Re: EOS M10 vs A5100 AF Speed Test
1
Coyote_Cody wrote:
Alastair Norcross wrote:
Yes, the Sony is faster. Would it be nice if the M were faster? Yes. Does it matter? Not to me. I have the original M, which is probably even slower than the M10. I have never missed a shot due to slow AF. When I want fast AF, I use my 7DII. Even if my M were as fast as the Sony, I wouldn't use it for subjects that needed really fast AF. I don't want an M to replace my 7DII. I want it as a high quality take-anywhere camera. It's great in that role. That's just me. If you want an M to be a sports camera, you'll be disappointed. Maybe the M4?
But are you not honestly adapting to the cam's weaknesses rather than using the cam in a particular role ?
If the M# had faster AF than your 7DII, would it then work for all/most of the things you 'prefer' the 7DII for, honestly (assume an EVF) ?
No, of course not. The Sony A6000 has faster AF and an EVF, but it's not remotely comparable to the 7DII for sports and wildlife. It takes far more than fast AF and an EVF to make a good sports and wildlife camera. In fact, I'm not sure that an EVF will ever be suitable for such a camera, but if it will be, it isn't there yet. Mirrorless cameras excel at being small and light. Precisely what you don't want in a sports and wildlife camera.
I think all users of ALL tools compensate for their weaknesses, such as the diff in performance most of time for a battery thingie vs a fully elec. powered thingie - time of use, power, etc.
-- hide signature --
As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile
-- hide signature --
As the length of a thread approaches 150, the probability that someone will make the obvious "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" remark approaches 1.
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile