Neez: "Furthermore, the need to constantly power a screen while shooting, combined with attempts to capitalize on the size benefits of mirrorless mean that battery life is much more limited on most mirrorless cameras - sometimes to a restrictive degree. "
This statement isn't correct because DSLR's have LCD screens that are on all the time as well. They don't suck down nearly as much juice as a mirrorless. LCD screens are known to be fairly efficient as long as backlighting is kept to a minimum, the LCD itself uses very little energy.
It's actually because the IMAGE SENSOR has to be on all the time, regardless of whether you're taking a shot or not, is why the battery life sucks on mirrorless cameras.
I own a sony a6000 and A7II, and have learned to just carry 3 spare batteries with me when i go out. But you are right, was never a concern on my canons.
Many DSLR users turn off the rear LCD in the settings menu and leave it there, especially if they have a top LCD (which draws essentially no power). However, this is not the source of most of the power draw. It's the sensor itself that draws much of the power and which must be on to create an image for either the rear LCD or the EVF. So even with equivalent battery power, the mirrorless will not last as long.
Everlast66: A fair review. In terms of performance the A6000 nearly caught up with the DSLRs in this category.At the same time A6000 offers several strategic advantages that are very important in this ENTHUSIAST category (and DSLRs don't have).
- compact and discrete so one can use more often and in more locations, very important for enthusiasts. Yes, hte majority of lenses are big, but you can make it compact when you want to;
- short flange distance that allows experimentation with legacy glass, any focal length or aperture, even rangefinder glass;
- modern mirrorless technology and EVF - you see the effect of changes instantly, best for learning and experimentation, focus peaking, no mirror slap, no issues with AF sensor calibration, etc;
A lot of potential to grow it, you can even get native Zeiss lenses with AF (Touit and Batis).
Actually, I don't see why anyone would buy a DSLR in this category.
It's important to remember that this is a comparison of ILC cameras, not expensive P&S ones. The A6000 is a fine choice with the kit lens but people supposedly buy into this class of cameras so they can use multiple lenses. When you stick a relatively large telephoto on the A6000, all of its ergonomics fall apart and it instantly becomes a poor selection.
To be named at the head of this class, a camera needs to be really good under multiple setups and the A6000 isn't.
Azzy: I'm surprised they put SDM instead of DC motor in this
By all accounts, it's not at all similar to the SDM motors previously used by Pentax.
What's the practical difference between these new lossless files and a TIFF file? Seems the new Sony RAW files are approaching the corresponding size of a TIFF.
Rishi, thanks for the fine article. One question: Do you expect the Studio Comparison Tool for DR will be changed from fixed ISO with underexposure by faster shutter speed (plus corresponding PP pushing) to your method here of fixed shutter speed with underexposure by decreasing ISO (again, with corresponding PP pushing)? Thanks.
PedroMZ: Ok now let us discuss 16mp. Everybody talks down the 16mp sensors as being inadequate nowadays. It is certainly adequate for A3 . I look at my Olympus OM-1 and am beginning to feel that it cannot be taken seriously anymore.yet 5 yrs ago professional photographers (I am a rank amateur) seemed to be quite happy with 12MP . I have seen great magazine photos taken with cameras of this sort of resolution in the past. What is adequate? Only polite comments requested-thanks.
DPReview's graphs are for JPEGs. Here's their explanation:
"Technically, the camera achieves this by applying less amplification to the sensor's output than usual prior to AD conversion to avoid clipping highlight data, then pulling-up the midtones to the correct brightness in JPEG processing. This is essentially the same process as Canon and Pentax use for their highlight-expansion modes."
All Fujifilm (as well as Canon and Pentax per the text) are doing is underexposing the shot by 1 stop (DR200) or 2 stops (DR400) and then boosting the JPEG output for all but the highlights accordingly. I've verified this myself as the RAW file under DR200 is exactly one stop underexposed when viewed in Aperture. LR reads the tone curve tag and automatically boosts by one stop to normalize the RAW file.
@photominion -- I thought the Fujifilm DR200 and 400 settings only impacted JPEG output. "RAW is RAW" regardless and that's what DR is measured on.
Historically, the big stated advantage of X-Trans was the lack of an anti-alias filter. The review mentions it. However, many Bayer pattern cameras no longer use an AA filter. Are there other elements of X-Trans that warrant its selection over a Bayer pattern camera?
The review is about a service and how it stacks up to others like it. Why have some posters turned this into a debate about whether this type of service should even exist?
DCSteve: I got the cc: subscription for $100. $8/month -- the cost of a sandwich. Or, put another way, 1/1000 the cost of my camera gear. For that, I get regular updates, a mobile app that allows me to download and edit on the road (with automatic syncing of full-size images when I get home) and a well-established, cross platform software suite. I don't think it's a bad deal.
Excuse me, Steve... do I understand that correctly you are spending $8000/month on camera gear? If yes, can you understand that probably makes you unique and maybe unqualified to opine on the value of software?
OrdinarilyInordinate: Well, it's great for professionals or people who have a lot of money to burn on software, but it's prohibitively expensive for an average amateur photographer. I wish they had a more reasonably priced trimmed down option, perhaps without tethering functions.
Maybe what some are missing here is it can be hard to justify spending $300 for something when you think you'll never use (or even want to use) more than a fraction of its capabilities.
