Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 25 Dec 2014 (Thursday) 10:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

DSLR soon obsolete

 
PNPhotography
Senior Member
Avatar
803 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 56
Joined Sep 2007
Location: central PA
     
Jan 08, 2015 03:59 |  #91

CamaroSS wrote in post #17368416 (external link)
Anyone that comments that the a6000 can do everything the 7D MkII can do is absolutely ignorant to how a true sports photographer uses a camera system. It is a very methodical process with precise targeting and the a6000 is very far from precision on how it locks on and tracks. I've used the Sony and learned the tricks to get it to track "Sports" and it's an absolute bust. I would not risk my paycheck on such a dodgy system just yet when I can pull out a camera that balances with a large lens and precisely focuses on what I want.

Just my $1.25.
- Kevin

Yeah, not to mention that the lenses available for the Sony A6000 well kinda stink!


6D|7D|7DMKII|Nikon D750|Nikon 85 F1.8|Nikon D5500|G15| Gripped|300F4|35F2IS|8​5 F1.8|135L F2|200L F2.8|17-55 F2.8|70-200L F2.8 MKII|430EX|
https://www.facebook.c​om …2755174446/?ref​=bookmarks (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mclaren777
Goldmember
Avatar
1,482 posts
Likes: 85
Joined May 2012
Location: Olympia, WA
     
Jan 08, 2015 12:06 |  #92

GregDunn wrote in post #17350223 (external link)
Mirrorless will not be competitive until the manufacturers can solve the glacially slow autofocus problems and provide a viewfinder which rivals live view.

Bingo!

I spent the past two weeks using the Fuji X-T1 with the 23mm and 56mm lenses. I was disappointed in the system and I'm now surprised by its popularity. Mirrorless, in my opinion, is a long way from being truly competitive with FF DSLR systems.


A simple comparison of sensor technology: Nikon vs. Canon (external link)
A technical comparison of sensor technology: Exposure Latitude (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,233 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9929
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited over 5 years ago by mystik610. (3 edits in all)
     
Jan 08, 2015 12:30 |  #93

mclaren777 wrote in post #17372471 (external link)
Bingo!

I spent the past two weeks using the Fuji X-T1 with the 23mm and 56mm lenses. I was disappointed in the system and I'm now surprised by its popularity. Mirrorless, in my opinion, is a long way from being truly competitive with FF DSLR systems.

Video of "glacially slow" autofocus: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=q-8I502JTMU (external link)


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Jan 08, 2015 15:28 |  #94

mystik610 wrote in post #17372498 (external link)
Video of "glacially slow" autofocus: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=q-8I502JTMU (external link)

The weakness of the demonstration is that the subject remains in an essentially static location and a nearly constant distance from the camera, which doesn't challenge autofocus systems. There's also only a single subject in the demonstration.

A more effective test would be basketball from a baseline using a 24-70mm lens or a 70-200mm unit, in situations where a subject rapidly moves toward and away from the shooting position, the subject distance constantly changes and the subject is different from moment to moment. In basketball, a subject typically is six feet from the shooting position and then then a few strides and seconds later the subject is fifty feet away.

Autofocus is best judged by those intensely dynamic circumstances not reflected in the video.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
raptor3x
Senior Member
Avatar
728 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rutland, VT
     
Jan 08, 2015 16:43 |  #95

mclaren777 wrote in post #17372471 (external link)
Bingo!

I spent the past two weeks using the Fuji X-T1 with the 23mm and 56mm lenses. I was disappointed in the system and I'm now surprised by its popularity. Mirrorless, in my opinion, is a long way from being truly competitive with FF DSLR systems.

I've had the exact same reaction to the X-T1 but my wife thinks the camera is pretty so she doesn't want to switch, -?.


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 607
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 08, 2015 17:47 |  #96

mystik610 wrote in post #17372498 (external link)
Video of "glacially slow" autofocus: https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=q-8I502JTMU (external link)

That video has just about nothing to do with shooting sports that are demanding of AF performance.

In fact, I think that probably explains why people who think mirrorless will be the end of SLR mechanisms are not getting this conversation, they do not shoot sports and they do not understand what is and what is not a challenge to an AF system. What a sport shooter wants from AF is not represented by a youth in flannel twitching in front of the camera.

