-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon D900 FX mirrorless rather than a D820/D850..."
- Thread starter StanyBuyle
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d500
rev32
New member
One can dream. Me I dream of the faster higher meg 8xx, the 810 djust really works for me. But I also dream of the smaller lighter mirrorless that will us all my Nikon glass an have some lighter smaller glass all its own... it's a pleasant dream of utopian reality. --
Rev32
Rev32
Actually... mirrorless has solved that problem. I wanted to run some tests before making any conclusive statement.
See here:
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Those were taken after sun set in as low of light that you'll ever shoot action in. (Thus the need for ISO in the 6400-12800 range). Unless you're shooting a basketball game being played in total darkness with the players wearing infrared glasses, this is as low of light that you'll regularly be shooting any action in.
Now, I can certainly post some images taken under much more extreme conditions, but not formal side by side test conditions.
For example, this is while moving in candle light level lighting:
But that's far below the level of lighting most people will be shooting any action in.
Still, the A6300 had no trouble in the extraordinarily low level of light.
Or:
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/havoc315/
Last edited:
I still don't consider that to be a 'low light' scenario. Yes, the images were taken near ISO 6400, but they're also at high shutter speeds (near 1/640) and small apertures (F/5.6). That's not low light.
The other images you included are much higher contrast and low motion. Candles and the things they light are very easy to focus on.
In true 'low light', the subject's contrast is much lower, which can easily confuse phase detect autofocus systems.
Here's an example:
I am on the east coast of the USA right now, 2:30pm indoors, on an overcast day. I can see around fine, no lights on. Here is an unedited, in-camera JPEG I just snapped using the settings you had above.
This is low lighting. And yes, I auto-focused here just fine on the hat:
And here's another, unedited, in-camera JPEG outside at the same settings. Yes it has some blown out highlights, but I wouldn't consider this to be anywhere near 'low lighting'. Remember, this is 2:30 pm on an overcast day.
As you can see, the indoor shot was much lower light than the outdoor shot at the same settings.
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Low light isn't so much the issue as much as freezing motion is. If you need a 1/400s shutter speed things can get "dark" pretty quickly. Though I'd imagine any respectable MILC would be able to track something with that kind of light, even at ISO12800
Indoors without flash/strobes is almost always "low light" for action. When shooting basketball or gymnastics in a gymnasium, they don't shut off the lights and do it in the dark. Yes, you can see around just fine. In what situations are you shooting action in light levels lower than the human eye????
Is that a joke? I think your AF is way off -- that black box looks totally out of focus.This is low lighting. And yes, I auto-focused here just fine on the hat:
I'll put it simply, I have never ever come across an action situation where the D750 was able to get autofocus, and the A6300 was unable to do so. (there are some extreme Af-s situations where the D750 can go 1 or 2 EVs lower... but neither camera can track action in light that low).
Action that would is so dark, that it would require ISO 4,000,000 to shoot with a good shutter speed.... well, the D750 can't shoot in any situation that dark.
Wonder if you consider this low enough light:
The reality is the light was too low to get a decent quality image -- but not due to a lack of autofocus.
I prefer just using my own images, as I can vouch for how they were taken..
But others certainly use the camera is much more challenging conditions than me:
Loading…
pmrphoto.blogspot.com
Loading…
www.that1cameraguy.com
If it can handle high school gymnasium volleyball..... then I can't really think of a realistic low light action situation that it can't handle.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/havoc315/
Last edited:
As I said, I can see just fine--so how is this lower than the human eye? My camera can see just fine too.
The first scenario that pops to mind: have you ever tried to photograph kids running around indoors at night? Sometimes without every single light on in the house? You don't want flash constantly blinding them, and too large of an aperture can be tough when it comes to DoF at closer distances (as opposed to a basketball game, which usually has brighter lighting and much longer distances).
