Contituation of the Versatility thread

Started Apr 5, 2013 | Discussions
OP vzlnc Regular Member • Posts: 314
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
3

vzlnc wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Sorry, DX and MFT.

Good enough for what, exactly? All I'm saying is FF provides more DoF options and is therefore more versatile, which is the point of this and the other threads. Nothing more.

Good enough for everything.

How about birds in flight, fast moving kids, indoor or outdoor sports, which REQUIRE PDAF. Now its entirely a different story that you MIGHT just get a decent picture doing CDAF or manual focusing using zone system, but isnt that a hell lot more cumbersome, not to mention you will NEVER get the exact shot you want bcoz of the nature of CDAF. Regardless of the sensor size or the lens, CDAF is NOT SUITABLE for these situations. Hell, even in regular snapshots CDAF misses the exact moment many times.

How about hand-holding long telephoto lens, not only its awkward, its so shaky that none of the IS or VR systems are going to compensate enough. Its just goes against nature when you are holding a small gripless compact with a long telephoto at an arms length and trying to turn the zoom ring. There is a reason why rifle-scopes are attached like that and why archers hold their arrow close to their eye. Not to mention the paid you will end up with.

Also you have end with no AF tracking that is a MUST for such situations.

Also need to add things like you can change almost all settings of the camera WITHOUT taking your eye OFF the viewfinder. All your buttons are on the finger tips. You can focus and recompose with the press of a button without changing any settings and still have the subject in your view all the time. Just not possible with any other system. That means FF is more adaptable to any scene or condition you throw at it.

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 9,509
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

vzlnc wrote:

 
 
 
 
FF already offers almost all focal lengths and both variable aperture and fixed aperture lenses at those focal lengths. Why would FF users even bother with putting lenses designed for other systems. Its the other systems which DO NOT have as good coverage as the FF cameras that have to resort to adapting lenses from other similar systems. Nikon and Canon both have wide-angle, normal zoom, portrait and wide primes, telephotos at f2.8 and f4 which other systems DONT even come close to having. Yes, you can adapt, and there goes the weight and size argument out of the window. For normal primes Canikon have the option of f1.2, f1.4, f1.8 for every individual requirement. THAT IS CALLED VERSATILITY.

Adapting these lenses to other systems means those systems are depending on FF lenses to overcome their weaknesses or lacking of certain features. You never see FF users trying to adapt lenses from other systems, bcoz they already have all accessories, lenses etc they need.

Hi

Wait until there is a mirrorless affordable FF interchangeable lens camera and THEN try this argument....people will grab the best glass from everywhere as long as the camera is suitable.

I took my Pentax Q with compact camera sensor with a Canon 85 1.2 L FD lens to the Harness races last night and they had a show by Shannon Noll between races.   I got photos that would have been difficult for me with ANYTHING else and especially not FF....i shoots concerts with apsc with a pass and up close.

Could not get close last night so shooting from the crowd with the luxury of 1.2/f2 shutter speeds with a 470mm aprox equiv focal length....yes, DOF is not as "thin" as a REAL 470 1.2 (where do i get one of them again?) but it is still very narrow and plenty thin enough.

You would get BETTER IQ (not more versatile) with a 400 2.8 on a FF maybe but you would not have had any room to use it or get close enough unless you also brought a fairly tall ladder.

I had my APSC Kx and 50 1.2 with me and tried using it (part of my normal kit for live music) and the results are horrible.

Adapted lenses are what is going to make this a very versatile camera.

I would argue that FF LENSES are much more verastile but again, mainly manual focus old style ones.

I would also argue that mirrorless interchangeable cameras that CAN take adapted lenses are much more versatile than any particular camera (of any format)  that can not (but the smaller the more choice of adapting).    EG a Pentax K-01 mirrorless is not easily adaptable (due to keeping the K mount..lots of lenses but comparatively, few can be adapted)

I can not wait for a FF mirrorless interchangeable camera but it will not be as versatile as a smaller camera of the same type....it will be BETTER for what it will do for me but it will not do as MUCH.

FoolyCooly Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

vzlnc wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Sorry, DX and MFT.

Good enough for what, exactly? All I'm saying is FF provides more DoF options and is therefore more versatile, which is the point of this and the other threads. Nothing more.

Good enough for everything.

*That I shoot*

Not interested in burds or sports. I've got kids... they move fast. I'm confident that I could get enough keepers to justify the trouble of using such a sad kit. :/

M43 long zooms are pretty darn lite. I doubt you'll have trouble holding one.

I own several DSLRs as well. I'm sure I could just use one of those if I really needed to.

How about birds in flight, fast moving kids, indoor or outdoor sports, which REQUIRE PDAF. Now its entirely a different story that you MIGHT just get a decent picture doing CDAF or manual focusing using zone system, but isnt that a hell lot more cumbersome, not to mention you will NEVER get the exact shot you want bcoz of the nature of CDAF. Regardless of the sensor size or the lens, CDAF is NOT SUITABLE for these situations. Hell, even in regular snapshots CDAF misses the exact moment many times.

How about hand-holding long telephoto lens, not only its awkward, its so shaky that none of the IS or VR systems are going to compensate enough. Its just goes against nature when you are holding a small gripless compact with a long telephoto at an arms length and trying to turn the zoom ring. There is a reason why rifle-scopes are attached like that and why archers hold their arrow close to their eye. Not to mention the paid you will end up with.

Also you have end with no AF tracking that is a MUST for such situations.

Also need to add things like you can change almost all settings of the camera WITHOUT taking your eye OFF the viewfinder. All your buttons are on the finger tips. You can focus and recompose with the press of a button without changing any settings and still have the subject in your view all the time. Just not possible with any other system. That means FF is more adaptable to any scene or condition you throw at it.

The buttons are on the VF... It's a touch screen. Yes that is a live view of your composition in the back. A half-press of the shutter button will get you back into picture taking mode instantly.

olliess Senior Member • Posts: 1,349
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
3

FoolyCooly wrote:

olliess wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

What about the $600 price range?

For $600 you can get a DSLR with a cramped OVF or an E-PL5 with no viewfinder at all.

That DSLR is will also have issues with front focusing and back focusing or left side/right side AF issues where I will have none. There is no need for AF Micro Adjustment on a mirrorless system... yet I seem to have to add some compensation for each DSLR and lens combo I own.

I think you're exaggerating here, since phase-detect AF SLRs have been working pretty well for professional use for about the past 25 years. The fact that fine tuning is often possible for specific combinations, or that some cameras happen to be out of calibration or otherwise have QC issues, is really not an argument "against" DSLRs. With a phase-detect DSLR, you have the choice of using either 1) a PDAF system for following fast moving subjects with reasonable accuracy or 2) live view and CDAF (or MF) for static subjects with critical accuracy. At present, you can get a mirrorless body with much faster CDAF but much more limited PDAF (if at all), so I'd have to say the DSLR is more "versatile" in this respect.

An OVF is not needed on the E-PL5 because it's so lite. Holding it 10" from your face for an hour is no problem at all. Try the same with any DSLR and kit lens and tell me you don't get the shakes or that it just doesn't feel odd.

The OVF is needed for shooting in situations where the back screen is hard to see or is distracting. This has nothing to do with how "lite" the camera is. On the other hand, if you shoot with a big tele lens, I don't care how "lite" the body is, it's going to be shakier held 10" away than held close and braced against my face.

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
1

Biggs23 wrote:

Ah, you misunderstand the word, than. COMPLETE darkness is ZERO light in ANY spectrum. That means no infrared either. Read up, come back, enjoy.

You were considering IR when you suggest "darkness", or "so dark that you couldn't see"?

Off topic.

No, just inconvenient now.

Oh, oops. This one's on me, I was confusing the model numbers and thinking of the RX100 which is a P&S. The RX1 is a FF but is not versatile at all considering its fixed lens.

Correct. FF sensor and IQ does not make RX1 a versatile camera. Although, using arguments y'all make, one could argue it is a versatile camera if it meets all of their personal needs. Trust me, I won't.

Not in terms of the definition of a word it doesn't!

Actually it does because cost is the reason versatility is looked at.

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

I read and understood. You said you could use an adapter to use lenses of different mounts. But each different mount requires a different adapter. Thus, if you want to use multiple lenses all of a different mount you must carry an adapter for each. Or am I wrong? Is there a magical adapter that allows the use of every other mount all at the same time?

Versatility lets you pick. You can choose to leave an adapter on every lens, or just use one adapter depending on your lens collection.

So now you're backtracking and admitting what I said from the get go; if you want to use multiple lenses from multiple mounts you must have adapters for each mount.

Backtracking? No sire, just trying to explain the same thing over and over, and still misunderstood.

Most of these non-native lenses will necessitate manual focus, which is actually a strength of the system. You have Focus Peaking, Focus Magnify, Tiltable LCD screen and EVF. The camera will meter: Versatility.

Let me get this straight, MF is a STRENGTH?

You bet. Practically 100% of my photography is with manual focus, except on some occasions when I might use AF. I think I posted images from NBA game taken with AF and MF in the other thread(s).

100% of YOUR photography may very well be. But arguing that MF is MORE versatile and a STRENGTH for most users is hogwash.

I didn't say MF is more versatile.

Right, because it isn't. And if I want 14mm - 200mm at f/2.8 covered with a NEX I'd be forced to MF at least some of that range. Compared with a FF dSLR system where I could have the entire range with AF!

No. One could go from 11mm to 300mm at f/2.8 with AF, and onto 500mm f/4, on NEX.

You realize that you can MF with a dSLR too, right? I recognize that focus peaking is a big thing but it's certainly NOT more versatile to MF, even with focus peaking.

I wouldn't buy a DSLR today, much less for Manual Focus.

I wouldn't buy a mirrorless today, much less for AF. What's that comment have anything to do with the topic at hand?

In fact you shouldn't buy a mirror-less camera if you must rely on AF at all times. Only if you prefer to expand the camera usage beyond a limited set of options, that you may want to consider it, as I did (and only to discover later that the AF aspect isn't missing either).

Another area you're coming around in, good to see it!

Are you also clapping and jumping with joy, considering your comprehension of the points being made?

Some of the non-native mounts also allow for Auto Focus. It is for this reason, effort is being put in developing such adapters as we’ve recently seen from Metabones (with, or without AF). Then there is another tool that not only allows expansion of options for AF lenses, it literally transforms the AF system, from Minolta/Sony A-mount. Sports/Action photography, covered well: Versatility.

But not as well as a dSLR. So versatile, yes, but less so.

There are several points in the argument you responded to. Which one are you alluding to? Definitely not non-native mounts with AF, or is it? Heck, many DSLRs don't even support AF with their own mount depending on sensor size. Or, won't even meter properly.

All FF cameras that I know of will AF with any native lens that isn't a dedicated MF. I was responding to the concept of AF in general, which same generation FF dSLR's are better at than mirrorless cameras are.

If your option is limited to AF, then you have no choice. You're not looking for versatility, you're looking for something that meets your shorter list of must haves.

Nope. I think you misunderstand what versatility means. I can have BOTH AF and MF easily with a FF system and at a HUGE range of focal lengths and apertures. I am not afforded that luxury with a NEX or other mirrorless system. Thus, the FF system is the winner in terms of versatility, yet again.

