Contituation of the Versatility thread

Started Apr 5, 2013 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

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.


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
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
MOD Biggs23
MOD Biggs23
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
MOD Biggs23
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow