A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 29th 18, 10:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

On Jul 29, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) :

for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light.
either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate
drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the
viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use.

with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust.


Actually you should try that experiment with a good quality Sony, or Fujifim
MILC, you might be surprised at what you can see.

With both my X-T2, and X-E3 with a fast lens such as the 16mm f/1.4, 35mm
f/1.4, or 56mm f/1.2, and the EVF/LCD set via menu to *Preview PIC. Effect*
ON. You will find that in extremely low light, light so low that one would
think that capturing an image was impossible. The result through the EVF, or
on the LCD is such that you would think that you had a night vision scope.

Any adjustments to the EV comp dial are immediately visible, as are any
adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. All very much WYSIWYG. It is
possible to see your subject in the darkness, and make a useful capture at an
ISO as low as ISO 1600. Use ISO 6400, or higher, and the scene in the EVF/LCD
is even brighter. As I said, almost like a night vision scope, your eyeball
cannot do that with an OVF.

If you use manual focus, focus peaking makes things simple, and accurate even
in impossibly low light, while you are not seeing too much in the darkness
through your optical viewfinder.

No matter how much your eyes might adjust when looking through an OVF all you
will see is darkness. The camera might be capable of capturing that image,
but it will not be easy.

Certainly in good light for action sport photography the DSLR is still the
tool of choice. However, the MILCs are rapidly narrowing that performance
gap, and for some action sport photographers shooting Sony, or Fujifilm, that
gap has already closed. The other big advantage that the Canon/Nikon DSLRs
have is the inventory of legacy long glass, and even now, Sony and Fujifilm
are narrowing that gap.

....and my D300S hasn’t been used for 18 months when I can capture sport
images such as this with my X-T2.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-w8DxFTk/0/7707b86c/O/i-w8DxFTk.jpg



there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder (or heat).


--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #12  
Old July 29th 18, 10:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light.
either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate
drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the
viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use.

with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust.


Actually you should try that experiment with a good quality Sony, or Fujifim
MILC, you might be surprised at what you can see.

With both my X-T2, and X-E3 with a fast lens such as the 16mm f/1.4, 35mm
f/1.4, or 56mm f/1.2, and the EVF/LCD set via menu to *Preview PIC. Effect*
ON. You will find that in extremely low light, light so low that one would
think that capturing an image was impossible. The result through the EVF, or
on the LCD is such that you would think that you had a night vision scope.

Any adjustments to the EV comp dial are immediately visible, as are any
adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. All very much WYSIWYG. It is
possible to see your subject in the darkness, and make a useful capture at an
ISO as low as ISO 1600. Use ISO 6400, or higher, and the scene in the EVF/LCD
is even brighter. As I said, almost like a night vision scope, your eyeball
cannot do that with an OVF.


that doesn't come for free. while seeing the results is nice, the frame
rate must be slower or the image noisier as the light level drops.
physics, again.

If you use manual focus, focus peaking makes things simple, and accurate even
in impossibly low light, while you are not seeing too much in the darkness
through your optical viewfinder.


focus peaking is useful for manual focus, however, slrs have focus
confirmation which is effectively the same and can work in *very* low
light.

the nikon d500 can autofocus as low as -4ev, which is actually one stop
*less* light than the exposure meter can meter the scene.
https://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d500/spec.htm

No matter how much your eyes might adjust when looking through an OVF all you
will see is darkness. The camera might be capable of capturing that image,
but it will not be easy.


use both eyes.

Certainly in good light for action sport photography the DSLR is still the
tool of choice.


exactly my point, and will remain so until physics can be overturned.

However, the MILCs are rapidly narrowing that performance
gap, and for some action sport photographers shooting Sony, or Fujifilm, that
gap has already closed. The other big advantage that the Canon/Nikon DSLRs
have is the inventory of legacy long glass, and even now, Sony and Fujifilm
are narrowing that gap.


there's still a gap.

the lag is short enough to not matter in common situations but too long
for pros.

the lens issue is going to take a while to catch up. adapters might
work in some cases but are generally a pain.
  #13  
Old July 29th 18, 10:52 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

In article ,
RichA wrote:


Low light...you can't even SEE stuff in an OVF in low-light you can see with
an EVF. Which is ironic, as DSLR focusing on the top models can focus
practically in the dark. You just can see what it's focusing on.


take off the lens cap and try again.
  #14  
Old July 30th 18, 04:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

In article ,
RichA wrote:

for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light.
either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate
drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the
viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use.

with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust.

Actually you should try that experiment with a good quality Sony, or
Fujifim
MILC, you might be surprised at what you can see.

With both my X-T2, and X-E3 with a fast lens such as the 16mm f/1.4, 35mm
f/1.4, or 56mm f/1.2, and the EVF/LCD set via menu to *Preview PIC.
Effect*
ON. You will find that in extremely low light, light so low that one
would
think that capturing an image was impossible. The result through the EVF,
or
on the LCD is such that you would think that you had a night vision scope.

Any adjustments to the EV comp dial are immediately visible, as are any
adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. All very much WYSIWYG. It
is
possible to see your subject in the darkness, and make a useful capture
at an
ISO as low as ISO 1600. Use ISO 6400, or higher, and the scene in the
EVF/LCD
is even brighter. As I said, almost like a night vision scope, your
eyeball
cannot do that with an OVF.


that doesn't come for free. while seeing the results is nice, the frame
rate must be slower or the image noisier as the light level drops.
physics, again.

And it only matters when using way out of date EVFs. Try a new one.


physics wins every time.
  #15  
Old July 30th 18, 12:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tim Watts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.

On 29/07/18 21:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror.

the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical
path through the lens.

while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they
are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with
sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical
viewfinder and focusing is faster.


And the digital display is actually seeing what the "film" is seeing. It
might in fact apply the digital processing that the final photo is going
to get so that the photographer can best decide on settings and timing.


except that a digital display is delayed versus pure optical.

it takes time to read the data off the sensor, process it and send it
to the display.

the latency is shorter than it used to be and won't matter for still
life, but *will* matter for sports or other action photography as well
as very low light.


Fair point...
  #16  
Old July 30th 18, 01:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.

On 2018-07-29 22:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror.

the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical
path through the lens.

while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they
are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with
sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical
viewfinder and focusing is faster.


And shooting slower. The mirror has to be moved, takes time.


so does flushing the sensor prior to the photo and then tripping the
shutter, usually using a mechanical shutter. electronic shutters may
work in some cases but can have all sorts of problems in others.

pro sports photographers, who can use whatever camera they want, choose
slrs because it's faster than mirrorless.

https://www.adorama.com/alc/wp-conte...utterstock_152
803373-2.jpg
https://fotoblog.hu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/587168650.jpg

nothing is perfect in every situation.


Sure. I simply know that my camera takes some time to think and then
shoot, even using the eyepiece, and using the "sports" configuration. It
is not that fast. My old chemical camera was faster (an SLR).

I'm sure that fast cameras for sports can be designed without mirror, if
the delay is in switching the sensor mode.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #17  
Old July 30th 18, 01:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 278
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.

On 2018-07-29 22:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror.

the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical
path through the lens.

while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they
are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with
sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical
viewfinder and focusing is faster.


And the digital display is actually seeing what the "film" is seeing. It
might in fact apply the digital processing that the final photo is going
to get so that the photographer can best decide on settings and timing.


except that a digital display is delayed versus pure optical.

it takes time to read the data off the sensor, process it and send it
to the display.


Surely less than 1/50 S (video speed).


the latency is shorter than it used to be and won't matter for still
life, but *will* matter for sports or other action photography as well
as very low light.


Well, for very low light the display could enhance the picture as if we
were using a night visor, so that could be a definite improvement. I do
astrophotography, and finding the red moon on the eyepiece the other day
was impossible. On the display it was also difficult (my camera doesn't
have dark enhancement or I have not found it), but it was doable.



The point of the SLR was that the photographer would see the same as the
film was going to see. Well, the digital display is one step further on
that road.


it's on a different road, with different tradeoffs.


Sure.

And as Tims points out, there can be a display inside the eyepiece instead.


there can, but it will never be as good as pure optical, at least not
until the laws of physics are overturned, which isn't going to happen
any time soon.

for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light.
either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate
drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the
viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use.

with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust.


As I wrote above, I was in exact this situation and my experience was
different.

there is also no battery drain with an optical viewfinder (or heat).


Well, my camera lights up the display when using the viewfinder with the
settings instead of the scene. So, no gain. There is no quick button to
disable it. It just times out and switches off, till I make a photo and
then displays it.

I simply carry two batteries. Sigh. I would need a charger for the car.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #18  
Old July 30th 18, 02:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

On Jul 30, 2018, Carlos E.R. wrote
(in article ):

On 2018-07-29 22:01, nospam wrote:
In , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

I never understood well why a digital camera needed a mechanical mirror.

the same reason film cameras did, so that the viewfinder has an optical
path through the lens.

while digital viewfinders are much better than they used to be, they
are still not as good as a ttl optical viewfinder, particularly with
sports and low light. there is also no battery drain with an optical
viewfinder and focusing is faster.

And shooting slower. The mirror has to be moved, takes time.


so does flushing the sensor prior to the photo and then tripping the
shutter, usually using a mechanical shutter. electronic shutters may
work in some cases but can have all sorts of problems in others.

pro sports photographers, who can use whatever camera they want, choose
slrs because it's faster than mirrorless.

https://www.adorama.com/alc/wp-conte...utterstock_152
803373-2.jpg
https://fotoblog.hu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/587168650.jpg

nothing is perfect in every situation.


Sure. I simply know that my camera takes some time to think and then
shoot, even using the eyepiece, and using the "sports" configuration. It
is not that fast. My old chemical camera was faster (an SLR).


What camera are you using that you are able to see that it “takes time to
think”?

Digital lag time, and EVF blackout in current MILC generations have been
reduced to the point that they are irrelevant. They are less noticable these
days than mirror blackout in SLR/DSLRs.


I'm sure that fast cameras for sports can be designed without mirror, if
the delay is in switching the sensor mode.


Today the issues of digital lag time and EVF blackout in the latest Sony and
Fujifilm MILCs defeat the arguments against their use in action sports
photography.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #19  
Old July 30th 18, 02:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLR against the onslaught of mirror-less.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


I'm sure that fast cameras for sports can be designed without mirror, if
the delay is in switching the sensor mode.


eventually maybe, but not today.
  #20  
Old July 30th 18, 08:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,161
Default 25 days to Nikon throwing the towel as the defender of the DSLRagainst the onslaught of mirror-less.

On 7/29/2018 5:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 29, 2018, nospam wrote
(in ) :

for example, try using a digital viewfinder in extremely low light.
either it blacks out because the light level is too low, the frame rate
drops to compensate or it amplifies what it can 'see' and the
viewfinder is too noisy to be of much use.

with an optical viewfinder, your eyes adjust.


Actually you should try that experiment with a good quality Sony, or Fujifim
MILC, you might be surprised at what you can see.

With both my X-T2, and X-E3 with a fast lens such as the 16mm f/1.4, 35mm
f/1.4, or 56mm f/1.2, and the EVF/LCD set via menu to *Preview PIC. Effect*
ON. You will find that in extremely low light, light so low that one would
think that capturing an image was impossible. The result through the EVF, or
on the LCD is such that you would think that you had a night vision scope.

Any adjustments to the EV comp dial are immediately visible, as are any
adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, or ISO. All very much WYSIWYG. It is
possible to see your subject in the darkness, and make a useful capture at an
ISO as low as ISO 1600. Use ISO 6400, or higher, and the scene in the EVF/LCD
is even brighter. As I said, almost like a night vision scope, your eyeball
cannot do that with an OVF.

If you use manual focus, focus peaking makes things simple, and accurate even
in impossibly low light, while you are not seeing too much in the darkness
through your optical viewfinder.

No matter how much your eyes might adjust when looking through an OVF all you
will see is darkness. The camera might be capable of capturing that image,
but it will not be easy.

Certainly in good light for action sport photography the DSLR is still the
tool of choice. However, the MILCs are rapidly narrowing that performance
gap, and for some action sport photographers shooting Sony, or Fujifilm, that
gap has already closed. The other big advantage that the Canon/Nikon DSLRs
have is the inventory of legacy long glass, and even now, Sony and Fujifilm
are narrowing that gap.

...and my D300S hasn’t been used for 18 months when I can capture sport
images such as this with my X-T2.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-w8DxFTk/0/7707b86c/O/i-w8DxFTk.jpg


Not exactly an example of low light.


--
PeterN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Olympus hasn't thrown in the DSLR towel yet it would seem David J Taylor[_16_] Digital SLR Cameras 2 January 28th 12 09:11 PM
The sale of super belt. Hat towel brand products jim Digital Photography 0 November 21st 07 04:31 PM
Olympus throws in the towel....on quality Rich Digital Photography 5 January 28th 07 01:23 AM
Lexar throws in the towel RichA Digital SLR Cameras 10 June 11th 05 10:47 PM
store every photo ever without throwing them away! billybeer In The Darkroom 3 December 4th 04 08:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.