View Single Post
  #24  
Old September 11th 18, 09:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default SLRs Make Less Sense With Digital ?

-hh wrote:
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 10:10:20 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh wrote:
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 5:31:57 PM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh wrote:
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:58:31 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh wrote:
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 12:38:17 AM UTC-4, Savageduck wrote:
-hh said:

wrote:
The SLR was a great idea when needed to have a seperate path for
viewing and film exposure, but with digital, the sensor can be the
viewing as well as the recording medium so perhaps less need for a
separate path via flip up mirror ?

It depends.

First, to drive two digital outputs (display + data recording) requires
the product to have more power ... both computational power and literal
power (battery).

...and so the MILCs which work do just that.

Understood, but the devil is in the details. The problem
is that the classical pro-MILC is that this is part of what
allows a MILC to be smaller...but their higher power demands
works against this. As such, it isn't a "gimme".

WTF is a "classical pro-MILC"?

I'm referring to the classical arguments that are advocating
for MILC hardware.

You don't seem to have an understanding of the capabilities
of any MILC.

Oh, I know that I'm not up-to-date on these new consumer centric
products that cost under $10K - - but that doesn't mean that I
don't know the engineering principles or application ... indeed,
these are where I've taken the conversation. FYI, the first
digital MILC that I've personally spec'd/bought/used was more
than a decade ago.

Knowing the engineering principles, or application, and actually using and
understanding the current generation of MILC cameras are two different
things. You had better believe ...

Oh, please: the improvements have been incremental, as the base
technology hasn't changed: it is still "mirrorless".


If the first MILC you "personally spec'd/bought/used" was more than a
decade ago, you have no idea of the current generation of MILCs which are
are leaps ahead of what was available less than two years ago.

That's a good 'Motherhood' statement for technology in general, but it
actually depends on what's important to your photographic needs.

For example, the ancient MILC I'd bought still outperforms your shiny new
camera on certain metrics ... and do note that these were the factors which
our purchase decision was based on.

Case in point, on shutter speed: how much faster than 2 μs is your camera?

No, that's not a typo: I did say "μs" to indicate microseconds (10E-6),
and 2 μs is 1/500,000sec.

Now I am curious, what was this pioneering MILC with astonishing shutter
speed (that most photographers would probably never use).


Indeed you're correct that 'most photographers' would never use,
but that doesn't invalidate my points.

Who are we kidding? This is not generally thought of as a consumer camera.

The camera was a Vision Research Phantom 5 camera. The v5 series
first shipped in 2001; we bought ours in 2002. It cost $100K, but
it gave us what we needed, which was a fast shutter at 10,000 fps
(full frame; partial frames higher - up to 100Kfps).

So not exactly a consumer, or pro-photographer (depending on the type of
pro) camera. There are not too many wedding photogs carrying one of those
in their kit.

https://www.phantomhighspeed.com

[...]

Yes, the display lag time of the EVF hardware is a factor in
the overall temporal chain - - but it isn't the _only_ factor.
The only thing that this 5ms "spec" is actually telling you is
that once the EVF finally gets a frame to be displayed, it takes
that hardware an additional 50ms to make it appear on its screen.
--------------------------- ^^^^ typo; should be "5ms".


...and that matters not one bit when it comes to actually using
whichever camera the photographer, including yours truly, is using
since I don't usually carry a full test bench with me on any shoot.


Incorrect: the degree to which it is important depends on the
photographer's application.

OK! I'll buy that.

I suspect that it doesn't matter that much to you when it comes
to your photography.


Depends on if I'm out having fun, or working in a lab. Even so,
I'm concerned about what I've been learning on VR immersion on
bioeffect interactions. It may not be significant in a land based
setting with short eye time in an EVF, but it may be so for UW
settings such as while immersed in a macro video for a couple of
minutes...getting vertigo while underwater can be a tad unhealthy.

The problem is, you are mixing general photography, pro & hobbyist with lab
work. Most folks in this room are shooting street, landscapes, portraiture,
various sports, and events.

That doesn't tell you how much time went by from the time that
the photons hit the CCD/CMOS receptor to be collected.

From an engineering standpoint, the receptor is a time-sampled
period used to integrate the signal (thereby forming a discrete
'image'), which then gets bussed to the CPU for processing - -
and resampling to the smaller EVF - - before it gets sent to
the EVF for display.


...and I have yet to have that "time-sampled period" be critical
in any digital camera I have used.


Which is specific to you & your application(s); YMMV applies on both.

That is the World I live in.

The KISS net result of all of this is that the data in the
EVF is always several data frames old .. and the key technical
data performance question is *HOW* many frames old is it?
Again, what does the OEM's technical data sheet say?


Again I do not have that data sheet.


Yet you've not been shy in claiming that it can't be an issue /S

It hasn't been for me, and most of the photographers using MILCs.

[...]

My next camera upgrade will probably be to upgrade my underwater
camera system, and something mirrorless should be more compact
form factor than the ~8 year old Canon 7D dSLR with its UW housing
that I'm currently using.

Then you have to buy whatever meets your needs.

But of course. The main issue that I had with the current
dSLR solution was that at the time (2010) there wasn't any
support for ultra-wide angle lenses for any of the P&S or
even the what was then-emerging 4/3rds systems in an UW setup.
My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V;
the closest I could get to was a 24mm equivalent, which is
a huge difference in UW.


How wide do you want to go?

See above:
"My benchmark was to match the Nikkor 15mm from my Nikonos V..."

In my bag of Fujifilm lenses I have an XF14mm f/2.8, and an XF16mm f/1.4.

Also available for my cameras is a Zeiss Touit 12mm f/2 (AF) and various
Samyang, and Rokinon 12, 10, & 8mm manual focus lenses, and the Loawa 9mm
f/2.8 Zero-D

Appropriate focal length lenses is only the first step of at least three.

You also need:

2. the UW camera housing for the body. If it isn't sold, you're stuck.


Yup.

3. the UW lens port/dome for that body+lens combination.
If this isn't sold, then you have to pick another lens.


Yup

For example, the UW housing manufacturer with the broadest
product line is Ikelite. So feel free to show us where they
sell a body for your MILC model.

Then, go he

https://www.ikelite.com/pages/lens-port-charts

...and identify just what lenses are supported.


For my particular camera Ikelite does not build a housing. However,
Aquatech, Nauticam, Subal, and Meikon do. Perhaps not Ikelite, but capable.


Well first off, meikon is immediately off my list because I can see
from its URL that its max depth rating is inadequate (only 130fsw).

OK! However, I suspect that the Meikon would be OK for photographers
shooting sports such as surfing where max depth is not too critical.

And some circumspection is required when it comes to individual
brands .. a good rule of thumb is to not buy anything that the
more reputable suppliers (such as Backscatter) doesn't carry in
their product lines. That knocks out aquatech...and also Fujifilm,
interestingly enough.

Well not all vendors can be all things to all consumers. Regardless of
whether,or not Backscatter, carries Aquatech, or carries a housing for
Fujifilm cameras, there are undeniably users of Fujifilm cameras, and some
of them would engage in UW photography.

https://aquatech.net/collections/fujifilm/products/atb-xt2-camera-water-housing-kit

https://www.nauticam.com/collections/mirrorless-il-camera-housings/products/na-xt2-housing-for-fujifilm-x-t2-camera

http://subal.com

https://meikon.com.hk/collections/underwater-waterproof-camera-housing-case-for-fujifilm/products/fujifilm-x-t2-40m-130ft-underwater-camera-housing-kit-with-seafrogs-dry-dome-port-v-1

FYI, if you come up empty (no suitable product exists), then welcome to
my world ... feel free to provide alternate solution recommendations.

Alternatives provided above.


There's a chance with the Nautica (can't get Subal to load right now);
they offer support for only three lenses: a 50mm, a 60mm macro, and the
"FUJINON XF10-24mmF4 R OIS", but since the XT-2 body is an APS-C sensor,
these are "good enough" in that they sufficiently match my current
setup from a focal length standpoint ... but that means (a) no room for
capability growth, and (b) the same question on the fundamental optical
quality and distortion on the WA lens+dome port. Given that their
dome is 180mm (~7", which is smaller than my current 8" dome), that's
a risk of repeating the same problem I have now. Plus there's also
some work to check on how they do their strobe communication ports, as
it might not be compatible with my current UW strobes, and having to
also replace a pair of UW strobes adds another ~$2K to costs.

But at least its a start that there's now at least an option (vs none)
and its hopefully smaller than current .. I'd have to check the
dimensions and weight to see if its significant or not.

Yup! It is a start, not that I am going to be engaging in UW photography
any time soon.



--
Regards,
Savageduck