you can't do WHAT with Mirrorless?!?

[Aglet]

I agree. The mirror is not the only reason to bail on 70 yo tech. I have not found a single mirror less that I can use reliably in full sunlight. Add an EVF and you take the dismal battery life down to a really unusable state.

The mirror and optical viewfinder takes relatively little power when the camera is in a state used the most, between shutter actuations. i will stick to my dslr for sports and wildlife as it's the only real option for the unforseeable future.

WHAT are you talking about re inability to use in sunlight?!?
That's a PnS complaint. If you've only ever tried a cheap ML with no EVF then that's not a very valid opinion.

Any decent ML body with a good EVF is not significantly different from using a DSLR.
FWIW, my XT1's EVF is particularly pleasant to use and I was using it to MF a slow lens in low light the other night, VERY low light. This was nearly impossible to do with the DSLRs we had available. (nearly full moon, the only source of light but obscured by cloud)
DSLR AF did not function on low contrast subject and MF was not working well with the optical viewfinder either.
We had to indirectly MF the DSLRs but I could just manually focus the XT1 via the EVF. Next time I'll have to remember to bring my low light DSLR focus accessory tricks just to speed things up but this was a great example of how good the XT1's EVF system is.
And if you have 2 functional eyes, whatever lag some EVF systems may have is also a non-issue.
I'd say the optical viewfinder is already obsolete, however simple, convenient and low-battery-power it is.

 

[candc]

There is a fellow among the local bird shooters "mike the Sony guy" who uses an a77ii, he likes it. There are some advantages to ml but for now a dslr is more suited for that type of shooting.

 

[Aglet]

There is a fellow among the local bird shooters "mike the Sony guy" who uses an a77ii, he likes it. There are some advantages to ml but for now a dslr is more suited for that type of shooting.

Certainly, sports-oriented DSLRs make the job of getting certain shots a lot easier and more certain at this time.
I still shoot predominantly DSLR for similar reasons but I enjoy shooting w ML more for some reason.
But ML systems are already very good and rapidly improving. Samsung's NX1's specialized hardware is likely capable of being programmed to do a variety of specialty tracking and AF functions so I'm interested in seeing what that technology comes up with VS what the regular PDAF/CDAF combo ML systems are doing now, which is really not much different from DSLR/compact camera AF methods.

 

[candc]

Truenuff, ml is the way of the future and pretty soon I don't think there will be any performance advantage for dslr's. I shoot bif with both eyes open and the evf doesn't seem to work very well that way but then you are really talking about special applications where a dslr is better.

 

[raptor3x]

I don't have the EM1, considering it but waiting for the goodies of the EM52 to land in an EM1ii.
but meanwhile, a protest march isn't exactly a fast moving subject, is it?..
So, are you making the most use of your EM1's AF abilities?
Perhaps this link can be of some assistance:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU

If anything, EM1 should do reasonably well to AF the initial shot.

I think the key was that it wasn't in daylight. Also, it was a protest but that doesn't mean people were moving in a slow march; it was fairly hectic with people running around as the cops threw flashbangs and some tear gas cannisters after some officers were injured.

I've used the E-M1 tracking quite a bit before and while I've never been impressed by it, it's certainly useable in a pinch (especially after the 3.0 firmware update) but I'd take a T3i over the E-M1 or X-T1 for tracking. I saw that mirrorless shootout video when it first came out and I always thought it was very telling that they didn't give any kind of hit rate numbers, based on my experience with both the E-M1 and X-T1 I would strongly suspect that the hit rates were significantly lower for the mirrorless cameras than the D4s.

WHAT are you talking about re inability to use in sunlight?!?
That's a PnS complaint. If you've only ever tried a cheap ML with no EVF then that's not a very valid opinion.

No, he's right. The X-T1 is far and away the best EVF for use in bright sunlight, but this has more to do with the terrible eyecups used by Olympus and Sony than anything intrinsic to the EVF.

