The truth is...DSLR versus mirror-less

Started Mar 16, 2014 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Senior MemberPosts: 1,827Gear list
The truth is...DSLR versus mirror-less
Mar 16, 2014

... a 1M EVF is more than enough for effective focusing.  If you can't focus with that, you can't manually focus.  600k is sufficient for an LCD to compose and focus, 2.5M EVF's and LCD's are simply not needed, (just nice-looking), especially with one-button instant 5x-10x magnification. 
-2 to -3 light levels are no problem for EVF's as their gain puts them one-up on OVF's, if you do any composing or manual focusing in dim light.  Nikon's D4s couldn't be more ill-equipped to deal with the idea of 400,000 ISO when an OVF presents the user with a BLACK image in the viewfinder in a dark area where the camera sensor can still form an image.  The Nikon D4s is an anachronism in the camera world.

OVF's are just "pleasing to look though" (remember, they aren't pure optical views, they are images projected on a frosted SCREEN) and they fall flat when it comes to extreme situations.  Couple that with the high cost of mirrors and precision-made BK7 pentaprisms, you can see why camera mfg's would be very interested in getting away from the DSLR model.  From a cost perspective, it's a sensible approach to ditch the DSLR model.  On-sensor phase focusing will be the death of DSLR's.  I just hope Americans can begin to realize that bulk does not = value when it comes to camera performance EXCEPT when it come to handling LARGE lenses and by large, I mean long and fast.


The one DSLR claim to fame left is the ability to act as a lever and an assist when it comes to handling large lenses by a DSLR (a DSLR is a huge, effective handle that takes part of the bulk of the system so your left hand isn't doing the whole job) whereas a tiny mirror-less camera forces you to put all your camera-holding effort on the lens and you have NO leverage that can be applied to the body and grip of the DSLR to better-balance the whole camera-lens assembly.

There is NO WAY current mirror-less cameras (even the Olympus E-M1 and the Fuji X-T1 which resemble small DSLR's, oh, the irony!) and large lenses can co-exist together as happily as a nice, big DSLR.  A pro"ish"-sized DSLR (Canon D6, Nikon D800, even the Pentax K3 which is a great, great (the best) APS DSLR) and a large lens in the right hands will run RINGS around ANY of the current mirror-less (having owned a lot of them) when it comes to pairing with a big, fast lens.  The egonomics of a classic DSLR like the D4 will KILL a small camera when it comes to photographic efficiency.  If I were pro, there is NO WAY I could compete with a mirror-less against a real DSLR/big lens combo, unless I liked losing jobs under normally-lit circumstances.  Principally, daylight action shots.

This is why I laugh at reviewers who complain about "bog-slow" consumer-oriented lenses offered with mirror-less camera systems.  Why would you expect, logically?  Consumer (f4.0-5.6 and the like) lenses ARE the only logical ones to pair with tiny mirror-less cameras.  Tacking a large (lets say a 70-200mm f/2.8 from Nikon or Canon) on a 400 gram mirror-less is a recipe for ergonomic disaster.  If you've not transitioned from big DSLR to tiny mirror-less, you might not understand.

I once saw a poor fellow trying to photograph an airshow with one of those "superzoom" P&S cameras.  The man could NOT focus on the jets because the camera was simply not equipped to deal with the speed and focus demands of the situation.  I felt sorry for the guy and all I could offer was "could you set it at f/8 and try to just pick a point of focus near to where you expect the planes to be?"  NOTHING matches a DSLR when it comes to movement, the more "pro" the camera the better.

But it will not be this way forever.  Mirror-less will dominate eventually.  The cost-structure of DSLR's means they are doomed.  But, mirror-less MUST adapt and become as fast and egonomically-effective as a semi-pro or pro DSLR in order to compete.  The psychological aspect is that (unfortunately) N. Americans equate bulk with value.  The performance aspect is that (you cannot argue with this, I can't, as I've owned a lot of mirror-less AND DSLR's) you cannot MATCH the performance and comfort afforded by a DSLR full-sized body with a tiny mirror-less.  It may be easier to hang around  your neck, but it is NOT as good (the tiny mirror-less) as a full-sized DSLR when it comes to ultimate photographic physical performance.  I own a couple mirror-less cameras, and I won't excuse the fact they are NO MATCH for a full-sized DSLR for ease-of-use under normal circumstances.

Cute cameras like Fuji's X-Pro1 pseudo-rangefinder and Olympus's new E-M10 are fine for hanging around your neck and being inconspicuous and not a burden, but GIVE ME a D700 to shoot a car or foot-race every time.

 RichRMA's gear list:RichRMA's gear list
Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
Fujifilm X-Pro1 Fujifilm X-T1 Nikon D4 Nikon D4s Nikon D700 Nikon D800 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M10
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow