D
Deleted member 67219
Guest
Nor for me. But I understand your point.
The future of photography.
- Thread starter MJUK
- Start date
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
They were just example shots from the Nokia Lumia 1020 images from here...
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/nokia_lumia_1020_photos/
and Samsung Galaxy S4 images from here....
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/samsung_galaxy_s4_zoom_photos/
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/nokia_lumia_1020_photos/
and Samsung Galaxy S4 images from here....
http://www.photographyblog.com/previews/samsung_galaxy_s4_zoom_photos/
- Messages
- 7,943
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is nothing inherently better about fitting a mirror to a camera, that makes it Professional....
In fact since mirror-less rose its head, hybrid focusing has improved both the accuracy and speed over the normal phase detection systems.
It is in the area of follow focus that rely on Prediction, that new algorithms need further development.
Camera sensors are in no way altered by a mirror or lack of one.
Viewing a bright image at 100% is always a gold standard.
Direct Optical finders, as in the Leica, have always been the First choice of many professionals, Recently this type of finder has been reinvented by Fuji to give all the latest bells and whistles.
The eye level Digital finder has been catching up rapidly, to the extent that the best of them challenge a mirror produced image, and actually improve manual focussing.
They have a real additional advantage, in that they offer the simplest system for off camera viewing and control.
I am sure that in the future the "whole package" will have a greater influence, than the presence or not of a mirror.
In fact since mirror-less rose its head, hybrid focusing has improved both the accuracy and speed over the normal phase detection systems.
It is in the area of follow focus that rely on Prediction, that new algorithms need further development.
Camera sensors are in no way altered by a mirror or lack of one.
Viewing a bright image at 100% is always a gold standard.
Direct Optical finders, as in the Leica, have always been the First choice of many professionals, Recently this type of finder has been reinvented by Fuji to give all the latest bells and whistles.
The eye level Digital finder has been catching up rapidly, to the extent that the best of them challenge a mirror produced image, and actually improve manual focussing.
They have a real additional advantage, in that they offer the simplest system for off camera viewing and control.
I am sure that in the future the "whole package" will have a greater influence, than the presence or not of a mirror.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
True Terry, and I suspect a lot of the resistance to electronic viewfinders from many people is based on a squint through an older bridge camera or something, and they were dire. The new Sony A7's EVF for example is damn good, maybe not preferable to optical in all situations, but getting so close, and they have several other genuine advantages.
But the other thing about reflex/optical viewing is the piggy-back mirror that has been so neatly incorporated and feeds the phase-detect AF sensors in the base of the camera. So getting rid of the mirror not only means a better EVF is needed, but hybrid on-sensor phase-detect AF needs sorting too. There's quite a bit of work needed in that area, though Canon's 70D maybe hints at what might be possible. On the other hand, if CSCs are not selling enough and therefore unable to fund development in this area, DSLRs for enthusiasts and professionals could well rule for a long time yet. Has Sony given up on the translucent mirror thing? I thought that was worth pursuing, and I read somewhere that Canon - that invented the concept with the Pellix all those years ago - had filed some new patents (but they do that all the time, perhaps as deliberate red herrings).
IMHO, the main stumbling block to pro-spec mirrorless cameras is fast and accurate follow-focusing AF. If/when that's sorted, the rest will follow with electronic shutter, and a global rather than scanning/rolling shutter to take the lid off the focal plane shutter's x-sync limitations. We'd all want some of that
But the other thing about reflex/optical viewing is the piggy-back mirror that has been so neatly incorporated and feeds the phase-detect AF sensors in the base of the camera. So getting rid of the mirror not only means a better EVF is needed, but hybrid on-sensor phase-detect AF needs sorting too. There's quite a bit of work needed in that area, though Canon's 70D maybe hints at what might be possible. On the other hand, if CSCs are not selling enough and therefore unable to fund development in this area, DSLRs for enthusiasts and professionals could well rule for a long time yet. Has Sony given up on the translucent mirror thing? I thought that was worth pursuing, and I read somewhere that Canon - that invented the concept with the Pellix all those years ago - had filed some new patents (but they do that all the time, perhaps as deliberate red herrings).
IMHO, the main stumbling block to pro-spec mirrorless cameras is fast and accurate follow-focusing AF. If/when that's sorted, the rest will follow with electronic shutter, and a global rather than scanning/rolling shutter to take the lid off the focal plane shutter's x-sync limitations. We'd all want some of that
- Messages
- 7,943
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
True Terry, and I suspect a lot of the resistance to electronic viewfinders from many people is based on a squint through an older bridge camera or something, and they were dire. The new Sony A7's EVF for example is damn good, maybe not preferable to optical in all situations, but getting so close, and they have several other genuine advantages.
But the other thing about reflex/optical viewing is the piggy-back mirror that has been so neatly incorporated and feeds the phase-detect AF sensors in the base of the camera. So getting rid of the mirror not only means a better EVF is needed, but hybrid on-sensor phase-detect AF needs sorting too. There's quite a bit of work needed in that area, though Canon's 70D maybe hints at what might be possible. On the other hand, if CSCs are not selling enough and therefore unable to fund development in this area, DSLRs for enthusiasts and professionals could well rule for a long time yet. Has Sony given up on the translucent mirror thing? I thought that was worth pursuing, and I read somewhere that Canon - that invented the concept with the Pellix all those years ago - had filed some new patents (but they do that all the time, perhaps as deliberate red herrings).
IMHO, the main stumbling block to pro-spec mirrorless cameras is fast and accurate follow-focusing AF. If/when that's sorted, the rest will follow with electronic shutter, and a global rather than scanning/rolling shutter to take the lid off the focal plane shutter's x-sync limitations. We'd all want some of that
I rather think the Hybrid contrast/Phase detection used on the Fuji X sensor, has sorted the speed problem as it is both more accurate and as fast as any pro Phase detection system. (Phase detection is inherently less accurate)
I have the lowly X20 version and in normal situations can not detect a delay. If it reverts to contrast detection in poor detection situations (an option Pro cameras do not have) it can take a fraction longer, but remains accurate. As I said earlier, Pro Phase detection uses " predictive auto focus" to follow focus. This is a matter of computing power rather than new technology. It is a capability that I am sure will be added to a pro spec Mirror-less replacement system.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,677
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
They got better but there are still a long way from being acceptable substitute of optical viewfinder. There is no surprise it is seen as an unnecessary compromise now
- Messages
- 11,756
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Whether you mean professional, or better... or whether you think they mean the same thing... there definitely IS an advantage to having a mirror. It's called a bright, crisp, 100% optical viewfider. Silly LCD screens absolutely suck in so many ways. Sorry... its for this reason alone I've never bothered with mirrorless cameras, no matter how appealing the other features are. In this regard, mirrorless absolutely sucks the big one!
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, that's what I meant (my last para). On static subjects, CSCs can nail focus very fast indeed, many contrast-detect and phase-detect systems, but they're still hopeless at tracking moving subjects. All DSLRs are way better at this, and higher end DSLRs are just incredibly fast and accurate given a capable lens. I see this as the DSLR's ace card, and I'm not sure it's just about computing power, but I hope you're right.
- Messages
- 100
- Name
- Martin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think this article illustrates the direction very nicely:
"Smartphones versus DSLRs versus film: A look at how far we've come"
As some already suggested, I am also inclined to believe it would become two-tiers market: phone cameras and big sensor interchangeable SLR-likes. Looking at what current Nokia 1020 can do, I cannot really see any space left for compacts. It is hard to believe the most of the users would need anything more than phone camera in the very near feature. Especially when looking for small size, everyday in the pocket and more than enough IQ camera.
"Smartphones versus DSLRs versus film: A look at how far we've come"
As some already suggested, I am also inclined to believe it would become two-tiers market: phone cameras and big sensor interchangeable SLR-likes. Looking at what current Nokia 1020 can do, I cannot really see any space left for compacts. It is hard to believe the most of the users would need anything more than phone camera in the very near feature. Especially when looking for small size, everyday in the pocket and more than enough IQ camera.
- Messages
- 25,349
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I've said it before, and nothing's changed yet.
Don't tell me that CSCs have are the thing to buy because they'll be better one day. Wait till they're better, and we'll all be queuing to buy them.
There's nothing inherent in the technology that means they'll never be suitable, but it's not happened yet.
- Messages
- 9,050
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
Rumour mill says Sony will be launching a new APS-C A-series SLT body in a month or so, so it seems not.
I've just sat down with a selection of the 35mm SLRs I have to hand in my living room, along with my A7. The A7's finder is XGA resolution (1024 x 768) which is enough to form a reasonable judgement of an image (it's the 'Large' size on Flickr) and it has decent colour.
Ranking them in order of my pleasure using them, taking into account brightness and crispness in a room with the dimmer down about half (EV 4: f/2.8, 0.5 sec, ISO 100)
Olympus OM-2n with Zuiko 50mm f/1.8
Canon T90 with FDn 50mm f/1.4
Canon EF with FDn 50mm f/1.4
Sony A7 with FDn 50mm f/1.4
Yashica Super FX 3000 with ML 50mm f/1.9
The OM is pretty much the gold standard for 35mm SLR OVFs.
The Canons have an advantage of an f/1.4 lens, while the Yashica suffers with a 1.9 and it's by far the cheapest body of the lot and it does have a small and gloomy finder, at least relative to the OM-2.
Unfortunately I don't have my 5Dc here, but I reckon it slots in between the A7 and the EF.
Swapping out the ML50 for a Contax Zeiss 50mm f/1.7 improves the Yashica a little, putting it just back ahead of the A7.
Now, what is truly interesting, and something that I hadn't appreciated until I conducted this little exercise, is that if I wander down to the unlit other end of the living room, where there is very little light indeed (EV 0 to EV 1: 4 sec, f/2.8, ISO 100) the A7 is suddenly much the easiest of them all to work with. It's far brighter and clearer than even the OM-2n. The OM finder may have more detail in theory, but I can't see it.
With the A7 I can focus on a specific book or DVD title without difficulty (especially if I use the magnified view that the EVF offers) and that's with the Yashica lens.
With the OM-2n I can't even see the DVD title and I can barely make out that of the box set that it's next to.
True, the EVF refresh rate drops a bit with the ML f/1.9, but it's still more than just usable. If I replace the Yashinon with the FD 1.4 then that goes away.
Now, the brighter FD lens does also help with the T90, so that obviously plays a significant part in the difficulty with the OM-2 in these conditions. However, the A7 is still usable even when I pop an f/3.5 zoom on it.
I have to confess I am a bit surprised by this. I thought the OM would win hands down regardless.
Hand-held with the Sony at EV 0, FD 50mm f/1.4. Un-magnified EVF resolution of 1024x768.
- Messages
- 9,050
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
On the AF question, the A7 seems OK, but not spectacular from the very limited use I've made of the kit lens (the eye focus feature is kind of cool).
Then again, I was always more than satisfied with the AF on the 5Dc which lots of people complained about, so I may not be much of a judge of these things.
I bought the camera to use manual focus lenses with, so AF is not much of an issue for me. I realise that may not be a tenable position for a lot of other people.
Then again, I was always more than satisfied with the AF on the 5Dc which lots of people complained about, so I may not be much of a judge of these things.
I bought the camera to use manual focus lenses with, so AF is not much of an issue for me. I realise that may not be a tenable position for a lot of other people.
- Messages
- 7,943
- Name
- Terry
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have an OM1.4 50mm on my Olympus OM1n and Compared to other SLR cameras it is the brightest I have ever seen.
I agree that there comes a point in poor light when problems arise, at that point A Leica type direct vision Viewfinder comes into its own.
Old time American Press Photographers working at night, preferred to use The Kalart Range view finders as they projected a filament image through the Range finder to easily achieve focus.
To day there is no doubt at all, that the Evf with its intensified image system beats the pants off all comers in poor light.
Perhaps the Combination EVf/ direct vision finder on the Fuji is the future for poor light and reportage work.
Though some other less expensive sort of EVf system might become the preferred option for long focus work.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,230
- Edit My Images
- No
I like the GX7 very much, but not there's much "cutting edge" about it. The GM1 is a better example.