Any decent ML body with a good EVF is not significantly different from using a DSLR.
FWIW, my XT1's EVF is particularly pleasant to use and I was using it to MF a slow lens in low light the other night, VERY low light. This was nearly impossible to do with the DSLRs we had available. (nearly full moon, the only source of light but obscured by cloud)
DSLR AF did not function on low contrast subject and MF was not working well with the optical viewfinder either.
We had to indirectly MF the DSLRs but I could just manually focus the XT1 via the EVF.

The idea that current EVFs are not significantly different from OVFs is going to be strongly colored by your intended use. For general use I completely agree with you (especially for the X-T1, they really nailed the EVF), but for applications with heavy using of continuous shooting, especially in low light, EVFs are very far behind OVFs.

Also, FWIW, the live view focus on my Canon DSLRs outperforms all of my mirrorless bodies in extremely low light as long as you're not in a rush. I agree that the EVF is helpful here, but it can be pretty hard to accurately focus even with the EVF as the noise makes it difficult to distinguish critical focus. It seems like when these kinds of discussions come up, people seem to forget that DSLRs also have live view.

Next time I'll have to remember to bring my low light DSLR focus accessory tricks just to speed things up but this was a great example of how good the XT1's EVF system is.
And if you have 2 functional eyes, whatever lag some EVF systems may have is also a non-issue.
I'd say the optical viewfinder is already obsolete, however simple, convenient and low-battery-power it is.

I would strongly disagree with this. The blackout period and slideshow behavior of mirrorless cameras EVFs in continuous shooting mode makes them almost useless for tracking action when there is a high degree of unpredictability. They may seem ok when you're doing something easy like tracking a person running straight towards you but when you have subject rapidly changing directions using current gen EVFs in continuous shooting mode is an exercise in futility.

 

[Hillsilly]

There's no reason why on-sensor AF can't equal or exceed the AF performance of a conventional DSLR. When that day arrives, the mirror becomes redundant (and you have more space to pack in more processing power). Canon will jump all over that technology as it will allow them to remove some of the most costly components out of their cameras. I'm just curious whether it will be an entry level 900D or a more advanced 1DX3 Where we'll see this first.

Imagine a camera with the same speed as a DSLR, but with the AF accuracy of a mirrorless camera. Who wouldn't want one?

Just in the last month, I've taken the ML rig to my daughter's first dental visit, first haircut at the salon, restaurants of all types, the mall, busy parks (with tons of other kids and their parents around), etc. No one has had any issues with my presence with the rig.

Try pulling any of that off with a 1dx and lens. Won't be so much fun even if you can get away with it.

Glad to hear that I'm not the only one who feels a little conspicuous and out of place in some situations with a large camera and lens. FYI, this is the primary reason why I'm now shooting 90% of my photos with a Fuji X100, X-E1 and GA645.

But until the Fuji 100-400 arrives, I still dust off the old Canon gear for some occasional wildlife and sports shots.

 

[Hillsilly]

A good photographer can make the best of his tools, it does not take a super camera shooting 10 or more FPS to shoot sports.

Sports events were shot with the big 4 X 5 Graflex Press cameras for many years. You had to pull the film pack out after every shot and turn it over or pop a new one in.

You also had to put the film cover in place and remove it or lose your image. Even when I was in high school, our photography students photographed sports using the 4X5 and got some great photos.

Of course, many cannot seem to conceive of capturing the right image with just one exposure, but when that's all you can do, you learn to do it right.

You're right, it is more about anticipation, knowledge of the sport and timing.

Fyi, David Burnett uses a Speed Graphic and is getting great images. Adam Pretty also uses large format (but I think he uses a 1DX for most/all of his sports shots) - http://www.adampretty.com/

 

[raptor3x]

There's no reason why on-sensor AF can't equal or exceed the AF performance of a conventional DSLR.

That's not necessarily true. The much larger AF sensors of a traditional phase detect system will always have an advantage in low light given similar levels of sensor technology. In addition, off sensor phase detect systems will have better precision than on-sensor phase detect due to the baseline. On-sensor phase detect removes the need to calibrate the two light paths but does not do anything to improve the precision of the AF system.

 

[Hillsilly]

Do you know why the Sony A7s is getting good reviews for its low light AF performance? Its meant to be ok down to EV-4, which beats most DSLRs. (Admittedly, I haven't heard that it focuses quickly in low light.)

 

[raptor3x]

Do you know why the Sony A7s is getting good reviews for its low light AF performance? Its meant to be ok down to EV-4, which beats most DSLRs. (Admittedly, I haven't heard that it focuses quickly in low light.)

The A7s will focus down to -4EV, although that's specified with an f/2.0 lens, using contrast detect AF. What I wrote above only applies to phase detect AF systems. By all accounts though the A7s AF is excellent in low light, but I have not had the pleasure of using one yet.

 

[sanj]

I would strongly disagree with this. The blackout period and slideshow behavior of mirrorless cameras EVFs in continuous shooting mode makes them almost useless for tracking action when there is a high degree of unpredictability. They may seem ok when you're doing something easy like tracking a person running straight towards you but when you have subject rapidly changing directions using current gen EVFs in continuous shooting mode is an exercise in futility.

My biggest and perhaps only issue with mirror less currently. But the camera may have a setting to disable playback while shooting. That should do it. I do not have a mirror less in my hands currently to check. Sold my XE2 and the Rx100 lent to someone for a few weeks...

 

[expatinasia]

A good photographer can make the best of his tools, it does not take a super camera shooting 10 or more FPS to shoot sports.

Sports events were shot with the big 4 X 5 Graflex Press cameras for many years. You had to pull the film pack out after every shot and turn it over or pop a new one in.

You also had to put the film cover in place and remove it or lose your image. Even when I was in high school, our photography students photographed sports using the 4X5 and got some great photos.

Of course, many cannot seem to conceive of capturing the right image with just one exposure, but when that's all you can do, you learn to do it right.

Of course, and a horse and cart will get you to the ground eventually as well. It's just that a plane, train, bus or car may be quicker and more comfortable.

At the end of the day it is about embracing technology and making the most of it. What the 1D X has done for sports photography is phenomenal, yes we all would like to get that same shot with just one click and many (myself included) do try from time to time, but those 12 FPS are very, very useful.

There is no going back, especially when we are talking about sport photography with multiple moving objects.

 

[Aglet]

No, he's right. The X-T1 is far and away the best EVF for use in bright sunlight, but this has more to do with the terrible eyecups used by Olympus and Sony than anything intrinsic to the EVF.

Hmmm.. I haven't experienced that issue with mine but I do agree, all of my ML bodies could use a better standard eyecup than what they arrive with. I think I saw an optional one for the xt1?...

The idea that current EVFs are not significantly different from OVFs is going to be strongly colored by your intended use. For general use I completely agree with you (especially for the X-T1, they really nailed the EVF), but for applications with heavy using of continuous shooting, especially in low light, EVFs are very far behind OVFs.

OK, I might partly concede that point. I don't do action work in low light. However, I've been quite impressed by my XT1's ability to AF in low light with slow/long lenses and find it comparable to my best SLRs in that regard, and, as previously described, capable of being even a little better.

Also, FWIW, the live view focus on my Canon DSLRs outperforms all of my mirrorless bodies in extremely low light as long as you're not in a rush. I agree that the EVF is helpful here, but it can be pretty hard to accurately focus even with the EVF as the noise makes it difficult to distinguish critical focus. It seems like when these kinds of discussions come up, people seem to forget that DSLRs also have live view.

HAHA! I forget that my Nikon's have live view as it's not implemented quite as well as on the Canon's I've used. However, I've come to completely trust the PDAF system on my Nikons so don't even bother with it any more except for some macro work.
I no longer use current Canon bodies so can't judge their LVAF. 60D's the newest one I kept and it's LVAF is terrible, I mis-focuses quite a lot in decent light with long lenses, worse than the PDAF in same conditions.
I've had no real issues with my XT1, EM10 gives up in conditions similar to my cheaper SLRs and my XE1s are somewhere in the latter range as well so far.

I would strongly disagree with this. The blackout period and slideshow behavior of mirrorless cameras EVFs in continuous shooting mode makes them almost useless for tracking action when there is a high degree of unpredictability. They may seem ok when you're doing something easy like tracking a person running straight towards you but when you have subject rapidly changing directions using current gen EVFs in continuous shooting mode is an exercise in futility.

I haven't tried much of that (again, no action work) but I will if I get one of the faster focusing Fuji lenses.

 

[RLPhoto]

I love mirroless, just not for speed. I mean 4x5, mounted with a MF back is a superb tool for what it does. A Sony a7r is a pinnacle landscape camera, light and small, easy to pack and cheap to a degree. The x100s can sync flash at any shutter speed, natively. Personally if the new a7rII had an ability to sync at 1/800th, I would dump my MF gear or if any camera that swaps lenses and sync at those speeds. (That's full frame.) ML still has issues that the mirror fixes efficiently and until then, I'll keep my DSLR.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

True. I would love to perfect the timing. But shoot it with 12 fps. Since I can, why not?

I've no problem with someone who wants to do it that way.

I have found a few limited conditions where I felt it was worth my trouble to sort thru hundreds of images that were nearly identical to try and get the best. I used my 1D MK II, 1D MK III, and 1D MK IV in the high speed mode a few times, and was mostly sorry after having to sort thru all those images.

I once took about 500 images of a friend and his whip show in 2007 with my 30D. I was trying to catch the moment when the tip of the whip snapped the end off of the flower the pretty girl was holding in her mouth. Trying to capture something exceeding the speed of sound just a hundred feet away needs 1000 fps!

I did not come close, but later, I managed to see the tip of the whip just before and after with one of the guys in the performance.

Here is the tip of the whip coming up towards the flower, but it missed.

Another try. He was only a few feet away, so the whip tip was not going really fast like the 50 ft long whip does:

And just after it clipped the flower off

That's when I realized that I needed a lot more than the 6 FPS or even 100 fps for something like that.

 

[Don Haines]

Of course, and a horse and cart will get you to the ground eventually as well. It's just that a plane, train, bus or car may be quicker and more comfortable.

At the end of the day it is about embracing technology and making the most of it. What the 1D X has done for sports photography is phenomenal, yes we all would like to get that same shot with just one click and many (myself included) do try from time to time, but those 12 FPS are very, very useful.

There is no going back, especially when we are talking about sport photography with multiple moving objects.

agreed!

The trick with new technology is to see where it is going, not where it was...

 

[JohnDizzo15]

@Mt. Spokane - You could reattempt that shot with a Fuji xt1

It shoots 8fps and up to 1/32000th shutter. Both burst shooting and above 1/8000th shutter was employed for most of these.

 

[Sporgon]

@Mt. Spokane - You could reattempt that shot with a Fuji xt1

It shoots 8fps and up to 1/32000th shutter. Both burst shooting and above 1/8000th shutter was employed for most of these.

The first picture is a classic ! Nicely done.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

The first picture is a classic ! Nicely done.

Thanks, Sporgon.

I've been very happy with the xt1 for a multitude of things even in it's current state. Though word on the street is that a huge firmware update is coming in the next week which should improve AF significantly (not that it hasn't already been pretty sufficient).

 

[raptor3x]

@Mt. Spokane - You could reattempt that shot with a Fuji xt1

It shoots 8fps and up to 1/32000th shutter. Both burst shooting and above 1/8000th shutter was employed for most of these.

I'm not sure the electronic shutter would be ideal for that. You tend to get a very noticeable rolling shutter effect with fast moving subjects. Also, in regard to those shots, the EXIF data indicates they were shot at 1/400s so things could have been improved significantly without resorting to new hardware.