Remember that a DSLR autofocuses with the lens wide open; while many mirrorless lenses is already stopped down ('live view'). So one (of several) reasons I could easily autofocus on that image below is because my camera auto-focused at F/2--a full 3 stops brighter--and doesn't stop down until I take the shot. Most mirrorless' would have needed to autofocus with the lens at F/5.6 for an action shot. In addition, the 'phases' are from further apart on a DSLR, so they can typically get more precise.
Also remember that on-sensor phase detect requires you take light away from hitting the sensor at the appropriate location--so the more low-light sensitive your AF is, the less light gets to the sensor. On a DSLR, this light comes away from your OVF and does not affect the sensor at all.
This is one of the reasons the latest Sony A99II uses both types of phase-detect autofocus. It gets some benefits (and some drawbacks) of both types.
What black box? That's a hat on a keyboard. In actual low lighting, not bright lighting. And the focus is on point.Is that a joke? I think your AF is way off -- that black box looks totally out of focus.This is low lighting. And yes, I auto-focused here just fine on the hat:
You can't see it because this is an actual low lighting scenario, not like the ones you posted earlier.
That's probably because you consider the shots you took earlier to be 'low light'. It appears that you don't actually shoot low light action, so this is irrelevant to you.
And sidenote: I have no idea where you're going with this ISO 4,000,000 'logic'...
But if you're interested, here's a screenshot of Michael the Maven's comparison review of low-light autofocusing between the A6300 and the Canon 80D, for example.
(Those targets are +6.5EV & -2EV respectively):
Last edited:
And as I said, the A6300 can continuously auto-focus in any situation that is good enough for the human eye to see without strain.
Sure... that's been no problem.
For example:
Yes, you're going to say that it is 1.8 and not 5.6. But you couldn't get that shot at 5.6 with any APS-C camera, and not with most full frame cameras either -- It is already at ISO 10,000. So shooting at f 5.6 would have required ISO of 80,000 --- Higher than the maximum of the A6300 or the D750.
Once again, nobody is shooting with any APS-C camera in super-low light at 1/300 and F 5.6 -- It would require ISOs that are beyond the range of modern cameras.
The AF points take up so little of the sensor, it is simply a non-issue. In fact, this is where the mirrorless AF is potentially better than the dSLR -- the dSLR mirror is limited in it's ability to only use a small portion of the light coming in to the camera, while the mirrorless is able to use a greater portion of the light. Thus, the reason why dpreview found single shot low light AF to be superior on the A7rii, to dSLRs.
I don't disagree with that. Nor am I saying that in the absolute most challenging situations, there is absolutely no difference. I was disputing the allegation that mirrorless autofocus is simply completely incapable of autofocus in low light situations.
I've given an ample number of shots, from my own shooting and links to others, showing that it is indeed very very capable. One of the blog articles I linked, basically said, in the low light basketball shots.... he got a 90% hit rate... and maybe the D4s would have given him a 95% hit rate. Sure, there might still be a very slight disadvantage to mirrorless AF. But it has become slight. Comparing a 72 degree day to a 70 degree day. Not comparing 95 degrees in the dessert to -10 degrees in the arctic.
So you're contradicting your earlier point --- You claimed a dSLR is much better at shooting at F5.6 in low light --- But I think you just proved that pointlessness of that statement, even if true. Since you are just getting a black box in that situation.What black box? That's a hat on a keyboard. In actual low lighting, not bright lighting. And the focus is on point.Is that a joke? I think your AF is way off -- that black box looks totally out of focus.This is low lighting. And yes, I auto-focused here just fine on the hat:
You can't see it because this is an actual low lighting scenario, not like the ones you posted earlier.
Again, show me 1 situation where the D750 can autofocus on the action shot, and the A6300 can't. Seems you are saying, "well... if we stop down to F8 at 1/500 shutter speed in moon light, the A6300 wouldn't be able to autofocus"..... But guess what --- the D750 isn't going to capture an viewable image in that situation either.
I have no idea what I'm looking at. You didn't post a link.. you posted a screen grab.But if you're interested, here's a screenshot of, for example.
(Those targets are +6.5EV & -2EV respectively):
I found the video, and it is NOT a measure of continuous auto focus. It was a measure of simply how fast it can great AF under those 2 situations....
And you very very selectively grabbed a screen
Wow... how about that... the A6300 grabbed focus FASTER than the 80D at 24mm.
Now, the A6300 is only rated to EV -1. So -2 is below its rating -- And nobody is shooting 1/500 shutter speed action at -2 EV. That's purely still photography. Anyway... so even stretching to -2 EV, which is lower than it's specs, it is out performing the 80D. Thanks for the video
--
You're really getting rambly and straying far away from the point...
You claimed that you've proven that mirrorless can autofocus excellently in low light action shots. So post some low light action autofocus shots! You still haven't done that yet.
So far, you've posted:
You claimed that you've proven that mirrorless can autofocus excellently in low light action shots. So post some low light action autofocus shots! You still haven't done that yet.
So far, you've posted:
- A well-lit scene of a bicycle
- A high contrast, low motion scene (where the background was dark but subjects were well lit)
- A low-motion side-shot where the subject distance doesn't change (it's clearly a still because the arms & ball aren't remotely suffering from motion blur)
And as I said, the A6300 can continuously auto-focus in any situation that is good enough for the human eye to see without strain.
Sure... that's been no problem.
For example:
Yes, you're going to say that it is 1.8 and not 5.6. But you couldn't get that shot at 5.6 with any APS-C camera, and not with most full frame cameras either -- It is already at ISO 10,000. So shooting at f 5.6 would have required ISO of 80,000 --- Higher than the maximum of the A6300 or the D750.
Once again, nobody is shooting with any APS-C camera in super-low light at 1/300 and F 5.6 -- It would require ISOs that are beyond the range of modern cameras.
The AF points take up so little of the sensor, it is simply a non-issue. In fact, this is where the mirrorless AF is potentially better than the dSLR -- the dSLR mirror is limited in it's ability to only use a small portion of the light coming in to the camera, while the mirrorless is able to use a greater portion of the light. Thus, the reason why dpreview found single shot low light AF to be superior on the A7rii, to dSLRs.
I don't disagree with that. Nor am I saying that in the absolute most challenging situations, there is absolutely no difference. I was disputing the allegation that mirrorless autofocus is simply completely incapable of autofocus in low light situations.
I've given an ample number of shots, from my own shooting and links to others, showing that it is indeed very very capable. One of the blog articles I linked, basically said, in the low light basketball shots.... he got a 90% hit rate... and maybe the D4s would have given him a 95% hit rate. Sure, there might still be a very slight disadvantage to mirrorless AF. But it has become slight. Comparing a 72 degree day to a 70 degree day. Not comparing 95 degrees in the dessert to -10 degrees in the arctic.
So you're contradicting your earlier point --- You claimed a dSLR is much better at shooting at F5.6 in low light --- But I think you just proved that pointlessness of that statement, even if true. Since you are just getting a black box in that situation.What black box? That's a hat on a keyboard. In actual low lighting, not bright lighting. And the focus is on point.Is that a joke? I think your AF is way off -- that black box looks totally out of focus.This is low lighting. And yes, I auto-focused here just fine on the hat:
You can't see it because this is an actual low lighting scenario, not like the ones you posted earlier.
Again, show me 1 situation where the D750 can autofocus on the action shot, and the A6300 can't. Seems you are saying, "well... if we stop down to F8 at 1/500 shutter speed in moon light, the A6300 wouldn't be able to autofocus"..... But guess what --- the D750 isn't going to capture an viewable image in that situation either.
I have no idea what I'm looking at. You didn't post a link.. you posted a screen grab.But if you're interested, here's a screenshot of, for example.
(Those targets are +6.5EV & -2EV respectively):
I found the video, and it is NOT a measure of continuous auto focus. It was a measure of simply how fast it can great AF under those 2 situations....
And you very very selectively grabbed a screen
Wow... how about that... the A6300 grabbed focus FASTER than the 80D at 24mm.
Now, the A6300 is only rated to EV -1. So -2 is below its rating -- And nobody is shooting 1/500 shutter speed action at -2 EV. That's purely still photography. Anyway... so even stretching to -2 EV, which is lower than it's specs, it is out performing the 80D. Thanks for the video
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/havoc315/
Last edited:
I have proven it... again and again. But then you say, "oh... that scene isn't quite low enough of light"....... "oh.... that is slow action, what about fast action?"
You keep moving the goal posts. So let's try this:
Post an example image taken with a dSLR --- Show me the type of image you are claiming you can catch focus with a dSLR, that you are claiming can't be done with mirrorless. Then let's see if I can match the image or not.
If I were to post an image of a cheetah running towards the camera taken by moonlight.... You'd claim that the spots on the cheetah are too high of contrast. You'd claim that the full moonlight was too bright, but that only a half-moon would count. I already posted links showing basketball and volleyball shot in low lit gymnasiums... that isn't enough for you either.
So go ahead -- Post an example of an image you have captured with a dSLR, that you don't believe can be captured with mirrorless.
Last edited:
Actually... my shots were in 2-5 EV of light.
Again, post one example of a shot that you don't think the a6300 can handle?
You want me to duplicate your pitch black shot? I wouldn't consider that action, but the a6300 can do that easily.
Post even 1 example of a low light action shot that you believe the best mirrorless AF can't handle
Again, post one example of a shot that you don't think the a6300 can handle?
You want me to duplicate your pitch black shot? I wouldn't consider that action, but the a6300 can do that easily.
Post even 1 example of a low light action shot that you believe the best mirrorless AF can't handle
...and you are basing your 2-5 EV of light on...?
Your only example of action shots were using the following settings, which shows roughly 8.33.
You made the claim. Prove it to the people who shoot low light action.
LV 8 IS low light for sports photography/
LV 8 is equivalent to:
- Times Square at night
- Store windows at night
- Fires at night
- Stadium lighting
- Interior with sunlight coming through window
- Interior with many florescent lights
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/tips/054b_exposure_light_and_exposure_values.htm
In fact, if you are shooting at F5.6... need 1/640 for freeze the action, and your camera doesn't have acceptable ISO above 12,800... then the absolute lowest light that you can possibly get a properly exposed image is EV of 7.3. (that's using the calculator you posted).
In regards to my statement about 2-5, I was referring to the other numerous examples I posted. (The ones that you said were too slow.... but it is physically impossible to shoot fast action at 1/640, F5.6, in 2 LV of light. Nothing to do with the focus system, the camera just can't possible get a decent exposure level).
Again, show me an example of low light action photography that you don't think a good mirrorless can handle.
The only example you posted was the pitch black shot, which you claimed was the fair representation.
So I just did a shot of my dog running towards me in a very very dimly lit hallway at night.
The A6300 nailed the focus perfectly:
Fact is, you can't post a single example. You claimed I shouldn't be using wide aperture examples... you claimed I shouldn't use slow action examples.... So go ahead, post an action shot taken below 5 EV, at F5.6, at 1/640 or faster, and ISO 12,800 or lower.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/havoc315/
Last edited:
Hi havoc,
One of the things that got me interested in photography was when I tried to photograph my friends' bands and realised that my compact camera wasn't up to the job.
I still take band photos every so often, it's probably the type of photography that I enjoy most.
Anyway, I'm usually shooting at around f/2.8 1/60 and iso4000 in those situations and when the dof is that thin I find a good AF system to be very beneficial.
I'm not at my computer right now otherwise I'd be happy to post one, but I do have many!
I'd be interested to see how your sony goes up against your dslr in that shooting scenario - I'd be much happier taking a pocketable camera into bars with me than a dslr kit bag.
Cheers!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum