Contituation of the Versatility thread

Started Apr 5, 2013 | Discussions
vzlnc
Regular MemberPosts: 199
Like?
Contituation of the Versatility thread
Apr 5, 2013

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/versatile

versatile: turning with ease from one thing to another.

Amongst the different photography formats we have today, FF is the most versatile bcoz you can adapt it to work in a lot of different situations where other formats might not be fully up to the task.

example: Low light, fast focusing, Thin DOF, high MP landscape or fashion work. Also FF cameras are mostly more rugged and weather sealed than other smaller digital cameras and are more capable of handling tough weather conditions etc.

Having an optical viewfinder is very useful for tracking action shots compared to LCD and holding a camera at an arms length.

CDAF is nowhere close to being as fast as PDAF and there are many situations where you would want the speed of PDAF.

There are a lot of accessories available for FF that might not be easily available for other formats. Like wireless Flash systems, remotes etc not to mentions lenses.

Apart from that, FF cameras are just built to me more responsive, fast, with batteries that last longer, with a lot other technical wizardry inside to suit any purpose.

As far as versatile goes, I guess any other format currently lags behind FF. Yes, there are options that are lighter and cheaper, but not by a lot. And even if we were to take that in account the little brother DX does almost everything the FF does in a smaller, lighter and cheaper package while still not compromising on the capabilities as much as the other formats do.

Mirrorless and other format :

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

2) Not as good in low light

3) No optical viewfinder, awkward holding style with longer lenses, more prone to handshake.

4) less shots per battery charge. Not many offer battery pack.

5) Not good enough flash system.

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

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

8) High on novelty factor rather than practicality. Like manual focus by wire, instead of real manual focus. Its like the ridiculous semi-manual option in some automatic cars to advertise to manual car enthusiasts who are looking for a real manual gear. Just a gimmick.

9) More expensive than DX or APS-C cameras and much more ridiculously expensive external viewfinder attachments ( and other assorted nonsense items with no standardized connections yet) going into couple of hundreds of dollars, while you get a free optical viewfinder with the DX which is miles better anyway.

10) Being smaller with low power electronics/processor, smaller buffer etc, these cameras will usually be slow in operation, slow to focus, lot of shutter lag, cumbersome to change settings on the fly.

Now ofcourse having gotten rid of so many features that made the FF cameras VERSATILE, the small mirrorless IS going to be light, but its not VERSATILE anymore. Its a design tradeoff. In any case, if you want a good quality no-nonsense camera that is also light and small, there are many good point and shoots which will do EVERYTHING the mirrorless does and with less cost and with none of the gimmicks.

Mirrorless cameras remind of the new class of cars that were invented by Mercedes couple of years back. The 4-door coupe. Its styled like a couple with low, sloping roof in the rear, but has 4 doors. Its neither here nor there. If you want space and practicality go for the sedan, if you want style and performance go for the 2-door couple. The 4-door coupes are just he regular sedans styled differently but with a hefty price tag. Only thing you are getting is NOVELTY. And the company gets to create a new niche in the saturated car market. The car essentially didnt offer anything the cheaper sedan didnt and infact lost precious head room in the back seats.With mirrorless, esp the retro designs, you are paying for the design and the novelty factor, nothing else.

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.

If you want ULTIMATE VERSATILITY and want to be ready for almost anything, go FF.

Want VERSATILITY on a BUDGET - DX/APS-C

Want everyday no-frills camera without significant learning curve which is also cheap, light and small - high end point and shoot or bridge camera.

Want novelty factor, want to try something new, want something retro looking which is cool nowadays no matter if it is expensive and not as fast as DX or FF and cuts down on many features while trying to look retro - mirrorless from Olympus or Fuji.

tko
tko
Forum ProPosts: 10,431
Like?
let people use whatever they want
In reply to vzlnc, Apr 5, 2013

And let this thread die a natural death. Pretty silly.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin.au
Senior MemberPosts: 6,454Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to vzlnc, Apr 5, 2013

Want a clue?

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Mike_PEAT
Forum ProPosts: 10,620Gear list
Like?
Why adhere to YOUR definition of versatile?
In reply to vzlnc, Apr 5, 2013

Why should we care what YOU like in a camera?  Have you ever used a medium format camera, or have you only used the camera type you're using now?

Are you saying they should stop making every other camera type just because it doesn't have the features you like?

The problem with most dSLRs they are bigger, bulkier, and heavier tan the traditional size of an SLR from the past (the size of the Olympus E-M5).

Anyway most of the uses you've mentioned I've used my E-M5 for, including shooting birds in flight...any limitations says more about the photographer than the type of camera!

 Mike_PEAT's gear list:Mike_PEAT's gear list
Lytro Light Field 16GB
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
FoolyCooly
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,458Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to vzlnc, Apr 5, 2013

vzlnc wrote:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/versatile

versatile: turning with ease from one thing to another.

Amongst the different photography formats we have today, FF is the most versatile bcoz you can adapt it to work in a lot of different situations where other formats might not be fully up to the task.

example: Low light, fast focusing, Thin DOF, high MP landscape or fashion work. Also FF cameras are mostly more rugged and weather sealed than other smaller digital cameras and are more capable of handling tough weather conditions etc.

Having an optical viewfinder is very useful for tracking action shots compared to LCD and holding a camera at an arms length.

CDAF is nowhere close to being as fast as PDAF and there are many situations where you would want the speed of PDAF.

There are a lot of accessories available for FF that might not be easily available for other formats. Like wireless Flash systems, remotes etc not to mentions lenses.

Apart from that, FF cameras are just built to me more responsive, fast, with batteries that last longer, with a lot other technical wizardry inside to suit any purpose.

As far as versatile goes, I guess any other format currently lags behind FF. Yes, there are options that are lighter and cheaper, but not by a lot. And even if we were to take that in account the little brother DX does almost everything the FF does in a smaller, lighter and cheaper package while still not compromising on the capabilities as much as the other formats do.

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.

Which is better 9 focus points clustered in the center of the frame or 45 focus points covering ~90% of the frame?

Regarding AF Speed- My E-PL5 with 14-42mm II R focuses near instantly.

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.

3) No optical viewfinder, awkward holding style with longer lenses, more prone to handshake.

IBIS or OIS in most lenses so it's really not a problem.

4) less shots per battery charge. Not many offer battery pack.

You can get an external pack for the OM-D but putting one on the E-PL5 would be silly. Batteries are cheap so not really a problem.

5) Not good enough flash system.

What? Olympus RC flash Google it.

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

When do you need it? I need thin DOF for portraits and have no trouble getting it my FX, DX or MFT.

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.

8) High on novelty factor rather than practicality. Like manual focus by wire, instead of real manual focus. Its like the ridiculous semi-manual option in some automatic cars to advertise to manual car enthusiasts who are looking for a real manual gear. Just a gimmick.

The end result is the same. A nice gimmick is the automatic 100% zoom when you touch the focus ring while in Single or Continuous AF.

9) More expensive than DX or APS-C cameras and much more ridiculously expensive external viewfinder attachments ( and other assorted nonsense items with no standardized connections yet) going into couple of hundreds of dollars, while you get a free optical viewfinder with the DX which is miles better anyway.

Yes the OVF and EVF is an expensive addition but I don't need it. Pentamirror OVFs are terrible. I can't imagine them being any better than an EVF. Also Most EVFs offer 100% coverage.

10) Being smaller with low power electronics/processor, smaller buffer etc, these cameras will usually be slow in operation, slow to focus, lot of shutter lag, cumbersome to change settings on the fly.

I don't see any of that... I just shot a RAW 16 frame burst @ 8fps before the camera slowed and a RAW burst of 19 frames @ 4.5fps before it slowed. The camera writes to cards very quickly.

In JPEG Fine- I shot a 24 frame burst @ 8fps and a 33 frame burst at 4.5 fps.

In either mode the camera is done writing all files in seconds.

There is virtually no shutter lag. See my comment regarding focusing and buttons.

Now ofcourse having gotten rid of so many features that made the FF cameras VERSATILE, the small mirrorless IS going to be light, but its not VERSATILE anymore. Its a design tradeoff. In any case, if you want a good quality no-nonsense camera that is also light and small, there are many good point and shoots which will do EVERYTHING the mirrorless does and with less cost and with none of the gimmicks.

The only trade off is super-thin DOF with slow zooms. I can get pleasing subject isolation and background blur with a fast prime. Not as strong as FF or DX but good enough for what I want to do with it.

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?

