a6000 faster than OMD E-M1, faster than most DSLR's (if not all). Good job SONY.

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,658Gear list
Like?
Re: Faster for 3 seconds?
In reply to GaryW, 8 months ago

GaryW wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

GaryW wrote:

stevo23 wrote:

That's my point exactly. For people who need the speed - really NEED it - they don't NEED the A6000. It's autofocus speed isn't the headline that matters. It's just there for the folks who will be impressed with it and buy one based on that.

Let's separate "autofocus speed" from "burst rate and buffer size". I certainly don't mind a faster AF speed, but 10fps for 20 seconds is a pretty obscure need. But I guess need is all relative and can mean anything to anyone if you want to belabor that point.

Oops - thanks. I didn't mean autofocus speed, I meant frame rate. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of such an unqualified statement as "faster than any DSLR". Autofocus speed is also nearly useless if it's not coupled with high accuracy. The fact that most cameras don't have a 100% accuracy rate means that 2 in 10 (or whatever) shots will not be critically focused.

I can understand a 1 second buffer (in my Nex-6) is a bit short, but after 2 or even 5 seconds, I can't imagine what I'm still shooting. The action is over with. Anything longer, and maybe I should have used video. At least then I have 60fps for as long as I want.

Again - all the claims are for "victory over the mirrored DSLR". Not so fast, be real. For folks who need that kind of speed, the need it for longer periods of time. And they need every shot metered, white balanced, iso'd and they need Raw+jpg - all ready to go to the service bureau.

For the very few folks that need this level of performance, they can feel free to pay extra for it. Why should I care if DSLRs eventually are relegated to a niche position?

I'm sure back in the day, large press cameras were seen as necessary for press jobs, and average people looked for smaller alternatives, perhaps even turning out higher quality results but missing this or that high-performance feature.

The bottom line is that shooting 10fps for 20 seconds is not a very common need, and not something I want to pay for if it is going to cost so much extra.

Not arguing that, only arguing the absurdity of these specs and trying to claim their faster than something else. It's also absurd to crow about 11 fps if you can only burst it for a few seconds and/or if it only applies to jpgs or whatever. Again, you get what you pay for.

Not to dampen the enthusiasm, but you get what you pay for.

And you do pay for it! In money not just for the camera but for lenses, because you wouldn't just plop a kit lens on a $5000 camera. And not just in money, but for the bulk. It's not exactly a good travel setup.

I'm just sayin', keep it all in perspective.

I think most of us are?

Hopefully. But when I see statements like "we don't need the mirror anymore" and "death of the DSLR is here", I have to laugh.

But most of us don't need the mirror any more. I've got my larger sensor in a smaller package and I don't need the DSLR design. What a relief!

Well, I guess I'm there too. But not because of autofocus speed or frame rate...

I wouldn't expect the DSLR to "die", necessarily, but it does seem like Sony might end up with mirrorless A-mount cameras down the road. Would you still call it a DSLR? Effectively, it'll be the same technology and design as the Nex or other MILC cameras.

They do call it a DSLR don't they? It kind of has a mirror.

The writing is on the wall. It's interesting how DSLR fans get nervous about such discussions. If there's no danger to DSLRs then they should not worry.

I don't really care. I used to use a SpeedGraphic when I wanted great negatives.

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