Some mirror-less users are clueless

On 3/22/2017 3:20 AM, 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 does the mirror (or lack thereof) have to do with it?

--
best regards,

Neil

On 3/22/2017 3:00 PM, Neil wrote:
On 3/22/2017 3:20 AM, 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 does the mirror (or lack thereof) have to do with it?

Yes. Isn't the Nikon winning because of its much more advanced auto
focus, compared to the relatively slow systems in early Fuji-X.

An X-T2 body is about the same price as a D500 in the UK. Not sure how
autofocus compares.

But as other posters have said, it is really all back to basics. Auto
focus has made us all lazy, but we are not forced to be. At those light
levels, I wouldn't like to say whether an OVF or an EVF would be easier
to focus.

Of course a master would get good photos with a Leica II, the F/4 135mm,
and Tri-X pushed a couple of stops.

On 2017-03-22, newshound wrote:
On 3/22/2017 3:00 PM, Neil wrote:
On 3/22/2017 3:20 AM, 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 does the mirror (or lack thereof) have to do with it?

Yes. Isn't the Nikon winning because of its much more advanced auto
focus, compared to the relatively slow systems in early Fuji-X.

An X-T2 body is about the same price as a D500 in the UK. Not sure how
autofocus compares.

But as other posters have said, it is really all back to basics. Auto
focus has made us all lazy, but we are not forced to be. At those light
levels, I wouldn't like to say whether an OVF or an EVF would be easier
to focus.

Of course a master would get good photos with a Leica II, the F/4 135mm,
and Tri-X pushed a couple of stops.

Ah yes, good old Hektor, the old softy. Although didn't he only go to
1:4.5? I'd've used my trusty Elmar 135/2.8 (on an M3). And maybe a
monopod or shoulder-stock. Simple days sigh

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~