How about the same or better image quality when compared to similarly priced DSLRs?

FF is simply over-hyped.

 FoolyCooly's gear list:FoolyCooly's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D300 Nikon D7000 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Canon EOS 6D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,599Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to FoolyCooly, Apr 5, 2013

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.

Which is better 9 focus points clustered in the center of the frame or 45 focus points covering ~90% of the frame?

Sounds like you're referencing a very specific camera. Mine has 51.

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.

5) Not good enough flash system.

What? Olympus RC flash Google it.

A decent system it seems but still not compatible with many O/C flash systems that allow for HSS, such as RadioPoppers for instance.

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

When do you need it? I need thin DOF for portraits and have no trouble getting it my FX, DX or MFT.

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.

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.

9) More expensive than DX or APS-C cameras and much more ridiculously expensive external viewfinder attachments ( and other assorted nonsense items with no standardized connections yet) going into couple of hundreds of dollars, while you get a free optical viewfinder with the DX which is miles better anyway.

Yes the OVF and EVF is an expensive addition but I don't need it. Pentamirror OVFs are terrible. I can't imagine them being any better than an EVF. Also Most EVFs offer 100% coverage.

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.

Now ofcourse having gotten rid of so many features that made the FF cameras VERSATILE, the small mirrorless IS going to be light, but its not VERSATILE anymore. Its a design tradeoff. In any case, if you want a good quality no-nonsense camera that is also light and small, there are many good point and shoots which will do EVERYTHING the mirrorless does and with less cost and with none of the gimmicks.

The only trade off is super-thin DOF with slow zooms. I can get pleasing subject isolation and background blur with a fast prime. Not as strong as FF or DX but good enough for what I want to do with it.

Which is great! However, you've still admitted that FF is more versatile when you said 'not as strong as FF'.

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.

-- 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
olliess
Contributing MemberPosts: 922
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 5, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

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?

Probably not true, anyway. The OM-D is exceptional for its slightly smaller sensor size, but it doesn't quite match (for example) the same-generation NEX-6 and D7000, which at $900 are both cheaper than the OM-D at $1000. (Not to mention entry-level DSLRs like the D3200, which are at a much lower price point).

Yes the OVF and EVF is an expensive addition but I don't need it. Pentamirror OVFs are terrible. I can't imagine them being any better than an EVF. Also Most EVFs offer 100% coverage.

Ugh... than you've never used a good OVF.

It should also be pointed out that DSLRs in the $1000 price range have pentraprism OVFs, usually with 100% coverage.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
FoolyCooly
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,458Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 5, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

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.

Which is better 9 focus points clustered in the center of the frame or 45 focus points covering ~90% of the frame?

Sounds like you're referencing a very specific camera. Mine has 51.

Yes, the 5D classic, 5D MK II and 6D. Not all FF cameras are good at focusing in low-light. The peripheral points on all the cameras I listed above are rated at f5.6 for example.

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.

Look at images from the OM-D compared to the NEX 5N, NEX 7, D7000, D300, 60D and 7D. They look pretty darn close or better to me.

What does a 5D MKIII or D800 cost. I said price range.

5) Not good enough flash system.

What? Olympus RC flash Google it.

A decent system it seems but still not compatible with many O/C flash systems that allow for HSS, such as RadioPoppers for instance.

Home many people really use those?

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

When do you need it? I need thin DOF for portraits and have no trouble getting it my FX, DX or MFT.

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.

Agreed but I will argue that DX and FX can be good enough.

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.

Pick up a SLR that your not familiar with. Take 5 seconds to look at the controls. Then try to change ISO, image quality, AF mode, WB and drive mode with out hunting for buttons.

The super control panel on my E-PL5 is so intuitive. Everything is right there. It only takes a second to change most commonly used functions.

 FoolyCooly's gear list:FoolyCooly's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D300 Nikon D7000 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Canon EOS 6D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,903Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to vzlnc, Apr 5, 2013

Let us look at the definition you quoted: “Turning with ease from one thing to another”

My idea of that camera: Sony NEX-6 or similar. But let us look into it closer. Sony NEX-6, in addition to native lenses, just about any lens out there can be used if it will cover at least an APS-C sensor. To me, that is pretty close to having a “universal mount”: Versatility.

