[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 90 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: shutterstock_172781645-1.jpg (145 KB, 1920x1080)
145 KB
145 KB JPG
Besides being a product for poorfags, literally what reason is there to buying a DSLR in 2021?
The technology in DSLRs is ancient and there's nothing they have that a mirrorless doesn't have and do better.
>>
Mirorless and DSLRS are just different. DSLRS are a thing of the past but its still great
>>
>>3852563
>literally
At least we can articulate ourselves without having to rely on crutch words.
>>
>>3852563
>The technology in DSLRs is ancient
They are sometimes the same sensor as ML, what are you talking about retard
>there's nothing they have that a mirrorless doesn't have and do better
OVF, battery life, ergonomics, build construction on most of them
Like >>3852564 said, they are just different but i certainly would prefer using one today if i am going on extensive field trips.
>>
>>3852563
>literally what reason is there to buying a DSLR in 2021?
I'm undecided whether I'd still start with DSLR today. The main discouragement would be that it's not worth learning a way of photographing that will soon be obsolete and that already is accounted for less in cameras.
Other than that net performance per price for cameras and lenses is an argument. Net, because you have to get involved in this old-fashioned way of photographing that requires experience and practice. In other words, an argument is very sophisticated and direct control out of the box for rather manual operation around focus and recompose.
The focus acquisition (speed, certainty, stickiness, not precision) for the center AF field of an aging DSLR in combination with fast lenses is hard to beat - In unfavorable situations even sooner rather than later. The metering of the mirrorless only works out advantages due to the larger sensor area. It has to compensate that its sensor is not mainly optimized for autofocus, but for imaging.
>>
>>3852633
>"a way of photographing that will soon be obsolete"
>Focus and Recomposing is obsolete
>Holding breath and Stance shooting is obsolete
>"you have to get involved in this old-fashioned way of photographing that requires experience and practice"
Mirrorless shooters from the future might as well let the camera decide the framing too if that's your idea.
>>
>>3852637 is in reply to >>3852635, my update.

>>3852637
You're derailing my statements.. The main leap forward of current cameras is that the photographer no longer has to pick up and save the exposure and focus point with the center field(s), but can pay attention on framing immediately.
Also lens and sensor stabilization makes a steady stance less important.
>>
Is one better than the other for night shooting?
>>
>>3852649
The question is difficult for others to answer. Try it out, explain what you intend to do, or reach out for people with your intentions/interests, as well as a similar background.
>>
>>3852637
Canon wants you to buy a camera that even decides the shot composition for you, and even when the shutter is engaged.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:02:01 11:40:34
CommentScreenshot
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1180
Image Height524
>>
>>3852649
depends on the sensor, some dslrs are better than other dslrs for low light, some dslrs are better than some milc, some milc are better than other milc while some milc are better than some dslrs
>>
>>3852637
I think I understood the point you were driving at. My post comes from my view that it makes no sense to focus on methods that are already less in demand with the latest cameras. I'd go so far as to say that first practicing "focus and recompose" makes it difficult and awkward to later switch to subject, face and eye tracking that depend rather on the situation than your skill. Since many photos fail because a photographer has to worry about technical problems instead of focusing on more important things, it makes much more sense to gain experience with modern cameras and only take the step back when problems arise.
New technologies bring out enablers so you don't have to do extra work and you benefit from that ease. If the extra work is already easy for you, you don't need the enablers and may even have the benefit of more control.
>>
>>3852715
I understood your point, hence why i don't agree with it, you need to knock someone around so he can thrive in most situations later.
A person needs pressure to rely on his instincts, of course those being polished by exercises, if not then you will have modern photographers who stand around like statues looking at the finder for 3 or 5 minutes figuring out the framing rather than quickly knowing what to do after many outings having to deal with the technical aspects.
Also makes the future photographer a gatekept hobby relying on only having expensive cameras rather than someone who knows how to operate one. But yo do touch an important point, it is not a matter of values or tastes from us but a matter of what the market says and does.
>>
>>3852637
>you have to get involved in this old-fashioned way of photographing that requires experience and practice

I can just smell the burn clutch stank of your 99 civic, apart from the smell of cum from you jerking off to your Manuelle way of life.
>>
>>3852751
Who are you quoting
>>
>>3852563
some people like looking through the lens, and enjoy the clack of the mirror fat, and also saving money on their balls.
>>
>>3852563
the other thing the DSLR has going for it is a basically fucking infinite battery life
>>
>>3852563
OVF, reliability, ergonomics, wheather sealing, besides, i don't need two screen in one camera because i know what i'm doing
>>
>>3852772
>reliability
Having more parts lowers reliability. Nice try though boomer
>wheather sealing
Best weather sealing is found on mirrorless cameras nowadays
>>
>>3852748
I understand that completely, what remains is that the example seems exaggerated to me as there are other new means, too. Quickly resorting to peaking or magnifier on an already roughly positioned focus area can make more sense than operating a mirrorless camera like a DSLR. Now what is faster or more suitable has to do with your own skills, in what context you photograph, so ultimately what you've grown into.

>>3852751
Car comparisons like to be too far off, but note taken.

Overall, I think the discussion here already gives away that you don't gain much with current cameras over older ones, but the gain can still be valuable, as well as learning new/broader skills. What that exactly looks like in detail, one has to weigh up for oneself.
I'm curious to see where the camera development and market goes.

Just to disclose where I stand: I'm not entirely satisfied with either the current offerings or the further use of aging cameras, which will soon reach their end of support or with an update to the latest model obviously represent the end of their line. I wish there were yet clearer hybrids with some perspective, but everyone bailed out. At the moment I use adapted mirrorless cameras next to old DSLR. In particular I do not want to commit with buying lenses and accessory, but with defects I will be forced to. :-/
>>
>>3852768
This is the main reason I’m iffy about switching to mirrorless full time. I looked at the CIPA rated battery life of the canon R5, looked at the number of pictures I take when shooting a show, and discovered that I’d need to have two or three spare charged batteries on me at all times, and more like five or six for really big events that my DSLR can do with one.

Not sure how close CIPA ratings hew to reality, but my expectation is that the actual life will be even worse than that.
>>
>>3852781
>I’m iffy about switching to mirrorless full time
Get one of those chargers that lets you charge a bunch of batteries at once. Carry extra batteries with you. Get into a habit of switching the camera off immediately after taking your shot. It's not that big a deal.
>>
>>3852563
On the other hand, what is the reason for mirrorless to be more expensive than DSLR?
It literally have LESS parts.
>>
>>3852778
>Now what is faster or more suitable has to do with your own skills, in what context you photograph, so ultimately what you've grown into.
Fair enough that's a valid point, different cameras for different needs and niches.
>>
>>3852785
>Get into a habit of switching the camera off immediately after taking your shot
Never gonna make it in event shooting
>>
>>3852785
>Carry extra batteries with you.
Fuck that for a lark
>Get into a habit of switching the camera off immediately after taking your shot.
Fuck that too
>It's not that big a deal.
Yes it is, it's a deal breaker.
>>
>>3852752
Myself

>>3852778
Not be a meanie with my prior comment but if technology replaces the need for skills, why is that bad? And why should you feel superior about somebody accomplishing the same result with less effort?

You said it yourself here, you can aim to learn another skill set or strategies and not be stuck in "old" ways.
>>
>>3852563
>Besides being a product for poorfags, literally what reason is there to buying a DSLR in 2021?
I don't think there's a technical reason other than budget and specific implementations that might be available in one system but not another despite being possible on both.

The SLR design was a compromise to begin with, and the reason it dominated was that it was a far better compromise, to most, than non-ttl viewing/focusing (rf, viewfinder cameras, etc.) that proceeded it.
Modern mirrorless doesn't have the limitation of not being able to view through the lens unless there is a mirror, like film cameras had.
In most major aspects, it's the best of both worlds: you view through the mirror *and* you get to enjoy more unrestricted optical designs in lenses *and* you have less moving parts + bulk.
>>
>>3852802
>you view through the mirror
*lens
>>
What's the point of digital when you have film? Honestly can't think of a single good digital picture.
Other than gimmicky shit like night shooting and sports, film remains king
>>
>>3852775
Please explain why having more parts would be less reliable, and i don't need to be a boomer to use a dslr
>>
>>3852798
>if technology replaces the need for skills, why is that bad? And why should you feel superior about somebody accomplishing the same result with less effort?
No objection so far. But there is a problem with the "if".
Relying purely on subject tracking and subject-guided exposure is out of question. It just doesn't always work out. Ergo, I use redundant functions to simplify shooting as much as possible, but to be able to assist and intervene when needed. With more functionality cameras lack significantly more button assignment options for quick full and partial mode changes, and for mirrorless in some small aspects, similar AF performance to DSLR. Still, I don't want to carry around two different systems. So at the moment, I'd still like to see more advanced customization options or even programming and would still be interested in a hybrid to get the best of both worlds.
>>
>>3852815
The whole difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera is a mechanical part which can (and frequently does) fail. As a result a DSLR dies often either when the mirror or the shutter dies, a mirrorless only when the shutter dies.
>>
>>3852785
>Get one of those chargers that lets you charge a bunch of batteries at once. Carry extra batteries with you.
These are options, but they’re really annoying to do. Every day I’d have to get into the habit of loading up a bunch of batteries in the charger, and I’d have to make sure to swap them out before every shoot. And if I forget... we’ll, halfway through the shoot, I’ll probably have to run to my car and get my backup DSLR.

My current plan is to wait and hope battery/sensor tech catch up to the point that mirrorless cameras can get 1000+ shots to a charge like DSLRs, then switch.

> Get into a habit of switching the camera off immediately after taking your shot.
This one is entirely a dealbreaker, what the fuck.
>>
>>3852854
>My current plan is to wait and hope battery/sensor tech catch up to the point that mirrorless cameras can get 1000+ shots to a charge like DSLRs, then switch.
It depends on the shooting style, but I suspect that Sony's cameras using the NP-FZ100 battery already achieve 1000 frames for you without meticulous shutdown. At least for me (>>3852827) the Sony mirrorless are not far from the DSLR.
>>
>>3852806
>Other than gimmicky shit like night shooting
That's half of the day and lifetime, bro
>>
>>3852844
>The whole difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera is a mechanical part which can (and frequently does) fail
Then why are mirrorless build so small? why no hunky ones other than the Z9?
>>
>>3852871
Yep. I’m waiting for canon to catch up, though, because Sony controls and ergonomics make me want to throw the camera across a room.
>>
>>3852844
The shutter usually fails before the mirror mechanism and the expected shutter life of both mirrorless and dslrs is the same. Didn't Sony get sued like a week ago for shutter failing a7iiis?
>>
>>3852643
>super smart af fails
>"oh noes what do i do???"
t. Never Used DSLR
>>
>>3852802
>In most major aspects, it's the best of both worlds: you view through the lens
Using an EVF that feels like a VGA monitor from the 90s.

