Some mirror-less users are clueless

In article ,
Rich A wrote:

Guy cries because his mirror-less can't lock and keep focus on an indoor
karate demonstration shooting at 3200 ISO f/4.0 at 125th second. Why would
you buy a mirror-less for that? Guy spends $2000 on mirror-less when he
should have bought a D500 Nikon DSLR and a decent lens. Even a small amount
of research would bear this out. Mirror-less are fine for a lot of things,
but action in low light with a slow lens isn't one of them.

What camera?
--
teleportation kills

On 2017-03-22 09:44:49 +0000, android said:

In article ,
Rich A wrote:

Guy cries because his mirror-less can't lock and keep focus on an indoor
karate demonstration shooting at 3200 ISO f/4.0 at 125th second. Why would
you buy a mirror-less for that? Guy spends $2000 on mirror-less when he
should have bought a D500 Nikon DSLR and a decent lens. Even a small amount
of research would bear this out. Mirror-less are fine for a lot of things,
but action in low light with a slow lens isn't one of them.

What camera?

Agreed! What camera, and what lens?
Where did you find a D500 + "decent lens" for less than $2000 other
than renting them for the event?

While having a D500 for an indoor action event would have been ideal,
he would have spent more than $2000 once he added "a decent lens". D500
body ($1,996.95) + 70-200mm ($2,796) and/or Nikkor 24-70mm ($2396).

Then consider that there are mirrorless cameras with fast glass
available today which are more than capable of dealing with an action
event under indoor lighting. This sounds more like a failure of the
head behind the lens rather than anything to do with equipment. If he
did choose a "slow" lens for this indoor shoot when there is fast glass
available for mirrorless, he had taken on a project outside his
experience/capability, or developed photographic skill set.
--
Regards,

Savageduck