Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,284
- Edit My Images
- No
Will they all stop working then?...
Steve.
Steve.
I am borderline dialexic.In your title I don't think "SLR's" should have an apostrophe
The slr system has been around for about 100 years.
You sure?
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.
Well seems reports contradict that but we'll ..........But it isn’t enough to last throughout the day.
But it isn’t enough to last throughout the day.
You may as well video it.... but as an example had a wedding today and took just under 4k photos between the 2 of us ...
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.
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.
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.The lenses are already here. That's why sony shooters use canon glass.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
On the back screen? Arms length picture taking isn't for me, not with a compact and deffo not with DSLR or any larger camera
Not getting defensive and sorry if I came across that wayThat 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!
You should try the viewfinder on a Zeiss IkontaThat 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!
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.
You sure?
Machine gunnerNot true, the Sony A9 can easily clock over 4000-8000 photos on a single battery.
https://www.cameralabs.com/sony-alpha-a9-review/
Summary....
Machine gunner
Your cameras never out of the cabinet long enough to use up a batteryI 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 so its plenty of juice.
On my A7II I pretty much only used the back screen because the viewfinder did my head in, slow and laggy. Same with original A7
Is that 4,000 using the battery grip or 4,000 using just a single battery?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 so its plenty of juice.
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
You may as well video it.
Perhaps Toby when he realizes he should have got the SonyNot 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
Are you related to mr Moore?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.
Dont worry Eloise,Riz has only changed his battery a couple of timesIs 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)
You can keep that language to yourself!does this mean we have to get rid of all our film cameras also?
You can keep that language to yourself!
huh!? never had an issue with EVF... wondering what you were doing!
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)
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.
I have to agree the Sony A7 II EVF wasn't the best.. and the Fuji XT-2 to my eyes was also better.Just didn’t look real. Especially after using the X-T2 EVF (which was vastly superior IMO).
Then it was also slow as well.
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.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.
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".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.
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.