If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
On Jul 29, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) : for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light. either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use. with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust. Actually you should try that experiment with a good quality Sony, or Fujifim MILC, you might be surprised at what you can see. With both my X-T2, and X-E3 with a fast lens such as the 16mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, or 56mm f/1.2, and the EVF/LCD set via menu to *Preview PIC. Effect* ON. You will find that in extremely low light, light so low that one would think that capturing an image was impossible. The result through the EVF, or on the LCD is such that you would think that you had a night vision scope. Any adjustments to the EV comp dial are immediately visible, as are any adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. All very much WYSIWYG. It is possible to see your subject in the darkness, and make a useful capture at an ISO as low as ISO 1600. Use ISO 6400, or higher, and the scene in the EVF/LCD is even brighter. As I said, almost like a night vision scope, your eyeball cannot do that with an OVF. If you use manual focus, focus peaking makes things simple, and accurate even in impossibly low light, while you are not seeing too much in the darkness through your optical viewfinder. No matter how much your eyes might adjust when looking through an OVF all you will see is darkness. The camera might be capable of capturing that image, but it will not be easy. Certainly in good light for action sport photography the DSLR is still the tool of choice. However, the MILCs are rapidly narrowing that performance gap, and for some action sport photographers shooting Sony, or Fujifilm, that gap has already closed. The other big advantage that the Canon/Nikon DSLRs have is the inventory of legacy long glass, and even now, Sony and Fujifilm are narrowing that gap. ....and my D300S hasn’t been used for 18 months when I can capture sport images such as this with my X-T2. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-w8DxFTk/0/7707b86c/O/i-w8DxFTk.jpg there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder (or heat). -- Regards, Savageduck |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote: for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light. either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use. with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust. Actually you should try that experiment with a good quality Sony, or Fujifim MILC, you might be surprised at what you can see. With both my X-T2, and X-E3 with a fast lens such as the 16mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, or 56mm f/1.2, and the EVF/LCD set via menu to *Preview PIC. Effect* ON. You will find that in extremely low light, light so low that one would think that capturing an image was impossible. The result through the EVF, or on the LCD is such that you would think that you had a night vision scope. Any adjustments to the EV comp dial are immediately visible, as are any adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. All very much WYSIWYG. It is possible to see your subject in the darkness, and make a useful capture at an ISO as low as ISO 1600. Use ISO 6400, or higher, and the scene in the EVF/LCD is even brighter. As I said, almost like a night vision scope, your eyeball cannot do that with an OVF. that doesn't come for free. while seeing the results is nice, the frame rate must be slower or the image noisier as the light level drops. physics, again. If you use manual focus, focus peaking makes things simple, and accurate even in impossibly low light, while you are not seeing too much in the darkness through your optical viewfinder. focus peaking is useful for manual focus, however, slrs have focus confirmation which is effectively the same and can work in *very* low light. the nikon d500 can autofocus as low as -4ev, which is actually one stop *less* light than the exposure meter can meter the scene. https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d500/spec.htm No matter how much your eyes might adjust when looking through an OVF all you will see is darkness. The camera might be capable of capturing that image, but it will not be easy. use both eyes. Certainly in good light for action sport photography the DSLR is still the tool of choice. exactly my point, and will remain so until physics can be overturned. However, the MILCs are rapidly narrowing that performance gap, and for some action sport photographers shooting Sony, or Fujifilm, that gap has already closed. The other big advantage that the Canon/Nikon DSLRs have is the inventory of legacy long glass, and even now, Sony and Fujifilm are narrowing that gap. there's still a gap. the lag is short enough to not matter in common situations but too long for pros. the lens issue is going to take a while to catch up. adapters might work in some cases but are generally a pain. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article ,
RichA wrote: Low light...you can't even SEE stuff in an OVF in low-light you can see with an EVF. Which is ironic, as DSLR focusing on the top models can focus practically in the dark. You just can see what it's focusing on. take off the lens cap and try again. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article ,
RichA wrote: for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light. either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use. with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust. Actually you should try that experiment with a good quality Sony, or Fujifim MILC, you might be surprised at what you can see. With both my X-T2, and X-E3 with a fast lens such as the 16mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, or 56mm f/1.2, and the EVF/LCD set via menu to *Preview PIC. Effect* ON. You will find that in extremely low light, light so low that one would think that capturing an image was impossible. The result through the EVF, or on the LCD is such that you would think that you had a night vision scope. Any adjustments to the EV comp dial are immediately visible, as are any adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. All very much WYSIWYG. It is possible to see your subject in the darkness, and make a useful capture at an ISO as low as ISO 1600. Use ISO 6400, or higher, and the scene in the EVF/LCD is even brighter. As I said, almost like a night vision scope, your eyeball cannot do that with an OVF. that doesn't come for free. while seeing the results is nice, the frame rate must be slower or the image noisier as the light level drops. physics, again. And it only matters when using way out of date EVFs. Try a new one. physics wins every time. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 29/07/18 21:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical path through the lens. while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder and focusing is faster. And the digital display is actually seeing what the "film" is seeing. It might in fact apply the digital processing that the final photo is going to get so that the photographer can best decide on settings and timing. except that a digital display is delayed versus pure optical. it takes time to read the data off the sensor, process it and send it to the display. the latency is shorter than it used to be and won't matter for still life, but *will* matter for sports or other action photography as well as very low light. Fair point... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 2018-07-29 22:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical path through the lens. while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder and focusing is faster. And shooting slower. The mirror has to be moved, takes time. so does flushing the sensor prior to the photo and then tripping the shutter, usually using a mechanical shutter. electronic shutters may work in some cases but can have all sorts of problems in others. pro sports photographers, who can use whatever camera they want, choose slrs because it's faster than mirrorless. https://www.adorama.com/alc/wp-conte...utterstock_152 803373-2.jpg https://fotoblog.hu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/587168650.jpg nothing is perfect in every situation. Sure. I simply know that my camera takes some time to think and then shoot, even using the eyepiece, and using the "sports" configuration. It is not that fast. My old chemical camera was faster (an SLR). I'm sure that fast cameras for sports can be designed without mirror, if the delay is in switching the sensor mode. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 2018-07-29 22:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R. wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical path through the lens. while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder and focusing is faster. And the digital display is actually seeing what the "film" is seeing. It might in fact apply the digital processing that the final photo is going to get so that the photographer can best decide on settings and timing. except that a digital display is delayed versus pure optical. it takes time to read the data off the sensor, process it and send it to the display. Surely less than 1/50 S (video speed). the latency is shorter than it used to be and won't matter for still life, but *will* matter for sports or other action photography as well as very low light. Well, for very low light the display could enhance the picture as if we were using a night visor, so that could be a definite improvement. I do astrophotography, and finding the red moon on the eyepiece the other day was impossible. On the display it was also difficult (my camera doesn't have dark enhancement or I have not found it), but it was doable. The point of the SLR was that the photographer would see the same as the film was going to see. Well, the digital display is one step further on that road. it's on a different road, with different tradeoffs. Sure. And as Tims points out, there can be a display inside the eyepiece instead. there can, but it will never be as good as pure optical, at least not until the laws of physics are overturned, which isn't going to happen any time soon. for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light. either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use. with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust. As I wrote above, I was in exact this situation and my experience was different. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder (or heat). Well, my camera lights up the display when using the viewfinder with the settings instead of the scene. So, no gain. There is no quick button to disable it. It just times out and switches off, till I make a photo and then displays it. I simply carry two batteries. Sigh. I would need a charger for the car. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
On Jul 30, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ): On 2018-07-29 22:01, nospam wrote: In , Carlos E.R. wrote: I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror. the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical path through the lens. while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder and focusing is faster. And shooting slower. The mirror has to be moved, takes time. so does flushing the sensor prior to the photo and then tripping the shutter, usually using a mechanical shutter. electronic shutters may work in some cases but can have all sorts of problems in others. pro sports photographers, who can use whatever camera they want, choose slrs because it's faster than mirrorless. https://www.adorama.com/alc/wp-conte...utterstock_152 803373-2.jpg https://fotoblog.hu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/587168650.jpg nothing is perfect in every situation. Sure. I simply know that my camera takes some time to think and then shoot, even using the eyepiece, and using the "sports" configuration. It is not that fast. My old chemical camera was faster (an SLR). What camera are you using that you are able to see that it “takes time to think”? Digital lag time, and EVF blackout in current MILC generations have been reduced to the point that they are irrelevant. They are less noticable these days than mirror blackout in SLR/DSLRs. I'm sure that fast cameras for sports can be designed without mirror, if the delay is in switching the sensor mode. Today the issues of digital lag time and EVF blackout in the latest Sony and Fujifilm MILCs defeat the arguments against their use in action sports photography. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote: I'm sure that fast cameras for sports can be designed without mirror, if the delay is in switching the sensor mode. eventually maybe, but not today. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 7/29/2018 5:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 29, 2018, nospam wrote (in ) : for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light. either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use. with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust. Actually you should try that experiment with a good quality Sony, or Fujifim MILC, you might be surprised at what you can see. With both my X-T2, and X-E3 with a fast lens such as the 16mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, or 56mm f/1.2, and the EVF/LCD set via menu to *Preview PIC. Effect* ON. You will find that in extremely low light, light so low that one would think that capturing an image was impossible. The result through the EVF, or on the LCD is such that you would think that you had a night vision scope. Any adjustments to the EV comp dial are immediately visible, as are any adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. All very much WYSIWYG. It is possible to see your subject in the darkness, and make a useful capture at an ISO as low as ISO 1600. Use ISO 6400, or higher, and the scene in the EVF/LCD is even brighter. As I said, almost like a night vision scope, your eyeball cannot do that with an OVF. If you use manual focus, focus peaking makes things simple, and accurate even in impossibly low light, while you are not seeing too much in the darkness through your optical viewfinder. No matter how much your eyes might adjust when looking through an OVF all you will see is darkness. The camera might be capable of capturing that image, but it will not be easy. Certainly in good light for action sport photography the DSLR is still the tool of choice. However, the MILCs are rapidly narrowing that performance gap, and for some action sport photographers shooting Sony, or Fujifilm, that gap has already closed. The other big advantage that the Canon/Nikon DSLRs have is the inventory of legacy long glass, and even now, Sony and Fujifilm are narrowing that gap. ...and my D300S hasn’t been used for 18 months when I can capture sport images such as this with my X-T2. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-w8DxFTk/0/7707b86c/O/i-w8DxFTk.jpg Not exactly an example of low light. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Olympus hasn't thrown in the DSLR towel yet it would seem | David J Taylor[_16_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | January 28th 12 09:11 PM |
The sale of super belt. Hat towel brand products | jim | Digital Photography | 0 | November 21st 07 04:31 PM |
Olympus throws in the towel....on quality | Rich | Digital Photography | 5 | January 28th 07 01:23 AM |
Lexar throws in the towel | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 10 | June 11th 05 10:47 PM |
store every photo ever without throwing them away! | billybeer | In The Darkroom | 3 | December 4th 04 08:24 PM |