I think one of the key problems is that sports is more about the ability to leave one subject and pick up another than anything else. People pass balls and pucks around in most games. I need to be able to abandon the guard (or setter, or midfielder) and pick up the forward (or outside hitter, or striker) in time. And I need the AF to keep up with large, dramatic movements in-between times of near rest. Imagine a guard going from stationary while dribbling to suddenly driving the lane, right at the shooter.

I tried a friends Fuji XT-1 and I also played around with a Sony A6000. Both cameras are hopeless for basketball compared to SLR. Keepers were so low as to make the exercise futile.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,233 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9929
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Jan 08, 2015 19:20 |  #97

JeffreyG wrote in post #17372926 (external link)
In fact, I think that probably explains why people who think mirrorless will be the end of SLR mechanisms are not getting this conversation, they do not shoot sports and they do not understand what is and what is not a challenge to an AF system. What a sport shooter wants from AF is not represented by a youth in flannel twitching in front of the camera.

I think one of the key problems is that sports is more about the ability to leave one subject and pick up another than anything else. People pass balls and pucks around in most games. I need to be able to abandon the guard (or setter, or midfielder) and pick up the forward (or outside hitter, or striker) in time. And I need the AF to keep up with large, dramatic movements in-between times of near rest. Imagine a guard going from stationary while dribbling to suddenly driving the lane, right at the shooter.

What the video and the a6000 are showing us, is that on sensor phase detect systems utilized by mirrorless cameras are able to achieve and refine focus quickly enough to track motion reliably. Whether or not that translates into the ability to shoot sports remains to be seen.

That said, the AF tracking systems that make sports and wildlife oriented DSLR's so effective at what they do has nothing to do with the fact that they have a mirror. These AF tracking systems are dependent on software driven algorithms, and how capable the camera's processor is at handling these software algorithms. There's absolutely no reason why an AF system designed to track focus along phase detect points placed on a mirror, couldn't be adapted to track focus along phase detect points placed directly on the sensor. In fact, there are distinct advantages to placing phase detect points on the sensor....one being that you can place them across the entire sensor, and can track your subject across the entire frame.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 607
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Jan 08, 2015 19:37 |  #98

mystik610 wrote in post #17373070 (external link)
What the video and the a6000 are showing us, is that on sensor phase detect systems utilized by mirrorless cameras are able to achieve and refine focus quickly enough to track motion reliably. Whether or not that translates into the ability to shoot sports remains to be seen.

That said, the AF tracking systems that make sports and wildlife oriented DSLR's so effective at what they do has nothing to do with the fact that they have a mirror. These AF tracking systems are dependent on software driven algorithms, and how capable the camera's processor is at handling these software algorithms. There's absolutely no reason why an AF system designed to track focus along phase detect points placed on a mirror, couldn't be adapted to track focus along phase detect points placed directly on the sensor. In fact, there are distinct advantages to placing phase detect points on the sensor....one being that you can place them across the entire sensor, and can track your subject across the entire frame.

Another advantage would be that one source of focus error, misalignment between the AF sensor and the image sensor, would be eliminated.

But that is in the realm of the hypothetical. Here right now in the real world we have the following situation:

1) Nobody has made a camera that is competitive with SLR technology for the most demanding AF applications. Maybe this is because nobody has bothered. Maybe this is because there is a technical limitation. Whatever it is, there is not a single mirrorless body right now on the market that can do what SLR bodies can do for AF.

2) Nobody making mirrorless bodies is offering a full line of lenses that rival's what you can get from the Nikon and Canon SLR lines. Give me an EOS or F-mount capable mirrorless body with no limitations on AF performance (even if there needs to be a spacing adaptor) and this gets better. But right now, Fuji, Oly and Sony are not in a position to make "DSLR Now Obsolete" as suggested by the title of this thread.

I have no fundamental problem with the idea of a mirrorless camera so long as the EVF gives up nothing in terms of lag and view compared to the OVF, the AF performance is really the same, and there is a full lens line from TS-E to supertelelphotos to macro to fast primes to the fast zooms needed by working photographers. Then the title of this thread starts to make sense.

I will also suggest that a certain level of hyperbole that comes with each mirrorless camera is hurting the cause more than helping. The earlier Sony A-mounts touted 12 fps.....and then we learned they don't track AF or update the EVF during the burst. The A6000 now touts "fastest AF ever", but I can tell you it is not a camera I would grab to shoot a basketball game. These hyperbolic statements are hurting adaptation IMO, because demanding people just keep getting more skeptical.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,438 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 47
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Post edited over 5 years ago by Bob_A.
     
Jan 08, 2015 20:13 |  #99

JeffreyG wrote in post #17372926 (external link)
That video has just about nothing to do with shooting sports that are demanding of AF performance.

In fact, I think that probably explains why people who think mirrorless will be the end of SLR mechanisms are not getting this conversation, they do not shoot sports and they do not understand what is and what is not a challenge to an AF system. What a sport shooter wants from AF is not represented by a youth in flannel twitching in front of the camera.

I think one of the key problems is that sports is more about the ability to leave one subject and pick up another than anything else. People pass balls and pucks around in most games. I need to be able to abandon the guard (or setter, or midfielder) and pick up the forward (or outside hitter, or striker) in time. And I need the AF to keep up with large, dramatic movements in-between times of near rest. Imagine a guard going from stationary while dribbling to suddenly driving the lane, right at the shooter.

I tried a friends Fuji XT-1 and I also played around with a Sony A6000. Both cameras are hopeless for basketball compared to SLR. Keepers were so low as to make the exercise futile.


Exactly. From every test or review I've seen, no mirrorless camera AF outperforms a new generation DSLR with pro-AF, particularly in low light situations. I haven't seen any photographer that actually shoots sports for a living dispute those tests or reviews either.

We do have the very professional looking video linked above though that claims the A6000 has the world's fastest AF. Could be true I guess, as long as accuracy and precision aren't a requirement (j/k). Pretty funny to see "Thanks to SONY for organizing the event" at the end of the video. :-)

I have no doubt whatsoever that a mirrorless camera can be made with AF every bit as good as the best DSLR, but we're just not there yet. Could even happen this year. If it does, I'm really interested if:


  • It's a Nikon or a Canon, and I can use FF lenses and accessories from the current Nikon or Canon lineup. No Metabones adapter that only gives me MF.
  • The electronic viewfinder has the resolution and speed to makes me believe I'm looking through a high end FF DSLR viewfinder ... big, bright, clear, fast, with no noticeable black-out.

Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,805 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Jan 08, 2015 21:14 |  #100

Bob_A wrote in post #17373136 (external link)
Exactly. From every test or review I've seen, no mirrorless camera AF outperforms a new generation DSLR with pro-AF, particularly in low light situations. I haven't seen any photographer that actually shoots sports for a living dispute those tests or reviews either.

That's because no-one's brought out a pro-level mirrorless camera either. Not that it can't be done or that it wouldn't be as good as a pro-level SLR.

You don't see too many pro sports shooters shooting with Rebels or xxD bodies either.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a mirrorless camera can be made with AF every bit as good as the best DSLR, but we're just not there yet. Could even happen this year. If it does, I'm really interested if:

  • It's a Nikon or a Canon, and I can use FF lenses and accessories from the current Nikon or Canon lineup. No Metabones adapter that only gives me MF.
  • The electronic viewfinder has the resolution and speed to makes me believe I'm looking through a high end FF DSLR viewfinder ... big, bright, clear, fast, with no noticeable black-out.

I much prefer EVFs to OVFs. Brighter picture, with real exposure simulation so that I know exactly what I'll be getting when I click the shutter button. Just like using live view on the LCD, but also visible in bright ambient conditions.

As for lag, it's certainly no slower than waiting for the mirror to get out of the way on an SLR.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,741 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 665
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Jan 08, 2015 21:24 |  #101

I don't have issue with the lag on the A7r in the context of this discussion - the lag between what is happening out in front of the lens and the image being displayed in the EVF (not shutter lag). However, I haven't tried shooting my A7r in situations where lag would be noticeable either


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bob_A
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,438 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 47
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
     
Jan 08, 2015 23:48 |  #102

Shadowblade wrote in post #17373222 (external link)
That's because no-one's brought out a pro-level mirrorless camera either. Not that it can't be done or that it wouldn't be as good as a pro-level SLR.