Most of these non-native lenses will necessitate manual focus, which is actually a strength of the system. You have Focus Peaking, Focus Magnify, Tiltable LCD screen and EVF. The camera will meter: Versatility.

Some of the non-native mounts also allow for Auto Focus. It is for this reason, effort is being put in developing such adapters as we’ve recently seen from Metabones (with, or without AF). Then there is another tool that not only allows expansion of options for AF lenses, it literally transforms the AF system, from Minolta/Sony A-mount. Sports/Action photography, covered well: Versatility.

Heading to the park for a walk? To a family dinner without lugging a bag or a camera hanging on the neck? Put 20mm f/2.8 pancake on NEX-6, you are covered (weight: 415g, < 1 lb. Size: pocketable). Street shooting? Put the relatively small 35mm f/1.8 (weight: 500g, just over 1 lb. Size: acceptable). A companion to bike through the mountains? Even the ultra-wide zoom (10-18 f/4) is tiny and light (225g). Want 10mm to 35mm versatility? You’re looking at net weight of the system (10-18, 20mm and 35mm lenses, plus body) at 795g… less than the body-only weight of a Full Frame DSLR. And in fact, the system itself is modular, that a person can choose to put a lens each in two pockets and skip the bag, to take advantage of: Versatility.

Want to shoot sports or birds in flight? Get a Sony/Minolta A-mount lens of your choice (FF or APS-C), put LA-EA2 adapter, and you’ve got a system that can focus continuously (even while shooting at 10 FPS). And yes, you can use either the EVF OR the LCD without losing performance, per need: Versatility.

IMO, such cameras (and m4/3 have their own pros and cons too) can not only serve as an excellent companion to DSLR/DSLT today (which is how I use one), their versatility offers an option that they can be pocketable camera if you choose, or take with you to shoot action/sports photography if you so choose.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
FoolyCooly
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,458Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to olliess, Apr 5, 2013

olliess wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

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?

Probably not true, anyway. The OM-D is exceptional for its slightly smaller sensor size, but it doesn't quite match (for example) the same-generation NEX-6 and D7000, which at $900 are both cheaper than the OM-D at $1000. (Not to mention entry-level DSLRs like the D3200, which are at a much lower price point).

My E-PL5 shares the same sensor as the OM-D. I paid $400 for it new but retail street price is $550-$600.

Yes the OVF and EVF is an expensive addition but I don't need it. Pentamirror OVFs are terrible. I can't imagine them being any better than an EVF. Also Most EVFs offer 100% coverage.

Ugh... than you've never used a good OVF.

It should also be pointed out that DSLRs in the $1000 price range have pentraprism OVFs, usually with 100% coverage.

What about the $600 price range?

 FoolyCooly's gear list:FoolyCooly's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D300 Nikon D7000 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Canon EOS 6D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,903Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 5, 2013

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.

Which is better 9 focus points clustered in the center of the frame or 45 focus points covering ~90% of the frame?

Sounds like you're referencing a very specific camera. Mine has 51.

Canon 6D, for example has 11-point (1-cross type). I mostly use 1-point in AF mode be it DSLR/DSLT or my NEX-3. Occasionally, I might use 15-point (3-cross type) with full time PDAF on NEX-3 with the mirrored adapter. And with manual focus, the entire sensor is at my disposal (I prefer it especially for portraits in conjunction with Focus Peaking and Focus Magnify).

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.

5) Not good enough flash system.

What? Olympus RC flash Google it.

A decent system it seems but still not compatible with many O/C flash systems that allow for HSS, such as RadioPoppers for instance.

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

When do you need it? I need thin DOF for portraits and have no trouble getting it my FX, DX or MFT.

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.

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.

9) More expensive than DX or APS-C cameras and much more ridiculously expensive external viewfinder attachments ( and other assorted nonsense items with no standardized connections yet) going into couple of hundreds of dollars, while you get a free optical viewfinder with the DX which is miles better anyway.

Yes the OVF and EVF is an expensive addition but I don't need it. Pentamirror OVFs are terrible. I can't imagine them being any better than an EVF. Also Most EVFs offer 100% coverage.

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.

Now ofcourse having gotten rid of so many features that made the FF cameras VERSATILE, the small mirrorless IS going to be light, but its not VERSATILE anymore. Its a design tradeoff. In any case, if you want a good quality no-nonsense camera that is also light and small, there are many good point and shoots which will do EVERYTHING the mirrorless does and with less cost and with none of the gimmicks.

