FF versus mirrorless

**monochrome** · 12-31-2015, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by blende8

For me the advantage of mirrorless is the EVF.
This is a very useful tool for manual focus.
Focussing through an OVF will seldom give you optimum results in sharpness.

We achieved critical focus just fine prior to something like 2010. Especially with ancient technology like film cameras.

To me an EVF is a bug, not a feature.

**Digitalis** · 12-31-2015, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by starjedi

I do not buy the idea that mirrorless is the future.

Neither do I.

normhead · 12-31-2015, 06:50 PM

I will never under any circumstances by a mirroless as a first body, A play toy maybe.

indy · 12-31-2015, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by normhead

I will never under any circumstances by a mirroless as a first body, A play toy maybe.

I used to feel the same way....then I picked up a GR. Brilliant camera. Give me a 3 pack of these (24/50/75) and I would be happy for a very very long time. Ricoh has the perfect foundation/layout for multiple mirroless offerings in the GR, they simply need to develop new variations. A ff ILC "GR" would be a Sony killer.

normhead · 12-31-2015, 08:28 PM

I've picked up a number of mirrorless over the holidays and I haven't been impressed at all.

The lag in Henry's which is a very well lit store, made me feel like throwing up. Why would anyone subject themselves to that?

Quote:

Ricoh has the perfect foundation/layout for multiple mirroless offerings in the GR, they simply need to develop new variations.

Going after Sony's market share is a waste of time. They are still small player in the camera business. Nothing you say is anything other than a hope and a prayer. You hope new variations would produce positive results, but that's not a certainty by a long shot. iN fact it's the other way around, it's a long shot, a unlikely very long shot.

**clackers** · 12-31-2015, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Ric

Even though we welcome this new addition from pentax it seems that a FF mirrorless is the wave of the future.

???

Sony's FF releases over the last three years do not seem to have triggered interest from the other established mirrorless manufacturers ... Samsung, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic.

Their marketing departments don't agree with you.

**Digitalis** · 01-01-2016, 12:10 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by clackers

Sony's FF releases over the last three years do not seem to have triggered interest

...even Hasselblad have refused to come out with a luxury re-make of the A7rII with a black solid titanium body with polished buttons carved from the teeth of famous photographers and genuine ostrich leather grip for 4X the market price.

Ron_Man · 01-01-2016, 12:32 AM

Eh... I'm not a fan of mirrorless and there's plenty of people out there who feel the same way.

HYS · 01-01-2016, 02:00 AM

The oblique mirror has to be infinitely thin not to introduce the unpleasant astigmatism.

blende8 · 01-01-2016, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

We achieved critical focus just fine prior to something like 2010. Especially with ancient technology like film cameras

1. The OVF were better (better groundglass, split prism) and larger (FF).
2. Perfect sharpness was seldom reached.
But with film in those days this was not such an important issue compared to today with 100% view.

I don't say, it is not possible, e.g. with focus bracketing you can get what you want. But it is slow.
I also don't say that perfect sharpness is always necessary.
And I know its disadvantages. It consumes battery, is often noisy, has lag etc.
It's just good to have that option.

aurele · 01-01-2016, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by blende8

But with film in those days this was not such an important issue compared to today with 100% view.

I do print of negatives up to 30x45 cm and i'm going to try something bigger from 6x7 neg, and i can assure you that critical focusing is as much important as if it was taken with a DSLR.
The idea that film can allow you to have less focus image be perfectly fine when blow up is just a fantasy, according to my experience.

The focusing was easier on film camera because those who created the camera, also created the various screen within specifications, and THAT allowed fine focusing possible. Katzeye and focusingscreen.com do great job at shiming screen for various brand of DSLR, but the thickness of those screen isn't the same as the OEM one, hence, creating some focus shift under some circumstances. And that is a pain.

If a brand wants to really kill EVF, just bring some easy to swap, and very high quality, focusing screen, and that's it ! Friends of mine, who never used film camera did a fantastic job at nailing shoots on a 67 / and 135mm SuperA.

jethro10 · 01-01-2016, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

We achieved critical focus just fine prior to something like 2010. Especially with ancient technology like film cameras.

To me an EVF is a bug, not a feature.

Wow! Very harsh!

A bug is an unintentional side effect to something. Perhaps better to just say it's not for you?

J

blende8 · 01-01-2016, 07:28 AM

New focus screens for the K1 would bee very cool!

But I doubt it.
Pentax is not interested in this.
At least here in Germany, whenever we talked about aperture coupler, manual focus etc. with a Pentax representative, they always dismissed it and made jokes about it.

normhead · 01-01-2016, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by blende8

New focus screens for the K1 would bee very cool!

But I doubt it.
Pentax is not interested in this.
At least here in Germany, whenever we talked about aperture coupler, manual focus etc. with a Pentax representative, they always dismissed it and made jokes about it.

That's because they work making consumer products, and you're talking about products for hobbyists.

**THoog** · 01-01-2016, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by jethro10

Wow! Very harsh!

A bug is an unintentional side effect to something. Perhaps better to just say it's not for you?

J

Bear in mind that just a couple days ago, in another thread, a fan of EVFs pronounced OVFs to be "dead" despite any evidence otherwise (and he didn't even preface it with "to me,"). The rhetoric on both sides tends to get rather exaggerated.

I think we all know that both types of tools have their uses, strengths, and weaknesses. But if you say Char-Grill should sell tacos in front of a bunch of guys wearing "I heart Char-Grill burgers" tee-shirts, you probably should expect a fairly negative response.

12-31-2015, 08:28 PM	#20
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I've picked up a number of mirrorless over the holidays and I haven't been impressed at all. The lag in Henry's which is a very well lit store, made me feel like throwing up. Why would anyone subject themselves to that? Quote: Ricoh has the perfect foundation/layout for multiple mirroless offerings in the GR, they simply need to develop new variations. Going after Sony's market share is a waste of time. They are still small player in the camera business. Nothing you say is anything other than a hope and a prayer. You hope new variations would produce positive results, but that's not a certainty by a long shot. iN fact it's the other way around, it's a long shot, a unlikely very long shot. Last edited by normhead; 12-31-2015 at 08:53 PM.

12-31-2015, 10:55 PM	#21
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Ric Even though we welcome this new addition from pentax it seems that a FF mirrorless is the wave of the future. ??? Sony's FF releases over the last three years do not seem to have triggered interest from the other established mirrorless manufacturers ... Samsung, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic. Their marketing departments don't agree with you. Last edited by clackers; 12-31-2015 at 11:13 PM.

01-01-2016, 02:00 AM	#24
HYS Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 377	The oblique mirror has to be infinitely thin not to introduce the unpleasant astigmatism. Last edited by HYS; 01-01-2016 at 02:50 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What if the new FF camera is mirrorless?	AtitG	Pentax Full Frame	45	10-17-2015 06:47 AM
Pentax FF setup versus APSC budget	biz-engineer	Pentax Full Frame	89	10-02-2015 10:48 AM
Fastest Mirrorless AF versus D4s - surprise!!!	philbaum	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	36	05-30-2014 03:47 PM
Pentax mirrorless FF?	Bestzoom	Pentax Full Frame	102	05-05-2013 02:38 PM
Canon FF Mirrorless concept	Clarkey	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	9	03-27-2012 03:05 AM

12-31-2015, 05:21 PM	#16
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by blende8 For me the advantage of mirrorless is the EVF. This is a very useful tool for manual focus. Focussing through an OVF will seldom give you optimum results in sharpness. We achieved critical focus just fine prior to something like 2010. Especially with ancient technology like film cameras. To me an EVF is a bug, not a feature.

12-31-2015, 06:46 PM	#17
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by starjedi I do not buy the idea that mirrorless is the future. Neither do I.

12-31-2015, 06:50 PM	#18
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I will never under any circumstances by a mirroless as a first body, A play toy maybe.

12-31-2015, 08:03 PM	#19
indy Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 274	Originally posted by normhead I will never under any circumstances by a mirroless as a first body, A play toy maybe. I used to feel the same way....then I picked up a GR. Brilliant camera. Give me a 3 pack of these (24/50/75) and I would be happy for a very very long time. Ricoh has the perfect foundation/layout for multiple mirroless offerings in the GR, they simply need to develop new variations. A ff ILC "GR" would be a Sony killer.

01-01-2016, 12:10 AM - 1 Like	#22
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by clackers Sony's FF releases over the last three years do not seem to have triggered interest ...even Hasselblad have refused to come out with a luxury re-make of the A7rII with a black solid titanium body with polished buttons carved from the teeth of famous photographers and genuine ostrich leather grip for 4X the market price.

01-01-2016, 12:32 AM	#23
Ron_Man Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: MD Posts: 221	Eh... I'm not a fan of mirrorless and there's plenty of people out there who feel the same way.

01-01-2016, 02:37 AM	#25
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	Originally posted by monochrome We achieved critical focus just fine prior to something like 2010. Especially with ancient technology like film cameras 1. The OVF were better (better groundglass, split prism) and larger (FF). 2. Perfect sharpness was seldom reached. But with film in those days this was not such an important issue compared to today with 100% view. I don't say, it is not possible, e.g. with focus bracketing you can get what you want. But it is slow. I also don't say that perfect sharpness is always necessary. And I know its disadvantages. It consumes battery, is often noisy, has lag etc. It's just good to have that option.

01-01-2016, 05:18 AM	#26
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	Originally posted by blende8 But with film in those days this was not such an important issue compared to today with 100% view. I do print of negatives up to 30x45 cm and i'm going to try something bigger from 6x7 neg, and i can assure you that critical focusing is as much important as if it was taken with a DSLR. The idea that film can allow you to have less focus image be perfectly fine when blow up is just a fantasy, according to my experience. The focusing was easier on film camera because those who created the camera, also created the various screen within specifications, and THAT allowed fine focusing possible. Katzeye and focusingscreen.com do great job at shiming screen for various brand of DSLR, but the thickness of those screen isn't the same as the OEM one, hence, creating some focus shift under some circumstances. And that is a pain. If a brand wants to really kill EVF, just bring some easy to swap, and very high quality, focusing screen, and that's it ! Friends of mine, who never used film camera did a fantastic job at nailing shoots on a 67 / and 135mm SuperA.

01-01-2016, 05:21 AM	#27
jethro10 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Location: Lake District Posts: 222	Originally posted by monochrome We achieved critical focus just fine prior to something like 2010. Especially with ancient technology like film cameras. To me an EVF is a bug, not a feature. Wow! Very harsh! A bug is an unintentional side effect to something. Perhaps better to just say it's not for you? J

01-01-2016, 07:28 AM	#28
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	New focus screens for the K1 would bee very cool! But I doubt it. Pentax is not interested in this. At least here in Germany, whenever we talked about aperture coupler, manual focus etc. with a Pentax representative, they always dismissed it and made jokes about it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-01-2016, 07:48 AM	#29
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by blende8 New focus screens for the K1 would bee very cool! But I doubt it. Pentax is not interested in this. At least here in Germany, whenever we talked about aperture coupler, manual focus etc. with a Pentax representative, they always dismissed it and made jokes about it. That's because they work making consumer products, and you're talking about products for hobbyists.

01-01-2016, 08:14 AM	#30
THoog Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: North Carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,685	Originally posted by jethro10 Wow! Very harsh! A bug is an unintentional side effect to something. Perhaps better to just say it's not for you? J Bear in mind that just a couple days ago, in another thread, a fan of EVFs pronounced OVFs to be "dead" despite any evidence otherwise (and he didn't even preface it with "to me,"). The rhetoric on both sides tends to get rather exaggerated. I think we all know that both types of tools have their uses, strengths, and weaknesses. But if you say Char-Grill should sell tacos in front of a bunch of guys wearing "I heart Char-Grill burgers" tee-shirts, you probably should expect a fairly negative response.