You don't see too many pro sports shooters shooting with Rebels or xxD bodies either.

I much prefer EVFs to OVFs. Brighter picture, with real exposure simulation so that I know exactly what I'll be getting when I click the shutter button. Just like using live view on the LCD, but also visible in bright ambient conditions.

As for lag, it's certainly no slower than waiting for the mirror to get out of the way on an SLR.

Well for me it's just not right yet. Maybe it's something I just need to get used to. They've come a long way in the last couple of years though, so I'm certain I won't be waiting long :)


Bob
SmugMug (external link) | My Gear Ratings | My POTN Gallery

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frankchn
Senior Member
460 posts
Likes: 158
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jan 09, 2015 01:47 |  #103

Shadowblade wrote in post #17373222 (external link)
That's because no-one's brought out a pro-level mirrorless camera either. Not that it can't be done or that it wouldn't be as good as a pro-level SLR.

You don't see too many pro sports shooters shooting with Rebels or xxD bodies either.

I suspect this is partly due to their lens line-up not being able to support what people would use a $6000 flagship camera for. I have a Sony A7 as a travel camera and I like it very much for static subjects and landscapes (the FE 55/1.8 is awesome). However, I also shoot NCAA D1 football, and there isn't any equivalent to a 400mm f/2.8 (the standard FL for football on FF) that I can use for Sony (or anyone else besides Canikon).

So it is a chicken and egg problem. No one will buy a $6k Sony A9 no matter how good it may be because there are no lenses for it. No one will buy a 400mm f/2.8 FE mount lens because there is no $6k Sony A9 to go along with it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,741 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 665
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Jan 09, 2015 02:09 |  #104

it's not a true chicken and egg proposition - Sony need only release the A9 (assuming it's a pro sports body) with a range of super teles (e.g. 70-200/2.8 OSS, 300/2.8 OSS, 400/2.8 OSS). i.e. the chicken and egg can be released simultaneously


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
light_pilgrim
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
922 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 149
Joined Jan 2012
     
Jan 09, 2015 02:33 |  #105

Did not say NOW obsolete, I said SOON obsolete:-)

JeffreyG wrote in post #17373088 (external link)
Another advantage would be that one source of focus error, misalignment between the AF sensor and the image sensor, would be eliminated.

But that is in the realm of the hypothetical. Here right now in the real world we have the following situation:

1) Nobody has made a camera that is competitive with SLR technology for the most demanding AF applications. Maybe this is because nobody has bothered. Maybe this is because there is a technical limitation. Whatever it is, there is not a single mirrorless body right now on the market that can do what SLR bodies can do for AF.

2) Nobody making mirrorless bodies is offering a full line of lenses that rival's what you can get from the Nikon and Canon SLR lines. Give me an EOS or F-mount capable mirrorless body with no limitations on AF performance (even if there needs to be a spacing adaptor) and this gets better. But right now, Fuji, Oly and Sony are not in a position to make "DSLR Now Obsolete" as suggested by the title of this thread.

I have no fundamental problem with the idea of a mirrorless camera so long as the EVF gives up nothing in terms of lag and view compared to the OVF, the AF performance is really the same, and there is a full lens line from TS-E to supertelelphotos to macro to fast primes to the fast zooms needed by working photographers. Then the title of this thread starts to make sense.

I will also suggest that a certain level of hyperbole that comes with each mirrorless camera is hurting the cause more than helping. The earlier Sony A-mounts touted 12 fps.....and then we learned they don't track AF or update the EVF during the burst. The A6000 now touts "fastest AF ever", but I can tell you it is not a camera I would grab to shoot a basketball game. These hyperbolic statements are hurting adaptation IMO, because demanding people just keep getting more skeptical.


www.lightpilgrim.com (external link) ||1x.com (external link) ||500px.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

63,870 views & 106 likes for this thread
DSLR soon obsolete
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is voidholder
1015 guests, 344 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.