25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.

On 2018-07-29 03:08, RichA wrote:
About time. They and Canon were about as tardy to mirror-less as Disney was to DVD.


I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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.

On 2018-07-29 16:38, 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.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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.

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.

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

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.

On 2018-07-29 16:38, 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.

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.

And as Tims points out, there can be a display inside the eyepiece instead.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

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.

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.

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.

there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder (or heat).

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