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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
On Jul 30, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ): 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. Aah! you noticed. It was intended to demonstrate that an MILC is capable of being useful for sport photography. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 14:32:23 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: ... 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 That's a slow-moving target. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 18:35:51 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On Jul 30, 2018, Eric Stevens wrote (in ): On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 14:32:23 -0700, Savageduck wrote: ... 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 That's a slow-moving target. Compared to an aircraft making a low pass at airshow, but as to the actual speed of any of those triathletes on bicycles, you would have to be on scene to understand. There are issues of closing distances, perceived acceleration due to changing angle between camera, and target. That's exactly right. Speed is relative. You are not necessarily panning any faster with a fighter jet passing at 500 mph than with a cyclist racing by when you are at the side of the road. I should know all about AF problems being a Pentax owner. That said, I'm still probably going to get the K1 Mark II. The AF is improved, even if it's not up to Canikon standards, and it's good enough for my purposes from what I've read. And it's way cheaper than switching systems. And that'll probably be that as far as investing in photo gear. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 2018-07-30 15:05, Savageduck wrote:
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”? Nikon D3200. Usually to focus. Sometimes I have lost a photo because it decided the focus was not good or something. Sometimes it refuses to shoot, sometimes it "thinks" for so long that the instant of interest has passed. Of course, I can shoot in full manual mode, but the place where this happened the first time had varying light conditions. So it would have to be "manual focus", but the objects were moving at different distances, I can't manually focus that fast or in advance. Yes, I know my camera is not a professional model. Still, it is expensive for my means. 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. Makes sense. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article ,
RichA wrote: One reason I never liked using lower-end DSLRs. I tried a Nikon D5100 and a cheap kit lens and the moment the light dropped a bit, it hunted like blind hound. user error. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 2018-08-01 07:42, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 July 2018 06:44:09 UTC-4, Carlos E.R. wrote: On 2018-07-30 15:05, Savageduck wrote: 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”? Nikon D3200. Usually to focus. Sometimes I have lost a photo because it decided the focus was not good or something. Sometimes it refuses to shoot, sometimes it "thinks" for so long that the instant of interest has passed. One reason I never liked using lower-end DSLRs. It is high-end to me... that is, top of what I can afford to pay for a camera. :-p -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 2018-08-01 11:11, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 July 2018 13:48:09 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote: 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, It doesn't think it's capturing data. A bit like a studetn taking down results of an experiment. No, no. It is not capturing data before the mirror moves. I push the button hard, it "thinks", then the mirror moves (or not) and takes the photo. even using the eyepiece, and using the "sports" configuration. It is not that fast. My old chemical camera was faster (an SLR). your old chemical camera wasn't recording any data, not until after you press the release. It was doing the same basic thing: focusing, before the mirror moves. The sensor is behind the mirror, there is no data collection and processing before it moves in a DSLR. I'm sure that fast cameras for sports can be designed without mirror, Yes but they aren't SLRs or DLSRs (which have advantages) a pin hole camera does not have a mirror and it will act faster than a mirrorless camera too. if the delay is in switching the sensor mode. The biggest delay in the currnet SLRs DSLRs is the time it takes the mirror to flip up and get it out of the way of the light path to the image sensor. This is a mechanical movement with cogs and gears or other mechanical marvels in order to achieve what it's meant to do. Well, that is precisely what I said. Years ago the future was a semi-silvered mirror where the light would pass throught it so the mirror wouldn't, need to be moved. But this has been superceeded in the most part by just having a sensor and the viewfinder turned into a screen a bit like watching TV there;s a delay even with live TV, I've noticed nearly a 1/2 second delay between the SD and HD channels of my TV although this is as much to do with syncing the sound. And with having several different machines handling the video stream. Each one adds a tiny delay. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.
On 2018-08-01 11:34, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 July 2018 13:56:09 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote: 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). yes far less, in micoseconds if not nanoseconds, per pixel or rather the smallest point on the sensor. And dontl forget the mor epiuxels the longer it can take to 'transmit' the image from the sensor and convert it to a digital number. Yes, of course. 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, That's how my MILC a canon EOS M3 seems to work. so that could be a definite improvement. I do astrophotography, and finding the red moon on the eyepiece the other day was impossible. If you do astrophotography then yuo yuo really should understand how old you're photos really are, even if taking pictures of the moon you are seeing it as it was 1.25 seconds ago. And No amount of clever electronics in a camera will change that. LOL. That has no importance at all. X-) Anyway, such shots are measured in seconds, not fractions of seconds. The result is an average of the light over a long period. 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. All humans and most creatures on the planet have eyes that adjust to differnt light levels, if you're in the dark for a significant amount of time you're eyes can become very senative to light. Yes, but not enough. 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. What do yuo mean by no gain ? That I already use my batteries fast. It is not much of a difference. There is no quick button to disable it. I thought most camera you could blank the display, you just have to know how to do it. In a menu. It just times out and switches off, till I make a photo and then displays it. Most cameras have a setting for this delay I think mines set to 2 seconds. Yep. I simply carry two batteries. Sigh. I would need a charger for the car. And you might need a charger for the car or a 'gas' station nearby. LOL. -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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: No, no. It is not capturing data before the mirror moves. I push the button hard, it "thinks", then the mirror moves (or not) and takes the photo. something is misconfigured or the camera is defective. it should be fast enough that it's not noticeable. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.
In article ,
RichA wrote: One reason I never liked using lower-end DSLRs. I tried a Nikon D5100 and a cheap kit lens and the moment the light dropped a bit, it hunted like blind hound. user error. Yes, pointing and half-pressing is so technically-daunting. and yet you ****ed it up somehow. a d5100 can focus in *very* low light (-1 ev, according to nikon's specs), so if the light only 'dropped a bit', there should be *no* issue whatsoever with focusing or hunting, at least as far as the camera goes. that leaves one other possibility. |
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 |