The only trade off is super-thin DOF with slow zooms. I can get pleasing subject isolation and background blur with a fast prime. Not as strong as FF or DX but good enough for what I want to do with it.

Which is great! However, you've still admitted that FF is more versatile when you said 'not as strong as FF'.

Primarily at wider angles. Here is an example with APS-C:

Sony NEX-3 w/Minolta 200mm f/2.8

The "Great Dane" here is my little Chihu-weenie. Taken at f/5.6 using the now 24-year old FF lens. The same lens on FF body would have 50% greater DoF (and a wider FoV).

Here is another example (also a FF lens):

Sony NEX-3 w/Sony 135mm f/2.8

That is literally a fly-deep DoF, at f/5.6.

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.

-- hide signature --

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

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,599Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to FoolyCooly, Apr 5, 2013

FoolyCooly wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

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.

Which is better 9 focus points clustered in the center of the frame or 45 focus points covering ~90% of the frame?

Sounds like you're referencing a very specific camera. Mine has 51.

Yes, the 5D classic, 5D MK II and 6D. Not all FF cameras are good at focusing in low-light. The peripheral points on all the cameras I listed above are rated at f5.6 for example.

All FF cameras of the same generation as the mirrorless cameras you're speaking of are better at focusing in low light, IME. Older FF cameras are a different story, sure.

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.

Look at images from the OM-D compared to the NEX 5N, NEX 7, D7000, D300, 60D and 7D. They look pretty darn close or better to me.

I'd have to disagree. High ISO images from same generation FF dSLRs tend to be better than their mirrorless counterparts.

What does a 5D MKIII or D800 cost. I said price range.

Price range isn't related to versatility.

5) Not good enough flash system.

What? Olympus RC flash Google it.

A decent system it seems but still not compatible with many O/C flash systems that allow for HSS, such as RadioPoppers for instance.

Home many people really use those?

Every photographer I talk with in person on a regular basis does. I use RP's multiple times every week.

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

When do you need it? I need thin DOF for portraits and have no trouble getting it my FX, DX or MFT.

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.

Agreed but I will argue that DX and FX can be good enough.

?

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.

Pick up a SLR that your not familiar with. Take 5 seconds to look at the controls. Then try to change ISO, image quality, AF mode, WB and drive mode with out hunting for buttons.

I've done this. I'm generally far more baffled by smaller cameras than larger ones. For me P&S cameras tend to be the most difficult by far. Than bridge cameras, then mirrorless, then dSLR.

The super control panel on my E-PL5 is so intuitive. Everything is right there. It only takes a second to change most commonly used functions.

The same can be said of good dSLR's, and more.

-- 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
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,599Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 5, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Let us look at the definition you quoted: “Turning with ease from one thing to another”

My idea of that camera: Sony NEX-6 or similar. But let us look into it closer. Sony NEX-6, in addition to native lenses, just about any lens out there can be used if it will cover at least an APS-C sensor. To me, that is pretty close to having a “universal mount”: Versatility.

So you have to carry multiple adapters for all those different lenses in differing lens mount, right? That makes your camera carrying requirement much larger and with many more pieces. That severely hurts your argument.

Most of these non-native lenses will necessitate manual focus, which is actually a strength of the system. You have Focus Peaking, Focus Magnify, Tiltable LCD screen and EVF. The camera will meter: Versatility.

Let me get this straight, MF is a STRENGTH? You realize that you can MF with a dSLR too, right? I recognize that focus peaking is a big thing but it's certainly NOT more versatile to MF, even with focus peaking.

Some of the non-native mounts also allow for Auto Focus. It is for this reason, effort is being put in developing such adapters as we’ve recently seen from Metabones (with, or without AF). Then there is another tool that not only allows expansion of options for AF lenses, it literally transforms the AF system, from Minolta/Sony A-mount. Sports/Action photography, covered well: Versatility.

But not as well as a dSLR. So versatile, yes, but less so.

Heading to the park for a walk? To a family dinner without lugging a bag or a camera hanging on the neck? Put 20mm f/2.8 pancake on NEX-6, you are covered (weight: 415g, < 1 lb. Size: pocketable). Street shooting? Put the relatively small 35mm f/1.8 (weight: 500g, just over 1 lb. Size: acceptable). A companion to bike through the mountains? Even the ultra-wide zoom (10-18 f/4) is tiny and light (225g). Want 10mm to 35mm versatility? You’re looking at net weight of the system (10-18, 20mm and 35mm lenses, plus body) at 795g… less than the body-only weight of a Full Frame DSLR. And in fact, the system itself is modular, that a person can choose to put a lens each in two pockets and skip the bag, to take advantage of: Versatility.

I can do all of those things easily with a dSLR, too. Is it larger? Sure. Is is heavier? Yep. Is the quality better and are there more lens options and is the quality better and is shooting easier and... all yes as well.

Want to shoot sports or birds in flight? Get a Sony/Minolta A-mount lens of your choice (FF or APS-C), put LA-EA2 adapter, and you’ve got a system that can focus continuously (even while shooting at 10 FPS). And yes, you can use either the EVF OR the LCD without losing performance, per need: Versatility.

Yep, versatile. But still not as versatile as a FF setup. I don't need an adapter and I can focus MORE accurately and continuously at 10FPS too.

IMO, such cameras (and m4/3 have their own pros and cons too) can not only serve as an excellent companion to DSLR/DSLT today

Agreed. They are just less versatile overall.

-- 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
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,903Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 5, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

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.

Which is better 9 focus points clustered in the center of the frame or 45 focus points covering ~90% of the frame?

Sounds like you're referencing a very specific camera. Mine has 51.

Yes, the 5D classic, 5D MK II and 6D. Not all FF cameras are good at focusing in low-light. The peripheral points on all the cameras I listed above are rated at f5.6 for example.

All FF cameras of the same generation as the mirrorless cameras you're speaking of are better at focusing in low light, IME. Older FF cameras are a different story, sure.

I have a 9+ year old camera that can focus in complete darkness.

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.

Look at images from the OM-D compared to the NEX 5N, NEX 7, D7000, D300, 60D and 7D. They look pretty darn close or better to me.

I'd have to disagree. High ISO images from same generation FF dSLRs tend to be better than their mirrorless counterparts.

So, it is lack of mirror that is causing trouble at high ISO? I wonder if that applies to Sony RX1.

What does a 5D MKIII or D800 cost. I said price range.

Price range isn't related to versatility.

Price is related to purchase decision to have versatility. With unlimited budget, I wouldn't care about versatility out of a single camera body.

5) Not good enough flash system.

What? Olympus RC flash Google it.

A decent system it seems but still not compatible with many O/C flash systems that allow for HSS, such as RadioPoppers for instance.

Home many people really use those?

Every photographer I talk with in person on a regular basis does. I use RP's multiple times every week.

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

When do you need it? I need thin DOF for portraits and have no trouble getting it my FX, DX or MFT.

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.

Agreed but I will argue that DX and FX can be good enough.

?

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.

Pick up a SLR that your not familiar with. Take 5 seconds to look at the controls. Then try to change ISO, image quality, AF mode, WB and drive mode with out hunting for buttons.

I've done this. I'm generally far more baffled by smaller cameras than larger ones. For me P&S cameras tend to be the most difficult by far. Than bridge cameras, then mirrorless, then dSLR.

The super control panel on my E-PL5 is so intuitive. Everything is right there. It only takes a second to change most commonly used functions.

The same can be said of good dSLR's, and more.

Nope.

-- hide signature --

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

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,599Gear 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
Biggs23
Biggs23 MOD
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,599Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to EinsteinsGhost, Apr 5, 2013

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

All FF cameras of the same generation as the mirrorless cameras you're speaking of are better at focusing in low light, IME. Older FF cameras are a different story, sure.

I have a 9+ year old camera that can focus in complete darkness.

To be pedantic, no it can't, but I understand your point. Nonetheless, compare your NEX with a good FF dSLR of the same generation and the FF will focus more accurately and more consistently in low light. (-1EV or worse)

I'd have to disagree. High ISO images from same generation FF dSLRs tend to be better than their mirrorless counterparts.

So, it is lack of mirror that is causing trouble at high ISO? I wonder if that applies to Sony RX1.

Nope, it's sensor size and the technology camera makers have used.

What does a 5D MKIII or D800 cost. I said price range.

Price range isn't related to versatility.

Price is related to purchase decision to have versatility. With unlimited budget, I wouldn't care about versatility out of a single camera body.

Right, but that's an important distinction. We're not discussing the choice of versatility, we're discussing versatility itself.

I've done this. I'm generally far more baffled by smaller cameras than larger ones. For me P&S cameras tend to be the most difficult by far. Than bridge cameras, then mirrorless, then dSLR.

The super control panel on my E-PL5 is so intuitive. Everything is right there. It only takes a second to change most commonly used functions.

The same can be said of good dSLR's, and more.

Nope.

Yep.

-- 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
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,903Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 5, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Let us look at the definition you quoted: “Turning with ease from one thing to another”

My idea of that camera: Sony NEX-6 or similar. But let us look into it closer. Sony NEX-6, in addition to native lenses, just about any lens out there can be used if it will cover at least an APS-C sensor. To me, that is pretty close to having a “universal mount”: Versatility.

So you have to carry multiple adapters for all those different lenses in differing lens mount, right? That makes your camera carrying requirement much larger and with many more pieces. That severely hurts your argument.

Nope. Obviously, you didn't understand the rest of my post (or never bothered to read it before responding). Just to help you get the point, multiple adapter is akin to mutliple lenses. I may use one adapter for a variety of lenses, or leave an adapter each on the lens. But, ultimately, I pick based on how I want to use my camera.

Most of these non-native lenses will necessitate manual focus, which is actually a strength of the system. You have Focus Peaking, Focus Magnify, Tiltable LCD screen and EVF. The camera will meter: Versatility.

Let me get this straight, MF is a STRENGTH?

You bet. Practically 100% of my photography is with manual focus, except on some occasions when I might use AF. I think I posted images from NBA game taken with AF and MF in the other thread(s).

You realize that you can MF with a dSLR too, right? I recognize that focus peaking is a big thing but it's certainly NOT more versatile to MF, even with focus peaking.

I wouldn't buy a DSLR today, much less for Manual Focus.

Some of the non-native mounts also allow for Auto Focus. It is for this reason, effort is being put in developing such adapters as we’ve recently seen from Metabones (with, or without AF). Then there is another tool that not only allows expansion of options for AF lenses, it literally transforms the AF system, from Minolta/Sony A-mount. Sports/Action photography, covered well: Versatility.

But not as well as a dSLR. So versatile, yes, but less so.

There are several points in the argument you responded to. Which one are you alluding to? Definitely not non-native mounts with AF, or is it? Heck, many DSLRs don't even support AF with their own mount depending on sensor size. Or, won't even meter properly.

As for Sport/Action photography, I enjoy that aspect of photography and I'm not the one complaining. You don't, but you're complaining.

Heading to the park for a walk? To a family dinner without lugging a bag or a camera hanging on the neck? Put 20mm f/2.8 pancake on NEX-6, you are covered (weight: 415g, < 1 lb. Size: pocketable). Street shooting? Put the relatively small 35mm f/1.8 (weight: 500g, just over 1 lb. Size: acceptable). A companion to bike through the mountains? Even the ultra-wide zoom (10-18 f/4) is tiny and light (225g). Want 10mm to 35mm versatility? You’re looking at net weight of the system (10-18, 20mm and 35mm lenses, plus body) at 795g… less than the body-only weight of a Full Frame DSLR. And in fact, the system itself is modular, that a person can choose to put a lens each in two pockets and skip the bag, to take advantage of: Versatility.

I can do all of those things easily with a dSLR, too. Is it larger? Sure. Is is heavier? Yep. Is the quality better and are there more lens options and is the quality better and is shooting easier and... all yes as well.

Actually, size, cost, weight are the key points made above. If you ignore all that... I rest my case. As for lens choices, virtually any lens you can put on your DSLR, I can use on my NEX. Can the opposite be done?

Want to shoot sports or birds in flight? Get a Sony/Minolta A-mount lens of your choice (FF or APS-C), put LA-EA2 adapter, and you’ve got a system that can focus continuously (even while shooting at 10 FPS). And yes, you can use either the EVF OR the LCD without losing performance, per need: Versatility.

Yep, versatile. But still not as versatile as a FF setup. I don't need an adapter and I can focus MORE accurately and continuously at 10FPS too.

I do need an adapter with NEX, to add to its functionality. If I don't need super fast PDAF, I can leave the adapter home, and enjoy the beauty of a small camera. That is versatility.

