Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
In the midst of falling interest of DSLRs and posts.........
#11
(01-20-2022, 07:55 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(01-20-2022, 10:46 AM)davidmanze Wrote:
(01-20-2022, 07:18 AM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(01-20-2022, 06:26 AM)toni-a Wrote: Frankly even if I had mirrorless I would move to your combo. And I happen to own both 7Dmkii that is in the same category as your D500 and EOSRP
for birding it is surely 7Dmkii, it is by far superior
1) reach with 1.6 crop
2) viewfinder and batteries  with a MILC when you have the camera on using the viewfinder for a long time, it will drain battery and the worst if often goes to sleep mode, none of this with a DSLR you keep your eye n the viewfinder all the time you want waiting for the bird to be in ideal position
3) faster to find/lock autofocus  on the bird, while a mirrorless camera shows superiority in portraiture with eye autofocus since in portraiture you have all the time for locking  focus on your subject then tracking , in birding it's different, before tracking you have to lock autofocus on the subject and here mirrorless cameras struggle and this tiny amount of time might mean losing your shot.
4) screen refresh rate, whatever you do a DSLR will always be faster here it is physics
5) general feeling and handling, probably because we have used DSLRs for a long time, but we feel better with them
Point 3 is not right. Most newer mirrorless cameras are faster with acquiring focus. Your RP (maybe in combination with the used lens?) might not be the best benchmark here.
Point 4: high screen refresh rates are so high that your eye does not notice it at all. So, big difference with old/cheaper and new/more expensive.

 "Until you find yourself lusting after a particular lens that is not mountable on your f-mount, I also see no reason why you should consider buying a mirrorless camera. Your current combo clearly performs well."

  ....... Nor do I !

 3. Frankly I don't think acquisition of focus is much different in either pro DSLRs including the D6/ D500 / Canon and the best ML bodies ....... and I mean the best ....... AF coverage however, on pro FF DSLRs will always be a limitation .........the latest motors in pro ML lenses ....... linear motors, twin linear motors, voice coil motors etc ..... have upped the game !

4 What do you call high? ......... the Z9 is only 60 Hz

Your computer screen also does 60 Hz... Do you see any flickering?

 Nice try BC !!

    This is "nothing to do" with seeing visual flickering in the EVF  ........ at all ... at all!!

......... I am not talking about fluidity/flickering  in the EVF ......... can I make that absolutely clear once and for all  !! ....... I don't know how many times I've stated that over several threads ? 

 This is about the Z9's EVF retaining that image for 1/60th of a second ........ when the image is taken you have no idea whether the taken image is at the beginning of the refresh at 60 Hz or at the end ........ until the next 60 HZ starts ...... so up to a 1/60th sec could have past which put a "fast flying bird" in the final image in a different position to where you saw it in the EVF if it was at the end of 60 Hz....... 
  
 The faster the refresh rate the more accurately the EVF image will correspond with the final image on the card ......... 240 Hz refresh rate will be between zero and four times closer than the 60 Hz resulting image ....... depending on the point of the new refresh moment the image was taken ....... be it a single image or at 20 Fps !!

 ........ Why do you think Canon / Sony went to the not inconsiderable effort to have 120 Hz/240Hz  ........ just to make life bloody awkward for themselves ??

Jesus ........ do I need a drink !!
Dave's clichés
#12
I know that they don't do it for what you say the reason is, Dave.

If you put a red image in place of any of the 60 60Hz image feed, you will not see the red image. That is how fast 60Hz is, and how "slow" your vision is. Thinking that you may frame differently or miss a moment with 60Hz refresh rate is bonkers. If there is an essential frame between 60 per second frames, in all probability you never saw it anyway. Let alone in 120 or 240 frames per second.

Do you know what your (or rather, a human's, not specifically your) reaction time is between seeing something and then moving a muscle (like moving the camera, or pressing a button)? Between half a second and a bit above a quarter of a second. So if keeping a moving subject in the frame depends on 1/60 of a second or even smaller, you never will have a subject in your images.

And, in that reaction time, 20 to 30 images have passed before your finger could blink. And yet, you imagine that somehow half of 1/60th of a second or a quarter of 1/60th of a second will impact the frames you capture. 30 frames or 30.5 frames... that is not the issue. That needs a rethink, me thinks... And drinks don't help rethinks in a meaningful way....

The lag you have read about in the past was the lag between taking the video and the showing of the video, with longer processing times causing the delay. It was not about 60Hz frame rates.
#13
(01-21-2022, 07:50 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: I know that they don't do it for what you say the reason is, Dave.

If you put a red image in place of any of the 60 60Hz image feed, you will not see the red image. That is how fast 60Hz is, and how "slow" your vision is. Thinking that you may frame differently or miss a moment with 60Hz refresh rate is bonkers. If there is an essential frame between 60 per second frames, in all probability you never saw it anyway. Let alone in 120 or 240 frames per second.

Do you know what your (or rather, a human's, not specifically your) reaction time is between seeing something and then moving a muscle (like moving the camera, or pressing a button)? Between half a second and a bit above a quarter of a second. So if keeping a moving subject in the frame depends on 1/60 of a second or even smaller, you never will have a subject in your images.

And, in that reaction time, 20 to 30 images have passed before your finger could blink. And yet, you imagine that somehow half of 1/60th of a second or a quarter of 1/60th of a second will impact the frames you capture. 30 frames or 30.5 frames... that is not the issue. That needs a rethink, me thinks... And drinks don't help rethinks in a meaningful way....

The lag you have read about in the past was the lag between taking the video and the showing of the video, with longer processing times causing the delay. It was not about 60Hz frame rates.

BC this my last word on the subject .......... I've done some research .....

It is generally agreed that the maximum perceived frame rate of the human eye is 60 Fps ......... some say a little higher .........
What does that mean ??     It means that comparing a constant image and the same image at 60 Hz the human brain can perceive the difference between them, although the brain very quickly acclimatises .......
 But that was never the point I was making, my point was fast subjects in the EVF can have a up to 1/60 sec difference depending on the moment of refresh.
  So as per many of our differences of technical things such as: ........ defense of Canon's poor DR ...... btw. I haven't heard any such defense since Canon upped their game Smile ..... AA filters and their supposed benefits ....... etc ..... etc ..... 

 Moving on ....... I'm buying a house in a small French village in the SW of France (I'm all legal now here after Brexshit)  and the days of frittering silly money on incremental camera upgrades are done for me ....... 

 ........ but even if I had spare money I wouldn't buy a MLC at this point in it's development because in five or six years EVFs will only get better ........ 60 Hz will only exist for bottom of the range cameras ......... 10 million dot EVFs will become common ....... 240HZ refresh rates will be common  ....... colour grading will be better ....... processors will be multiple times faster and the viewfinder experience will be approaching that of the OVF ....... 

  How could I look anybody in the eye knowing I have 3.6 million dot 60 HZ EVF Smile it just doesn't do it for me ..... good though the Z9  is, their next pro sports ML will not be running 60 Hz ........

  Let's make a date in five or six years time and we can discuss the state of the ML  industry ......... Smile

  until then have a good day !!
Dave's clichés
#14
And my point was: your reaction time is so much larger than what half of 1/60th of a second is, that a 60Hz frame rate can and will not impact the tracking of subjects, the framing of subjects or the capture of a decisive moment. The (only) reason for higher frame rates of EVFs (like 120 or even 240Hz) is to make the motion and the light perception as flicker free as possible.

And the reason why I do not comment on high DR nonsense, is that people have stopped posting the nonsense they did in the past, probably for the reason you point to yourself...
#15
(01-21-2022, 12:02 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: And my point was: your reaction time is so much larger than what half of 1/60th of a second is, that a 60Hz frame rate can and will not impact the tracking of subjects, the framing of subjects or the capture of a decisive moment. The (only) reason for higher frame rates of EVFs (like 120 or even 240Hz) is to make the motion and the light perception as flicker free as possible.

And the reason why I do not comment on high DR nonsense, is that people have stopped posting the nonsense they did in the past, probably for the reason you point to yourself...

Ok

so there is a reason !

  I've just ordered a 100 HZ TV ......... Smile
Dave's clichés
#16
To watch 24FPS movie content on ;-)
#17
(01-21-2022, 12:15 PM)Brightcolours Wrote: To watch 24FPS movie content on ;-)

  No to plug my Sony A1 into from the EVF outlet ........ and a wheelbarrow for when I'm out in the field ......... now that's what I call an EVF Smile
Dave's clichés
#18
Pretty awesome setup! Beats my iPad solution (which only has that dreaded 60Hz refresh rate....)
#19
Folks high refresh rate monitors and 3D monitors are mostly oriented for gamers not for TV viewing .
I just learnt this from my 14 year old nephew yesterday... he wanted and updated screen because he is participating in a fortnite contest...
After talking with him, I felt like an old man who is lagging behind in technology...
#20
(01-22-2022, 06:13 AM)toni-a Wrote: Folks high refresh rate monitors and 3D monitors are mostly oriented for gamers not for TV viewing .
I just learnt this from my 14 year old nephew yesterday...  he wanted and updated screen because he is participating in a fortnite contest...
After talking with him, I felt like an old man who is lagging behind in technology...

Funnily enough I was looking at utube to see what computers are out there for how much money recently ....... they all seem to be aimed at gamers, the top ones are for playing games in 4K with water-cooled graphics cards .......... and processors with fins and propellers that would do a Prat and Whitney 16 cylinder radial engine proud !! ....... Smile
  the utube reviews show the frame rate on the screen side ....... often above 175 Hz
 
copied and pasted:

You could easily get 240 FPS with a GeForce GTX 1070

  Gamers know what they are talking about when it comes to refresh rates ........ many are first person sniper style wargames ....... at 60 Hz your a dead man!

Toni wrote:
"After talking with him, I felt like an old man who is lagging behind in technology..."

Your not alone Toni you have BC by your side ........ Smile

Sorry BC I just couldn't resist that one ....... ha ha !!
Dave's clichés
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)