Why I will not move to mirrorless

[AWG_Pics]

That brings up a good question- you had 800mm f5.6 and 700mm f8, I thought both of these were pretty much at the limit of AF capability, so how well did the focusing go with each one?

It was good light and subjects at various distances. Interestingly the 700 mm f8 with the d5 was quite good for close subjects, say 30 to 50 feet away, and more spotty to poor with longer distances. Critters in the air were in focus better than those close to the ground. Similar for the D850 at 800mm with subject up to 200 feet. Gotta say the overall hit rate for in focus images was not high (maybe heat wave distortions). Those TCs are no magic solution.

I am used to both bodies, with long primes (400mm & 500mm), giving me very high hit rates for in focus images.

I was not surprised at the results, just lower expectations. However, despite the low in focus rate, I did get the best Kestral image yet, and I have been trying for years. Same with the in-flight pin-tails. They are difficult, so getting a good shot of them was an overall success.

The converters were the Nikon ones, with Nikon lenses? That's the combination where the focus should be as good as it gets.

Yes, all Nikon TCs. I think the low angle, more distant shots were messed up by thermal distortion. We just cannot get around that thermal differential issue with today's technology.

 

[Dak on cam]

That brings up a good question- you had 800mm f5.6 and 700mm f8, I thought both of these were pretty much at the limit of AF capability, so how well did the focusing go with each one?

It was good light and subjects at various distances. Interestingly the 700 mm f8 with the d5 was quite good for close subjects, say 30 to 50 feet away, and more spotty to poor with longer distances. Critters in the air were in focus better than those close to the ground. Similar for the D850 at 800mm with subject up to 200 feet. Gotta say the overall hit rate for in focus images was not high (maybe heat wave distortions). Those TCs are no magic solution.

I am used to both bodies, with long primes (400mm & 500mm), giving me very high hit rates for in focus images.

I was not surprised at the results, just lower expectations. However, despite the low in focus rate, I did get the best Kestral image yet, and I have been trying for years. Same with the in-flight pin-tails. They are difficult, so getting a good shot of them was an overall success.

The converters were the Nikon ones, with Nikon lenses? That's the combination where the focus should be as good as it gets.

Yes, all Nikon TCs. I think the low angle, more distant shots were messed up by thermal distortion. We just cannot get around that thermal differential issue with today's technology.

You can try using live view (which implies contrast-detection autofocus). Focus is quite more sensitive with a teleconverter and live view does not necessitate that autofocus module and sensor are absolutely on the same page. Of course hitting a moving subject in that manner is less likely to be successful on a camera for which CDAF is just a second choice. But for static subjects it may converge better.

 

[AWG_Pics]

That brings up a good question- you had 800mm f5.6 and 700mm f8, I thought both of these were pretty much at the limit of AF capability, so how well did the focusing go with each one?

It was good light and subjects at various distances. Interestingly the 700 mm f8 with the d5 was quite good for close subjects, say 30 to 50 feet away, and more spotty to poor with longer distances. Critters in the air were in focus better than those close to the ground. Similar for the D850 at 800mm with subject up to 200 feet. Gotta say the overall hit rate for in focus images was not high (maybe heat wave distortions). Those TCs are no magic solution.

I am used to both bodies, with long primes (400mm & 500mm), giving me very high hit rates for in focus images.

I was not surprised at the results, just lower expectations. However, despite the low in focus rate, I did get the best Kestral image yet, and I have been trying for years. Same with the in-flight pin-tails. They are difficult, so getting a good shot of them was an overall success.

The converters were the Nikon ones, with Nikon lenses? That's the combination where the focus should be as good as it gets.

Yes, all Nikon TCs. I think the low angle, more distant shots were messed up by thermal distortion. We just cannot get around that thermal differential issue with today's technology.

You can try using live view (which implies contrast-detection autofocus). Focus is quite more sensitive with a teleconverter and live view does not necessitate that autofocus module and sensor are absolutely on the same page. Of course hitting a moving subject in that manner is less likely to be successful on a camera for which CDAF is just a second choice. But for static subjects it may converge better.

I will give that a try. Thanks!

 

[Er Chitara]

…

We are in the transition period, mirrorless have not expressed their full potential yet, and we are still well served by our horses. As mirrorless mature and a new generation of photographers grow, one that takes some new features for granted, mirrorless will become the obvious choice and DSLRs will be gone for good.

“Gone for good” or just another addition to that list of devices still in use that have been generally supplanted by another technology?

"Gone for good" like horses. My father-in-law still rides his horse, but they havent been considered a mean of transport for some decades now. Someone will probably use DSLRs a few decades from now, but the majority of photohraphers will no longer consider them a sensible photographic tool.

I have no reason to think that continual cycle of progression to something new will cease when mirrorless reaches maturity. We are always in a transition period and we have no way of knowing the obvious choice two decades into the future.

Manufacturers have already decided for us. How many DSLRS will still be functioning 2 decades from now without spare parts and service?

 

[egk4260]

…

We are in the transition period, mirrorless have not expressed their full potential yet, and we are still well served by our horses. As mirrorless mature and a new generation of photographers grow, one that takes some new features for granted, mirrorless will become the obvious choice and DSLRs will be gone for good.

“Gone for good” or just another addition to that list of devices still in use that have been generally supplanted by another technology?

"Gone for good" like horses. My father-in-law still rides his horse, but they havent been considered a mean of transport for some decades now. Someone will probably use DSLRs a few decades from now, but the majority of photohraphers will no longer consider them a sensible photographic tool.

Still in use, but in smaller numbers and with caveats is not GONE for good. You may be refuting me, but you are saying the same thing I just said, still in use but generally replaced by something different.

I have no reason to think that continual cycle of progression to something new will cease when mirrorless reaches maturity. We are always in a transition period and we have no way of knowing the obvious choice two decades into the future.

Manufacturers have already decided for us. How many DSLRS will still be functioning 2 decades from now without spare parts and service?

Are you assuming that DSLR will continue to age whereas the current concept of mirrorless will remain static aside from the tweaking you refer to as maturation? How many current mirrorless will be functioning two decades from now without spare parts and service? Do we know that the technology we now know as mirrorless will still be the dominant technology two decades from now? Every camera you now see will be old tech in two decades, and like your father in law’s horse, probably still in use by some.

 

[Dak on cam]

…

We are in the transition period, mirrorless have not expressed their full potential yet, and we are still well served by our horses. As mirrorless mature and a new generation of photographers grow, one that takes some new features for granted, mirrorless will become the obvious choice and DSLRs will be gone for good.

“Gone for good” or just another addition to that list of devices still in use that have been generally supplanted by another technology?

"Gone for good" like horses. My father-in-law still rides his horse, but they havent been considered a mean of transport for some decades now. Someone will probably use DSLRs a few decades from now, but the majority of photohraphers will no longer consider them a sensible photographic tool.

How is that different from smartphones? They have already replaced dedicated cameras but we are still here.

Anyway, horse logging is becoming a part of sustainable forest maintenance.

Given the sensitivity of the human eye, I expect optical viewfinders to stay of interest for some applications. At some point of time there might be a more modern and ingenious solution than flapping a mirror around. The advantage of flapping the mirror is that optically a mirror that is out of the way does not impact the image.

I have no reason to think that continual cycle of progression to something new will cease when mirrorless reaches maturity. We are always in a transition period and we have no way of knowing the obvious choice two decades into the future.

Manufacturers have already decided for us. How many DSLRS will still be functioning 2 decades from now without spare parts and service?

Somehow film cameras are still around, too.

 

[AWG_Pics]

…

We are in the transition period, mirrorless have not expressed their full potential yet, and we are still well served by our horses. As mirrorless mature and a new generation of photographers grow, one that takes some new features for granted, mirrorless will become the obvious choice and DSLRs will be gone for good.

“Gone for good” or just another addition to that list of devices still in use that have been generally supplanted by another technology?

"Gone for good" like horses. My father-in-law still rides his horse, but they havent been considered a mean of transport for some decades now. Someone will probably use DSLRs a few decades from now, but the majority of photohraphers will no longer consider them a sensible photographic tool.

How is that different from smartphones? They have already replaced dedicated cameras but we are still here.

Anyway, horse logging is becoming a part of sustainable forest maintenance.

Given the sensitivity of the human eye, I expect optical viewfinders to stay of interest for some applications. At some point of time there might be a more modern and ingenious solution than flapping a mirror around. The advantage of flapping the mirror is that optically a mirror that is out of the way does not impact the image.

I have no reason to think that continual cycle of progression to something new will cease when mirrorless reaches maturity. We are always in a transition period and we have no way of knowing the obvious choice two decades into the future.

Manufacturers have already decided for us. How many DSLRS will still be functioning 2 decades from now without spare parts and service?

Somehow film cameras are still around, too.

My D200 is 19 years old and works perfectly. Fun to shoot now and then.

 

[GeoffRG]

I may as well talk to a brick wall.

I have acknowledged that a weight saving is indeed possible however, I feat that your refusal to accept that financial constraints, self imposed in my case, prevent many from being able to realise those savings makes discussion pointless in the context of a thread entitle "Why I will not move to mirrorless".

It matters not whether mirrorless lenses are better in every respect, are lighter and/or smaller if one cannot, or will not, afford to buy them.

Yes, nikpharm's comment was inaccurate in many respects he was accepting that some lenses were lighter. That he missed some is unfortunate.

Any weight saving available by switching to mirrorless is academic if one is unable, or unwilling, to do so. Thus, I share your apparent frustration. We both accept that mirrorless lenses can be lighter and have better performance and probably acknowledge that cost is an obstacle.

My point is this Switching to mirrorless, irrespective of any benefits, is not worth the cost, at least as far as I am concerned. My normal carry is two D5 bodies, 24-70 f2.8 VR, 70-200 f/2.8 FL VR and a TC17. There is no Z mount TC17 so a direct weight comparison isn't possible. The approximate weight saving, as I have already suggested is around 200g The cost of saving those 200g is £70 per gramme. i hope you can appreciate why I am not going there.

 

[Lance B]

I may as well talk to a brick wall.

I have acknowledged that a weight saving is indeed possible however, I feat that your refusal to accept that financial constraints, self imposed in my case, prevent many from being able to realise those savings makes discussion pointless in the context of a thread entitle "Why I will not move to mirrorless".

It has nothing to do with my "refusal to accept that financial constraints, self imposed in my case, prevent many from being able to realise those savings makes discussion pointless in the context of a thread entitle "Why I will not move to mirrorless""

It was not part of the context of my reply to nikpharm where I pointed out that there is a weight saving where he/she decided that there was no weight saving. ALL other discussions about the viability or reasons for not going ML were happening on other posts throughout the thread and did not need to be addressed in my posts. Mine was SPECIFICALLY ABOUT WEIGHT, nothing else. You decided to butt in what seems to be due to some sort on inferiority complex in order to prove your case no matter what.

It matters not whether mirrorless lenses are better in every respect, are lighter and/or smaller if one cannot, or will not, afford to buy them.

Yes, nikpharm's comment was inaccurate in many respects he was accepting that some lenses were lighter. That he missed some is unfortunate.

Any weight saving available by switching to mirrorless is academic if one is unable, or unwilling, to do so. Thus, I share your apparent frustration. We both accept that mirrorless lenses can be lighter and have better performance and probably acknowledge that cost is an obstacle.

My point is this Switching to mirrorless, irrespective of any benefits, is not worth the cost, at least as far as I am concerned. My normal carry is two D5 bodies, 24-70 f2.8 VR, 70-200 f/2.8 FL VR and a TC17. There is no Z mount TC17 so a direct weight comparison isn't possible. The approximate weight saving, as I have already suggested is around 200g The cost of saving those 200g is £70 per gramme. i hope you can appreciate why I am not going there.

That should be said in a post elsewhere, it is completely irrelevant to my post towards nikpharm about WEIGHT.

--
Lance B
https://www.flickr.com/photos/35949907@N02/?
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 

[AWG_Pics]

You all responded with a great deal of information and helped us all to understand some complexities. It was a very constructive and useful conversation!