[Kunzite]

Kodak, film vs. digital, carriages vs. cars - they're all false analogies used instead of proper arguments. I'd say, this happens because there are no proper arguments; after all, how could you argue that lack of choice is good?
Instead, what is done is to shed fear, uncertainty and doubt about DSLRs. Beware, Kodak died because they stuck with film - thus Pentax will die because they're sticking with DSLRs! It doesn't even matter why Kodak actually died of.

[Rondec]

Kodak, film vs. digital, carriages vs. cars - they're all false analogies used instead of proper arguments. I'd say, this happens because there are no proper arguments; after all, how could you argue that lack of choice is good?
Instead, what is done is to shed fear, uncertainty and doubt about DSLRs. Beware, Kodak died because they stuck with film - thus Pentax will die because they're sticking with DSLRs! It doesn't even matter why Kodak actually died of.

The funny thing is that Fuji makes far more money on Instax cameras and film than they do on digital gear. In fact, it is the film money that has fueled their mirrorless offerings and not the reverse.

(It is better to have a "hot item" than the best tech)...

[photoptimist]

Kodak, film vs. digital, carriages vs. cars - they're all false analogies used instead of proper arguments. I'd say, this happens because there are no proper arguments; after all, how could you argue that lack of choice is good?
Instead, what is done is to shed fear, uncertainty and doubt about DSLRs. Beware, Kodak died because they stuck with film - thus Pentax will die because they're sticking with DSLRs! It doesn't even matter why Kodak actually died of.

Exactly! It all seems rooted in insecurity: insecure MILC buyers need to justify their choice as the "winner" and insecure DSLR buyers feel defensive.

Both MILCs and DSLRs have advantages and disadvantages but the differences are not that big.

The most important issue is that some of the differences between the two provoke strong feelings -- the same feature is a huge advantage to some and disadvantage to others. The EVFs of MILCs are loved by some and hated by others. The smaller sizes of MILCs are loved by some and hated by others. Those dichotomies of preferences all but guarantee that neither design can "win."

Saying MILCs will beat DSLRs is like saying wide angle lenses will beat telephotos. Each side can scream all they want about the superiority of their favorite focal length but no one is actually convincing the other side, some prefer one, some prefer the other, some buy both. But the bigger point is that lens makers find plenty of customers for both designs.

[Trickortreat]

I dont think its like telephoto vs wide angle. Its more like rangefinder vs SLR. The technology with better focusing capabilities prevailed.

[photoptimist]

I dont think its like telephoto vs wide angle. Its more like rangefinder vs SLR. The technology with better focusing capabilities prevailed.

That's an interesting comparison given that one of the supposed advantages of MILC is that they have smaller, simpler, quieter, shorter-flange bodies. Rangefinders also promised cheaper, smaller, simpler, quieter, shorter-flange bodies but "lost" to the bigger, more-complex, louder, longer-flange bodies.

The AF differences between DSLR and MILC seem much smaller than the AF differences between SLR and RF. RF has only one focus point and gives no visible feedback on the focus of the rest of the scene. MILC's eye-AF seems kind of cool for that niche of photography but photographers have been successfully doing eye-AF for decades (even RF users could easily do eye-AF).

[Trickortreat]

That's an interesting comparison given that one of the supposed advantages of MILC is that they have smaller, simpler, quieter, shorter-flange bodies. Rangefinders also promised cheaper, smaller, simpler, quieter, shorter-flange bodies but "lost" to the bigger, more-complex, louder, longer-flange bodies.

The AF differences between DSLR and MILC seem much smaller than the AF differences between SLR and RF. RF has only one focus point and gives no visible feedback on the focus of the rest of the scene. MILC's eye-AF seems kind of cool for that niche of photography but photographers have been successfully doing eye-AF for decades (even RF users could easily do eye-AF).

Not talking about size advantages or disadvantages. Just AF.... Neither was the SLR Far ahead of rangefinders by the time they started showing on the market. At that time there was no AF camera at all - SLRs just promised better focusing precision than rangefinders. Same thing as DSLR vs mirrorless now - mirrorless have better AF precision. DSLRs still have just an off sensor approximation while mirrorless focus with their main sensor and offer perfect focus regardless of lens used.
Mirrorless AF hase huge potential, while DSLR AF is nearing the end of its evolution or just slowing down considerably. Eye AF will soon translate to object AF as Olympus has shown. Everything youll have to do is touch the subject on the screen and cameras AF will do the rest while you search for that perfect composition. And then there is the video part which is becoming increasingly significant part of a camera's spec sheet.

[gatorguy]

Mirrorless AF hase huge potential, while DSLR AF is nearing the end of its evolution or just slowing down considerably. Eye AF will soon translate to object AF as Olympus has shown. Everything youll have to do is touch the subject on the screen and cameras AF will do the rest while you search for that perfect composition.

Ah, photography on autopilot, and yippee it's sterile.

I suppose those folks could still pretend they have talent and that the craft is a personal challenge even if all they do is push a button and voila all the choices are made for you other than the subject.

Sounds like so much fun and so fulfilling. Could well be the perfect match for you and appears it is. For me no so much. I appreciate the voyage as much as the port.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 05-29-2019 at 03:27 PM.

[Pål Jensen]

Mirrorless AF hase huge potential, while DSLR AF is nearing the end of its evolution or just slowing down considerably. Eye AF will soon translate to object AF as Olympus has shown. Everything youll have to do is touch the subject on the screen and cameras AF will do the rest while you search for that perfect composition. And then there is the video part which is becoming increasingly significant part of a camera's spec sheet.

I have no problem getting what I want in focus, and neither have anyone else remotely competent with any modern camera.
The camera cannot possibly know what you want to be in focus anyway. If you have no clue of what you want, it is best to use a cell phone....

[Trickortreat]

Ah, photography on autopilot, and yippee it's sterile.I suppose those folks could still pretend they have talent and that the craft is a personal challenge even if all they do is push a button and voila all the choices are made for you other than the subject.Sounds like so much fun and so fulfilling. Could well be the perfect match for you and appears it is. For me no so much. I appreciate the voyage as much as the port.

You know that SLR started the photography on autopilot with AF and AF tracking, right? Mirrorles just took it a step further.

Subject placement and composition are the 2 main parts of the photo, no one can take that away... at least not in near future...

I have no problem getting what I want in focus, and neither have anyone else remotely competent with any modern camera.

Neither did the pros back in the film era, yet they all flocked to AF cameras, go figure
Pretty much everything is getting automated, not only cameras, whether some like it or not. Thats just the path our technology took...

[Rondec]

Not talking about size advantages or disadvantages. Just AF.... Neither was the SLR Far ahead of rangefinders by the time they started showing on the market. At that time there was no AF camera at all - SLRs just promised better focusing precision than rangefinders. Same thing as DSLR vs mirrorless now - mirrorless have better AF precision. DSLRs still have just an off sensor approximation while mirrorless focus with their main sensor and offer perfect focus regardless of lens used.
Mirrorless AF hase huge potential, while DSLR AF is nearing the end of its evolution or just slowing down considerably. Eye AF will soon translate to object AF as Olympus has shown. Everything youll have to do is touch the subject on the screen and cameras AF will do the rest while you search for that perfect composition. And then there is the video part which is becoming increasingly significant part of a camera's spec sheet.

The problem that I have with this discussion is that both SLR and mirrorless tech is so far advanced that if you can't get the photos with either format, that is on you, the photographer. Yes, the Sony A9 is pretty amazing, but I would be shocked if the same photographer couldn't get similar photos to it with a Nikon D5 or Canon 1Dx II. At a certain point, you just get good enough and it feels like both styles of camera are there already.

And the down side of adding a multitude of PDAF points on the sensor is that you get weird artifacts when shooting back lit images with wide aperture lenses. This certainly isn't something every photographer shoots, but anyone who does weddings or portrait sessions could easily run into this and it could be a major negative to this style of auto focus tech.

Pentax does lag some with regard to tracking, but honestly, it isn't because they have SLR tech, it is just that they haven't invested the same amount into their auto focus systems that Canon and Nikon have, particularly their top end systems and that tech tends to filter down to other models over time.

[Trickortreat]

The problem that I have with this discussion is that both SLR and mirrorless tech is so far advanced that if you can't get the photos with either format, that is on you, the photographer. Yes, the Sony A9 is pretty amazing, but I would be shocked if the same photographer couldn't get similar photos to it with a Nikon D5 or Canon 1Dx II. At a certain point, you just get good enough and it feels like both styles of camera are there already.

And the down side of adding a multitude of PDAF points on the sensor is that you get weird artifacts when shooting back lit images with wide aperture lenses. This certainly isn't something every photographer shoots, but anyone who does weddings or portrait sessions could easily run into this and it could be a major negative to this style of auto focus tech.

Pentax does lag some with regard to tracking, but honestly, it isn't because they have SLR tech, it is just that they haven't invested the same amount into their auto focus systems that Canon and Nikon have, particularly their top end systems and that tech tends to filter down to other models over time.

At any point it time some people thought "it is good enough and I don't need anything better". Even at the advent of AF some thought they dont need need that kind of tech, some really dont and there they are happily shooting their rangefinders and old film SLRs, but the mainstream moved on and embraced every bit of tech they were offered.
I'd say that AF is crucial for wedding photography and its better to have some slight artifacts that can be masked than out of focus images. There is only just a slight window to get that "special moment".
Only types of photography that really dont benefit from good on sensor PDAF are i.e. landscape, product, architectural, realestate and such.
Yes, today's top DSLRs are more or less equally capable as top mirrorless, but it seems that mirrorless have greater potential for AF development.

[Rondec]

At any point it time some people thought "it is good enough and I don't need anything better". Even at the advent of AF some thought they dont need need that kind of tech, some really dont and there they are happily shooting their rangefinders and old film SLRs, but the mainstream moved on and embraced every bit of tech they were offered.
I'd say that AF is crucial for wedding photography and its better to have some slight artifacts that can be masked than out of focus images. There is only just a slight window to get that "special moment".
Only types of photography that really dont benefit from good on sensor PDAF are i.e. landscape, product, architectural, realestate and such.
Yes, today's top DSLRs are more or less equally capable as top mirrorless, but it seems that mirrorless have greater potential for AF development.

Do you shoot weddings? Because my wife does, with a K-1 and K-1 II. People like her photos because she has an eye for composition and light, not because the K-1 is awesome. And no, she doesn't struggle to get good focus, even inside a dark church. The only negative she has found with the K-1 and K-1 II are that the buffer fills fairly quickly when you are writing to two cards. And she does a fair amount of couples shots back lit with narrow depth of field. And no, the artifacts that come from PDAF points on the sensor are not masakable.

All of these discussions miss completely the fact that a sharp photo of a boring subject, poorly composed is not a good photo. Maybe mirrorless cameras add a few more sharp photos to the portfolio, but I have a strong feeling that they won't lead to as many "keepers" as what these discussions imply.

[beholder3]

Only types of photography that really dont benefit from good on sensor PDAF are i.e. landscape, product, architectural, realestate and such.

The only types of button-pushers which benefit from further tiny increments in AF-technology are snapshot-fans and the typical green-mode-clientele. Nobody else.

That is why dinosaur tech in mirrorless ILC is still on it's way to extinction and why Sony, Nikon and Canon are collapsing as they are.

[Trickortreat]

Do you shoot weddings? Because my wife does, with a K-1 and K-1 II. People like her photos because she has an eye for composition and light, not because the K-1 is awesome. And no, she doesn't struggle to get good focus, even inside a dark church. The only negative she has found with the K-1 and K-1 II are that the buffer fills fairly quickly when you are writing to two cards. And she does a fair amount of couples shots back lit with narrow depth of field.
All of these discussions miss completely the fact that a sharp photo of a boring subject, poorly composed is not a good photo. Maybe mirrorless cameras add a few more sharp photos to the portfolio, but I have a strong feeling that they won't lead to as many "keepers" as what these discussions imply.

I do agree that no technology can make you a good photographer if you cant get your composition right. Choosing the right subject, the right light, the right composition is what makes a photographer. AF is just a technicality that gets in the way... much like light metering.
Lets say that you have the guy that is really good at composing photo but AF is letting him down, better AF would indeed make him a better photographer.
Poorly focused photo is just as bad as a poorly composed one. And yes - there are moments that only the best AF can guarantee you to capture them.
Remember how old sports photos looked? They were fairly static. As technology advanced photos captured more and more movement. There will always be those guys who will squeeze and use every last bit technology has to offer them.

And no, the artifacts that come from PDAF points on the sensor are not masakable.

This I greatly disagree with. Show me one example, one RAW photo that I couldnt mask PDAF artifacts on.

---------- Post added 05-30-19 at 08:53 PM ----------

The only types of button-pushers which benefit from further tiny increments in AF-technology are snapshot-fans and the typical green-mode-clientele. Nobody else.That is why dinosaur tech in mirrorless ILC is still on it's way to extinction and why Sony, Nikon and Canon are collapsing as they are.

Ill just laugh at this post and pretend youre being sarcastic
It was ALWAYS just tiny advancements in AF, for example Nikon D5 isnt that revolutionary better at AF than D4, just like D4 isnt something revolutionary over D3...

[Rondec]

I do agree that no technology can make you a good photographer if you cant get your composition right. Choosing the right subject, the right light, the right composition is what makes a photographer. AF is just a technicality that gets in the way... much like light metering.
Lets say that you have the guy that is really good at composing photo but AF is letting him down, better AF would indeed make him a better photographer.
Poorly focused photo is just as bad as a poorly composed one. And yes - there are moments that only the best AF can guarantee you to capture them.
Remember how old sports photos looked? They were fairly static. As technology advanced photos captured more and more movement. There will always be those guys who will squeeze and use every last bit technology has to offer them.



This I greatly disagree with. Show me one example, one RAW photo that I couldnt mask PDAF artifacts on.

---------- Post added 05-30-19 at 08:53 PM ----------



Ill just laugh at this post and pretend youre being sarcastic
It was ALWAYS just tiny advancements in AF, for example Nikon D5 isnt that revolutionary better in AF than D4, just like D4 isnt something revolutionary over D3...

You act as though weddings were sporting events. Sure, they do involve people doing activities and not necessarily in great light, but with a little skill you can capture good images with any full frame camera sold today -- and in fact with most of those that are a couple of generations old! Sports is a different animal and does require somewhat specialized gear -- both cameras and lenses, but even there I would be hard pressed to say that mirrorless has some kind of special advantage over SLRs and in fact, when I see coverage of Olympics, etc, most of the photographers are still using SLRs that are a generation or two old.

Regardless, if you have struggled with auto focus, I can understand your wanting something better. I just don't think it is as big a problem as poorly developed compositional skills.