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!
We didn't have all those dogs running towards us in sequence hanging on gallery walls. Oh, wait...Jeez, how on earth did we manage for all those years before tracking came along and let the camera do it for us?
Hah! Jorgen, that is a most delightful way to put it... like watching the weather on television... that is definitely a good metaphor!:thumbup:I've said it before, several times, but I can say it again:
I don't understand why people use cameras with electronic viwfinders for action shots. With modern technology, it's of course possible to make the EVF nearly as good as the OVF for this purpose, and nearly as fast... nearly... if it's not sleeping or if some automatic functionality hasn't switched to the LCD on the back of the camera.
Optical viewfinders are always on and they respond literally at the speed of light. They also convey one hundred percent, that's 100% for the mathematicians among you, natural colours.
Replacing an OVF with and EVF is like watching the weather on TV instead of looking out through the window or walk down to the beach to watch the waves. TVs are becoming better too, but the day they replace reality, we've lost something.
Note to self: Better stock up on DSLR bodies before it's too late :shocked:
My purpose was purely evaluation and determining the limits and a reasonable use envelope. If you don't try it, how do you know what the limitations are?I've said it before, several times, but I can say it again:
I don't understand why people use cameras with electronic viewfinders for action shots.
I wrote partly in jest of course, but after having used mirrorless cameras for ten years, the last 2 or 3 years almost exclusively, it's pretty clear to me that there is no silver bullet. Shooting both will give me the best of both worlds. With Nikon, I'll be able to use both, plus shooting film, using the same lenses. So, I'll make a slow transition back to a mixed system, keeping MFT for when I want to travel very light.My purpose was purely evaluation and determining the limits and a reasonable use envelope. If you don't try it, how do you know what the limitations are?
Also, what's "action" for me might could as well be "static" for you.
As a "photographer", the definition of which is no longer certain, what someone uses to "take a picture", the definition of which is just as bad, it doesn't really make any difference what gear is used. But, as an artist, the gear selection and mastery of that gear to accomplish the task at hand, certainly does. Why should or would any artist choose to limit one's ability to express oneself to only one brush, only one format, only one camera, or only one subject? There are many ways to play a song using many different instruments, or even none at all. But I am sure some will stick with one rigid frame of mind, because it is a comfort zone.I wrote partly in jest of course, but after having used mirrorless cameras for ten years, the last 2 or 3 years almost exclusively, it's pretty clear to me that there is no silver bullet. Shooting both will give me the best of both worlds. With Nikon, I'll be able to use both, plus shooting film, using the same lenses. So, I'll make a slow transition back to a mixed system, keeping MFT for when I want to travel very light.
And yes, trying everything out is the only way, a quite enjoyable way as well