> *and* you get to enjoy more unrestricted optical designs in lenses
This is kind of bullshit. I mean yes, in theory, shorter reg distance gives lens designers some flexibility for WA glass. In practice they're still building big retrofocus designs because of IQ issues. (Namely angle of light striking the sensor.)

>*and* you have less moving parts + bulk.
Mostly bullshit for FF. The lens size limits how small you can make the bodies. Only a few crop (aps-c or m43) cameras really take advantage of this.
>>
>>3852878
>what is the Olympus 1DX
>what will be Canon’s R1
>>
>>3852941
As I said all your complaints are about current implementations in reality, and not the general design (mirror vs mirrorless).
And the reason that many of your complaints are actually true, is manufacturers trying to milk the market.
There's no reason an exactly equivalent mirrorless camera shouldn't be cheaper, lighter and more reliable than a dSLR. The reason many aren't is because no manufacturer will make exact equivalents to their dSLRs for market segmentation and so that they can justify their milking, since you can't compare 1-1.

Why do you think the mirror was put in there in the first place?
It made cameras considerably more complex, more bulky (compared even to RF that adds bulk on its own), and more expensive.
You can check the contemporary prices, say between a Leica rangefinder vs Leica SLR, or say a Contax rf vs a Contarex SLR.
>>
>>3852944
>what is the Olympus 1DX
Doesn't exist, you probably mean the sports version with double grips. Yeah you got me with that one although it's Micro 4 Losers.
>Canon’s R1
Doesn't exist either like the Z9 at this moment.
>>
>>3852951
Nigga, Canon and Nikon have just stated switching to mirrorless. They are about to release the mirrorless version of the 1DX line and the d5 line
>>
>>3852563
- battery life
- you prefer an OVF for some reason
that's about it
>>
>>3852941
>Using an EVF that feels like a VGA monitor from the 90s.
maybe you tried a MILC five years ago. These days you have OLEDs with extremely high resolution and high FPS too.
It's especially nice at night, the image is better than real life since it's much clearer and brighter.
Colors are more accurate in dark scenes too because you don't get the "everything becomes bluish gray" effect that human eyes have in low light.
>>
>>3853004
>maybe you tried a MILC five years ago.
Nope, I'm talking about the current ones.

>It's especially nice at night, the image is better than real life since it's much clearer and brighter.
And pure noise in truly dark conditions. Show me an EVF with a clean Milky Way at 24 f/1.4, or Orion Nebula at 200 f/2.8. (Admittedly the A7sIII may do this, I haven't tried it yet.)
>>
>>3853004
>Colors are more accurate in dark scenes too
Forgot to jump on this: color and contrast are off in every EVF I've viewed. And this, more than resolution, leads to my VGA critique. I don't expect the rear LCD to match my calibrated 4k screen, but it's at least in the ballpark. EVFs are washed out, blocked up, and just off.

This doesn't really stop you from judging exp though and the one thing I will give EVFs is that it's trivial to use manual exposure and ETTR every shot, unless you're shooting fast action. Then again a spot meter is about as easy and I prefer an OVF.
>>
>>3852997
OP will mock this as "being a poor fag", but for the price of an R5 or Z7 you can get a 5DsR or D800/810...AND get lenses. You can have a very high IQ shooting kit instead of just a body.
>>
>>3853004
They still don’t look like an OVF. I would love EVFs to be seemless and lifelike but they aren’t.
>>
>>3853004
>maybe you tried a MILC five years ago. These days you have OLEDs with extremely high resolution and high FPS too.
Different people have different eyes and optical centers of their brains. I agree with you that all of the EVFs I've used in recent memory (including the shitty one in my Sony SLT and the high-end-for-its-day one in my Fuji X-T1) look perfectly fine, to the point that I often forget I'm not looking directly at reality, but that's not everyone's experience. Humans are just built differently from each other.
>>
OP is a gay faggot who fags the fagholes.
>>
When you use a reflex camera, you dance with the light.
>>3852563
>there's nothing they have that a mirrorless doesn't have and do better.
it's in the name dumbass, they don't have a mirror
>>3852766
based
also it's not always cheaper
>>3852772
based
>>3852915
this
>>3852802
Every camera is a compromise and you don't look through the lens on an EVIL camera (not just MILC but also SLT)
>>
Sure the lens lineup is limited and expensive, but why save money on 20+ years of high quality lens catalog when you can spend thousands of dollars to buy a body that in daytime conditions will take pictures nobody will be able to tell apart from any camera made in the past decade
>>
>>3852563
>Besides being a product for poorfags
Funny, the most expensive system cameras out there without getting into Leica exotics are DSLRs.
The 1DX III is more expensive than the Alpha One, and the D5 and D6 are literally two dollars cheaper than the Alpha One.
Meanwhile in the low end, $500 gets you a mirrorless camera with lens while $550 gets you a DSLR body without lens.
You start with false premises and arrive to wrong conclusions.
>>
>>3853303
>what is buying used?
>>
>>3853243
>you don't look through the lens on an EVIL camera
This is pedantic. Did you not try to understand or did you decide not to understand?
>>
>>3853243
>You don't look through the lens on a mild

What takes the photo pal, your eye, or the camera?

So what's more important, what your eye sees, or what the camera sees?
>>
>>3853325
>So what's more important, what your eye sees, or what the camera sees?
Depends. When tracking a moving subject, even an A9 or R5 will fall behind due to lag in the imaging pipeline (every photo taken introduces more lag). DSLRs don't have that problem. So if you're trying to catch the peak moment of a bird in flight or an athlete, might end up being your eye that's most important.
>>
>>3853373
>But lag
WRONG!

Nikon d800 has a 40ms shutter lag, turns out moving a big flappy mirror out the way takes time!
Sony a7iii has 22ms evf lag and zero shutter lag on electronic shutter or 9ms mechanical...

Surely if evf lag is an issue, then the d800 should be flooded with people complaining about the shutter lag with it being twice as bad as the evf lag in sony cameras? But there's literally no-one complaining.

Also, to put that 22ms lag in to perspective, professional athletes have a reaction speed of around 230ms, you think a lag less than 1\10th of what the best reactions in the world can manage is a problem?

You're just proving your ignorance and perpetuating your embarrassment with every post.
>>
>>3852854
>> Get into a habit of switching the camera off immediately after taking your shot.
>This one is entirely a dealbreaker, what the fuck.
>>3852794
>Yes it is, it's a deal breaker.
>>3852790
>Never gonna make it in event shooting
Cool. I guess? Sounds like you should stick to a DSLR.
>>
dslr is like tank. big, tough, plenty of power, feels good with it's barrel (lens)

mirrorless is a weird mutant hybrid where the lens are still giant, but the cameras all have to be small and cute (and fit not large enough batteries)

if you put the sony 70-300 on a sony mirrorless, the camera doesn't sit flat on the table, it floats in the air by a couple mm. it's embarrassing and cartoonish. terrible balance, terrible feel

i understand maybe why children, women, manlet hands might prefer it. for real man's hands? no mirrorless is comfortable as dslr
>>
>>3853396
>If you put a telephoto lens on a Sony, it balances on its tripod mount

Which is literally exactly what you want, a well balanced system should always balance over the point it makes contact.
>>
>>3852785
>Get into a habit of switching the camera off immediately

this would be a solution if mirrorless didn't take literally 3 seconds to boot up each time you switch. as is? you're missing shots vs. dslrs instant on

>oops a few strands of hair or a shadow from your elbow triggered the hypersensitive evf view switcher again, time to spaz between displays and burn power
>>
File: MVimg.jpg (489 KB, 2000x1500)
489 KB
489 KB JPG
>>3853399
no tripod mount, just horrible design, horrible balance, and horrible neckfeel as this thing constantly feels like it's gonna tear off this unnecessarily cute and widdwe miwwowess

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2000
Image Height1500
>>
>>3853404
Where do you put your left hand when shooting that lens sweetcheeks?

Is it under the body, or under the lens?

>Mirrorless takes longer to start up

No, it doesn't. A DSLR is just a mirrorless camera with a flappy mirror box. Why do you think taking the flappy mirror away would make it take longer to start? Brainlet.
>>
>>3853407
>No, it doesn't. A DSLR is just a mirrorless camera with a flappy mirror box. Why do you think taking the flappy mirror away would make it take longer to start? Brainlet

even adding the 500ms to flip the mirror it's nothing like booting up a mirrorless. easily 3 seconds every time. the dslr is always ready in the time it takes to lift it. mirrorless is ramping up and then usually taking another second to figure out you want to look through the evf

anyone who has used both knows you can't lie on this one. best buy poverty apsc nikons from 2010 boot up and are ready to shoot quicker than any mirrorless
>>
>>3853243
>you don't look through the lens on an EVIL camera (not just MILC but also SLT)
Show me the separate viewfinder that lets you look not through the lens on such a camera
>inb4 hotshoe mounted finder
>>
>>3853400
>>oops a few strands of hair or a shadow from your elbow triggered the hypersensitive evf view switcher again
mirrorlessfag here i hate that shit. i always disable the sensor switching, and have either one or both always on.
>>
>>3853413
I've just compared my a7ii to my d70.

The a7ii went from off to a photo focused and taken in 2.1 seconds

the d70 took 12.5 seconds

Yikes.
>>
An EVF has no soul
>>
>>3853441
You have no soul.
>>
>>3853440
No way, check your settings. I have heard the Sony EVIL attacked several times for the start-up time, but this is also criticized on EVIL from Canon and Nikon.
When switching on with the shutter button pressed, the Sony a7iii here needed about twice the time (also about 2 seconds) until the first shot compared to a Canon 7D. Despite silent Shutter on the a7iii and Magic Lantern installed on the 7D, this means slower start-up times on the 7D. Manual focus with both lenses. Similar with autofocus, center-field ai-servo on the 7D, wide af-c with the a7iii, so most reactive setting on both.
>>
>>3853460
I've checked my settings thanks pal.
Maybe you're just forgetting how shit dslr's were and being fooled by things lighting up, rather than the ability to take a photo.

It takes me about 2 seconds to bring my camera to my eye from its strapped position, so really the longest delay I'm going to get from my camera is 0.1 second.

The fact is that mirrorless is faster than DSLR, for lag and for startup time.
>>
>>3852563
>what reason is there to buying a DSLR in 2021?
besides cost, nostalgia and the larp factor of an ovf. they'll chalk it up to "magic" or some gay shit about seeing the light but they're just faggy larpers in denial.
>>
>>3853469
12 fucking seconds is unbelievable. I could bet the Canon 60D from 2002 something doesn't have a startup delay of 5 seconds.
Other than that, I did the experiment as described above. No forgetting possible. It was an experiment the moment ago.
>>
>>3853469
Btw. the Sony flashed its display to signal a shot, the Canon did clack and showed the image review before the Sony's first shot. Equal exposure settings on both.
>>
File: 20210327-DSC00426.jpg (1.77 MB, 3662x1352)
1.77 MB
1.77 MB JPG
>>3853441
>not having a 1.2 Mpx OLED EVF @120fps
>not having a fair selection of german, japanese and russian vintage lenses
>being a nophoto

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:02 15:38:30
Exposure Time1/40 sec
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Brightness-0.9 EV
Exposure Bias-2 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
>>
>>3853496
I can tell the difference (easily, I might add) because EVF and non-EVF photos

99/100 times the non-EVF photo is superior when the camera is in the hands of a professional photographer
>>
i use a lot of manual lenses and generally prefer less automation so i'm happy with dslr for now

also evf reminds me of putting my face on crt glass as a child and looking at dem individual rgb phosphors
>>
>>3853604
I prefer the raw look of EVF photos
>>
File: 20210320-DSC00345.jpg (348 KB, 1831x1030)
348 KB
348 KB JPG
>>3853604
This is one of the most idiotic claim I have ever read on /p/, which is quite a feat.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 10.2 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:04:02 19:46:18
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/1.4
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating50
Lens Aperturef/1.4
Brightness3.7 EV
Exposure Bias-1 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length50.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessHard
>>
>>3853440
>The a7ii went from off to a photo focused and taken in 2.1 seconds
When an A7II has been off for a little bit longer, it requires more startup time.

I just tried it with my own. The first shot took about 8 seconds. I turned it off and back on again it it was closer to 2 seconds like you said.

I'm guessing it's normally in a sort of sleep mode that it can wake up from more quickly, but it goes into full shutdown when left alone for long enough. Try popping the battery out and back in for a full startup time and time it again.

Notably: That 2 second startup time is the same even if it's just gone into power-switch-still-on-but-haven't-taken-a-picture-in-a-bit sleep mode, not just if you've switched it off. So if you have it "turn off" after a few seconds to save on battery life, you still get that.

Compare to DSLRs. I actually *also* have a Nikon D70, but it's been so long since I've actually touched it that the battery is currently dead and I don't remember where the charger is. So I'll try with a random selection of DSLRs I have in arm's reach which do have a charge:

Nikon D700: Took a picture before I could count to 1
Canon 5D3: Took a picture before I could count to 1
Canon 40D: Took a picture before I could count to 1.
Canon Rebel (original, 300D): About 5 seconds

So yeah, a D70 is about as ancient as a DSLR can get--it was Nikon's first "midrange" body. I'm guessing it's just slow as hell. Any DSLR made within the last 15 years or so is going to start up faster than your brain can process, so it feels instant.

Notably, I've also got an X-T1, a Panasonic GF5, and an A6000 in grabby range, and those all have a noticeable (if low) startup time as well.

Also interesting: I've got a Sony a33, which is one of their A-mount SLTs (i.e., like an SLR but the mirror doesn't flap out of the way and it uses an EVF), and that's somewhere between the startup time of a DSLR and a full mirrorless.
>>
File: 1541435245448.jpg (31 KB, 400x400)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>3852775
>Best weather sealing is found on mirrorless cameras nowadays

This is what mirrorlets actually believe
>>
>>3853407
>>Mirrorless takes longer to start up
>No, it doesn't. A DSLR is just a mirrorless camera with a flappy mirror box. Why do you think taking the flappy mirror away would make it take longer to start? Brainlet.
So, based on >>3853638, I have a guess:

Because taking the flappy mirror away takes less time than starting up all of the parts of the camera that need to be running to take a picture on mirrorless.

I.e., a DSLR needs to boot up just enough intelligence to tell the mirror/shutter to get the hell out of the way and tell the sensor it's about to get some light hitting it. A mirrorless needs to do that *and* also actually read the information from the sensor, process it as video, and display it on the LCD/EVF. The SLT is a little faster because it only has to read off a small cellphone-sized sensor instead of a big DSLR-sized sensor, but it still needs to start up more computer parts before it can display a viewfinder view.

The mirrorless systems can be sped up--that's just moore's law, so that's gonna happen--but they probably won't ever get quite as fast as a DSLR just because the DSLR has less to do. But if they don't actually have to beat a DSLR, they just have to beat your brain, and that's a lot easier. The most recent mirrorless bodies might already be there--all of the ones I had in arm's reach are relatively old, and I haven't played with the new ones much.

But yeah, at least if you're buying cheap and used, DSLRs have a huge advantage over mirrorless in terms of time-to-photo.
>>
>>3853604
>99/100 times the non-EVF photo is superior when the camera is in the hands of a professional photographer
I feel like in an actual controlled test, you'd get about 50% right.
>>
Post one famous picture taken with mirrorless
I'll wait
>>
>>3853651
https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2020/39852/1/Yasuyoshi-Chiba-POY

Last year's World Press Photo of the Year, taken on a Fuji X-H1.
>>
>>3853651
Are you retarded? There are hundreds. Anything taken by AP is shot on Sony now, some of those make the front page of newspapers. There was that picture of the moose that got a special award in the people's choice category for wildlife photographer of the year... Shot on an XT3.

To suggest that mirrorless somehow can't produce an image deserving of fame is ridiculous. There are famous photos taken on fucking gopros. But I'm sure you'll just move the goalposts on what defines a famous image.

Yet another person on /p/ who thinks the only thing that matters is gear, and their own narcissistic impression of what is best clouds that.
>>
File: Untitled.png (69 KB, 1898x814)
69 KB
69 KB PNG
>>3852781
>mirrorless weighs a full pound less than DSLR
>can carry 15 spare batteries and still save weight
sure an individual battery might give 30% less shots but you can carry 1500% more batteries
>>
>>3853670
So can you post a single famous picture taken on mirrorless or not? Sounds like you can't
>>
>>3853672
>ancient magnesium full frame vs modern plastic crop
Dishonest.
>>
>>3853672
>just buy more batteries bro
Hilarious
>>
File: weight.png (38 KB, 1408x534)
38 KB
38 KB PNG
>>3853672
Two can play the game of cherrypicking.
>>
>>3853675
How about every single one of these.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-electoral-college-elections-de812995a8c7cbea5c1de56a3d1aa007
I would say those are pretty famous photos.

Also this guy
>>3853663
Already did. But nice job cherry picking
>>
>>3853672
It's not so much an issue of the weight as it is the hassle.

I.e., carrying multiple batteries necessitates carrying a camera bag. Sometimes I just want to go out with a single lens.

It also requires charging all of the batteries, so I have to set up a little charging station and make sure all of my spare batteries for the day are fresh.

It also requires quickly swapping out batteries when they die. Big issue if it's, say, in the middle of a fast-moving show where battery swap time can potentially cost me good shots.


Also: you're comparing an entry-level crop mirrorless to a high-end DSLR. Something like an R5, which is a more direct comparison to the 5D series, is much closer in weight: 26.03oz including batteries, vs 33.3oz for the 5D Mark III that I actually use most of the time.

> sure an individual battery might give 30% less
And it's not "30% less". It's more like 75% less. CIPA rates the battery life of an R5 at 220 shots per charge (using the EVF), vs the 5D3 at 950. So I'd need about four and a half batteries to equal one DSLR battery.

I've shot individual events with my 5D3 that took me over 9000 photos in a day. Hell, just this *month*, I've had 12 days where I shot more than 220 photos, three of which were over 800, and one of which was over 1200.

If that CIPA rating is accurate, there was an event last year where I would've needed roughly 45 batteries. I shot over 9700 photos in one day. I don't remember if I needed to swap in my spare DSLR battery for that one, but I know I definitely didn't need to swap in a spare *twice*, much less 45 times.

Based on my personal experience, CIPA ratings *overestimate* the amount of photos you can take per charge with mirrorless and *underestimate* the amount for DSLRs, so the gulf between the two is probably even bigger.
>>
File: Screenshot.png (63 KB, 631x929)
63 KB
63 KB PNG
>>3853695
>Based on my personal experience, CIPA ratings *overestimate* the amount of photos you can take per charge with mirrorless and *underestimate* the amount for DSLRs, so the gulf between the two is probably even bigger.
CIPA underestimates mirrorless battery life as it iterates a routine that also let the camera sit for a while without action.
I've often heard that with mirrorless, it's not the number of shots that matters, but how long the camera is switched on, as the image sensor and displays are continuously running, being the main power consuming components. There were claims with numbers 1200+ for the badly rated Canon full-frame mirrorless.

Image related and
https://www.cipa.jp/std/std-sec_e.html
>>
>>3853672
>>3853682
>>3853695
is light weight even a selling feature ?
i mean if you're buying good (read:heavy) glass there's something to be said for balance
>>
>>3853716
>CIPA underestimates mirrorless battery life as it iterates a routine that also let the camera sit for a while without action.
* with the camera default settings. Hence we see lower screen refresh rates and early standby with default settings .
>>
>>3853716
>There were claims with numbers 1200+ for the badly rated Canon full-frame mirrorless.
* from wedding photographers.
>>
>>3853683
>cherry picking
Stop using word you don't understand

Also none of those Pictures are famous, try again
>>
>>3853716
I just noticed that all the enthusiast cameras don't have a built-in flash. It's almost a bit ridiculous when you compare them to more compact that offer a built-in flash.
E.g. the comparison between the Ricoh GR II and the Ricoh GR III is almost an amusement. it's apples compared to oranges and mountains out of molehills. E.g. If the GR III still had a flash next to running IBIS, the CIPA rating would be even more abysmal and provoking a shitstorm out of nothing.
>>
>>3853726
You cherry picked my reply as I didn't post an image. Maybe you don't understand, you seem confused.
>Pictures of historic day the capitol building was stormed by Trump supporters
>Not famous
Ok guy I think we have proved that you aren't arguing in good faith
>>
>>3853716
>CIPA underestimates mirrorless battery life as it iterates a routine that also let the camera sit for a while without action.
Possibly, but my camera *does* sit for a while without action a lot. So if I’m shooting a show that last two hours, it’s gonna be running the sensor for close to two straight hours while I’m watching through the EVF even if I’m not actively hitting the shutter button.

I dunno. Maybe I need to rent an R5 and try it in a real-world scenario.
>>
>>3853695
>carrying multiple batteries necessitates carrying a camera bag
No it doesn't.
>It also requires charging all of the batteries, so I have to set up a little charging station and make sure all of my spare batteries for the day are fresh.
wow an extra minute to your gear routine. the horror.
>It also requires quickly swapping out batteries when they die. Big issue if it's, say, in the middle of a fast-moving show where battery swap time can potentially cost me good shots.
So does changing cards. You wouldn't have got any shots anyways.
>>
>>3853759
>No it doesn't.
Yes it does? Throw a charged battery in my pocket with my keys where it could short and set my pants on fire? Wear a battery bandolier? Shove them up my ass?

>wow an extra minute to your gear routine. the horror.
The real horror is if I forget one day and find myself with, say, only three batteries when I actually needed four. Or if I shoot a long show and burn through four batteries, get home at 2am, and fall into bed without remembering to put them on the charger for the next day, then I get up to do a photoshoot and I have to cancel because I don't have enough batteries. It's a hassle.

>So does changing cards. You wouldn't have got any shots anyways.
Yeah, and that's legitimately been an issue for me shooting that 9000+ photo show in the past, too. It's stressful as hell, and adding battery issues to that would double the stress.

You seem to be arguing with me like I'm some dude bashing mirrorless because I have some emotional attachment to DSLRs. I'm not. I *want* to switch to mirrorless. I really love shooting with an EVF and I'd love to have access to eye-detect autofocus and all of the cool new tech that's been invented since the 5D Mark III! But that battery life is just too much of a dealbreaker to me right now.
>>
>>3853765
I'm not the guy you're talking to but I think you're making excellent points. I shoot mirrorless myself and I have to say of there's ever anything getting in the way for me personally it's battery life. I shoot outdoor sporting events too so I can be up on one of the trails, battery goes flat and I miss a contestant as they come past me. I feel bad about it and it hasn't lost me business yet but I have considered moving back to DSLR because of it.

People trying to refute you don't want to hear your point of view man, they just want to browbeat you into submission.
>>
>>3853769
>People trying to refute you don't want to hear your point of view man
His point of view boils down to "No I don't want to do that". Like, owning multiple lenses is bad. I gotta carry a bag. I might miss a shot if i have to change lenses.
>>
>>3853750
Fair enough
>>
Imagine buying what you feel is right for you and not shitting over others for their "inferior/superior" choice.
>>
>>3853804
Sure. Notice there are arguments that are accepted and not refuted. But then there are people that troll or make up shit
>>
>>3853806
Why argue in the first place, unless somebody is truly clueless about what camera to get, why even
>>
>>3853808
Not him but it's because this is /p/ and nobody can go five posts without mentioning gear or ridiculing someone else's choice of gear
>>
File: 1611597934351.jpg (20 KB, 700x763)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>3852563
>How come people buy this product when they could just buy this product to do their hobby?
>How come people are okay with having inferior product????
>You know you can't be good or enjoy your hobby if you don't have this product right?
Who cares about consooming so much. If you are actually good at taking pictures then the kind of camera doesn't matter.
>inb4 pooooorFagg
Meh
>>
>>3853814
>Who cares about consooming so much. If you are actually good at taking pictures then the kind of camera doesn't matter.
Not OP, i feel like crap owning a good camera and taking craptastic pics, need to get better somehow.
>>
>>3853789
>His point of view boils down to "No I don't want to do that".
If you’re being that reductive, doesn’t everyone’s point of view boil down to “I want to do that” or “I don’t want to do that”?

For me, battery life with the current crop of mirrorless cameras is bad enough to override the advantages. I really hope that changes in the future, because I think mirrorless is great.

And I’m not saying that this is the case for everyone! For most people, the battery life for mirrorless cameras is perfectly adequate, especially newer ones like the Sony A7 models with the updated battery. But most people don’t shoot literally every day, don’t bring a camera with them literally everywhere they go, don’t do photoshoots multiple times a week, etc. I’m definitely an outlier, but that doesn’t mean I’m just resisting new technology because I’m an old man who’s set in his ways.

The op asked why someone might not want to switch to mirrorless. I responded with why I’m hesitant to switch to mirrorless as my main system. Why are you so emotionally invested in this that you feel the urge to bully me for that? The abstract concept of mirrorless interchangeable lenses as a technology isn’t gonna fuck you, bro, stop simping for it.

> Like, owning multiple lenses is bad. I gotta carry a bag. I might miss a shot if i have to change lenses.
I mean, yeah. When I’m shooting a show like that, I tend to go with zoom lenses for that exact reason. And when I’m wandering around on a photo walk or whatever, I just use a single prime because I don’t want to lug around a bunch of lenses in a bag or one big heavy one.

But there’s not a workaround like “use a zoom” or “just accept that you’re gonna be stuck with a 50mm field of view all day” for the battery life issue besides “just don’t take pictures”, which is kind of a dealbreaker for a camera.
>>
>>3853815
>taking craptastic pics, need to get better somehow.
That’s how you do it.

Take a bunch of shitty pics. Look at them. Go “dammit, this sucks, I should’ve done X instead”. Then go out and do X instead next time you’re in that situation. Repeat.

Eventually, you get better.
>>
>>3853404
lmao that looks like a nightmare to use
>>3853399
The mirrorless systems tend to be front-heavy tho...
>>
>>3853311
>implying
The cheapest mirrorless cameras in the used market are cheaper than the equivalent DSLRs.
I almost made the mistake of going mirrorless when I was just starting out because of this specific reason.
I'm glad I didn't, DSLRs turned a minor interest into a passion. There's something magic about seeking the world through a pentaprism.
>>
>>3852802
>optical design/lens size
I feel like for most, especially Nikon, this was a limit due to the mount diameter and not the flange distance. With the exception of ultra wides, lens design hasn't really improved that much as a consequence of flange distance. What manufacturers are doing are making even *bigger* lenses than before, and the bog-standard ones like the 24-70 2.8 are the same size and weight. I think people really over estimate how "bulky" D-SLRs actually are, when you temper the size of just the body against the size of a given lens, or the weight of a lens selection. A few extra cm and maybe half a kilo to a full kilo of weight really don't matter all that much when you've got a bunch of massive, expensive pro lenses with wide apertures in your camera bag. If you really want a light weight system, get APS-C, or better yet micro four thirds.
>>
>>3853376
>WRONG!
>Nikon d800 has a 40ms shutter lag, turns out moving a big flappy mirror out the way takes time!
>Sony a7iii has 22ms evf lag and zero shutter lag on electronic shutter or 9ms mechanical...
Looks like I found the guy who has NEVER shot action with a mirrorless. I'm not talking about shutter button lag, I'm talking about lag that builds up under continuous shooting conditions. Hold down the button and there are gaps where the EVF must show a static frame while there's a full resolution sensor readout. (Otherwise you could shoot at 120 fps.) While tracking a fast moving subject like a bird you can easily lose the subject. I've experienced this on an A9 among other mirrorless bodies.

With a DSLR the mirror is back down between frames so you see where the subject is at that exact moment, not where the subject was a moment ago.

People like you who don't even own a camera can learn about this online as numerous YT reviewers talk about it with various mirrorless bodies. The A9 does it, the R5 and R6 do it. Hell, I can't think of a mirrorless that doesn't do it. (A1 perhaps?)
>>
>>3853440
>d70
>built in 2004
Oh for fuck's sake... Any modern DSLR can switch on, focus, and shoot in well under 2s assuming a lens with decent AF speed.
>>
>>3853413
>booting up a mirrorless. easily 3 seconds every time.
my E-M10 takes 0.5s to boot
stop posting shit
also take your pills
>>
>>3852635
dslr also offer lots of automation however
simple smartphone camera best suits your description
>>
>>3853717
idk about you, but I'm holding a camera with a big lens by the lens
>>
>>3853970
>When you think the image preview function is a fault

Lmfao, you realise you can disable that on any camera right?

Absolute clown, this is the tier of retard that gets upset over Sony lmao.

>>3854076
>Thinking a DSLR user has anything nicer\heavier\longer than a nifty fifty

Lmfao.
>>
>>3852563
its nice looking through the lens
>>
>>3853440
i tested my 600d (w magic lantern) with the kit lens and it was around 1 second 1,5 at most, was a bit suprised actually
>>
>>3853716
still with a dslr the base draw is smaller, there were times where i was able to get through a 12-24 hour event with only a spare battery (though it was a strech)
i dont think it would be possible with a mirrorless
>>
>>3854078
>Lmfao, you realise you can disable that on any camera right?
It is painfully obvious you have never shot action with any of these cameras. Hell, you've probably never shot anything with any of them.

It doesn't matter how you change the settings. With continuous shooting the EVF falls further and further behind. It takes time to do a full resolution readout, close the shutter, reset the sensor, process the data, and start the exposure for the next shot. On a DSLR while that is happening the mirror is down. On a mirrorless the EVF is showing you the past. With a fast moving subject it doesn't take long before you lose the subject.

I've shot action with an A9. I've had trouble tracking subjects I can track easily with a DSLR. Mirrorless advertises amazing fps but the reality is it is difficult to make use of those numbers with a fast moving subject like a BiF.
>>
>>3854356
The "lmfao"s are a giveaway that he's just trolling you.
>>
File: 1494346997649.jpg (125 KB, 633x758)
125 KB
125 KB JPG
>>3853404
>tfw you fell for the mirrorless meme
>>
>>3854356
You would have thought if this was an issue there would be articles on it eh ;)

Also, how are Sony managing zero blackout, whilst also lagging behind as you take photos, are Sony cameras causing temporal time warps?

You melon fucking clown shoed retard.
>>
>>3854229
I've left my DSLR powered on for a day and not even seen one bar drop off the battery meter. This will probably never happen with mirrorless. Ever.
>>
>>3852574
>at least
That’s a crutch phrase tho
>>
>>3854656
You do realise that mirrorless has the same soft off feature as DSLR's right? I've left my camera for weeks, come back to it still on, and a half press of the shutter and it's still good to shoot.
>>
>it's another gearfag thread
>>
Why not both? You're not poor, are you?
>>
File: 1570536546391.jpg (465 KB, 678x1000)
465 KB
465 KB JPG
>>3854733
>year 2020 + 1
>bought an a7 classic
I thought money wasn't a concern for you?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakePlustek
Camera ModelOpticFilm 8100
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution60 dpi
Vertical Resolution60 dpi
Image Created2019:10:08 22:08:23
Color Space InformationsRGB
>>
>>3854666
>I've left my camera for weeks, come back to it still on, and a half press of the shutter and it's still good to shoot.
At least with the mirrorless cameras I've used, there's a noticeable startup time when you do that. Not huge, but noticeable. See >>3853638

So some of them will still draw power for a while to stay in a sleep state before they decide to shut all the way down (thus incurring a bigger lag when you grab them again). So, at least for a few minutes/hours/whatever, they burn more battery than a sleeping DSLR.

It's possible this has been fixed in newer models I haven't tried yet.
>>
>>3854742

It's an S model and I picked it up to slap Russian LTM glass on it.

I really want one of the newer ones but I'm holding out until they get their shutter issues fixed.
>>
>>3854638
>YouTube reviewers talk about this all the time
>"You would have thought if this was an issue there would be articles on it eh ;)"
You're an idiot.

>MUH ZERO BLACKOUT!
They're showing an old frame. What...did you think the sensor could feed the EVF 60 fps with the shutter closed and the sensor resetting? Are you actually that stupid? Tell me you're not that stupid!
>>
>>3854733
why you driving around with multiple camera strapped to your chest?
>>
>>3854733
>autofocus RZ67
>>
>>3855052
He uses one camera to capture the picture and the other to trigger the mid-exposure speedlite.
>>
>>3855052
See the lenses? One is f/1.8 for shallow DoF. The other an f/4 zoom for flexibility. He's too fucking poor to pickup an R5 + 28-70 f/2 to have the best of both worlds in one lens.
>>
>>3855222
show us your R5 28-70 anon

you're not poor are you?
>>
>>3855044
lmfao, typical fuji shooter
>>
>>3855044
>YouTubers talkk about this all the time
>Couldn't give a single link to a youtuber talking about this
LOL!

>They show an old frame whilst the shutter is down
Wow, you don't even understand how an electronic shutter works. Lmao. But no, as long as your shutter speed is faster than 1\120, the evf doesn't stutter\lag at all when taking a shot. They have a "blackout free" mechanical shutter burst too, which does have a microstutter showing the previous frame, but it's less than any mirror blackout on DSLR.

Why are you so mad about a brand that you make up easily disproven nonsense, and make yourself look stupid?
>>
>>3855577
>blackout free
I never understand this, are mirrorless cucks so retarded they can't use their brain to predict motion in the split second the mirror is up? Am I really that special that this comes naturally?
>>
>>3855580
It's just nicer to use than having blackout, especially if you've got 20fps burst, 20 blackouts a second can definitely get in the way of keeping track of what's going on.

What's really retarded is the DSLR anon that claims pressing the shutter adds to some sort of cumulative lag for the evf, and that you can't track fast moving objects because of it. Which is as retarded as me claiming you can't use a DSLR in sunlight because staring at the sun will burn your eye out.
>>
>>3855577
>>YouTubers talkk about this all the time
>>Couldn't give a single link to a youtuber talking about this
Tony and Chelsea talk about it in multiple mirrorless reviews, including the recent R5/R6 reviews. Animal eye AF means they still like those cameras better for birding, but Chelsea actually said she wished someone would make a DSLR with animal eye AF to solve the problem.

>>They show an old frame whilst the shutter is down
>Wow, you don't even understand how an electronic shutter works.
Have you tried it while panning to track a bird or a race car? Have you? If there's any background you get the same rolling shutter effects that you see in fast panned video. Or even worse. Depending on lighting you also get flicker (unevenly lit bars across the image), and anti-flicker modes are typically only available with mechanical shutter. No thanks.

Even with ES the EVF fps would have to drop to 20 fps. (Otherwise you could shoot faster.) You're still falling behind the subject the longer you shoot as errors in your movements build up until...empty frame.

>Lmao. But no, as long as your shutter speed is faster than 1\120, the evf doesn't stutter\lag at all when taking a shot.
Yes, everyone else in the world is wrong and you are right. Also, the laws of physics and computation bend to make sure you are right. Why do you insist on speaking about something you have never once tried?
>>
>>3855609
>What's really retarded is the DSLR anon that claims pressing the shutter adds to some sort of cumulative lag for the evf, and that you can't track fast moving objects because of it. Which is as retarded as me claiming you can't use a DSLR in sunlight because staring at the sun will burn your eye out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiB5QE0sp2U&t=483s
https://youtu.be/iUe4vsO3HQ8?t=353

Oh and here's an article talking about straight up shutter lag, not cumulative lag with continuous shooting: https://fstoppers.com/originals/i-wish-id-known-i-moved-sony-366521

There you go retard.
>>
>posts issue with canon cameras

Lol, look at 6:40 on here, Sony has zero issues, a9 tracks the bird perfectly and has zero blackout.

https://youtu.be/T4hQJh-LX3M

>Posts article about a guy that admitted he messed up his settings and that combined with an adapted lens on an unofficial adapter caused some lag, but once he fixed that issue it worked perfectly and as expected

Maybe read things before you post them sweetie.
>>
>>3855580
>autistic doesn't understand that blackouts are annoying to look at
>>
>>3855648
You can tell anon hasn't taken a burst shot ever.
>>
>>3855647
>birds momentarily dips out of frame multiple times
>"tracks bird perfectly"
Post again when you've actually tried an A9. (I have.)
>>
>>3855671
I have an a7iii and it tracks perfectly with no lag issues at all.

Are you really blaming the camera for not being able to perfectly follow a bird of preys every twist and turn? Lmao.

And quite clearly the burst is having ZERO effect on the evf, everything continues as normal whilst the number in the top left rapidly changes.
>>
That's not how to use "whilst", faggot.
>>
>>3855674
Spoken like a true spray-and-pray noob
>>
>>3855580
i shoot with both eyes open
i can't be the only one?
>>
>>3853844
>The cheapest mirrorless cameras in the used market are cheaper than the equivalent DSLRs.
Find me a ML as cheap as a 36mp weather sealed Nikon
>>
>>3852563
There are some good deals on DSLR's rn. If Sony A1 were free then everyone would have them, but they're not.
>>
>literally what reason is there to buying a DSLR in 2021?

For the best optical viewfinder money can buy
>>
>>3856027
will the af be any good?
>>
>>3855580
yeah, sports photogs just do burst anyway. maybe it might be a problem in really low light? i don't even think about blackout with normal shooting.
>>
Most of you faggots in this thread have watched more youtube gear reviews this week than you've taken photos and it shows.
Sell your gear, buy gaming computers. It's the right hobby for your keyboard hands.
>>
>>3855674
Maybe you should pay attention while watching the video because A) he's not shooting continuously, but firing off 1-2 frames with long intervals in between, and B) even with that there are a couple points of obvious stutter.
>>
>>3856109
>imagine watching gear reviews videos
>>
>>3856109
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at art school, and I’ve been involved in numerous photo shoots for Victoria's Secret, and I have over 300 published landscape photos. I am trained in sports photography and I’m the top photographer in the entire Olympic games. You are nothing to me but just another shitposter. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of Instagram spies across the USA and your photographs are being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can photograph anywhere, anytime, and I can shoot your portrait in over 700 poses, and that’s just with my P&S. Not only am I extensively trained in focus tracking, but I have access to the entire arsenal of lighting of the B&H Photo catalog and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, and now you’re paying the price. I will shit high resolution RAWs all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking photographed, kiddo.
>>
>>3856393
Stale copypastas tongue my b-hole.
>>
>>3856109
>Most of you faggots in this thread have watched more youtube gear reviews this week than you've taken photos and it shows
Youtube gear reviews watched this week: 9
Pictures taken this week: 1233

I know you didn't mean that literally, but I'm a little bit autistic so I felt compelled to check my stats.
>>
>>3856401
>Pictures taken this week: 1233
Post 10 good ones in a thread or kill yourself for being an autistic gearfag with C-cup man titties who shoots boudoir.
>>
>>3856109
Youtube gear reviews watched this week: 0
Pictures taken this week: about tree fiddy (3.50)
If you want to research gear, youtube isn't the place.
>>
>>3856404
> Post 10 good ones in a thread
Here you go: >>3856431

(Anyone who wants to go for the obvious "He said *good*" troll response, go ahead and try making your own thread with ten good photos you took this week)
>>
>>3856456
Fuck off AC, you're a human pork rind.
>>
>>3856404
Am I allowed to post one for his so he doesn't have to kill himself?
>>
>>3852563

Are DSLR's really "a thing of the past" or is this just mirrorless shilling/hype?
>>
>>3856602
>is this just mirrorless shilling/hype
What do you think?
>>
>>3856706
Don't try this "talking to a 3 year old" tactic of asking what I think. I don't have a clue if they are or not, that's why I was asking here. Jebuz.
>>
>>3856602
Mirrorless brings some cool improvements to the table, but it's mostly shilling/hype. If you can't get a good shot with a DSLR made in the past decade then mirrorless isn't going to help.
>>
>>3856722

Spoonfeed me please, I'm incapable of finding any clear comparisons.
>>
https://www.flickr.com/groups/d100/pool/
a 2002 dslr seems to still shoot well
>>
>>3856722
>Having an accurate preview of the image you're taking won't help you take the shots you want to take

Yes it does, you absolute fucking moron; especially for newer photographers.
>>
>>3856747
Talk about being a moron. He said
>mirrorless brings SOME improvements to the table, but it's MOSTLY just shilling/hype

>>3856734
>no clear comparisons
IQ between both camera systems is virtually identical. Pretty much all of those very marginal IQ improvements have to do with newer sensor tech or lens designs, and in most cases those would be achievable on a D-SLR, companies are just choosing not to go that route any more. If you look at a shot taken on a modern full frame camera and don't have EXIF you're going to struggle to identify what it was shot on. For some people, the improvements to AF ability and the ability to see what your exposure will look like before taking it is godsend. But sadly all the hype around this has effectively become shilling, to answer the question here >>3856602. People will tell you the difference between mirrorless and a D-SLR is the difference between a horse-drawn buggy and a car, but it's not. It's actually more like comparing today's Honda Accord with better gas mileage, lane departure warning, and a backup camera to a 10-15 year old model that doesn't have those features but has the same basic inline 4 engine.
>>
>>3856754
You literally said "mirrorless isn't going to help (take good shots)".

When it literally does just that, by taking any guess work or need for experience to get your exposure perfect.

Do you not see the exposure triangle and getting your desired exposure as an important part of taking good photos? Have you ever even taken a photo before?
>>
>>3856754

That was actually a very clear explanation. Thank you for feeding it to me clearly dude.
>>
>>3856757
He's not talking about exposure when he says "getting a good shot". He means a shot that is well composed, well lit and interesting.
>>
>>3856765
>A shot that is well lit
What do you think exposure means cupcake?

>Composed
Are you implying having the option of grid overlays to help get things lined up better doesn't help?

>Interdasting
Yes, being able to accurately see how your camera interprets colour, shade and tone can help create more interesting photos.

It's a dumb comment though, of you really believed that these are the important facets for getting a shot, you'd use your phone and never buy any gear.
>>
I was just considering between used Nikon Z6 and D750 at same price but then I realized that I would need to buy adapter for lenses and absurdly expensive memory card and it would run out of battery 3 times faster...

Nah, it's not always best option.
>>
>>3856757
>moooom! using the light meter is HARD!
Stupid nigger, even a retard could take a well exposed picture with any camera that has AE and that came out in the 70s or so.
>>
>>3856775
You think correct exposure means it's well lit?
Well lit is about the direction and quality of the lights and the projected shadows. It's not about 0EV, it's about the way you place your speedlights or waiting for the Sun to hit something just right. Ironically enough, mirrorless is of little help in both cases, but reflex can help you get the second one a lot.
>>
>>3856851
Buy the D780 then
>>
>>3852563
>Battery life
As said many times before

>Ergos
Some people just like how a big SLR handles and thats just fine by me, its just a preference, why bother?

>No risk of sensor burn
Thats the only other thing that comes to my mind. By design a mirrorless is at risk of a sensor burn if one is careless in a very sunny environment.
>>
>>3856930
There's also the unique reflex experience, being able to look at the world through the lens and being one with the camera. A reflex camera is like a spotting scope with the ability to capture pictures.
>>
>>3856924
Can't find used bodies.
>>
>>3856960
Then wait.
>>
>>3856960
Pentax K-1 MkII then
>>
>>3856747
>Yes it does, you absolute fucking moron; especially for newer photographers.
Newer photographers are going to use AE on either camera which will perform the same. Experienced photographers with higher end bodies have live exposure preview on mirrorless, spot meters on DSLRs. Exposure preview is nice but spot metering for digital is dead simple and just as effective.

EVFs don't really offer anything else that fundamentally alters your ability to get a good shot UNLESS you're using old manual glass and a MILC with good manual focus tools.

>>3856757
>When it literally does just that, by taking any guess work or need for experience to get your exposure perfect.
I'm sorry no one ever taught you how to use your camera's meter. There is no "guess work" in my exposures even on film bodies.

>>3856930
Mirrorless sensor burn is also an issue in environments with laser shows. The laser power/potential exposure time may be low enough to avoid permanent damage to viewer's eyes, but CCD/CMOS sensors cannot dissipate heat fast enough and therefore can burn. With a DSLR your sensor's exposure time is strictly limited to the shutter speed while shooting, so your odds of damage are far lower.
>>
>>3857032
>EVFs don't really offer anything else that fundamentally alters your ability to get a good shot
Having used both, I don't really agree with this. The exposure preview that you get on a good EVF makes it a bit quicker to get the exposure you want in complicated lighting. Or even just lets you preview different options in normal lighting when you might otherwise just go with the default. Like, yeah, it's not like an EVF is going to let you get a shot that an OVF wouldn't (except in some pretty contrived edge case scenarios), but it makes things a little quicker and easier and that's nice.
>>
>>3856987
Im not going to sell my lenses, dude.
>>
>>3857074
We're not really disagreeing. Key word is "fundamentally." EVF exp preview is more intuitive and a little faster than spot metering. But again...newbie will be using AE, experienced can get it with spot.

It's nice, it's just not what some mirrorless fans make it out to be. Modern Honda vs older Honda, not car versus horse and buggy.
>>
File: fuji.jpg (128 KB, 1280x746)
128 KB
128 KB JPG
>>3852563
How is this thing an improvement over DSLRs?
>>
>>3857100
Get a D810 then
>>
>>3857285
>not D810E
ngmi
>>
>>3857280
Femoid and 50Y user hands can now lift one
>>
>>3857280
>why isn't this beginner model for kids a flagship model
because you're poor, Anon.
>>
>>3857280
>How is this thing an improvement over DSLRs?
It is M I N T Y
>>
>>3857307
Even the cheapest DSLRs have a viewfinder AND a live view screen.
>>
>>3856775
Being well exposed doesn't mean it's well lit. You can expose properly so that 18% gray is achieved and there's no overwhelming areas of clipped highlights or shadows, but that doesn't mean the light direction or quality is good, or interesting.

D-SLRs have grid lines too, but there's more to good composition than lining things up along thirds and straightening the horizon. Other compositional considerations are things such as how large or small objects appear, their relationships and distance between each other, whether they're separate or interacting with each other, and what is and isn't included in the frame.

Likewise, an interesting photo comes from an interesting subject, or a subject presented in an interesting way. If you're looking for good colors or light, it's better to have those things in front of you, rather than expecting the camera to turn a dull, flat scene into something interesting.
>>
>>3857360
>Even the cheapest DSLRs have a viewfinder AND a live view screen.
No they don't.
Maybe since you entered the hobby, zoomer.
>>
>>3857367
>If you're looking for good colors or light, it's better to have those things in front of you,
so an EVF then, right
>>
>>3857372
In front of you, as in manifested in the physical realm, visible with your own two eyes, not looking through a camera.
>>
>>3857375
oh so you can't tell if a scene will look good using your eyes, so you need to look through some glass...with your eyes...to see if it looks good?

So basically...seeing the bokeh of the lens...is a necessary part of your ability to mentally compose and frame a subject...interesting...
You know EVFs do that too though, right? They don't have to have DoF preview enabled at all times.
>>
>>3857386
>you can't tell if a scene will look good with your eyes
I'm not sure what you're implying here. My point is that you can see an interesting scene before raising the camera to your eye to capture it. What looks good to a trained photographer's own naked eyes will almost always look good with a camera, and when I say looks good, I mean it has the fundamentals (light, composition, color palette etc.) in order. People have been able to take interesting photographs for over 100 years, why only in the past 5 or 10 people like yourself think it's impossible without an EVF is really beyond me.
>>
>>3857368
Find me a DSLR that doesn't feature live view.
If you chop the viewfinder off it ceases to be a DSLR, by the way.
Good luck finding that NOS, I doubt there's any Canon D60 cameras out there unopened.
>>
>>3857386
he literally said "with your own two eyes, not looking through a camera" lol
>>3857401
Go easy on the mirrorlesscucks, they've never experienced photography without their little electronic crutch.
>>
>>3857681
>doesn't even know D60 is a Nikon and tries to appear wise
>>
>>3857686
Don't throw stones from a glass house little boy, before the Nikon D60 there was the Canon EOS D60.
>>
>>3857686
>>doesn't even know D60 is a Nikon and tries to appear wise
Canon's first two DSLRs were the D30 and D60. They switched to putting the D on the other side of the number after those.
>>
>>3857686
lurk more
>>
>>3854733
What's the point of having expensive gear if you're gonna have a terrible sense of fashion looking like a tourist 24/7 ?
>>
>>3856917
Do you usually expose your photos within 1\3 of a stop of what you actually wanted? Can you ensure you're within 1\3 of a stop of some of your shit blowing out?

You can either say no, and admit mirrorless is useful, or you can say yes and look like an insecure fucking moron. Your choice.

>>3856921
I think being well lit means ensuring where you want shadows to be dark, they are dark, and where you want light, there's the correct amount of light.

An ovf can't tell you when you're blowing or crushing an area, it can't meter creatively, it doesn't know how you want to implement chiaroscuro, it can't read your mind. An EVF can do all of the above.

As for speedlights, lmfao, that's one of the biggest bonuses of EVF, being able to accurately set your ambient light (where again, creativity is going to come before any technical aspect a meter can tell you) before adding in your lights is awesome; either you've never shot flash or you've never shot mirrorless.

>Sun to hit something just right

Again, mirrorless wins, your eyes see light relatively, and with zero context of an imaging sensor, a sensor sees in absolutes with zero concerns for context, there's none of the equalising of contrast which our eyes do.

>>3857032
>Newer photographers will use AE
Except they don't, when you give a DSLR to a new user, leave it on matrix metering, they'll click with blind faith in the metering. Give a mirrorless to a newbie and they will go straight for the EV adjustment dial to adjust the exposure to be what they want the photo to look like. I work in a camera shop, and when customers play with EVF cameras I've frequently heard "how do I make it brighter or darker", which I've never heard when someone is playing with a DSLR.

EVF literally makes taking photos note intuitive.

>>3857375
So you think what your eye sees is more important than what the sensor sees, when the photo is coming from the sensor, not your eyes?

You're real dumb, kiddo.
>>
>>3858664
>You think what your eyes see are more important
I can't believe I have to explain this.

If you want to photograph a on a clear day with a blue sky then that's what you point your camera at. Your camera will not "see" darkness or a cloudy sky if it's not there.

If you want a specific composition then it's your job to point the camera in the right direction, choose the right focal length and stand in the right spot. Your evf is not going to do that for you.

If you want a specific color palette or light, your camera will not magically "see" something else. It will not see overcast, diffused light where it doesn't exist. It will not see red and blue where it doesn't exist.

Every half decent photographer has figured out that the best way to get a good photo is to paint your camera at the right thing. Honestly, I cannot believe this needs to be explained. The fact that you lean so heavily on how a sensor "renders" a photo in some nuanced way tells me you care more about consumer technology bullshit than actual photography and you probably suck at the latter. Good luck with all that I guess.
>>
>>3858695
>Your eyes does not see light that doesn't exist

Yes it does, again, your eyes are relative, they will automatically white balance things for you, they will balance contrast in a high dynamic range scene, everyone's eyes have a different gamut too.

Camera sensors are absolute, any of those changes your eye automatically account for has to be done in post.
>>
>>3858664
I'm not any of the guys that you're responding to.

>Do you usually expose your photos within 1\3 of a stop of what you actually wanted?
No
>Can you ensure you're within 1\3 of a stop of some of your shit blowing out?
Yes
Mirrorless is still useful, but I think you're a smartass who doesn't know the craft but still feels like calling others dumb. To reliably judge brightness from a camera's display or EVF other than for simple scenes or other than with the histogram ends or other than with zebras is simple but still unreliable. Not also does the display brightness interfere but also the picture style. If you stick to spot metering, measure very dark and white areas the metering is not convenient but very accurate.

>An ovf can't tell you when you're blowing or crushing an area, it can't meter creatively, it doesn't know how you want to implement chiaroscuro, it can't read your mind.
An EVF can't do that either, but the feedback loop for adjusting is more intuitive. It doesn't matter if the photographer adjust the exposure because of the preview or due to metering.

>So you think what your eye sees is more important than what the sensor sees, when the photo is coming from the sensor, not your eyes?
I'm familiar with both, previews that show me great colors, contrasts, and other things I didn't notice before, but also having a lighting condition catch my eye and the need to quickly aim for a photo because you just know it's going to be good.
With your question, however, you also touch on the topic of realism and implementation, and it is indispensable to say that it is important to deal with a motif mentally and with desires. So is what arrives on the sensor the important thing? Indirectly yes, objectively no.
>>
>>3858783
>Talking about post production in a thread about EVF vs OVF and SOOC results
Lmao
>>
>>3858664
>Do you usually expose your photos within 1\3 of a stop of what you actually wanted?
With the spot meter? Every time.

>An ovf can't tell you when you're blowing or crushing an area
No but a spot meter can.

>As for speedlights, lmfao, that's one of the biggest bonuses of EVF, being able to accurately set your ambient light
This is trivial on a DSLR with spot meter, live view, or just reviewing one shot. Hell, Canon E-TTL in anything other than P mode will pretty reliably balance the flash against ambient light for you.

>Again, mirrorless wins, your eyes see light relatively, and with zero context of an imaging sensor, a sensor sees in absolutes with zero concerns for context, there's none of the equalising of contrast which our eyes do.
EVFs have shit contrast. They do not show you what the sensor sees. Your best bet is to maximize DR by exposing to the right. The quick and easy way to do this is to spot meter a highlight and make sure it's not >3ev over (2.66ev is safer on some cameras) or use an EVF histogram if available. Then shape the RAW the way you want in post, pushing shadows and moving tones around as necessary.

>Except they don't, when you give a DSLR to a new user, leave it on matrix metering, they'll click with blind faith in the metering.
And then chimp, adjust, learn.

>>3857375
>So you think what your eye sees is more important than what the sensor sees, when the photo is coming from the sensor, not your eyes?
The EVF is nothing like what the sensor sees. Color, saturation, contrast, DR, are all pretty shit.
>>
>>3858854
>relying on sooc results
>scolding other people about which camera they want to use
But you use 'film simulations' too.
>>
>>3858924
What? No I don't. Whoever is doing that in the thread isn't me. I'm responding to someone talking about post production when the discussion is whether or not EVF has some advantage in achieving the desired color balance out of the camera. The implication being that you see what the colors look like to the camera. If you're just gonna go home and edit the RAW to be whatever you want, then it really doesn't matter what white balance you have.

>>3858921
>The EVF is nothing like what the sensor sees. Color, saturation, contrast, DR, are all pretty shit.
In a broader sense, I'm saying that what most people do is see a scene that looks good with their eyes before photographing it. If you're out on a beautiful day or night, and you see something you're drawn to because of the light quality, texture, some unique framing, whatever, that initial attraction you had to said scene happens before the camera is even in front of your face. Unless you're walking around with your eyes stuck to a viewfinder all day, then you're looking and seeing things with your eyes, and discerning what would make a good photograph. Even if you intend to touch up on color balance or whatever in post late, in general you're not going to take a mediocre scene (that exists IRL) and make it look special with a camera, or otherwise get something on the camera, that isn't there.
>>
DSLRs are damn ugly. I think the only good ones I've seen are Fuji and Panasonic.
>>
im gay so i boughted a mirrorless
>>
>>3860788
The Fuji DSLRs were Nikon bodies faggot.
>>
>>3860788
Yeah this definitely is peak DSLR body style, right anon?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
PhotographerAshley Pomeroy
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2013:02:09 14:15:36
Exposure Time30 sec
F-Numberf/11.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/11.0
Exposure Bias1 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length75.00 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width3000
Image Height2629
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
I have a D850 and a Z6 and an M10 and shoot with them all regularly, ask me anything.
>>
you can canon dslrs for dirty cheap and use them for 14 bit raw video if you install custom firmware
>>
>>3861160
Magic Lantern produces some decent RAW footage. I just wish it wasn't so quirky. And of course there's no AF...in some modes there isn't even a live view of the recording just a live crop of it.
>t. EOS M + Magic Lantern
>>
>>3861183
Be said DSLR, you're using a piece of shit without a mirror box.
>>
>>3861183
it is pretty quirky but the colours out of it are insane

My workflow is using MLV app, setting the gamut to Alexa log c, exporting to Prores 4444 and import into Resolve.

Then I use film convert with the Arri Alexa log c as the input camera profile, turn the cineon log to film slider to 0 and choose a film stock.

I create a node, then a third note and use one of the built in 3D LUT "film look" LUTS, and on the node before I use that to make small adjustments I want voila!

pic related
>>
>>3861248
Nah, EOS M is based for video work on the cheap. It will support 2.5k RAW and can use smaller cages/gimbals/accessories.
>>
>>3861250
mooar
>>
>>3861250
Honestly? I just wish the 2.5k RAW mode would let me see what is being recorded and not a center crop of it. Even if it was at like 5 fps. That frustrates the living hell out of me and makes me feel like i can't use that mode for any moving shots even though I love the footage.

Aside from that any Canon bodies that can use Magic Lantern can give you good color and sharp results. It's amazing and makes you wonder what could be done if Canon hired engineers like that and cut them loose.
>>
>>3861255
This is just me fucking about with no lighting or anything btw.

Look how rich and filmic the colours are.

It does look rather grungey but in a sort of 70s kitchen sink opera type way
>>
>>3861256
I use the 700d which doesn't do a crop.

Sadly it only does 1700 horizontal resolution at most in RAW (altho itd probably be a bit higher with an even faster SD card) but its still wayyyyy better than the absolutely awful h264 codec built into it, and can be easily upscaled. I'd say ppl could upscale it to 4K and then add 4k film grain over it to fill in that extra detail :)

So wish I knew about this much sooner with all the short films I've made in the past.
>>
>>3861256
I wish Canon would let the ML developers make firmware for the C100 because that camera still has so much potential.
>>
>>3861264
It's not that they don't let them, it's that ML is on its death throes sadly. The main developer pretty much quit.
>>
>>3861309
nah its been a thing for years where they don't want to touch Canon's cinema line coz that's just asking for them to be shut down
>>
mirrors are cool
>>
>>3862040
based and mirror pilled
>>
>>3858921
>Ettr on digital

Lmfao, you're a fucking moron. You ettr on film as it has almost infinite latitude in the highlights, digital has most of its latitude in the shadows. Hence why high dynamic range modes in cameras underexpose and boost shadows.

Well done on announcing to everyone you don't even have the basics of exposure down. Lol.

>>3859290
Every photo from a digital camera you've ever viewed has been through post, the epic jpegs it spits out have been through post.

I'm glad you took up photography at Christmas, but you should really stay quiet instead of prove to everyone how little you know.
>>
>>3862077
>Lmfao, you're a fucking moron. You ettr on film as it has almost infinite latitude in the highlights, digital has most of its latitude in the shadows. Hence why high dynamic range modes in cameras underexpose and boost shadows.
ETTR means exposing to push your histogram as far right as possible WITHOUT clipping any highlights you absolute fucking retard. It's "ETTR" and not "ETTL" precisely because you need to beware of your highlight limits, i.e. expose for the highlights.
>>
>>3862077
Wow you're a clown. My point is that if you're gonna tweak all your shit in post then the advantage of EVF dwindles especially in regards to color.
>>
I'm looking at buying a Sony A7II, what better DSLR can I get for the same money or less? Genuine question.
>>
DSLR ADVANTAGES
Battery life
Theoretically faster to shoot with since you have a simpler system that is possibly more responsive

MIRRORLESS ADVANTAGES
Can use faster lenses, better low light
cheaper lenses
lighter
Theoretically better autofocus


Everything will be mirrorless someday due to less cost, my opinion.
>>
>>3863291
>simpler system
debatable
>Can use faster lenses, better low light
Theoretically, outside of the Noct I don't see many mirrorless lenses that are incredibly fast,
>cheaper lenses
lol no
>lighter
Most of the time yes
>Theoretically better autofocus
debatable, can't focus between shots like a DSLR can
>>
>>3863299
Lens max aperture has to do with mount size not flange distance. Nikon made the noct to show off how big their mount is. They could have done that on a DSLR if the F mount was bigger.
>>
File: 1607218553877.gif (2.98 MB, 520x293)
2.98 MB
2.98 MB GIF
>>3852563
Want to know how I know you don't take photos?
>>
>>3852563
>poorfags
My D850 was $3800 you fag. Fuji and Sony are poorfag cope. You won't ever know the feel of a premium FF DSLR with industry leading Nikkor glass in front of it.
>>
>>3863377
Hell yee boi

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone XS
Camera Software14.0.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2020:10:02 23:41:54
Exposure Time1/15 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating1600
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness-4.0 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeSpot
FlashNo Flash, Auto
Focal Length4.25 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3863362
Flange distance plays a role too.
Corner sharpness and vignetting start to suffer if you have a small throat coupled with a short flange and a large aperture.
>>
>>3863362
Wrong
Large flange distance means you have light sucking retrofocal sections on any lens wider than the flange distance (40ish mm on DSLR)

Hence why Sony's 12-24 is f2.8 and half the weight & size of canons 11-24 f4.

>>3863299
>I don't see mirrorless lenses being much faster

Explain all the f1.4 wide angles suddenly on the market then.

>>3863407
>Small throat
So you mean smaller than m39, and therefore considerably smaller than anything on the market, because Leica never seem to have struggled with that ;)
>>
>>3863501
This only matters for wide angle lenses. You don't see these same massive improvements with other lenses, especially not the typical 70-200s and shit like that.
>>
>>3863546
>It's only massively superior for about half of lenses, not all lenses

Oh, may as well throw away every mirrorless camera then.

>It has no effect on long lenses

Wrong, inverse square law states that non parallel light will fall off exponentially as you get further away from the light source. Being able to get the glass closer to the sensor, and therefore the inverse point closer to the sensor, means brighter images. Hence why tamron managed to shrink their 28-75 and 70-180 2.8 lenses to be smaller and lighter than any competitive product for DSLR's.
>>
>>3863362
>Lens max aperture has to do with mount size not flange distance.
It's both.
Mount size plays a bigger role in max aperture of *symmetrical* lenses. But not just mount size, but also the space behind the mount.
>>
>>3863548
>Wrong, inverse square law states that non parallel light will fall off exponentially as you get further away from the light source. Being able to get the glass closer to the sensor, and therefore the inverse point closer to the sensor, means brighter images.
You're wrong about that anon. For reflected subjects, in daylight, it's the distance of the sun that affects square law (so absolutely negligible). For emitting subjects, it's the distance from the subject.
Optically, the distance to the sensor is the same anyway, since it's the focal length that matters.

You only area that square law becomes relevant, it's when focusing at very close distances, and that's because the image circle gets enlarged, so the same light is spread over a wider area.
>>
>>3863501
>Large flange distance means you have light sucking retrofocal sections
I don't know what the fuck this means. There are no "light sucking" lens elements.

>Hence why Sony's 12-24 is f2.8 and half the weight & size of canons 11-24 f4.
Sony's 12-24 f/2.8 is a retrofocus design. The weight difference is roughly 36%, not 100%. Same with the size. Most high end mirrorless lenses which were retrofocus on DSLRs continue to be retrofocus on mirrorless because using another design would lead to IQ issues in the corners wide open. Shorter flange distance on mirrorless is not as useful to lens designers as on film because there's a limit on the angle at which light can strike an edge or corner photosite.

Probably the biggest impact mirrorless flange distance will have will be in small, medium speed primes, and not in fast, professional zooms and primes.

>>3863501
>Explain all the f1.4 wide angles suddenly on the market then.
There were plenty on the DSLR market, at least for Canon EF. Apart from the RF 28-70 f/2L I don't think Canon has bumped aperture on anything.

>>3863546
You don't see massive improvements, period. Again using Canon as an example the largest IQ gains are in the two f/1.2L primes. But the EF versions were very old and in need of a refresh. I have little doubt Canon could release EF versions as sharp or nearly as sharp as the RF versions since fucking Rokinon has sharp f/1.2 primes for EF at the same focal lengths.

The RF zooms which replace recent EF designs? No IQ gains. Just feature gains. Flange distance simply isn't as important as it's made out to be.
>>
>>3863603
>I don't know what retrofocal means, but I know how optics work

Lmfao.

>I don't understand how microlenses work

You don't understand much pal. Yet here you are, proudly exclaiming your ignorance for all to hear, whilst also thinking you're winning this argument. Lol!
>>
>>3863610
>>I don't know what retrofocal means, but I know how optics work
You're the one who doesn't have a fucking clue what retrofocus means if you thought the Sony 12-24 f/2.8 design was anything but retrofocus.

>Lmfao.
>>I don't understand how microlenses work
They don't fully solve the problem which is why lens designers continue to turn to retrofocus designs for professional zooms, even on mirrorless.
>>
>>3863610
And btw retard: the term is RETROFOCUS not "retrofocal." Get it right.
>>
>>3863622
>>3863623
>It's retrofocus not retrofocal

Oh shit, thanks for telling me, I'll be sure to pass that on to NASA so they can update their paperwork, pic related.

Congratulations on being too stupid to even Google a word before claiming it doesn't exist. I'm actually speechless at how dampened your brain activity is.

>Sony is a retrofocus design
Of course it is, it's a 12mm-24mm and the flange is about 19mm iirc; but what's further pal, 12nm to 19mm, or 12mm to 44mm?

Did you think retrofocal sections were a one and done design that changed the focal plane by a set amount regardless of the design?

I'm just trying to wrap my mind around how congealed your brain must be to make the above 2 posts.
>>
>>3863628
>>It's retrofocus not retrofocal
>Oh shit, thanks for telling me, I'll be sure to pass that on to NASA so they can update their paperwork, pic related.
Common usage is retrofocus, Idgaf what some old ass paper says.

>Congratulations on being too stupid to even Google a word before claiming it doesn't exist.
Congratulations on being too stupid to even Google the 12-24 lens diagram before claiming it's not retrofocus.

>>Sony is a retrofocus design
>Of course it is,
Then why did you claim otherwise retard?

>I'm just trying to wrap my mind around how congealed your brain must be to make the above 2 posts.
I'm just trying to wrap my mind around how stupid you are to claim it wasn't retrofocus (false) and was half the size/weight (also false) then back peddle this hard pretending that you never said that.
>>
>>3858571

In case you've been living under a rock or have never visited a truck stop in the last 5 years, flip flops and board shorts are the trucker's wardrobe of choice these days.
>>
>>3863633
>You said the Sony didn't have a retrofocal section

No I didn't, I explicitly stated any lens wider than the flange distance will need a retrofocal section.

Take 5 minutes, your rage is severely affecting your literacy.

>I don't care how NASA spells it!

Philips also spells it the same as me, as evident by this patent application, a case where being incredibly specific and exact with wording is paramount.

>It doesn't weigh half as much, the canon only weighs 50% more, and is more than a stop slower.

Ok Hun.

Did you notice that the canon also weighs 115% more than the Sony 12-24 f4, that's more than double! And the Sony is sharper, and less than half the RRP. Lol!
>>
>>3863641
>>You said the Sony didn't have a retrofocal section
>No I didn't,
Yes, you did.

>>It doesn't weigh half as much, the canon only weighs 50% more, and is more than a stop slower.
>36% = 50%
This is common core.

>Ok Hun.
Don't call me "hun" you little faggot.
>>
>>3863603
>You don't see massive improvements, period. Again using Canon as an example the largest IQ gains are in the two f/1.2L primes. But the EF versions were very old and in need of a refresh. I have little doubt Canon could release EF versions as sharp or nearly as sharp as the RF versions since fucking Rokinon has sharp f/1.2 primes for EF at the same focal lengths.

This is what people seem to forget. Improvements to lens and sensor design is part and parcel of technology moving forward overall. If mirrorless was not a thing we'd still be getting better sensors and lenses incrementally.
>>
>>3852563
a better Viewfinder?
>>
>>3863007
do you want small and light? get the a7. i was making similar comparisons and realized i just don't care about size, and got a 1ds mark ii (16mp). some call it softer than the 5dii. I really like the look. d800 (like the e, 50, whatever) related cameras are dslrs with high mp. you might dig the 5diii, which is 21 iirc. some old cameras have interesting looks, its up to you to decide if you like it, you will not become popular on ig or flicr if you produce art instead of kitsch. you should consider a camera with eye af, if you photograph people, though. it eliminates the need to pay so much attention to which af point is selected.
>>
>>3863983
I want good low light performance for the dollar and cheap lenses(including the ability to adapt vintage shit). That's about it.
>>
>>3863727
>Yes you did
Quote me babe, bet you can't.

>Doesn't understand percentages
Oh babe, what's the increase in % from 800g to 1.2kg? 50%, well done. Now what's the decrease in weight from 1.2kg to 800g? 33%, well done.

As you can see, going in each direction is a different change in %, this is common core maths sweetie.

>Don't call me Hun
Awww is anon upset over his teeny-weeny fragile masculinity, oh hunny buns, let me come over there so you can suck on my shmeat like a pacifier.

>>3864019
If you want to adapt old lenses then Sony full frame is the only real option.
>>
>>3852563
>Besides being a product for poorfags, literally what reason is there to buying a DSLR in 2021?
there isn't any.
>>
>>3864340
>Quote me babe, bet you can't.
>>3863501

>>Doesn't understand percentages
>Oh babe, what's the increase in % from 800g to 1.2kg? 50%, well done. Now what's the decrease in weight from 1.2kg to 800g? 33%, well done.
It's 847g to 1180g for a 39% increase. If you're going to bitch about math then get it fucking right.

>sweetie.
I'm not your wife's bull.

>>>3864019
>If you want to adapt old lenses then Sony full frame is the only real option.
>Canon RF
>Nikon Z
>>
>>3864478
>Quotes me saying that any lens wider than flange distance requires a retrofocal section

Lmfao, are you literate lad?

>Whines about minor differences in weight and completely ignored the fact I exposed you as being unable to do simple percentage calculations.

Womp womp bitch tits.

>Admitting your wife has a bull

Lol, cuck.
>>
>>3864483
>>Quotes me saying that any lens wider than flange distance requires a retrofocal section
No, your statement implied the Sony was not a retrofocus design. If you did not intend to say that then you should have been more clear.

>>Whines about minor differences in weight
Be a man and admit you were wrong or exaggerated.

>and completely ignored the fact I exposed you as being unable to do simple percentage calculations.
This is blatantly false.

>thinks the statement about the bull wasn't about him
Lmfao, are you literate lad? Womp womp bitch tits.
>>
>>3864483
Sorry you can’t do math womp womp
>>
>>3853004
I bought an a7 first gen this year,

I find the evf fine, need to get a better eyecup for shooting outdoors but its perfectly fine. Its xga so 1024*768 or about as much pixels as your facebook or instagram photo is gonna have its fine.

if anything after shooting dslr then getting the sony the fact that what I see is what I get when shooting is a masssive game changer, No guessing exposure compensation, no guessing depth of field preview as I couldnt see shit trough the lens at f16 of the dslr no longer fucking up expsure when Im in manual mode.

its near perfect. The controls and menus of sony and the battery life is where dslr remains king. Hope pentax makes another MILC.
>>
>>3853155
show me an optical viewfinder that is anyway shape or form useful at night ?

I would much rather have a boosted preview. your soft in the head.
>>
>>3853857
my neck and shoulder could tell the difference of half a kilo over more than 10 mins you soft boi. lmao.

wish they made smaller lenses though what annoys me is sony and everyone still has the 30/40 mm wasted space in the lens. look how smoll leica is with a reduced flange they should have usued that reciepe.
>>
>>3853469
fucking larp. Dont have d70 but seeing as my sony takes 2 secs and it has to resume a fucking android operating system and a dslr normally doesnt your lying. my pentaxs are quicker to boot for sure than the sony
>>
>>3853695
I go for hikes with my a7 I carry two batteries even though 80% of the time i dont even kill one as it takes about 700 shoots to completly kill one and who is spraying and praying ? I only spray with birds. If i shoot video it naturally tanks the battery but these batteries are so small i could carry 3 in any pocket and it weighs about 100 grams for 2. Fuck stick them in your socks you wouldnt feel them.

if your shooting a show buy a camera grip. twice the grip and twice the battery BOOM ubkess its a 3 hour show and your literally just holding down the shutter your being unrealistic.

if battery life is mission critical then dont buy that camera. sony has 4 times the amount of shots than r5.

cameras are tools and there is never one right answer for every question but by and large miroless are a great do all compared to dslrs.

plus give mirorless the 20 years of maturment that dslrs benifit from and id say we will all be shooting milc soon.

STOP BEING BUTTHURT YOUR CAMERA IS NICE AND YOU SPEND YOUR PENNIES WISELY YOU DONT NEED TO GET BUTTHURT ABOUT PEOPLE LIKING OTHER STUFF THAT YOU DIDNT BUY YOU FAT RETARD.
>>
>>3864514
>show me an optical viewfinder that is anyway shape or form useful at night ?
If you have healthy eyesight and a fast lens they are more useful. EVFs become laggy and grainy as fuck in low light.
>>
>>3853440
>I've just compared my a7ii to my d70.
>>3853638
>I actually *also* have a Nikon D70, but it's been so long since I've actually touched it that the battery is currently dead
Okay, I just went and found a working battery for my D70 and now I can confidently say that this is either complete bullshit or you just have a lens that's slow as fuck to focus.

With my lens in manual focus mode, my D70 went from fully-powered-off to ready-to-take-a-picture in the time it took my finger to get from the power switch to the shutter button, and the power switch is literally coaxial with the shutter button. Effectively zero startup time.

I could see it being slow if you're using something like a third-party lens with a paaaainfully slow built-in AF motor, or maybe shooting in the dark where the AF sensor can't figure out where the hell you want to focus, but even a DSLR as old as the D70 has no noticeable startup time.
>>
>>3864526

lad even at the widest open the evf is giving your eye more light as its active and has more light sensitivity than the naked eye. And use a f 3.5 lens in a dark room on a dslr and then a miroless you could tell which one is better.
>>
>>3864557
>lad even at the widest open the evf is giving your eye more light
And lagging at 5 fps with a shit ton of grain. I can compose the Milky Way with a fast prime (which is invisible to the EVFs I've tried). WTF do I need an EVF?

>And use a f 3.5 lens in a dark room on a dslr and then a miroless you could tell which one is better.
>f/3.5
I'm not a poor fag.
>>
>>3864513
>Hope pentax makes another MILC.
lol good luck with that, based Pentax is opposed to the idea on a philosophical level
they see that the OVF experience can't be matched
>>
>>3864631
>they see that the OVF experience can't be matched
more like they can't compete in such a saturated market with their garbage so they have to find a niche and flesh it out to the fullest
>>
>>3864635
cope EVFcel
>>
>>3864641
enjoy your ricoh
>>
>>3864642
You say that like it's a bad thing

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeEASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Camera ModelKODAK C340 ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)34 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationUnknown
Horizontal Resolution230 dpi
Vertical Resolution230 dpi
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/2.7
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating80
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashFlash, Auto
Focal Length5.60 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width640
Image Height306
Exposure Index80
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeMacro
>>
>>3864631
>they see that the OVF experience can't be matched
Sort of agree with >>3864635 but without the Pentax hate.

I feel like Ricoh/Pentax would come out with a mirrorless if they thought it would have any level of success. See the Ricoh GXR and Pentax K01 and Pentax Q line for examples of them dipping their toes in the water, for instance.

But Nikon and Canon were *very* late to serious mirrorless, and the only reason they're being successful is that they were already the biggest two names in DSLRs. Pentax has always been a #3 brand at best.

So with Nikon and Canon seemingly abandoning DSLRs for mirrorless, I think that Pentax sees a niche they can occupy the shit out of. They're gonna be the Leica of flappy-mirrors. They're betting that there will always be a certain number of people who prefer an actual OVF-equipped DSLR over a mirrorless camera for whatever reason that they'll stay profitable.

If they come out with a new mirrorless line, unless they join the L alliance, they'll be behind Sony, Canon, Nikon, Leica/Sigma/Panasonic, and even Olympus in the mirrorless game. If they stay with DSLRs, the DSLR space is rapidly becoming a ghost town... but they can become the mayor of that particular ghost town real easy.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.