I am. Of course, I can MF with FF system (either Sony RX1 or Sony A99 will be my choice). But comparing those to my experiences with NEX, I would pick the latter. You see, I'm able to tell the differences.

As for Sport/Action photography, I enjoy that aspect of photography and I'm not the one complaining. You don't, but you're complaining.

I'm not complaining about anything. I think you're confusing complaining with discussing.

You're complaining that I couldn't take a NEX and shoot sports with it. Or, are you agreeing that I could?

WHEN DID I DO THAT? Seriously, don't misquote me. I'm sure you can shoot sports with a mirrorless system, just not as well or with as wide a range of options as with a FF system.

I don't need to. I prefer a more versatile system over tedious ones.

I've long admitted that mirrorless cameras do have some advantages. It's just that those advantages are incredibly overshadowed by the disadvantages.

Not for my money.

Your money doesn't matter in terms of overall versatility, which is what this conversation is about.

To me it does.

As for putting any lens on, what lens am I lacking in a native mount for FF?

Re-read my point.

You didn't make one.

You responded to nothing?

The only reason that NEX (or similar) needs to put on other lenses is because not enough lenses have been developed for the native mount.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.

Then you didn't understand my points below.

Many people buy NEX because they are able to use their old and new lenses from other systems. Also because one can find impressive values from the past, and have explore their photography skills with it. These mirror-less systems are fantastic tools towards that effect. I am one of these people.

True, but not related to the above.

You made a failed attempt.

Here is the other side. I like options. For example, I could have picked Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye lens for A-mount and used on NEX without an issue. I picked the 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye for E-mount (smaller and lighter).

I could have picked Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS for E-mount. I use Sony 35mm f/1.8 for A-mount instead. I could pick Tamron or Sony 18-200 OSS E-mount for travel zoom. I plan on using Sigma 18-250 OS A-mount instead.

In other words, I can pick and choose without much regard to mount itself, but what makes the most sense to me, with multiple options.

Right, but you're severely limited in what options are actually available natively.

As I alluded to, surrendering to a native mount is the least of my concerns when a boat load of options exist for me to pick as I see necessary.

What do I need to back up? I can do it with the gear I own. What details are needed?

Why kind of "details" are expected in a photography forum?

No idea. I asked a simple question, are you incapable of answering it?

Then allow me to spell it out: A Photograph that backs up your claim.

That you can literally leave in your pockets when going for a casual walk?

When did I say that, exactly? You have a terrible habit of implying or outright stating that I said things I did not.

I didn't say you did, but that is the point you'd made an attempt to address.

No, it wasn't.

Good to know.

 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
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

olliess wrote:

With a phase-detect DSLR, you have the choice of using either 1) a PDAF system for following fast moving subjects with reasonable accuracy or 2) live view and CDAF (or MF) for static subjects with critical accuracy. At present, you can get a mirrorless body with much faster CDAF but much more limited PDAF (if at all), so I'd have to say the DSLR is more "versatile" in this respect.

With Sony NEX, I have access to:

1- CDAF w/PDAF assist (also being attempted in DSLRs with PDAF)

2- Full time PDAF (including when image is being captured)

3- AF Micro Adjust to ensure accuracy

4- DMF with Focus Peaking display (Points in focus are highlighted in addition to PDAF focus points used to acquire focus)

5- Live View is not crippled as is the case in DSLRs.

6- Manual Focus assist via Focus Peaking and Focus Magnify thru EVF or LCD (whichever is more convenient)

7- Not forced to use Live View (usually fixed screen on DSLRs) for video

 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
FoolyCooly Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

olliess wrote:

I think you're exaggerating here, since phase-detect AF SLRs have been working pretty well for professional use for about the past 25 years. The fact that fine tuning is often possible for specific combinations, or that some cameras happen to be out of calibration or otherwise have QC issues, is really not an argument "against" DSLRs. With a phase-detect DSLR, you have the choice of using either 1) a PDAF system for following fast moving subjects with reasonable accuracy or 2) live view and CDAF (or MF) for static subjects with critical accuracy. At present, you can get a mirrorless body with much faster CDAF but much more limited PDAF (if at all), so I'd have to say the DSLR is more "versatile" in this respect.

*Some DSLRs are very good for sports, birds and fast action. Not all of them. Some of them have trouble giving you reliable focus at all especially in low-light conditions.

olliess Senior Member • Posts: 1,349
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
1

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

olliess wrote:

With a phase-detect DSLR, you have the choice of using either 1) a PDAF system for following fast moving subjects with reasonable accuracy or 2) live view and CDAF (or MF) for static subjects with critical accuracy. At present, you can get a mirrorless body with much faster CDAF but much more limited PDAF (if at all), so I'd have to say the DSLR is more "versatile" in this respect.

With Sony NEX, I have access to:

1- CDAF w/PDAF assist (also being attempted in DSLRs with PDAF)

2- Full time PDAF (including when image is being captured)

3- AF Micro Adjust to ensure accuracy

I think it's pretty well established that the NEX PDAF is not quite up there with current DSLRs, which is why I called the PDAF "limited."

4- DMF with Focus Peaking display (Points in focus are highlighted in addition to PDAF focus points used to acquire focus)

5- Live View is not crippled as is the case in DSLRs.

6- Manual Focus assist via Focus Peaking and Focus Magnify thru EVF or LCD (whichever is more convenient)

7- Not forced to use Live View (usually fixed screen on DSLRs) for video

It should also be mentioned that there is a FF, phase-detect DSLR with an EVF, if you demand that functionality. Can you guess which company makes it?

MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,454
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
2

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Ah, you misunderstand the word, than. COMPLETE darkness is ZERO light in ANY spectrum. That means no infrared either. Read up, come back, enjoy.

You were considering IR when you suggest "darkness", or "so dark that you couldn't see"?

I said I was being pedantic. You said it could focus in 'complete darkness' so I said no it can't because in true 'complete darkness' there is no light in any spectrum and thus it couldn't focus. You just misused the term 'complete'. No biggie.

Off topic.

No, just inconvenient now.

No, just completely off topic. We're talking about systems, not photographers. Do you really want to compare photography?

Oh, oops. This one's on me, I was confusing the model numbers and thinking of the RX100 which is a P&S. The RX1 is a FF but is not versatile at all considering its fixed lens.

Correct. FF sensor and IQ does not make RX1 a versatile camera. Although, using arguments y'all make, one could argue it is a versatile camera if it meets all of their personal needs. Trust me, I won't.

Nope, and it's not just the sensor that makes a camera versatile. I've never argued that. It's not about personal needs either, it's about being versatile in a wide variety of needs. For that, a FF system wins.

Not in terms of the definition of a word it doesn't!

Actually it does because cost is the reason versatility is looked at.

Actually, it doesn't. Seriously, get a dictionary.

Biggs23 wrote:

So now you're backtracking and admitting what I said from the get go; if you want to use multiple lenses from multiple mounts you must have adapters for each mount.

Backtracking? No sire, just trying to explain the same thing over and over, and still misunderstood.

I am not your sire. You are definitely saying the same thing over and over, you just haven't realized that you're incorrect yet. I've been trying to do so but you haven't quite got it just yet.

I didn't say MF is more versatile.

Right, because it isn't. And if I want 14mm - 200mm at f/2.8 covered with a NEX I'd be forced to MF at least some of that range. Compared with a FF dSLR system where I could have the entire range with AF!

No. One could go from 11mm to 300mm at f/2.8 with AF, and onto 500mm f/4, on NEX.

Really? Could you show me the list of native E-Mount lenses that would make that happen? I just tried to look it up but see quite a few gaps in coverage. I may be missing a few lenses though. You clearly have more experience with that system than I do so I'm sure you'll know where to find such a list.

Another area you're coming around in, good to see it!

Are you also clapping and jumping with joy, considering your comprehension of the points being made?

Nah, I'm not too excitable.

Nope. I think you misunderstand what versatility means. I can have BOTH AF and MF easily with a FF system and at a HUGE range of focal lengths and apertures. I am not afforded that luxury with a NEX or other mirrorless system. Thus, the FF system is the winner in terms of versatility, yet again.

I am. Of course, I can MF with FF system (either Sony RX1 or Sony A99 will be my choice). But comparing those to my experiences with NEX, I would pick the latter. You see, I'm able to tell the differences.

I think the problem we might be having is that you seem to be saying that the NEX is more versatile for your uses, whereas I'm talking about what's more versatile in general. For you specifically it's completely possible that a NEX or mirrorless system is truly more versatile. But when speaking in general terms any semi-knowledgeable observer can see that it's not.

WHEN DID I DO THAT? Seriously, don't misquote me. I'm sure you can shoot sports with a mirrorless system, just not as well or with as wide a range of options as with a FF system.

I don't need to. I prefer a more versatile system over tedious ones.

So then why do you have a NEX system?

I've long admitted that mirrorless cameras do have some advantages. It's just that those advantages are incredibly overshadowed by the disadvantages.

Not for my money.

Your money doesn't matter in terms of overall versatility, which is what this conversation is about.

To me it does.

Exactly.

As for putting any lens on, what lens am I lacking in a native mount for FF?

Re-read my point.

You didn't make one.

You responded to nothing?

Clearly.

The only reason that NEX (or similar) needs to put on other lenses is because not enough lenses have been developed for the native mount.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.

Then you didn't understand my points below.

I did, actually.

Many people buy NEX because they are able to use their old and new lenses from other systems. Also because one can find impressive values from the past, and have explore their photography skills with it. These mirror-less systems are fantastic tools towards that effect. I am one of these people.

True, but not related to the above.

You made a failed attempt.

Yeah,... you're back to speaking in riddles.

Here is the other side. I like options. For example, I could have picked Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye lens for A-mount and used on NEX without an issue. I picked the 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye for E-mount (smaller and lighter).

I could have picked Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS for E-mount. I use Sony 35mm f/1.8 for A-mount instead. I could pick Tamron or Sony 18-200 OSS E-mount for travel zoom. I plan on using Sigma 18-250 OS A-mount instead.

In other words, I can pick and choose without much regard to mount itself, but what makes the most sense to me, with multiple options.

Right, but you're severely limited in what options are actually available natively.

As I alluded to, surrendering to a native mount is the least of my concerns when a boat load of options exist for me to pick as I see necessary.

So you admit the point?

What do I need to back up? I can do it with the gear I own. What details are needed?

Why kind of "details" are expected in a photography forum?

No idea. I asked a simple question, are you incapable of answering it?

Then allow me to spell it out: A Photograph that backs up your claim.

Oh, sure, no problem! Here's a great video showing everything I'm saying.  http://youtu.be/6X5xSUqlKuE?t=2m48s

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

olliess wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

olliess wrote:

With a phase-detect DSLR, you have the choice of using either 1) a PDAF system for following fast moving subjects with reasonable accuracy or 2) live view and CDAF (or MF) for static subjects with critical accuracy. At present, you can get a mirrorless body with much faster CDAF but much more limited PDAF (if at all), so I'd have to say the DSLR is more "versatile" in this respect.