Now, can you back up yuor claim about focusing more accurately and continuously at 10 fps with the gear you have? That you can literally leave in your pockets when going for a casual walk?

IMO, such cameras (and m4/3 have their own pros and cons too) can not only serve as an excellent companion to DSLR/DSLT today

Agreed. They are just less versatile overall.

-- hide signature --

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

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,903Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 5, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

All FF cameras of the same generation as the mirrorless cameras you're speaking of are better at focusing in low light, IME. Older FF cameras are a different story, sure.

I have a 9+ year old camera that can focus in complete darkness.

To be pedantic, no it can't, but I understand your point.

Well, it can. That is the point of "Night Framing" option (Focuses in complete darkness for framing, but takes image in normal mode albeit requires flash).

Nonetheless, compare your NEX with a good FF dSLR of the same generation and the FF will focus more accurately and more consistently in low light. (-1EV or worse)

Let us hope so. If you're paying 3x as much, you better expect it. However, what if I choose to focus in even darker surroundings? What will be your option?

I'd have to disagree. High ISO images from same generation FF dSLRs tend to be better than their mirrorless counterparts.

So, it is lack of mirror that is causing trouble at high ISO? I wonder if that applies to Sony RX1.

Nope, it's sensor size and the technology camera makers have used.

But RX1 is mirror-less.

What does a 5D MKIII or D800 cost. I said price range.

Price range isn't related to versatility.

Price is related to purchase decision to have versatility. With unlimited budget, I wouldn't care about versatility out of a single camera body.

Right, but that's an important distinction. We're not discussing the choice of versatility, we're discussing versatility itself.

If price  can be ignored, there is no need to worry about a single multi-dimensional system.

I've done this. I'm generally far more baffled by smaller cameras than larger ones. For me P&S cameras tend to be the most difficult by far. Than bridge cameras, then mirrorless, then dSLR.

The super control panel on my E-PL5 is so intuitive. Everything is right there. It only takes a second to change most commonly used functions.

The same can be said of good dSLR's, and more.

Nope.

Yep.

Nope.

-- hide signature --

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

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
EinsteinsGhost
Forum ProPosts: 11,903Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 5, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

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.

Show me one image that you believe I cannot take with a NEX. And also tell me why you believe I couldn't.

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.)

Its not "coming around" when you can appreciate something for its strength. But it is being utterly blind-minded to assume that there are no weaknesses. It is understanding of pros and cons that are essential to understanding versatility.

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.

Their advantages are the reason I don't care for OVFs anymore. In fact, that brings to another fact: EVFs add to versatility.

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.

You went for the overhype.

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
FoolyCooly
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,458Gear list
Like?
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
In reply to Biggs23, Apr 5, 2013

Biggs23 wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

Yes, the 5D classic, 5D MK II and 6D. Not all FF cameras are good at focusing in low-light. The peripheral points on all the cameras I listed above are rated at f5.6 for example.

All FF cameras of the same generation as the mirrorless cameras you're speaking of are better at focusing in low light, IME. Older FF cameras are a different story, sure.

The 6D is new.

I'd have to disagree. High ISO images from same generation FF dSLRs tend to be better than their mirrorless counterparts.

What does a 5D MKIII or D800 cost. I said price range.

Price range isn't related to versatility.

A $4000 camera better offer better performance than a $1000 camera.

5) Not good enough flash system.

What? Olympus RC flash Google it.

A decent system it seems but still not compatible with many O/C flash systems that allow for HSS, such as RadioPoppers for instance.

Home many people really use those?

Every photographer I talk with in person on a regular basis does. I use RP's multiple times every week.

I've never used them and I don't know anyone who does. I've used PWs and cheap dumb wireless flash controllers but I have little need for high speed flash sync. I suppose I could use a 20' TTL cord if I really needed it.

6) Thin DOF not possible in situations when you need it.

When do you need it? I need thin DOF for portraits and have no trouble getting it my FX, DX or MFT.

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.

Agreed but I will argue that DX and FX can be good enough.

?

Sorry, DX and MFT.

-- hide signature --

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

 FoolyCooly's gear list:FoolyCooly's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Nikon D300 Nikon D7000 Olympus PEN E-PL5 Canon EOS 6D
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads