[normhead]

Yeah, manual focus while being able to zoom in to 100% view with focus peaking in the EVF is certainly useful.

Manual focusing without zooming in in live view is faster.

Having the histogram in sight all the time is also a very good feature that I'd love to have in my DSLR*.

The histogram is derivative, it doesn't tell you what the optimum ƒ/stop is. Often in high contrast mav DR situations it's completely useless. It tells you where you want the histogram says you should be, but not where the image looks best. They are at times different things.

In a sunset, where the DR of the scene is more than can be captured by any camera, it's always a judgement call, more detail in the clouds and the area around the sun, or more detail in the shadows. As far as I can tell that's an image by image decision. Are you saying the camera tech can get that right every time. Since I leave my camera at -.7EV for everyday shooting, this sounds to me like a waste of time. It would help me make a decision that I never make. How about an "improvement" that I actually need? If you have to do more than you're doing now for the same result, it's not an improvement.

I always end up underexposing a bit in high contrast situations when spot metering is giving me trouble.

In high contrast situations I sometimes under-exposing three stops or over-expose 1 stop, depending on circumstances. The most important thing for me tends to be where the point at which my shadows can still be made acceptable. I don't know that until I'm post processing. There is simply is no way of avoiding bracketing in my experience. And if you're bracketing anyway, absolute nothing is saved by this so called improvement.

But hey, some one show me some pictures. Change my mind.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-03-2022 at 03:25 PM.

[normhead]

Never once did they consider the nut behind the wheel...or in this case, the nut behind the viewfinder.

For some people buying stuff is easier than learning stuff. They soon find out, you still have to learn stuff.

[wadge22]

the more money than common sense club.

I've always heard it as "more dollars than sense."

[normhead]

I've always heard it as "more dollars than sense."

Haha, more dollars than common cents?"

[lotech]

From the wiki "In 1957, the Asahi Pentax became the first Japanese fixed-pentaprism SLR; its success led Asahi to eventually rename itself Pentax", so that very unlikely Pentax will drop SLR for mirrorless.

[northcoastgreg]

And interestingly, out of the handful (4 or 5) girls I know who are into photography, only one actually wants a DSLR.

For whatever it's worth, I'm working from a larger sample size than just five. I've actually run across scores of female photographers over the last decade, some of whom I've known personally and others I've just run across at various iconic photography places. I merely draw conclusions from what I've observed and what photographers have told me. For example, I used to know a female photographer who at one time was doing high art photography as a living. She had shows in New York and had won several prizes. She bought a used Nikon D70 for her work and would often brag how little she cared about the "technical" aspects of photography. My sister does photography for book covers. I remember one year when we met together in Yosemite for her son's wedding, her Nikon D7000 reverted to auto focus point and not only did she had no idea how to fix it, she wasn't going to try until she got home because she was afraid she was going to make things worse. Now she's very talented photographer. If you go into a bookshop in Europe you'll run across books with her photos on them. When I lived in California I had a bit of reputation in the local community for my photographic skill, and I would sometimes have female photographers asking me for technical help. When I talked to male photographers, on the other hand, I rarely was asked for technical help. Instead, I would get questions about the gear I was using.

Now over the last few years when I've gone to iconic photographer places where photographers tend to collect, I'm always surprised to discover how many female photographers are shooting with entry level DSLRs, usually with Nikons. Even here in the midwest, I'm running across the same thing. It's even more pronounced with young women. With older women (perhaps because of deeper pockets), I might find them shooting with a Canon DSLR and an L lens. But I don't see many women with mirrorless. I've seen a few with m43 cameras, but that's about it.

Generally speaking, DSLRs still tend to dominate at iconic landscape places, although mirrorless can be fairly prominent among young Japanese photographers vacationing in this country. When I was in Yellowstone a couple years ago, I did notice something I found rather curious. Among the obviously serious landscape photographers (i.e., the one's with the expensive gear who showed up early in the morning), FF DSLR's still dominated, and most of these DSLR's were attached to tripods. Of the handful of mirrorless FF I ran across, none of them were using tripods. Now what could we possibly infer from that?

[normhead]

her Nikon D7000 reverted to auto focus point and not only did she had no idea how to fix it, s

My wife still shoots with her k-5, same sensor. To me these cameras were the first affordable pro capable DSLRs and they both hold up well today. That sensor changed everything.

[texandrews]

For whatever it's worth, I'm working from a larger sample size than just five. I've actually run across scores of female photographers over the last decade, some of whom I've known personally and others I've just run across at various iconic photography places. I merely draw conclusions from what I've observed and what photographers have told me. For example, I used to know a female photographer who at one time was doing high art photography as a living. She had shows in New York and had won several prizes. She bought a used Nikon D70 for her work and would often brag how little she cared about the "technical" aspects of photography. My sister does photography for book covers. I remember one year when we met together in Yosemite for her son's wedding, her Nikon D7000 reverted to auto focus point and not only did she had no idea how to fix it, she wasn't going to try until she got home because she was afraid she was going to make things worse. Now she's very talented photographer. If you go into a bookshop in Europe you'll run across books with her photos on them. When I lived in California I had a bit of reputation in the local community for my photographic skill, and I would sometimes have female photographers asking me for technical help. When I talked to male photographers, on the other hand, I rarely was asked for technical help. Instead, I would get questions about the gear I was using.

Now over the last few years when I've gone to iconic photographer places where photographers tend to collect, I'm always surprised to discover how many female photographers are shooting with entry level DSLRs, usually with Nikons. Even here in the midwest, I'm running across the same thing. It's even more pronounced with young women. With older women (perhaps because of deeper pockets), I might find them shooting with a Canon DSLR and an L lens. But I don't see many women with mirrorless. I've seen a few with m43 cameras, but that's about it.

Generally speaking, DSLRs still tend to dominate at iconic landscape places, although mirrorless can be fairly prominent among young Japanese photographers vacationing in this country. When I was in Yellowstone a couple years ago, I did notice something I found rather curious. Among the obviously serious landscape photographers (i.e., the one's with the expensive gear who showed up early in the morning), FF DSLR's still dominated, and most of these DSLR's were attached to tripods. Of the handful of mirrorless FF I ran across, none of them were using tripods. Now what could we possibly infer from that?

My experience is similar. The women photographers I've known have to a person not been especially interested in the tech side of the discipline. I worked with a really brilliant photographer at work who taught me some important things. But when it came to the latest gadgetry or software or the computing necessary, she was both at a loss but also didn't care.

[normhead]

My experience is similar. The women photographers I've known have to a person not been especially interested in the tech side of the discipline. I worked with a really brilliant photographer at work who taught me some important things. But when it came to the latest gadgetry or software or the computing necessary, she was both at a loss but also didn't care.

Because if you know your camera well, and it does what you want, it doesn't make any difference, what everyone else thinks about technical stuff. There is nothing more tedious than people going on about fast fps, AF etc. It's all so meaningless in most of photography. All that matters is the IQ of the final image. If you get what you want from what you own, the rest is meaningless. To the point I seriously wonder why so many are so fascinated by technical specs, and what amounts to in most cases marketing doo dahs. It is sad that so many get lost down the rabbit hole of technical photography, when what they really need is more practice with their camera.

[Pål Jensen]

Smaller formats have more DOF at the same aperture and angle of view. You don't buy a larger format in order to have the same output as a smaller one. It is easy to see if shoot different formats. When I shot 645 (film) my most used aperture was F:16. I see from Pentax Photo Annual book series that the most used aperture on the Pentax 67 is F:22. These apertures are rarely used for smaller formats. Regardless of format, in real life you'll want to maximize the output, not equalize it to a smaller format.
Total amount of light isn't a concept included in the photography vocabulary on reciprocity.
As for macro; for the same magnification the subject of the APS image will fill 50% more of the frame than on FF. That's what we photographers are interested in - frame filling, not magnification. That's a huge difference. The difference in DOF doesn't make much difference at high magnifications because DOF is so thin to begin with that one stop difference is hardly visible.

[normhead]

Why is total light important, except for engaging in arguments? Total light is nothing, the sensor getting correct exposure for the ISO rating is all that matters.





Which image has more total light, and why does it matter? It's irrelevant to a photograph as longs you have enough light for the exposure you want. What's relevant in photography is the intensity of the light on the sensor. Total light has no particular meaning at all.

Someone needs to explain why total light is important, if they are going to bring it up in every discussion.

[RobA_Oz]

Generally speaking, DSLRs still tend to dominate at iconic landscape places, although mirrorless can be fairly prominent among young Japanese photographers vacationing in this country. When I was in Yellowstone a couple years ago, I did notice something I found rather curious. Among the obviously serious landscape photographers (i.e., the one's with the expensive gear who showed up early in the morning), FF DSLR's still dominated, and most of these DSLR's were attached to tripods. Of the handful of mirrorless FF I ran across, none of them were using tripods. Now what could we possibly infer from that?

A variation on the Pentax “return to DSLRs” thought, although more likely “return to smart phone”?

[i_trax]

Not sure if anyone noticed and mentioned that but it looks like Sony Japan discontinued all A-mount lenses.

All of them have a note:

This product is no longer available at the Sony Store.

[Kunzite]

Sony SLTs are dead for years; and their last DSLR was actually announced in 2010.
And Canon reduced their EF prime lines from 21 to a mere 9 models.