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!

Why did I do that? Back to DSLR.

jonoslack

Active member
it is the lag time from pressing the shutter button and the camera taking the shot that is at issue.
Nail on head as usual Marc. Pretty much everything else is in our control

The mirror-less/EVF cameras lag in that department, and that includes the SLTs … my A900 was more responsive from "press-to-take" than my current A99 … and it has shown up in ever so slightly missed decisive moments … and in that case "every so slightly" might as well be "missed by a mile" :facesmack:

- Marc

(Addendum: BTW, I agree with Jono that the Mirror-less camera would seem to have the potential to be more instantaneous, (electronic verses mechanical) … and when they get there, I'll be the first in line for that breakthrough).
I think that some of them are there already - I understand that the Fuji X-T1 has the lowest shutter lag of any camera (or had it when it was released). . . and of course the Sony A7s has a full electronic shutter - not sure how that translates in terms of lag.

As far as I can see most EVF cameras are let down by the AF.

But in absolute terms I'm with Guy - getting the image is about practice and skill and using the right equipment for the job. . . most 'travel' cameras aren't the right tool for the decisive moment, that's for sure!
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Does anyone on this forum think that the most expensive/latest mirrorless is as responsive....shot to shot and different autofocus scenes in quick succession than the cheapest dslr.

Not talking about good enough..equal or better. ...
The Olympus E-M1 is as fast or faster shot to shot (single shot mode) as any of my DSLRs have been when set up correctly for responsiveness. I sometimes forget that it is not a DSLR.

I haven't used all the other current competitors on the market enough to gauge it against them. Ultimate speed, however, comes down to which lens you're using when it comes to AF speed; some lenses are faster at AF than others. Never bothers me as I use MF a good bit of the time. I don't think any of my lenses are the state of the art in AF speed.

G
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Well, one doesn't have to go back provided one didn't abandon DSLRs in the first place!
I love using, side by side, Nikon DSLRs, Leica Rangefinder, Sony and Olympus Mirrorless cameras. Isn't it wonderful to have these and more choices?
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

nothing beats the view through a good old Single Malt Reflex
now illustrated :lecture:

©lick for actual pixels


© • Nikon D610 • Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100mm ZF • 1/6 sec at f/8 ISO 100 • Capture NX-D
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Decisive moments, planned and anticipated moments?

I decide, and when my cam is responsive enough everything falls into place.


Exactly like I wanted it.:)

Waiting for something to happen. No. I prefer to make it happen. Me and my cam.
Great photo, and typically a situation that can't be anticipated. Even if you know that the girl will turn, you don't know when. Even the tiniest lag, and the image is gone.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Here's worst case scenario just to show how bad it can be:

- Little to no light
- Subject speed varies
- Distance to subject varies
- Slow shutter speed

The point of the photo was to get what is sometimes referred to as a "cross pan" or "cross blur" photo, where the front and the back of the car blurs in different directions due to the low shutter speed. Normally with a 28mm equivalent like I used here, I would go to 1/15 to 1/20s, but I had more or less given up when this photo was taken, and increased speed to 1/30s to see if I could get at least a couple of shots with vital parts sharp. Vital parts would be sponsor logo and/or number on the car.

That is not possible without placing the exact point of the car that should be sharp at an exact point in the viewfinder and keep it ther. I use the focus point indicators for that with an SLR camera, and I reduce the number of focus points visible in the viewfinder to make it easier to follow.

When these cars enter the curve, their speed is probably around 100 kilometers per hour, which slows down as the drift starts. 100 kilometers per hour is 28 meters per second or roughly 5 meters per shot at 5fps.

Even the tiniest lag makes it impossible to get a "sharp" shot under these circumstances, since the car will inevitably move around in the viewfinder if I'm late to react, and I am when there's a lag. As stated earlier, the blackout time of a good DSLR is so short that it's hardly noticeable, and it's 100% predictable. Also, it's the same regardless of time of day, weather, temperature and what I had for lunch.

With an SLR, my hit rate for photos like these varies between 1 in 10 to 1 in 25 regardless of light. With a mirrorless camera, the hit rate sinks to something like 1 in 40 to 1 in 60 during daytime and zero at night like here. This in spite of the fact that I mostly use longer shutter times with an SLR. The results for mirrorless cameras actually improves slightly if I follow the subject and take only one shot pre-focused.



I notice that often when this discussion comes up, those who want to prove that mirrorless cameras are suitable for sports, mostly show photos taken in broad daylight of subjects coming straight towards the photographer, move at a slow pace or travel along a more or less straight line at a predictable speed. I can take pan shots with my Nokia under circumstances like that. Then there are the inevitable soccer shots where the superior face detection of mirrorless cameras makes getting the shot very easy.

Which of course means that for some action photography, the best mirrorless cameras can actually be better than a DSLR, if the sensor can render images of the same quality. There was a thread at dpr last year that showed that this wasn't always the case. That discussion was about blown red colours in images showing football players with red jerseys, comparing photos from an E-M1 and a D3. I know from my industrial photos that this is a problem, at least with the Panasonic bodies.

Which brings me back to the start: I need a camera system that I can use for all kinds of photography and a camera that doesn't come between me and the image. As good as some mirrorless cameras are, they aren't there yet.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Jorgen congrats on your camera

I agree with the familiarity with the tool matters crowd. Case in point I missed A LOT of shots when I dropped my DSLR and mirrorless cameras to go Leica M exclusive about 5 years ago. It had nothing to do with the camera and everything to do with my skill level/comfort level to take quick shots. After a few months I hardly missed any shots that I was positioned correctly for. Had nothing to do with the equipment, AF, view finder, or lag.

That's not to say that those aren't real things for others... They are but that's more of a internal "muscle memory" issues from an unfamiliar nature with the equipment. When you get comfortable with the equipment then it goes away - sort of like driving a different make of vehicle than your own. Once you get used to the initial perceived limits then you can push it hard within those boundaries.

All of this said just goes to prove one thing and one thing only. We all have different "requirements" from our equipment and many buy into other systems to attempt to improved our perceived nagging flaws of the systems we own/use. The fact that some can get the shot with the same type of equipment that others say isn't possible proves there's more fault in the photographer than the camera. This isn't about brand, camera type, or the lens used so much as it is about skill and comfort with the equipment.
 
Last edited:
V

Vivek

Guest
Which brings me back to the start: I need a camera system that I can use for all kinds of photography and a camera that doesn't come between me and the image. As good as some mirrorless cameras are, they aren't there yet.
That is all fine. Without having the the right tools in that very system what is the point of praising something you do not use and putting down another that you have no idea about (This also goes for the Nikon fans who are blindly supporting the DSLRs)?
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Maybe I make it look to complicated. The simple truth is that after 5 years using mirrorless cameras for the bulk of my photography, I still find SLR cameras simpler to use and superior in performance.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Jorgen congrats on your camera

I agree with the familiarity with the tool matters crowd. Case in point I missed A LOT of shots when I dropped my DSLR and mirrorless cameras to go Leica M exclusive about 5 years ago. It had nothing to do with the camera and everything to do with my skill level/comfort level to take quick shots. After a few months I hardly missed any shots that I was positioned correctly for. Had nothing to do with the equipment, AF, view finder, or lag.

That's not to say that those aren't real things for others... They are but that's more of a internal "muscle memory" issues from an unfamiliar nature with the equipment. When you get comfortable with the equipment then it goes away - sort of like driving a different make of vehicle than your own. Once you get used to the initial perceived limits then you can push it hard within those boundaries.

Just goes to prove one thing and one thing only. We all have different "requirements" from our equipment and many buy into other systems to attempt to improved our perceived nagging flaws of the systems we own/use.
Actually, it proves nothing.

Jorgen has been quite articulate in stating his "requirements" and how current mirror-less cameras are unable to fulfill them, and why.

Response time from pressing the shutter and the camera actually taking the photo has nothing to do with "muscle memory".

Neither does learning a totally different type of unfamiliar camera like a Leica M, which does require practice to handle, but doesn't introduce the type of lag most (if not all) mirror-less cameras have when the objective is precise timing of an unpredictable "decisive moment" opportunity … like the "little girl looking back" shot posted here.

In an unbroken chain, I've made photos with a Leica M for the past 40+ years, and still use one. I'm fairly sure I have the "muscle memory", and "anticipation" parts of shooting down pat. That doesn't mean I wouldn't select a fast SLR/DSLR Auto-Focus camera for many situations where super swift AF has been coupled with instantaneous capture.

IMO, the only thing this all proves is that the old saying "Horses For Courses" is still true.

- Marc
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Another thing that comes into consideration when I say a camera that I can use for all my photography, is the raw muscle power of the D810. Features that are useful for my photography that none of the A7 models (the only full frame mirrorless on the market) offer:

- Up to 7 fps (in DX mode)
- More than 3 times the battery capacity
- Dual card slots
- Built in flash
- Superior AF-C
- Group Area AF
- Very deep buffer (up to 45 RAW frames)
- USB 3
- ISO 64/32
- Semi silent shutter (compared to A7r)

Many of these features were new to me when I acquired the D810, but they were also an important part of the buying decision, since I have missed them on previous cameras.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Like I said way up top, whatever works for you is all you shoud be concerned about. Why does it always have to come down to this vs that, mine vs yours?

We can debate our differences, the differences in our equipment, what features matter or not, etc, ad nauseam. None of that makes any difference at all. Using what works, what you like, does. Getting the photos we are paid to make, or want to make, matters more than even that.

As I said before good luck with the D810. Although it didn't sing to me at the shop, perhaps it's because I'm not listening on its wavelength at the moment. I know for a fact that it won't change but that I will... :)

G
Equipment is transitory, photographs endure.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Jorgen's start of thread post described why he had made the camera choice, that he had made. Given that he had used various other make/brand of cameras over the years.

To overcome the shortcomings, to him, of the other gear he had used; he reached a conclusion that the D 810 would better satisfy his photographic needs.

In this forum, countless times, I have seen pages of threads about a new camera gear being bought. The buyers' enthusiasm to outdo each other in being the first ( or at least to be a part of this enthusiasm ) in announcing to all of us , at times even approaching a live transit commentary..mail received, dispatched, van approaching, it is here, battery charging etc. is accepted as good fun and we all join in the excitement ( dare I call it a gear acquisition orgasm ) and we all congratulate them on their new acquisition.

Take the Sony 7 II introduction as an example. I hope I got the nomenclature correct, or the A7s. The hen's teeth or the bee's knees if you prefer. That's what it is supposed to be from the posts here.

What is the point? Buy it use it and be happy. Then why compare it to other cameras, older generation of cameras, various makes/brands of cameras?
Even more, why announce it to all of us about one's acquisitions?

Jorgen, stated what he had bought and his reasoning for/of his choice. He did not trash other cameras he had used. Just mentioned their shortcomings.

And then a first image was posted which had nothing whatsoever to with the subject but computer hardware running Yosemite, which I still have to install.

Just good fun. Most instructive for me and some posts I found good for a laugh.
So long as it is civil...just have fun.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Actually, it proves nothing.

Jorgen has been quite articulate in stating his "requirements" and how current mirror-less cameras are unable to fulfill them, and why.

Response time from pressing the shutter and the camera actually taking the photo has nothing to do with "muscle memory".

Neither does learning a totally different type of unfamiliar camera like a Leica M, which does require practice to handle, but doesn't introduce the type of lag most (if not all) mirror-less cameras have when the objective is precise timing of an unpredictable "decisive moment" opportunity … like the "little girl looking back" shot posted here.

In an unbroken chain, I've made photos with a Leica M for the past 40+ years, and still use one. I'm fairly sure I have the "muscle memory", and "anticipation" parts of shooting down pat. That doesn't mean I wouldn't select a fast SLR/DSLR Auto-Focus camera for many situations where super swift AF has been coupled with instantaneous capture.

IMO, the only thing this all proves is that the old saying "Horses For Courses" is still true.

- Marc
We will have to just agree to disagree on whether current mirrorless cameras are capable of capturing decisive moments due to shutter lag. There's always exceptions to the rule but I suppose for every exception there's an anecdoctal counterpoint and thus the endless chain starts where both camps are correct and incorrect.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Like I said way up top, whatever works for you is all you shoud be concerned about. Why does it always have to come down to this vs that, mine vs yours?

We can debate our differences, the differences in our equipment, what features matter or not, etc, ad nauseam. None of that makes any difference at all. Using what works, what you like, does. Getting the photos we are paid to make, or want to make, matters more than even that.

As I said before good luck with the D810. Although it didn't sing to me at the shop, perhaps it's because I'm not listening on its wavelength at the moment. I know for a fact that it won't change but that I will... :)

G
Equipment is transitory, photographs endure.
It's all about our individual needs of course, and our perceived needs not least. Needs change, and one of the great positives of mirrorless, and that goes for the different A7 varieties in particular, is that it has brought many back to the roots of photography. The D810 is in many ways the Swiss Army Knife of photography. Very suitable for me at the moment, but not what anybody needs, and even the D750 is probably a more useful camera for most.

I await the next generation of mirrorless cameras with enthusiasm, particularly the A7r II/A9, the E-M2, the NX2 and not least whatever full frame mirrorless Nikon and/or Canon will come up with in the near future. In the meantime, I enjoy dragging old style innovation around.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Like I said way up top, whatever works for you is all you shoud be concerned about. Why does it always have to come down to this vs that, mine vs yours?

We can debate our differences, the differences in our equipment, what features matter or not, etc, ad nauseam. None of that makes any difference at all. Using what works, what you like, does. Getting the photos we are paid to make, or want to make, matters more than even that.

As I said before good luck with the D810. Although it didn't sing to me at the shop, perhaps it's because I'm not listening on its wavelength at the moment. I know for a fact that it won't change but that I will... :)

G
Equipment is transitory, photographs endure.
Spot on IMO.

I really didn't think this thread was about "mine verse yours" at all. Just some folks relating their experiences to date which anyone can debate and agree-to-disagree if they wish.

Actually, except for specialized use MFD and a MM Rangefinder, I am "all in" with the newer e-technology cameras (A99 SLT, A7R including LAEA-4 adapter, and probably an A7-II soon).

That doesn't stop me from "wishing" for newer full-frame e-cameras that can match the older, more fully developed technologies that helped me with a particular way of capturing images. That the newer crop are "there" for others is irrevelant to me, and evidently also for others.

My hope is that the smaller mirror-less e-cameras get there sooner than later. By "get there" I mean a professional level full-frame 24+meg camera that can replace those with a mirror-box (mechanical or SLT) more completely … as determined by my needs, not someone else's. Jorgen's requirement list pretty much matches my own.

Frankly, IF I were mid-career as opposed to winding down, I would never have moved to the Sony Mirror-Less. When I shoot for pay, I use the S camera and Sony A99 because both have dual card capture and a full compliment of optics. These alone trump size. When I shoot with the M or A cameras, it is for images I can afford to lose.

I look froward to the day that an A-xx camera does it all.

- Marc
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
It's interesting the "one camera that can do it all" notion. I suppose it's conceivable if all your imaging vision falls into a particular domain of seeing that such tools exist. But it's never been that way for me.

In the film era, I always had 35mm cameras, mostly Nikon and Leica. But I also had Rolleiflex TLRs, 4x5, half frame, subminiature, and a few others as well as Polaroid. Each for the different way they recorded the world and how that interacted with my sight and vision.

When I was running my photo business, I eschewed all the variations to focus on a particular range of seeing that I wanted to promote as my business. At that time, a pair of DSLRs did the job, I shot with them exclusively from end-2004 to late 2009 when the first 'mirrorless' came out. For what I was shooting at the time, the mirrorless did pretty much the same job as the DSLRs and I used them mostly interchangeably. They were the same format (FourThirds) and the lenses interchanged between the bodies easily (SLR lenses onto mirrorless bodies). The DSLRs were chosen when responsiveness was primary, but in most cases it was purely a matter of what other features I wanted to take advantage of as they certainly weren't identical. I shot that way until 2011, by which time I'd closed the business and moved on to other ways of making a living.

Now I'm back to multiple film formats and several different digital camera systems because I pursue only my own vision without clients to satisfy. One camera certainly does not do it all, although over time I see my subject matter is becoming smaller while my ways of seeing it expand.

So for a pro working a business, the 'one camera that does it all' makes some sense, I guess, but for the photographer pushing his or her own vision it depends entirely on what pushing the vision means.

G
Let your mind take you where equipment alone cannot go.
 

jonoslack

Active member
What is the point? Buy it use it and be happy. Then why compare it to other cameras, older generation of cameras, various makes/brands of cameras?
Even more, why announce it to all of us about one's acquisitions?
Well, I think this has been an interesting discussion - we all need different things, and sometimes some of us need several different things. Comparisons are relevant - and in this context you brought it up by comparing mirrorless to a dSLR for capturing the 'moment' and complained that mirrorless wasn't up to it.

I think that some of the newer models (the bees knees ones) are up to it - including the E-M1 for instance. But the discussion is certainly worth having.

All the best
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Godfrey,
The "do-it-all" wasn't something that I expected to happen and nothing I was searching for until I actually held the camera in my hand. It's never a 100% true notion of course, but for now, it's good enough.

To have a camera like that has two consequences for me:

- I save money by only having to buy lenses and other stuff for one camera system.
- I travel a lot, and m4/3 has mostly been great for that, but sometimes during my travels, the need arises for higher resolution, less DOF, better AF etc., not because I couldn't mostly get the images I needed or wanted before, but because the commercial value of my photos increases and because I can stretch the limits further.

When going to places where few westerners travel, and that I never know if I will be able to return to, not bringing the best camera gear that I can afford would be silly. Not being prepared for more or less any shooting situation would also be silly. Bringing a camera that doesn't have a user interface that makes the job as easy and as fluent as possible doesn't make sense.

It's not only about pushing ones vision. It's also about pushing physical limits and about using a system that has been proven to work always. Nikon cameras are rather boring, but like a MacBook or a Toyota, they mostly work the way they are supposed to.
 
Top