Contituation of the Versatility thread

Started Apr 5, 2013 | Discussions thread
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,574Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 5, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

Mirrorless and other format :

1) Lack the AF speed - not suitable for sports, moving people etc.

Don't shoot birds or sports. The fastest action I need to capture in a day of work is a flower girl walking fast down the isle.

Regarding FF and AF Tracking. Not all of them are very good. My 5D Mk II isn't very good for sports at all for example. Many other Canon's have been lacking in this department as well.

There's more to focusing than just speed, it's also accuracy in low light. I'm well versed in flowers girls (and bridesmaids, and brides, etc.) walking down the aisle a bit too quickly. Most of the time it's not an issue but when the light gets low that can be a different story. I don't agree with the OP that mirrorless cameras aren't suitable for sports or moving people at all, but they certainly aren't as versatile in that area.

But, you don't shoot sports/action (or so you've claimed). So you're unlikely to understand the versatility aspect in that area. Also, you won't see me complain about inability to shoot in low-light, with or without AF. I must admit that I do prefer manual focus.

I don't shoot sports, correct. I do, however, shoot plenty of low light 'action', such as people moving and dancing in low light. Sometimes even extreme low light. So I'm extremely equipped to understand versatility in that area, even if not for sports specifically.

2) Not as good in low light

The OM-D and E-PL5 offer exceptional high ISO performance. They easily match or best any camera in their price range.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. However, even if true, what does that have to do with anything? There are quite a few FF dSLR's that are significantly better than they are at high-ISO. As such, those cameras can be considered more versatile in that arena.

Yes, FF does hold an advantage there by a stop or so, which may or may not be field relevant.

Hey, what do you know, you're coming around! (I'd argue it's easily more than a full stop, but that may be a different thread.)

Fair enough, but FF will always have more options in terms of DoF than a smaller format will. As such, it's more versatile in that arena.

And that is exactly why I feel APS-C is a good compromise, along with lower cost and bulk.

Indeed. A compromise because it provides less versatility.

7) Less external controls, less mature menu navigation, lots of fluff and gimmicks to selling to new photo enthusiasts.

The operation essentially the same. It's nice not having to HUNT all over the camera body for one button to change AF settings for example.

What?! The operation of most mirrorless cameras isn't AT ALL like that of a good dSLR.

Especially with FF DSLR, the controls/operation is way too cluttered. Mirrorless cameras (especially in my experience, lesser NEX cameras) do have an issue but that is another reason I actually mention NEX-6. Not as cluttered, and also customizable controls.

We have such different life experiences it's incredible. I've never found a FF dSLR body to be cluttered at all!

Ugh... than you've never used a good OVF. I've used both quite a bit and there's no question that a good OVF beats a good EVF in the majority of situations. That said, EVF does have some advantages as well, so there's a lot of personal preference in that part of the debate.

I've been done with OVF since my last ILC purchase: a film SLR from 1990s. Also, OVF cameras are crippled and also force the person into using it. A couple of NBA action shots I'd posted in the other thread(s)... using OVF would have been a nuisance for that situation (primarily to people sitting behind me). Using LCD, I didn't have the need to keep the camera planted on my face.

EVF cameras are crippled in quite a few ways. If you're a regular user of them you're certainly aware of that. They do have some advantages though.

If you want small cameras that weigh less that are like do-it-all, they are the advanced bridge point and shoots, or the large sensor point and shoots. Mirrorless cams offer almost no advantage over those, but will be priced 3 to 5 times more.

Your kidding right. How about the ability to mount nearly every lens ever made including some ridiculously long or fast lenses?

Yeah, the OP's claim here is absurd. Mirrorless options provide a great deal of advantages over P&S and bridge cameras. No idea why anyone would argue otherwise.

FF is simply over-hyped.

Negative.

Over-hyped as being practical at all times, but better IQ, agreed.

It's not always practical, no one is arguing that. It's more versatile overall, though.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon Df Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow