The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Where does an 800 lb gorilla sit in a room with no mirrors?

tn1krr

New member
I don't think lenses are an issue for Canon in regards a mirrorless body. A lot of the A7 buzz is based on Canon lenses working quite well on the newer bodies via the metabones.
I think the lenses are an issue. Sony thinks the lenses are an issue, that is why they are designing completely new types of lenses to work optimally on a hybrid Sensor-PDAF/CDAF cameras. For example Sony FE Sony 70-200/4 is totally different type of lens than prior Sony A Mount zooms; even the optical construction is optimized for hybrid-AF (dual linear AF motors).

A7R II is ok or even good (not great, excellent or full-featured) with adapted glass, all cameras prior to it were absolutely rubbish (personal experience since Nex-7 and Metabones Mark II). Native glass focuses noticeably better on low light (it can switch seamlessly between PDAF and CDAF) and it has features like Eye-AF and Lock-on AF that adapted glass cannot use.

About mirrorless AF challenges and why hybrid focus (that needs optimized glass to function fully) wins let me quote Imaging Resource interview of Kimio Maki, Senior General Manager, Digital Imaging Business Group, Sony Corporation.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/06/16/sony-qa-the-must-have-sensor-tech-of-the-future

DE = Dave Etchells, KM = Kimio Maki


DE: What about the low-light limit when you have phase-detect pixels? It seems to me that the separate phase-detect sensors like in an SLR, they can have big pixels, but on the sensor chip, we have, I mean they're limited to the size of the actual pixels.

KM: That's a good question. So, when we use... in terms of autofocus, we are using a hybrid focus, so first we use the phase-detection focus to get close to the object. Then near the object, we start to use contrast AF to get a clear peak. Then we adjust the focus. Then in order to make very precise focus (because 42-megapixel means very very small pixels), and also the focusing point could be a very small one, therefore we phase-detection together with contrast AF, contrast focus.



This graphic shows the process Maki-san was talking about above. Phase-detect AF gives the camera a good estimate of the correct focal distance, so it can command the lens to move to very close to the correct final position. Then, a brief contrast-AF cycle finds the precise optimal setting.
DE: Right, right. And does that help you deal with lower light levels, as well?

KM: Yes, yes.

[Ed. Note: Again, there was some back and forth here that was pretty fragmented, so I didn't include it. The central point seemed to be that, especially in low-light situations, the phase-detect AF wouldn't be accurate enough by itself, so they use a hybrid of phase-detect AF, to get into the right ballpark, then contrast-detect AF, to find where the actual point of best focus is.

This answered a question I'd always had about on-chip phase-detect focusing, in that the image sensor pixels are quite small, and have to be read out quickly (meaning must have a short exposure time), to have a responsive AF system. The phase-detect pixels are also shaded, to "see" only light rays coming from one side or the other, so they're only getting half as much light as normal image-forming ones. Under low-light conditions, both factors result in a small focus signal with lots of noise on it. Contrast-detect AF is more capable under those conditions, because it's looking across a larger number of pixels to develop it's goodness-of-focus signal.]


Based on how the number one sensor-manufacturer tackles these issues in their 3rd gen on-sensor PDAF cameras I do not see Canon all of the sudden solving these issues that have background on very fundamental physics; and Canon has not really brought anything new into sensor-development outside resolution in last 4-5 years. Not to mention their first attempt in on-sensor-PDAF (the Dual-pixel AF) was quite terrible.


Canon already have a massive high quality and fast lens line up. They just have to release a kick *** mirrorless body in EF mount (or with functionality) and we're done. Imagine if they did drop a mirrorless rangefinder into the market with 2.8 zooms available and 1.2 85's.
They could release a mirrorless EF mount body; one that would be significantly thicker than current Sonys (flange distance difference alone is 26 mm), mostly and with lesser AF since most of their lenses just are no good for CDAF. So we would have a DSLR-sized camera with Live view and low light AF and other AF features quite propably worse than current Canon entry level DSLRs.
 

dandrewk

New member
"fanboys' is a term used by a very small % who indulge in photography at this level of quality, intensity and expense.
That's hardly the definition of "fanboy". http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboy. I doubt it's a small percentage, and whatever percentage it may be, it is a VERY vocal percentage.

The analogy of other failed manufacturers doesn't quite work here. American car makers failed on a number of fronts lead by quality and followed by quality of ownership experience/service, and lack of relevant innovation. Kodak failed to see the importance of a disruptive technological change … namely the digital revolution in all forms of communications (which then swiftly effected professional and personal photography). IBM and Blackberry failed to see the blending of personal and business into one technology
Quite the contrary. Using your arguments, the ALL have the same things in common with Canon:

  1. They were market leaders (800 lb gorillas)
  2. They counted on brand name/loyalty, assuming their customer base would always be there
  3. They failed to notice and respond to a changing landscape
  4. Their established customer base, feeling deserted and taken advantage of, desert their brand
  5. The change is slow and gradual, but once started nearly impossible to reverse. Canon is in danger of becomming (quoting a famous ad) "your father's Oldsmobile"


… Apple didn't really innovate anything new, they made it better and more relevant … while doing it with great design and style.
Neither did Henry Ford invent the automobile. So tell me, who is considered the "father of the automobile"?

Relatively speaking, Canon produces a quality product, has an established service path, and produces digital imagery that does not differ from Sony. The only difference is the camera size and EVF. That IS a difference but not a disruptive one like film to digital, or the camera in an iPhone.
Nobody is debating that Canon doesn't produce a quality product. But so did GM, Kodak, IBM and Blackberry.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
A few thoughts typed in bold:

That's hardly the definition of "fanboy". http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanboy.

By this definition, you sound like a "Mirror-less Fanboy":) (i.e., intolerant of perspectives that aren't their own). BTW, I'm not a Canon or Nikon "fanboy" … I do not own or use either nor have any vested interest in cameras or lenses from either company.

I DO own and use Sony Mirror-less, but do not think of the cameras as being anything more than a different way to reach the same goal … better in some ways, worse in others … for most of my applications, worse more than better.

I doubt it's a small percentage, and whatever percentage it may be, it is a VERY vocal percentage.

Vocal where? It may seem vocal because it is your communication environment, but most consumers haven't a clue. Percentages are a tricky business. Anecdotal perceptions aren't reality.

Quite the contrary. Using your arguments, the ALL have the same things in common with Canon:

  1. They were market leaders (800 lb gorillas)
  2. They counted on brand name/loyalty, assuming their customer base would always be there
  3. They failed to notice and respond to a changing landscape
  4. Their established customer base, feeling deserted and taken advantage of, desert their brand
  5. The change is slow and gradual, but once started nearly impossible to reverse. Canon is in danger of becomming (quoting a famous ad) "your father's Oldsmobile"

The is anecdotal opinion. Yes, Canon is the 800lb Gorilla, but just because they do not match the cornucopia of cameras pouring out of Sony doesn't mean they are not bringing better products to market to meet their consumer base needs. Whether that base is abandoning Canon for Sony is a matter of speculation … the market share information seems to suggest otherwise. Like with automobiles, in past there were only a few choices, then there were many. Same with cameras. Choice always leads to splitting up the pie into more slices. Success in the marketplace always leads to more competition.


Neither did Henry Ford invent the automobile. So tell me, who is considered the "father of the automobile"?

As any intelligent school boy knows, Henry Ford was the father of mass production, not the automobile itself. Like Apple in the digital age, Ford Motor Company made the automobile relevant and accessible to more people in the mechanical age.:lecture:


Nobody is debating that Canon doesn't produce a quality product. But so did GM, Kodak, IBM and Blackberry.

Again, anecdotal history.

GM did NOT produce a quality product compared to encroaching competition. Neither did Ford or Chrysler. I was the head creative at one of Ford's ad agencies at the time, and it was this failure, plus gas milage issues during the oil crisis, that allowed the erosion in market share.

Kodak simply failed to take note of the abrupt digital revolution in communications. On the commercial side, all publications suddenly went digital and processing/scanning film images for print production became an untenable time/cost proposition. On the consumer side, the advent of photo sharing on-line from FaceBook to Flickr also made film an untenable position. I know this from first hand experience dealing with Kodak on the marketing side at that time.

Comparing two very good digital camera(s) isn't the same as comparing two completely different imaging technologies and their relevance to the consumers changing usage, habits and opportunities.

IBM and Blackberry simply failed to take upstart Apple seriously at first. Apple's secret was making the PC relevant to consumers usage habits by applying computing power to everyday tasks or entertainment. They didn't invent music in your pocket, they made it more relevant by offering 1,000 songs in your pocket not just 10 (and easy access to those 1,000 songs). Then they segmented consumer use and offered an array of linked products: iPhone, iPad, laptop, iMac, etc. BTW, I was on a task force of creatives that introduced Apple to the creative department of one of the world's largest ad agencies. Apple took the initiative to make Macs the choice in all creative tasking from layout to finish … including photographic efforts. Comparative simplicity of tasking was the chief benefit (an attribute that apparently still escapes Sony).

The real issue isn't that the photographic marketing pie-chart now has more slices cut from it, it is that the pie isn't getting bigger … or it is directionally getting smaller.

Cell phones gutted the P&S market, which was the cash-cow volume base of many camera makers. Percentage of consumer need for expensive mega-meg FF cameras and top optics is slim to none. Most people can't even deal with the files from such cameras, nor do they want to.

That's why I think the world is ripe for another disruptive technological leap, and Mirror-less isn't it.

On the horizon are fledgling technologies like organic sensors and software based creative decision making after the fact. If anyone is poised to take that sort of disruptive technology mainstream it probably would be Apple.

Interesting times ahead.

- Marc
 

doug

Well-known member
Speaking only for myself, as someone who prefers manual exposure and manual focus mirrorless has been a disruptive technology for several reasons including

  • light weight body
  • EFC
  • focus magnification
  • real-time exposure feedback especially zebras
  • ability to use many brands of lenses

Not strictly a mirrorless advantage but it also helps to have IBIS that works with the manual-focus lenses I prefer.

I haven't used the R8/DMR since I bought the a7II.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It's important to remember that Sony's market share of the 331,567 units/July mirrorless market (currently 34.3%, up from 26.5% last year) represents 113,727 units, while Canon's 54.7% market share of the 967,519 units/July DSLR market represents 529,233 units. Nikon has a 39.1% market share in that market, which is 378,300 units.

That doesn't even slightly resemble the development that hit Nokia in the mobile phone market. When looking at this link that Steen posted earlier, it's also very clear that DSLR cameras are even more dominant in the "old" markets, Europe and USA, while in developing markets in Asia, where fewer people have large collections of lenses, batteries and other accessories, mirrorless sales numbers are closer to the DSLR number. The exception is Japan that, in spite of being an established market, tends towards mirrorless cameras as well.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/13342/camera-sales-may-2015-data-木製の棺大きな音雨
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Speaking only for myself, as someone who prefers manual exposure and manual focus mirrorless has been a disruptive technology for several reasons including

  • light weight body
  • EFC
  • focus magnification
  • real-time exposure feedback especially zebras
  • ability to use many brands of lenses

Not strictly a mirrorless advantage but it also helps to have IBIS that works with the manual-focus lenses I prefer.

I haven't used the R8/DMR since I bought the a7II.
Doug Metabones just updated there version IV canon adapter to Support PDAF now. If supported Canons long glass is top notch. You may have to upgrade to the new A7rII body at some point. Lol

If this turns out to support many Canon lenses this will be a disruptive technology to Canon. sorry but many Canon owners are sitting on the fence waiting for this kind of usage of there Canon lenses to switch over. This will see a lot of fence jumpers now.
Outside these numbers we are seeing I'm not so sure they are on target as Sony in that report Craig linked to paints a diffrent picture. Sony is actually making real money in the camera division. Let's face it , people are switching. Be it fast or slow the tide is changing.

The 800 lb gorilla may need to go take a dump. Lol
 

dmward

Member
I just downloaded the firmware update. Quick test indicates that my 300 F4 L now focuses.
I tested it in a darker environment and it was OK. Will have to see what it does outside, where it would be used the most. Hopefully it will be sufficiently quick to be useable.

200 2.8L and 100mm Macro L hopefully with be useable too.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I just downloaded the firmware update. Quick test indicates that my 300 F4 L now focuses.
I tested it in a darker environment and it was OK. Will have to see what it does outside, where it would be used the most. Hopefully it will be sufficiently quick to be useable.

200 2.8L and 100mm Macro L hopefully with be useable too.
This update is hitting the internet hard and lots of very very happy Canon lens owners. That Gorilla might want to check his underwear. ROTFLMAO
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
This update is hitting the internet hard and lots of very very happy Canon lens owners. That Gorilla might want to check his underwear. ROTFLMAO
Geez I thought that would get some laughs. Where is everbody . Happy hour or what and no invite. Lol
 

dmward

Member
Now all the Canon mount lenses I still have will auto focus. Not for sports or birds in flight, etc. But they get the job done.
Most importantly for me, my macro lenses all focus I used them for product and art photography and its nice to know I can continue to use them.

The 300 F4.0 L, even though its an older lens works, not fast but it works. Also with a Sigma teleconverter. Will have to test to see if it will work with AF-C for tracking. My initial tests were in dim light haven't had a chance to try it outside with more light.
 

jfirneno

Member
Sony is doing well as long as they are talking about percentages, not about yen or dollars ;)
I think percentage is an important measure. Selling more units doen't always mean you're doing better.

In a flat/down market if you are geared up to sell 1,000,000 units and only sell 500,000 that's worse than if a company that's geared up to sell a 100,000 units sells 125,000. One means you have to shut down capacity and lay off workers and the other means expanding production. More important than units shipped is profit. And Sony finally went from loss to profit this year. That's a very big change. Imagine what interesting stuff they'll produce now that they actually have money!

Also Sony sells its sensors to plenty of companies that are out there (including Apple, Samsung, Nikon and Pentax). And that's a growing business. So what they make from mirrorless is an add on to their existing sensor business.
 

Tim

Active member
Tim - I a confused here- by LCD are you saying on camera LCD- because I thought you were saying EVF helps you see your image on the monitor you do your post processing on better. Which I don't get.
anyway mate- as I said people will use whatever they liek to use and so they should.
Whatever works buddy.

-Pete
Let me see if I can rephrase to unconfuse..

An in Camera EVF is just a tiny LCD (usually OLED LCD) screen made the same way as your Computer LCD monitor, which is also an LCD (often an LED LCD). So if you are viewing the taking image with an in Camera EVF its essentially close to what you will see on your Desktop LCD Monitor. Its WYSIWYG - Moreso than an OVF.

SLRs came out in the 1950s providing TTL - "through the lens" viewing. An improvement for some rangefinder users.
Digital Mirrorless have improved on SLRs/DSLRs by providing TTLS - "through the lens & sensor" viewing.

Lens selection aside, one remaining advantage of a modern DSLR is focus speed.
The EVF has advantages of no black out and no vibration.

Can manufacturers improve on current EVF LCDs? A: Yes
Will they? A: Yes

In the end use what you want. I don't care.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I was shooting in a lot of churches recently, in available light. With the A7rII I could see the subjects and it was easy to focus. Even if magnified viewed was quite a bit grainy at times. Of course, much darker and live view would not work as well.

But any way, viewing was mutch better that with the naked eye. Manual focus on OVF would be difficult, as I would not really see any details to focus on.

Best regards
Erik



Let me see if I can rephrase to unconfuse..

An in Camera EVF is just a tiny LCD (usually OLED LCD) screen made the same way as your Computer LCD monitor, which is also an LCD (often an LED LCD). So if you are viewing the taking image with an in Camera EVF its essentially close to what you will see on your Desktop LCD Monitor. Its WYSIWYG - Moreso than an OVF.

SLRs came out in the 1950s providing TTL - "through the lens" viewing. An improvement for some rangefinder users.
Digital Mirrorless have improved on SLRs/DSLRs by providing TTLS - "through the lens & sensor" viewing.

Lens selection aside, one remaining advantage of a modern DSLR is focus speed.
The EVF has advantages of no black out and no vibration.

Can manufacturers improve on current EVF LCDs? A: Yes
Will they? A: Yes

In the end use what you want. I don't care.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Erik if you turn off display effects off than the body will go to full gain to see in the dark a little easier. Or another trick go manual and go overexposed to see and focus than stop back down to normal exposure for shooting. I used to do this a lot with Phase backs to see the screen better if I nailed focus. Think of it as a Polaroid than go back to working exposure.

You could also use your compensation dial on top deck and put it at 0ne or two over for focusing than drop back down. Lots of little tricks like that
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi Guy,

Thanks for the suggestions.

I guess that my writing was less than clear, the A7rII worked very well. I could not really see subject detail with the naked eye, but the EVF still was brilliant.

But I guess using new cameras is always a learning curve and suggestion like yours and others posted in these threads are really helpful with that.

Best regards
Erik


Erik if you turn off display effects off than the body will go to full gain to see in the dark a little easier. Or another trick go manual and go overexposed to see and focus than stop back down to normal exposure for shooting. I used to do this a lot with Phase backs to see the screen better if I nailed focus. Think of it as a Polaroid than go back to working exposure.

You could also use your compensation dial on top deck and put it at 0ne or two over for focusing than drop back down. Lots of little tricks like that
 

fotografz

Well-known member
A lot of these suggestions are very helpful. However, they tend to be skewed to stationary photography or highly predictive type work rather than spontaneous mobile work (mobile shooter and/or mobile subject).

My issues with Sony EVF cameras as they are today (not what they may be later):

1) Slower operation in more challenging light … the need to use the above suggested techniques to focus where I rarely had that issue with a contemporary AF DSLR (including shooting weddings in darkened churches where getting the decisive shot(s), or important details, wasn't just a matter of convenience, but critical to business success).

2) Smearing VF image when moving an EVF camera to track a subject, or to move quickly to a different subject, in darker conditions (like on a dark wedding reception dance floor).

3) Instant auto review of the last shot can't be assigned to just the back LCD while leaving the VF live, forcing you to shut off instant review … which adds the step of manually activating the back LCD review at a critical time.

4) Shutter delay (the time from pressing the shutter button to the camera actually capturing the image). Reactive, decisive moment action and/or fleeting human expressions are the hallmark of my paying and personal work, which require as near instant camera reflexes as possible. I do not know if the Mark-II models of the A7 cameras have significantly improved on this … but if not, for me it is a key reason to NOT buy any of them until it is at least as good as my Rangefinder and S camera.

That said, other than my current Leica S kit, I personally have no intention of owing another DSLR system. The only reason I might opt for a limited 35mm DSLR kit would be to take advantage of the Profoto Mobile TTL lighting available for Canon or Nikon DSLR cameras … and not for Sony or any other make. Since that isn't a compelling enough reason because I'm skilled at manual lighting, I probably won't be getting another DSLR any time soon.



- Marc
 
Top