With Sony NEX, I have access to:

1- CDAF w/PDAF assist (also being attempted in DSLRs with PDAF)

2- Full time PDAF (including when image is being captured)

3- AF Micro Adjust to ensure accuracy

I think it's pretty well established that the NEX PDAF is not quite up there with current DSLRs, which is why I called the PDAF "limited."

But the beauty of NEX system as it currently exists is that you can address that, with full time PDAF (that not even comparable DSLRs can manage) and adds AF Micro Focus capability (that most comparable DSLRs don't have).

4- DMF with Focus Peaking display (Points in focus are highlighted in addition to PDAF focus points used to acquire focus)

5- Live View is not crippled as is the case in DSLRs.

6- Manual Focus assist via Focus Peaking and Focus Magnify thru EVF or LCD (whichever is more convenient)

7- Not forced to use Live View (usually fixed screen on DSLRs) for video

It should also be mentioned that there is a FF, phase-detect DSLR with an EVF, if you demand that functionality. Can you guess which company makes it?

I talked about it in an earlier response below. But, I also find it amusing that the only argument mirror-less naysayers have is that they assume the need to match APS-C or smaller sensor mirror-less cameras to FF DSLRs. Almost as if, the idea of bulk can't be rescued if smaller sensors with DSLRs were considered.

 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
moving_comfort
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,242
The Too-Many-Compromises problem
2

I have some real tangible undeniable gear-lust for a small kit like the OM-D.

However every time I shoot one, while reviewing the images later (and after patting myself on the back for taking advantage of the smallness,) I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling of going backwards.

I personally just can't do it...  yet.  I need better AF, for one thing, maybe a better VF, maybe more DOF control, but mostly I just need better high-ISO performance so my shutter speeds can be where I want them in low-light, my subjects sharp, crisp, and as noise-free as possible.  Occasionally I need more dynamic range.

The fun gets drained and the 'versatility' dissipates when I look at the images later.  The D800 has completely spoiled me when it comes to IQ, I guess.

want to love the OM-D and its peers.  Maybe the next iteration.

-- hide signature --

Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Pentax K20D Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D +10 more
EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Ah, you misunderstand the word, than. COMPLETE darkness is ZERO light in ANY spectrum. That means no infrared either. Read up, come back, enjoy.

You were considering IR when you suggest "darkness", or "so dark that you couldn't see"?

I said I was being pedantic. You said it could focus in 'complete darkness' so I said no it can't because in true 'complete darkness' there is no light in any spectrum and thus it couldn't focus. You just misused the term 'complete'. No biggie.

To your camera, and in fact, my other two cameras, and to my eyes (can't speak for yours) unless looking through the EVF or LCD , it will be complete darkness.

Off topic.

No, just inconvenient now.

No, just completely off topic. We're talking about systems, not photographers. Do you really want to compare photography?

Who is looking for versatility in these systems, if not photographers?

Oh, oops. This one's on me, I was confusing the model numbers and thinking of the RX100 which is a P&S. The RX1 is a FF but is not versatile at all considering its fixed lens.

Correct. FF sensor and IQ does not make RX1 a versatile camera. Although, using arguments y'all make, one could argue it is a versatile camera if it meets all of their personal needs. Trust me, I won't.

Nope, and it's not just the sensor that makes a camera versatile. I've never argued that. It's not about personal needs either, it's about being versatile in a wide variety of needs. For that, a FF system wins.

RX1 doesn't. You know that and I agree with that sentiment. Where we are off is our limits to versatility. Clearly, I take my camera to a wider variety of situations than you do. So, your tool may be versatile enough for you, but it will come up short for my needs.

Not in terms of the definition of a word it doesn't!

Actually it does because cost is the reason versatility is looked at.

Actually, it doesn't. Seriously, get a dictionary.

Versatility is a big difference when choosing between a family sedan and a sports car. The need to choose comes from cost. If cost were a non-issue, get both.

Biggs23 wrote:

So now you're backtracking and admitting what I said from the get go; if you want to use multiple lenses from multiple mounts you must have adapters for each mount.

Backtracking? No sire, just trying to explain the same thing over and over, and still misunderstood.

I am not your sire. You are definitely saying the same thing over and over, you just haven't realized that you're incorrect yet. I've been trying to do so but you haven't quite got it just yet.

There is a reason I'm having to repeat over and over (another reason I chose to consolidate our exchange into one set)... your inability to gather my points but only to come back with "you're incorrect", "it is versatile".

I didn't say MF is more versatile.

Right, because it isn't. And if I want 14mm - 200mm at f/2.8 covered with a NEX I'd be forced to MF at least some of that range. Compared with a FF dSLR system where I could have the entire range with AF!

No. One could go from 11mm to 300mm at f/2.8 with AF, and onto 500mm f/4, on NEX.

Really? Could you show me the list of native E-Mount lenses that would make that happen? I just tried to look it up but see quite a few gaps in coverage. I may be missing a few lenses though. You clearly have more experience with that system than I do so I'm sure you'll know where to find such a list.

The beauty of E-mount being that you don't need to worry about E-mount lenses.

Another area you're coming around in, good to see it!

Are you also clapping and jumping with joy, considering your comprehension of the points being made?

Nah, I'm not too excitable.

Nope. I think you misunderstand what versatility means. I can have BOTH AF and MF easily with a FF system and at a HUGE range of focal lengths and apertures. I am not afforded that luxury with a NEX or other mirrorless system. Thus, the FF system is the winner in terms of versatility, yet again.

I am. Of course, I can MF with FF system (either Sony RX1 or Sony A99 will be my choice). But comparing those to my experiences with NEX, I would pick the latter. You see, I'm able to tell the differences.

