can't make a comparison there ;-)

[PuxaVida]

Personally, i'm getting increasingly fed up with the DSLR focussing...

 

DSLR: I have become resigned to shooting 4-5 pictures when i need just 1. Focus is just too iffy all the time. Its not easy to get a tack sharp image unless you take few shots. And here's the worst part: You find that the picture/expression you like is the one which is out of focus. You decide to go ahead with a mis-focussed shot because of course you can't go ahead with a perfectly sharp but bad picture. 

 

Mirror Less: 1 click, perfect focus. 6 shots, 6 variations

 

Example: 

 

Headshot with D800 and 180/2.8 wide open: needed to take 6 shots...

Headshot with OMD and 75/1.8 wide open: needed to take 3 shots, all tack sharp. 

 

Regarding the D800 (an the head shots): apply a fine tuning to AF if you consistently miss focus and close the aperture one or two clicks when using longer fast lenses ...

 

Serkan

[thxbb12]

Personally, i'm getting increasingly fed up with the DSLR focussing...

 

DSLR: I have become resigned to shooting 4-5 pictures when i need just 1. Focus is just too iffy all the time. Its not easy to get a tack sharp image unless you take few shots. And here's the worst part: You find that the picture/expression you like is the one which is out of focus. You decide to go ahead with a mis-focussed shot because of course you can't go ahead with a perfectly sharp but bad picture. 

 

Mirror Less: 1 click, perfect focus. 6 shots, 6 variations

 

Example: 

 

Headshot with D800 and 180/2.8 wide open: needed to take 6 shots...

Headshot with OMD and 75/1.8 wide open: needed to take 3 shots, all tack sharp. 

 

This is so true.

 

I own a D800 and a Pana G3.  I'm more and more thinking about dropping the D800 to go full MFT instead (when Olympus will finally decide to release a body with integrated EVF, 100 ISO, small focus points and 1/8000 shutter speed).

PDAF is just not reliable, no matter what people say. I can't care less about focus tracking.  I just want reliable single AF shots. Nothing less, nothing more. Yet, only CDAF delivers true reliability.  I love my G3 for this as I don't have to constantly reivew my shots to make sure they are in focus.  Plus, the focus calibration is just a nightmare.  I'm so tired of this "archaic" tech.

 

What I'd really like to see is MFT with a FF sensor

[Brightcolours]

Strange, even my EOS 450D gives me reliable, accurate PD AF. The newer Canon models are even better (5D mk III, 60D, 650/700D, 1D X, 6D). I even get accurate focus with MF lenses relying on focus confirmation with PD AF (Nikkor-H 80mm f1.8, Nikkor Auto 55mm f3.5 micro, Ultra Micro Nikkor 55mm f2). Even my Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC, which was a total disaster on the 350D concerning AF accuracy behaves pretty well on my 450D.

 

The D800 seems to be a step back from the D700 and D3(S), a while back I have read (in some dpreview forum thread) that it does things with points around the AF point you are thinking you use, which causes surprising AF results at times. And this causes frustration with users. 

 

Try a different DSLR to notice the difference.

[Klaus]

yeah ... sure ...