Mirrorless DSLR..sorry but they are pretty crap

Started Oct 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
qianp2k Forum Pro • Posts: 10,350
Re: low light

new boyz wrote:

Mahmoud Mousef wrote:

Very low light is actually far better without an EVF, in my opinion. There is a threshold beyond which all an EVF can display is black...while the optical gets the tiny nuances and allows you to see. I suppose it depends on what your definition of low-light is. In the darkness on the street with very little light, optical is so superior to me. Same in a dark room with hardly any light. EVFs don't even get any detail for them to gain-up. It's all a sea of black.

Actually, no. EVF is better for low light (IMO, of course). True, there's a threshold, but OVF reaches that threshold first. OVF is somewhere 1 stop darker(because of the ground glass, unless you're using rangefinder OVF) while with EVF you can have 1 stop or more digital gain. Since you said very low light, in theory - I don't know if it's already exist, an EVF can display infrared image for framing, while with OVF your framing is limited to visible spectrum.

EVF is very noisy in low light, and CDAF is also not good in very dim light. On DSLRs you can use LV in dim light that at least Canon DSLRs support Liveview Exposure Simulation (or LvExSim). Human eyes thru OVF can see more DR than EVF. I hope Canon can continue improve that Dual-Pixel sensor-based PDAF (which is in infant stage) and Nikon or other companies also will design their own technologies. Eventually they will combine PDAF and CDAF to sensor-based. Maybe one day there is no need mirrorbox even in professional work but personally I still want OVF stays or at least having an option for both OVF and EVF.

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