I think the problem we might be having is that you seem to be saying that the NEX is more versatile for your uses, whereas I'm talking about what's more versatile in general. For you specifically it's completely possible that a NEX or mirrorless system is truly more versatile. But when speaking in general terms any semi-knowledgeable observer can see that it's not.

My point being that what is versatile to you, does not meet many of my needs. Obviously, your limits on versatility is reached sooner than later.

WHEN DID I DO THAT? Seriously, don't misquote me. I'm sure you can shoot sports with a mirrorless system, just not as well or with as wide a range of options as with a FF system.

I don't need to. I prefer a more versatile system over tedious ones.

So then why do you have a NEX system?

Because it is fantastic alternative to a DSLR system. I do have a DSLT, but recall one of my first responses: if I had to live with just one camera today, I would pick NEX-6 (I have NEX-3).

I've long admitted that mirrorless cameras do have some advantages. It's just that those advantages are incredibly overshadowed by the disadvantages.

Not for my money.

Your money doesn't matter in terms of overall versatility, which is what this conversation is about.

To me it does.

Exactly.

As for putting any lens on, what lens am I lacking in a native mount for FF?

Re-read my point.

You didn't make one.

You responded to nothing?

Clearly.

The only reason that NEX (or similar) needs to put on other lenses is because not enough lenses have been developed for the native mount.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily.

Then you didn't understand my points below.

I did, actually.

Many people buy NEX because they are able to use their old and new lenses from other systems. Also because one can find impressive values from the past, and have explore their photography skills with it. These mirror-less systems are fantastic tools towards that effect. I am one of these people.

True, but not related to the above.

You made a failed attempt.

Yeah,... you're back to speaking in riddles.

Here is the other side. I like options. For example, I could have picked Samyang 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye lens for A-mount and used on NEX without an issue. I picked the 8mm f/2.8 Fisheye for E-mount (smaller and lighter).

I could have picked Sony 35mm f/1.8 OSS for E-mount. I use Sony 35mm f/1.8 for A-mount instead. I could pick Tamron or Sony 18-200 OSS E-mount for travel zoom. I plan on using Sigma 18-250 OS A-mount instead.

In other words, I can pick and choose without much regard to mount itself, but what makes the most sense to me, with multiple options.

Right, but you're severely limited in what options are actually available natively.

As I alluded to, surrendering to a native mount is the least of my concerns when a boat load of options exist for me to pick as I see necessary.

So you admit the point?

What do I need to back up? I can do it with the gear I own. What details are needed?

Why kind of "details" are expected in a photography forum?

No idea. I asked a simple question, are you incapable of answering it?

Then allow me to spell it out: A Photograph that backs up your claim.

Oh, sure, no problem! Here's a great video showing everything I'm saying.  http://youtu.be/6X5xSUqlKuE?t=2m48s

Try to talk for self, back up YOUR claims on your own.

 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
FoolyCooly Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: The Too-Many-Compromises problem
1

moving_comfort wrote:

I have some real tangible undeniable gear-lust for a small kit like the OM-D.

However every time I shoot one, while reviewing the images later (and after patting myself on the back for taking advantage of the smallness,) I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling of going backwards.

I personally just can't do it...  yet.  I need better AF, for one thing, maybe a better VF, maybe more DOF control, but mostly I just need better high-ISO performance so my shutter speeds can be where I want them in low-light, my subjects sharp, crisp, and as noise-free as possible.  Occasionally I need more dynamic range.

The fun gets drained and the 'versatility' dissipates when I look at the images later.  The D800 has completely spoiled me when it comes to IQ, I guess.

want to love the OM-D and its peers.  Maybe the next iteration.

DSLRs are too big to go everywhere. The best camera is the one you have with you.

moving_comfort
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,242
Versatile != only 'small'
4

FoolyCooly wrote:

moving_comfort wrote:

I have some real tangible undeniable gear-lust for a small kit like the OM-D.

However every time I shoot one, while reviewing the images later (and after patting myself on the back for taking advantage of the smallness,) I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling of going backwards.

I personally just can't do it...  yet.  I need better AF, for one thing, maybe a better VF, maybe more DOF control, but mostly I just need better high-ISO performance so my shutter speeds can be where I want them in low-light, my subjects sharp, crisp, and as noise-free as possible.  Occasionally I need more dynamic range.

The fun gets drained and the 'versatility' dissipates when I look at the images later.  The D800 has completely spoiled me when it comes to IQ, I guess.

want to love the OM-D and its peers.  Maybe the next iteration.

DSLRs are too big to go everywhere. The best camera is the one you have with you.

The only camera I always have with me is my iphone 4s.  An OM-D, NEX, etc is too big to 'have with me' at all times anyway, especially with certain lenses attached.

A DSLR + small prime can be very 'versatile' in terms of portability + IQ + AF capability + speed/low light.  There are many ways to measure 'versatile', it's a big mistake to think it maps only to small.

.

-- hide signature --

Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Pentax K20D Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D +10 more
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,454
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
1

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

EinsteinsGhost wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Ah, you misunderstand the word, than. COMPLETE darkness is ZERO light in ANY spectrum. That means no infrared either. Read up, come back, enjoy.

You were considering IR when you suggest "darkness", or "so dark that you couldn't see"?

I said I was being pedantic. You said it could focus in 'complete darkness' so I said no it can't because in true 'complete darkness' there is no light in any spectrum and thus it couldn't focus. You just misused the term 'complete'. No biggie.

To your camera, and in fact, my other two cameras, and to my eyes (can't speak for yours) unless looking through the EVF or LCD , it will be complete darkness.

Oh sheesh. You misused 'complete'. 'Complete' doesn't have anything to do with your eye, my eye, a camera, a microscope, or anything other measurement except for the amount of actual light available. Nothing can focus (or 'see') in complete darkness because there are no light particles there, period. Get over it.

