08-14-2016, 12:04 AM
In a Fuji X-Pro there is already OVF and EVF. Just no stupid mirror. Nasim want's to have a sports-car with 4-wheel drive and extra gears to make it over the rocks.
And nobody will produce Nasim's phantasm, because it would increase the price of the camera and not doing much of a benefit. The way Nikon did the AFMA onboard of D5 and D500 is about as far as they can think. Complicate solutions to a basically very simple problem.
This sentence is naïve. Except for a equally precise focusing in LiveView, on the Nikon side of things, each slow mirrorless just outrun LV for normal shots. The time between pressing the shutter and getting the picture to the memory card makes it unpredictable of what will be happening at the time. While on the contrary a decent mirrorless doesn't loose extra time to swing the mirror up, you will soon see mirrorless action cameras competing with standard and prosumer-level DLSRs.
The defense of DSLR has much parallels to the defense of film vs. digital. Interestingly, none of the DSLR-defenders has much experience with mirrorless, just read enough to join the debate.
Lately I've seen an exhibition of Andrés Serrano, who is, according to his statement, still using a 25 year old Mamiya RB 67 to make his remarkable work. I was watching the pictures and found myself looking to the eyelashes which were as blurred as to be expected. Other pictures were out of focus and I doubt it happened on purpose. I was asking myself, would it had been better in digital Phase One quality? "Better" in terms of more powerful impact to the audience? I doubt it. But was "film" the reason, I liked some of his work? No, it sometimes was the reason to look closer and see the missing sharpness, then start the argumentation chain of "content vs. technique". At the end of the day, the personality of a photographer decides if there are great or okay pictures coming out. And within the limits of traditional portraits, it's not a question of the medium and I'm sure, the large prints involved a good amount of digital scanning and printing.
The mirror once was increasing speed. Instead of inserting and changing the plate, view matte-screen and film were separated, which worked fine if the whole thing is done precisely and not too small in dimensions. A pixel size in one digit µm range IS too small for normal camera production. Now a mirror became the missing precision and speed because it's movement is time-consuming. 12, 14, 16 fps? So what. Look at them when the subject is moving constantly or unpredictably. How much of the series will show sharp pictures? next to the fact, that this DSLR-machines don not belong to the class of
I really would like to see the decent DSLR and a couple of L-lenses for the 1700 $ Sony is asking for an A7II and if it has more than 24 MP then ^_^
And nobody will produce Nasim's phantasm, because it would increase the price of the camera and not doing much of a benefit. The way Nikon did the AFMA onboard of D5 and D500 is about as far as they can think. Complicate solutions to a basically very simple problem.
Quote:Lucky DSLR users almost have best of both worlds.
This sentence is naïve. Except for a equally precise focusing in LiveView, on the Nikon side of things, each slow mirrorless just outrun LV for normal shots. The time between pressing the shutter and getting the picture to the memory card makes it unpredictable of what will be happening at the time. While on the contrary a decent mirrorless doesn't loose extra time to swing the mirror up, you will soon see mirrorless action cameras competing with standard and prosumer-level DLSRs.
The defense of DSLR has much parallels to the defense of film vs. digital. Interestingly, none of the DSLR-defenders has much experience with mirrorless, just read enough to join the debate.
Lately I've seen an exhibition of Andrés Serrano, who is, according to his statement, still using a 25 year old Mamiya RB 67 to make his remarkable work. I was watching the pictures and found myself looking to the eyelashes which were as blurred as to be expected. Other pictures were out of focus and I doubt it happened on purpose. I was asking myself, would it had been better in digital Phase One quality? "Better" in terms of more powerful impact to the audience? I doubt it. But was "film" the reason, I liked some of his work? No, it sometimes was the reason to look closer and see the missing sharpness, then start the argumentation chain of "content vs. technique". At the end of the day, the personality of a photographer decides if there are great or okay pictures coming out. And within the limits of traditional portraits, it's not a question of the medium and I'm sure, the large prints involved a good amount of digital scanning and printing.
The mirror once was increasing speed. Instead of inserting and changing the plate, view matte-screen and film were separated, which worked fine if the whole thing is done precisely and not too small in dimensions. A pixel size in one digit µm range IS too small for normal camera production. Now a mirror became the missing precision and speed because it's movement is time-consuming. 12, 14, 16 fps? So what. Look at them when the subject is moving constantly or unpredictably. How much of the series will show sharp pictures? next to the fact, that this DSLR-machines don not belong to the class of
Quote:I can b
u
y a decent DSLR and a couple of L lenses for what they charge for an underweight FF MILC.
I really would like to see the decent DSLR and a couple of L-lenses for the 1700 $ Sony is asking for an A7II and if it has more than 24 MP then ^_^