Kiril Karaatanasov: It is sad to see Canon fall so massively behind Sony and Nikon. Given that we have a real monster camera as A7R II with both high resolution but also substantial improvement on all other characteristics like DR, noise, color response that will probably score well above D810 and A7r. Nikon will probably do D820 or D4x very soon. Given that A7r II can use Canon glass just as well as the 5DS it seems to be game over for Canon
Don't the Sony Alphas give up a little of their performance with RAW compression?
rw22: My hand and wrist are fine (after exercises for carpal tunnel and wearing a brace) until I use my heavy DSLR gear equipment. For work that is not done with a tripod it's time to switch to something lighter, probably a 4/3rds camera. I know I'll miss the OVF experience and all my great Canon lenses but at least I get to keep shooting.
Barty, the weight comparison is apples-to-oranges because you have a significant difference in sensor size between those cameras. You didn't have the lightest DSLR by any means, either.
axlotl: The 20th Century way to provide a range of focal lengths was interchangeable lenses. The 21st Century way is a single zoom lens.Convergence renders the DSLR vs MILC debate less pressing. The new debate is about the merits of the Interchangeable Lens Camera (ILC) vs Fixed Lens Camera (FLC) in particular Fixed Zoom Lens Camera (FZLC).Some of the new FZLCs are so good they challenge the need for any kind of ILC at all for many enthusiast photographers.
I get your point but no lens can cover all the possibilities, especially at the wide end.
Rooru S: Hey DPR team, you know what you should do? A versus match between the best focusing mirrorless against the best focusing DSLRs.
The test should include the following. Tracking in the Z-axis (subject coming towards you). X-axis (panning) and low light focusing (night and indoors)
The lens of choice should be simple. If you're comparing A6000 with A77M2, you should use the SAL70200G2 in the A77M2 and the SEL70200G in the A6000. Or A7RM2 against D810 with similar lenses (native lenses only).
browne, did you know DSLRs can use precise CDAF with face detection, too, for portraits?
AksCT: Nikon and Canon are quite capable of developing state of the art ILC cameras, but they are probably struggling with the critical decision of protecting their traditional market. The longer they wait, the harder will be to enter and compete in ILC (and if too late, exist may become the only option).
I vividly recall having a meeting in Rochester in 1991 with key people in Kodak imaging group. The main question was shifting to electronic imaging or staying with film (I was testing their CCD sensors then that eventually became DCS420/460, the best DSLR of its time). Management and sales group voted for staying with film and not damaging core business by investing more in digital. The rest is history. I was back Rochester when recently when Kodak filed for bankruptcy, which was quite painful to see.
Isn't the film vs digital issue more of a hosreless carriage vs horse-and-carriage analogy? I find the whole DSLR vs MILC comparison more like V6 vs Turbo 4 for car engines, or something like that.
Mister Joseph: If my mirrorless setup was just as physically big/heavy as my DSLR setup, I'll probably stick with my cheaper DSLR setup.
In the meantime, my APS-C mirrorless with a tiny wideangle lens will stay as my "discreet street camera." The problem with Full-frame mirrorless is the same problem as my Full-Frame DSLR; The lenses tend to be HUGE.
Doug, my Fujifilm makes a bigger "thunk" than my Pentax.
AndyGM: The Mirrorless vs DSLR debate really comes down to viewfinders.
I think we are now at a point where even die hard DSLR fans will say that entry level EVFs are a better experience than entry level OVFs, and even mid range EVFs are a better experience than mid range OVFs.
That just leaves the high end, full frame DSLR OVFs as an example of the best of viewfinder tech.
Someone mentioned they like OVFs because they have full dynamic range. Well I would have thought that was a DISADVANTAGE. The DR of your eyes is over 20 stops, whereas even the best camera are more like 15 stops. So the camera will "see" less than you will, you just don't get a representative idea of the exposure through an OVF.
Plus EVFs can show some much additional information. And an SLR OVF is just dead weight if/when you shoot video.
OVFs (the top end, good ones) have just 2 advantages left AFAICS. No lag. And they are solar powered so save on your batteries!
@ Roman -- your point holds for basic JPEG shooting. For the vast majority here who would use a RAW file format, not so much. Further, I wouldn't trust a tiny EVF with white balance if I was making a 20" x 30" print.
User1879099186: There will always be guys that insist "film" is far superior to digital; there will always be the guys that insist a big, bulky "Professional-looking" DSLR is superior to mirrorless. The fact is, mirrorless has the significant technological and economical advantages, and this gap will continue to become more and more evident.Canonikon used to stick their noses in the air at mirrorless features like EVF, now they're doing everything they can to make DSLRs act like a mirrorless, locking the mirrors up and employing live-view.
There is no need for mirrors and prisms and large internal cavities; they are hold overs from the film days.
The mirrorless revolution is here. Congrats to Sony, Olympus, Samsung and Panasonic for leading the way into the future. Canon and Nikon are heading the way of Kodak.
Maybe you didn't read Richard's article? If DSLRs and MILCs are using the same sensors, how can one become "obsolete" if the primary criteria is image quality?
I've read that a modern EVF has a dynamic range of around 5 to 6 EV. Maybe there are a few that are a little bit higher but I've many times that the sensor's DR capability greatly eclipses any EVF.