Off topic.

No, just inconvenient now.

No, just completely off topic. We're talking about systems, not photographers. Do you really want to compare photography?

Who is looking for versatility in these systems, if not photographers?

Now we're on to topic #3, apparently. The systems are being questioned, not the talent of the photographers behind them.

Oh, oops. This one's on me, I was confusing the model numbers and thinking of the RX100 which is a P&S. The RX1 is a FF but is not versatile at all considering its fixed lens.

Correct. FF sensor and IQ does not make RX1 a versatile camera. Although, using arguments y'all make, one could argue it is a versatile camera if it meets all of their personal needs. Trust me, I won't.

Nope, and it's not just the sensor that makes a camera versatile. I've never argued that. It's not about personal needs either, it's about being versatile in a wide variety of needs. For that, a FF system wins.

RX1 doesn't. You know that and I agree with that sentiment. Where we are off is our limits to versatility. Clearly, I take my camera to a wider variety of situations than you do.

No chance. I would say the opposite. Clearly, I take my cameras to a wider variety of situations than you do.

So, your tool may be versatile enough for you, but it will come up short for my needs.

Vice versa.

Not in terms of the definition of a word it doesn't!

Actually it does because cost is the reason versatility is looked at.

Actually, it doesn't. Seriously, get a dictionary.

Versatility is a big difference when choosing between a family sedan and a sports car. The need to choose comes from cost. If cost were a non-issue, get both.

But that choice doesn't change the meaning of the word.

Biggs23 wrote:

So now you're backtracking and admitting what I said from the get go; if you want to use multiple lenses from multiple mounts you must have adapters for each mount.

Backtracking? No sire, just trying to explain the same thing over and over, and still misunderstood.

I am not your sire. You are definitely saying the same thing over and over, you just haven't realized that you're incorrect yet. I've been trying to do so but you haven't quite got it just yet.

There is a reason I'm having to repeat over and over (another reason I chose to consolidate our exchange into one set)... your inability to gather my points but only to come back with "you're incorrect", "it is versatile".

Riiiight. I'm the one doing that. I see what you did there!

I didn't say MF is more versatile.

Right, because it isn't. And if I want 14mm - 200mm at f/2.8 covered with a NEX I'd be forced to MF at least some of that range. Compared with a FF dSLR system where I could have the entire range with AF!

No. One could go from 11mm to 300mm at f/2.8 with AF, and onto 500mm f/4, on NEX.

Really? Could you show me the list of native E-Mount lenses that would make that happen? I just tried to look it up but see quite a few gaps in coverage. I may be missing a few lenses though. You clearly have more experience with that system than I do so I'm sure you'll know where to find such a list.

The beauty of E-mount being that you don't need to worry about E-mount lenses.

I do, actually, because I don't want to have to carry around adapters. So I take it that you acknowledge that I was asking about isn't possible, than?

I think the problem we might be having is that you seem to be saying that the NEX is more versatile for your uses, whereas I'm talking about what's more versatile in general. For you specifically it's completely possible that a NEX or mirrorless system is truly more versatile. But when speaking in general terms any semi-knowledgeable observer can see that it's not.

My point being that what is versatile to you, does not meet many of my needs. Obviously, your limits on versatility is reached sooner than later.

Other way around, actually.

WHEN DID I DO THAT? Seriously, don't misquote me. I'm sure you can shoot sports with a mirrorless system, just not as well or with as wide a range of options as with a FF system.

I don't need to. I prefer a more versatile system over tedious ones.

So then why do you have a NEX system?

Because it is fantastic alternative to a DSLR system. I do have a DSLT, but recall one of my first responses: if I had to live with just one camera today, I would pick NEX-6 (I have NEX-3).

Sure, no problem, it's just not as versatile as a FF dSLR system.

Oh, sure, no problem! Here's a great video showing everything I'm saying.  http://youtu.be/6X5xSUqlKuE?t=2m48s

Try to talk for self, back up YOUR claims on your own.

I did speak for myself. As for backing up my claims, I did that too. What doesn't the video validate for you? (Oh, right, you only want to hang on the point I did actually take the video because if I actually had your argument would be dead on the water. Got it.)

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview.

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +5 more
FoolyCooly Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: Versatile != only 'small'

moving_comfort wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

moving_comfort wrote:

I have some real tangible undeniable gear-lust for a small kit like the OM-D.

However every time I shoot one, while reviewing the images later (and after patting myself on the back for taking advantage of the smallness,) I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling of going backwards.

I personally just can't do it...  yet.  I need better AF, for one thing, maybe a better VF, maybe more DOF control, but mostly I just need better high-ISO performance so my shutter speeds can be where I want them in low-light, my subjects sharp, crisp, and as noise-free as possible.  Occasionally I need more dynamic range.

The fun gets drained and the 'versatility' dissipates when I look at the images later.  The D800 has completely spoiled me when it comes to IQ, I guess.

want to love the OM-D and its peers.  Maybe the next iteration.

DSLRs are too big to go everywhere. The best camera is the one you have with you.

The only camera I always have with me is my iphone 4s.  An OM-D, NEX, etc is too big to 'have with me' at all times anyway, especially with certain lenses attached.

A DSLR + small prime can be very 'versatile' in terms of portability + IQ + AF capability + speed/low light.  There are many ways to measure 'versatile', it's a big mistake to think it maps only to small.

My E-PL5 is the perfect balance of size, cost and power. Small enough to go anywhere like my iphone 4. Cheap enough to leave on the beach as I swim. Powerful enough not to miss my DSLRs when I am using it.

There you go.

EinsteinsGhost
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
Re: Versatile != only 'small'

moving_comfort wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

moving_comfort wrote:

I have some real tangible undeniable gear-lust for a small kit like the OM-D.

However every time I shoot one, while reviewing the images later (and after patting myself on the back for taking advantage of the smallness,) I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling of going backwards.

I personally just can't do it...  yet.  I need better AF, for one thing, maybe a better VF, maybe more DOF control, but mostly I just need better high-ISO performance so my shutter speeds can be where I want them in low-light, my subjects sharp, crisp, and as noise-free as possible.  Occasionally I need more dynamic range.

The fun gets drained and the 'versatility' dissipates when I look at the images later.  The D800 has completely spoiled me when it comes to IQ, I guess.

want to love the OM-D and its peers.  Maybe the next iteration.

DSLRs are too big to go everywhere. The best camera is the one you have with you.

The only camera I always have with me is my iphone 4s.  An OM-D, NEX, etc is too big to 'have with me' at all times anyway, especially with certain lenses attached.

A DSLR + small prime can be very 'versatile' in terms of portability + IQ + AF capability + speed/low light.  There are many ways to measure 'versatile', it's a big mistake to think it maps only to small.

.

Actually, iPhone is an excellent example of a versatile too. Chances are, that is the reason you have one. Its smaller form factor also goes a long way towards that fact. For similar reasons, I expect tablets to eventually replace notebooks  which pretty much replaced PCs despite limitations.

 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
Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,248
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread

vzlnc wrote:

vzlnc wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

Sorry, DX and MFT.

Good enough for what, exactly? All I'm saying is FF provides more DoF options and is therefore more versatile, which is the point of this and the other threads. Nothing more.

Good enough for everything.

How about birds in flight, fast moving kids, indoor or outdoor sports, which REQUIRE PDAF. Now its entirely a different story that you MIGHT just get a decent picture doing CDAF or manual focusing using zone system, but isnt that a hell lot more cumbersome, not to mention you will NEVER get the exact shot you want bcoz of the nature of CDAF. Regardless of the sensor size or the lens, CDAF is NOT SUITABLE for these situations. Hell, even in regular snapshots CDAF misses the exact moment many times.

How about hand-holding long telephoto lens, not only its awkward, its so shaky that none of the IS or VR systems are going to compensate enough. Its just goes against nature when you are holding a small gripless compact with a long telephoto at an arms length and trying to turn the zoom ring. There is a reason why rifle-scopes are attached like that and why archers hold their arrow close to their eye. Not to mention the paid you will end up with.

Also you have end with no AF tracking that is a MUST for such situations.

Also need to add things like you can change almost all settings of the camera WITHOUT taking your eye OFF the viewfinder. All your buttons are on the finger tips. You can focus and recompose with the press of a button without changing any settings and still have the subject in your view all the time. Just not possible with any other system. That means FF is more adaptable to any scene or condition you throw at it.

You have no idea about current mirrorless cameras do you?

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
moving_comfort
moving_comfort Veteran Member • Posts: 8,242
Re: Versatile != only 'small'
2

FoolyCooly wrote:

moving_comfort wrote:

FoolyCooly wrote:

moving_comfort wrote:

I have some real tangible undeniable gear-lust for a small kit like the OM-D.

However every time I shoot one, while reviewing the images later (and after patting myself on the back for taking advantage of the smallness,) I'm left with a feeling of dissatisfaction, a feeling of going backwards.

I personally just can't do it...  yet.  I need better AF, for one thing, maybe a better VF, maybe more DOF control, but mostly I just need better high-ISO performance so my shutter speeds can be where I want them in low-light, my subjects sharp, crisp, and as noise-free as possible.  Occasionally I need more dynamic range.

The fun gets drained and the 'versatility' dissipates when I look at the images later.  The D800 has completely spoiled me when it comes to IQ, I guess.

want to love the OM-D and its peers.  Maybe the next iteration.

DSLRs are too big to go everywhere. The best camera is the one you have with you.

The only camera I always have with me is my iphone 4s.  An OM-D, NEX, etc is too big to 'have with me' at all times anyway, especially with certain lenses attached.

A DSLR + small prime can be very 'versatile' in terms of portability + IQ + AF capability + speed/low light.  There are many ways to measure 'versatile', it's a big mistake to think it maps only to small.

My E-PL5 is the perfect balance of size, cost and power. Small enough to go anywhere like my iphone 4. Cheap enough to leave on the beach as I swim. Powerful enough not to miss my DSLRs when I am using it.

.

Sure -  for you.  The whole point of my post was that I love the small size, the reduced cost, etc, etc as well, but I get let down when I review the images later.  This reduces the effectiveness of the small-versatility I enjoyed while taking the shots and puts a damper on the experience.

As it stands, my two main cameras are the D800 and the iphone4.  Absolutely no mirrorless/m43 camera can match the iphone's ubiquitous nature, and no mirrorless/m43 camera can match the D800's IQ and performance power.  Trying to have a little of both with something like an OM-D has been an exercise in disappointment for me.

That said, there's no accounting for simple gear lust.  I may end up with a kit anyway and think of the use cases later.

-- hide signature --

Here are a few of my favorite things...
---> http://www.flickr.com/photos/95095968@N00/sets/72157626171532197/

 moving_comfort's gear list:moving_comfort's gear list
Pentax K20D Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D +10 more
gandalfII Senior Member • Posts: 1,952
Re: Contituation of the Versatility thread
1

Today, Gene Smith would use FF.  HCB would find a compact mirrorless with 50 and/or 35 equivalent prime the most versatile for his work.  For a fascinating idea of what Adams would use, go here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads