Sell all your slr's

wave01 said:
The slr system has been around for about 100 years.
Click to expand...

Phil V said:
You sure?
Click to expand...

Graflex SLR introduced in 1898.

C299.JPG



Steve.
 
Last edited:
soeren said:
Thats really beyond silly now. Cameras with a power consuming evf Will always have a power battery life than ovf's but thats not the point. Whats important is if its enough to last you through Day.
Click to expand...

But it isn’t enough to last throughout the day.
 
Well with the evf the power consumption when idle is pretty high so snapping of a lot of shots during a short means achieving higher numbers than if you have the evf on
f/2.8 said:
But it isn’t enough to last throughout the day.
Click to expand...
Well seems reports contradict that but we'll ..........
 
Box Brownie said:
Hmmm! Well Sony's declared CIPA figure is 650 images per battery.

I find it hard to believe that if it was capable in real world use to achieve >10 times that CIPA figure that they would not be shouting about it.

It makes me wonder if the Cameralabs number is conflated with the 8000 count being the total taken in the whole review period & the battery life being good enough for a whole days shooting IMO that scenario is more like the true outcome!

Unless of course other reviewers consistently report the same.
Click to expand...

Sony and other manufactures have to go by CIPA testing, which is doesn't take into consideration the advancements of mirrorless technology..... its like car mpg figures.... the lab tests don't represent real life usage. :)
 
I'm assuming canon want to dump the mirror box so they can up the frame rates.
I don't think the battery life is an issue as it probably takes as much power to move a mirror mechanism.
 
soupdragon said:
I'm assuming canon want to dump the mirror box so they can up the frame rates.
I don't think the battery life is an issue as it probably takes as much power to move a mirror mechanism.
Click to expand...

Nah it takes more juice to keep sensor on all the time for live view

eg: if you compare Sony A900 vs. A99 both of which use the same battery, A900 is rated to take twice the number of shots
 
Last edited:
soupdragon said:
Eloise said:
Arguably the Nikon 1 range were decent mirrorless cameras albeit 1” rather than FF. Same for the newest Canon M albeit APS-C. Scale either up to FF and you get a half decent Mirrorless camera so long as (a) the handling is right and (b) lenses (and a lens roadmap) and the rest of the system is there.
Click to expand...
The lenses are already here. That's why sony shooters use canon glass.
Click to expand...
I may be accused here of being argumentative ... but surely you've proved the point is that (native) lenses aren't yet here, which is why Sony shooters use Canon glass.
 
Eloise said:
I may be accused here of being argumentative ... but surely you've proved the point is that (native) lenses aren't yet here, which is why Sony shooters use Canon glass.
Click to expand...
Or the fact Canon shooters might not be able to afford FE lenses straight away, so a interim solution is to use their existing Canon lenses?
Or adapting lenses on the Sony bodies gives you a great choice of lenses?

There are many reasons why you can use 3rd party lenses on the Sony bodies, the choice in being able to do this is a great plus point to the system whichever way you look at it. :)
 
Riz_Guru said:
Sony and other manufactures have to go by CIPA testing, which is doesn't take into consideration the advancements of mirrorless technology..... its like car mpg figures.... the lab tests don't represent real life usage. :)
Click to expand...
But 4,000 picture taken holding the shutter down for the 10fps for 10 seconds a time (so 100 pictures) is not much more power than taking 400 individual pictures. So yes you can get 4,000+ images, but in other situations you might only get 650 depending how you use the camera. Spray and pray is going to take less power.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Or the fact Canon shooters might not be able to afford FE lenses straight away, so a interim solution is to use their existing Canon lenses?
Or adapting lenses on the Sony bodies gives you a great choice of lenses?

There are many reasons why you can use 3rd party lenses on the Sony bodies, the choice in being able to do this is a great plus point to the system whichever way you look at it. :)
Click to expand...
That may be true ... but my assertion that to get a half way decent mirrorless camera system requires (a) a half way decent camera body and (b) the system including NATIVE lenses built for that body still stands and being able to use adapted lenses doesn't take away from that requirement (IMO). Remember my response was to a particular comment from @soupdragon so there is no need to get so defensive.

Personally I think the "well you can use adapted lenses" was serendipity rather than a design parameter and Sony have been "lucky" with that design choice.

And (also personally) I still enjoy using an OVF nicer than using a EVF; as screens improve that may improve ... but as things stand I wouldn't buy any current EVF camera (the Leica SL and Sony A9 may be exceptions) as my main camera - I just don't like using them!
 
Eloise said:
But 4,000 picture taken holding the shutter down for the 10fps for 10 seconds a time (so 100 pictures) is not much more power than taking 400 individual pictures. So yes you can get 4,000+ images, but in other situations you might only get 650 depending how you use the camera. Spray and pray is going to take less power.
Click to expand...
I tend not to pray and spary to be fair, and I am confident in saying that you could easily get 4k shots on the Sony A9 without gunning it at 20fps all the time.
I also use the Sony A9 battery grip :D so its plenty of juice.
 
Eloise said:
That may be true ... but my assertion that to get a half way decent mirrorless camera system requires (a) a half way decent camera body and (b) the system including NATIVE lenses built for that body still stands and being able to use adapted lenses doesn't take away from that requirement (IMO). Remember my response was to a particular comment from @soupdragon so there is no need to get so defensive.

Personally I think the "well you can use adapted lenses" was serendipity rather than a design parameter and Sony have been "lucky" with that design choice.

And (also personally) I still enjoy using an OVF nicer than using a EVF; as screens improve that may improve ... but as things stand I wouldn't buy any current EVF camera (the Leica SL and Sony A9 may be exceptions) as my main camera - I just don't like using them!
Click to expand...
Not getting defensive and sorry if I came across that way :)
I have a friend who has tried EVF's a few times and has gone back to a DSLR, there is nothing wrong with that at all...... a good DSLR can still take a good photo...... :) Whatever fits the individuals use is the key.
Yes I am very pro mirrorless but I wouldnt say no to a Nikon D500 / D850 if somebody gave me one :D
 
Eloise said:
That may be true ... but my assertion that to get a half way decent mirrorless camera system requires (a) a half way decent camera body and (b) the system including NATIVE lenses built for that body still stands and being able to use adapted lenses doesn't take away from that requirement (IMO). Remember my response was to a particular comment from @soupdragon so there is no need to get so defensive.

Personally I think the "well you can use adapted lenses" was serendipity rather than a design parameter and Sony have been "lucky" with that design choice.

And (also personally) I still enjoy using an OVF nicer than using a EVF; as screens improve that may improve ... but as things stand I wouldn't buy any current EVF camera (the Leica SL and Sony A9 may be exceptions) as my main camera - I just don't like using them!
Click to expand...
You should try the viewfinder on a Zeiss Ikonta :eek:
 
stevelmx5 said:
So carry another one? I’ve always had 4 batteries and throw a few spares in my pocket when I shoot an event/wedding (they’re tiny). I think the suggestion that one battery not lasting as long as an equivalent DSLR battery isn’t enough of a reason to rule out Mirrorless.
Click to expand...

I have a USB charger for my Pen-F batteries. If I'm out expecting to churn through (my two) batteries I take it and a USB powerpack.
 
:ROFLMAO:
Riz_Guru said:
I tend not to pray and spary to be fair, and I am confident in saying that you could easily get 4k shots on the Sony A9 without gunning it at 20fps all the time.
I also use the Sony A9 battery grip :D so its plenty of juice.
Click to expand...
Your cameras never out of the cabinet long enough to use up a battery
 
Riz_Guru said:
I tend not to pray and spary to be fair, and I am confident in saying that you could easily get 4k shots on the Sony A9 without gunning it at 20fps all the time.
I also use the Sony A9 battery grip :D so its plenty of juice.
Click to expand...
Is that 4,000 using the battery grip or 4,000 using just a single battery?

At the end of the day, mirrorless cameras use battery differently from DSLRs: with a digital camera the main power usage comes from when the sensor is in use with a mirrorless camera the sensor is being used continually (when you are composing the picture, etc). That means that with a mirrorless camera the life is more about the length of time you use a camera for; while a DSLR is about how many shots you take.

If you read the CIPA test schedule: cameras are tested by taking a photograph every 30 second for 10 shots, then turn camera off and back on again. During those 10x30 seconds I would imagine the sensor of the mirrorless will remain "active" and drawing power. Of course with a Sony A9 doing those 30 seconds you could take 600 images (subject to buffer size) which would turn the 650 image battery life into (a theoretical) nearly 400,000. With a DSLR the power usage over 4 hours of (say) a landscape photographer who take 100-150 images is very different to a sports photographer who takes 1000-3000 images; with a mirrorless the 4 hours is the more important factor not the number of images.

(Sorry hope I'm explaining something "useful" not preaching to the knowledgable choir)
 
Last edited:
Tom Green said:
That the article written by a mirrorless fan that has scared you into moving over? Only had a quick read of that but can’t see ‘DSLRs will be obselete within a year’ written anywhere
Click to expand...

I agree, I would say we will see a heavy shift towards mirrorless from both Canon and Nikon over the next 2 years. DSLR's will decline from year 3 on wards with year 5 being my guess when things will start becoming obsolete. :)
 
Riz_Guru said:
Not getting defensive and sorry if I came across that way :)
I have a friend who has tried EVF's a few times and has gone back to a DSLR, there is nothing wrong with that at all...... a good DSLR can still take a good photo...... :) Whatever fits the individuals use is the key.
Yes I am very pro mirrorless but I wouldnt say no to a Nikon D500 / D850 if somebody gave me one :D
Click to expand...
Perhaps Toby when he realizes he should have got the Sony :ROFLMAO:
 
Riz_Guru said:
I agree, I would say we will see a heavy shift towards mirrorless from both Canon and Nikon over the next 2 years. DSLR's will decline from year 3 on wards with year 5 being my guess when things will start becoming obsolete. :)
Click to expand...
Are you related to mr Moore? :D
 
Eloise said:
Is that 4,000 using the battery grip or 4,000 using just a single battery?

At the end of the day, mirrorless cameras use battery differently from DSLRs: with a digital camera the main power usage comes from when the sensor is in use with a mirrorless camera the sensor is being used continually (when you are composing the picture, etc). That means that with a mirrorless camera the life is more about the length of time you use a camera for; while a DSLR is about how many shots you take.

If you read the CIPA test schedule: cameras are tested by taking a photograph every 30 second for 10 shots, then turn camera off and back on again. During those 10x30 seconds I would imagine the sensor of the mirrorless will remain "active" and drawing power. Of course with a Sony A9 doing those 30 seconds you could take 600 images (subject to buffer size) which would turn the 650 image battery life into (a theoretical) nearly 400,000. With a DSLR the power usage over 4 hours of (say) a landscape photographer who take 100-150 images is very different to a sports photographer who takes 1000-3000 images; with a mirrorless the 4 hours is the more important factor not the number of images.

(Sorry hope I'm explaining something "useful" not preaching to the knowledgable choir)
Click to expand...
Dont worry Eloise,Riz has only changed his battery a couple of times :LOL:
 
Eloise said:
Is that 4,000 using the battery grip or 4,000 using just a single battery?

At the end of the day, mirrorless cameras use battery differently from DSLRs: with a digital camera the main power usage comes from when the sensor is in use with a mirrorless camera the sensor is being used continually (when you are composing the picture, etc). That means that with a mirrorless camera the life is more about the length of time you use a camera for; while a DSLR is about how many shots you take.

If you read the CIPA test schedule: cameras are tested by taking a photograph every 30 second for 10 shots, then turn camera off and back on again. During those 10x30 seconds I would imagine the sensor of the mirrorless will remain "active" and drawing power. Of course with a Sony A9 doing those 30 seconds you could take 600 images (subject to buffer size) which would turn the 650 image battery life into (a theoretical) nearly 400,000. With a DSLR the power usage over 4 hours of (say) a landscape photographer who take 100-150 images is very different to a sports photographer who takes 1000-3000 images; with a mirrorless the 4 hours is the more important factor not the number of images.

(Sorry hope I'm explaining something "useful" not preaching to the knowledgable choir)
Click to expand...

Having done a bit of research, many have reported to be getting 2000-4000 shots per single battery (without grip), Yes this is less than 8000 shots noted in that review but Gordon also did a few other tests including 4K video and mechanical shutter use....

During a solid day’s shooting with the A9, I fired-off a large number of 20fps bursts with the electronic shutter, along with several minutes of 4k video, some Wifi and Bluetooth connectivity, a handful of mechanical shutter images and a great deal of chimping in playback. One battery ended up lasting me the entire day with the final shutter count reading just over 8000 images – see photo below. Not bad for a camera that composes electronically.
Click to expand...

I don't think its a big problem anymore..... battery life on the A7/A9 series isn't a big issue but guess it depends on your requirements/flexibility.
 
Tom Green said:
Just didn’t look real. Especially after using the X-T2 EVF (which was vastly superior IMO).

Then it was also slow as well.
Click to expand...
I have to agree the Sony A7 II EVF wasn't the best.. and the Fuji XT-2 to my eyes was also better.
However the newer Sony bodies have addressed it.
 
Riz_Guru said:
Having done a bit of research, many have reported to be getting 2000-4000 shots per single battery (without grip), Yes this is less than 8000 shots noted in that review but Gordon also did a few other tests including 4K video and mechanical shutter use....

I don't think its a big problem anymore..... battery life on the A7/A9 series isn't a big issue but guess it depends on your requirements/flexibility.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with you ... battery life isn't a big issue. The 2-4k shots though are likely to be very different situations to those getting <1k shots. Your quote does support what I said though - "I fired-off a large number of 20fps bursts with the electronic shutter" which would use almost the same battery as just peering through the view finder for the same length of time. So when a sports photographer shoots off say 500-1000 images in a number of bursts, that may be the same as a landscape photographer who takes 25 images, with each set of 5 being over a 5 minutes period during which they are peering through the viewfinder.

So the irony is that those taking less photos, may actually be more in need of extra batteries.
 
Riz_Guru said:
I have to agree the Sony A7 II EVF wasn't the best.. and the Fuji XT-2 to my eyes was also better.
However the newer Sony bodies have addressed it.
Click to expand...
When I get the chance I'm going to have to check out the MkIII Sonys as I haven't yet. Will let you know how I find their EVFs - it appears I'm (visually) especially susceptible to their "flaws".
 
Eloise said:
I would tend to agree with you ... battery life isn't a big issue. The 2-4k shots though are likely to be very different situations to those getting <1k shots. Your quote does support what I said though - "I fired-off a large number of 20fps bursts with the electronic shutter" which would use almost the same battery as just peering through the view finder for the same length of time. So when a sports photographer shoots off say 500-1000 images in a number of bursts, that may be the same as a landscape photographer who takes 25 images, with each set of 5 being over a 5 minutes period during which they are peering through the viewfinder.

So the irony is that those taking less photos, may actually be more in need of extra batteries.
Click to expand...

Yep, makes sense.... time to start spraying and praying eh :D lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top