[biz-engineer]

Benefit of mirrorless exists mostly for camera makers: MILC camera are easy to make, no complex mirror assembly, no software loop switching between mirror down state (reading AF+AE sensors), no control mirror actuation, no sync between mirror up and mirror down states for AF tracking. MILC cameras are simple, have one domain only software: reading out the CMOS sensor => Want to AF: read the CMOS sensor; Want do meter for exposure time: read the CMOS sensor; Want to build an histogram: read the CMOS sensor. Want to record video: read the CMOS sensor. So, the mirrorless benefit is like when DSLR makers removed optical anti-alias filters on sensors, customers perceived more sharpness in their images, and the image sensor assembly was cheaper for the camera makers. DSLR like the K1 are complex, there is even an aperture lever and an internal AF motor inside the camera, mirrorless camera don't have any of this.

[Dan Rentea]

The Z6 is arguably inferior to the D850 and the EOS R to the Canon 5D Mk IV they're based on, involved a new mount, and resulted in fewer sales, not more, for those companies.

To be fair, 5D Mark IV is better than EOS R only for wildlife, not because of the Af, but because of the optical viewfinder and slightly better fps. EOS R has a lag in viewfinder when comes to fast action (BIF mostly). And 5D Mark IV has dual card slot which is nice. Other than that, EOS R beats 5D Mark IV in terms of focusing and general shooting experience. I own both and I've done extensive tests in the last week. Not to mention that EOS R will get a firmware update on 26 September that will improve the af even more (it's going to improve to track better small subjects) and it will also reduce lag time between the actual Af and the Af frame display for images in the viewfinder or on the LCD.

---------- Post added 09-13-19 at 11:16 AM ----------

Another benefit of mirrorless is that you can ask your model to move as much as she can while keeper her eyes open, to show your friends how cool is Eye-AF, "I have eye-AF , and you? you don't have? I feel so sorry for you"

Models move around a lot when you shoot them outdoor. In studio it's more or less a different story. But eye af will keep the af on the eye no matter where the model is in the frame. Take a look at this image for example (straight out of camera), taken yesterday with EOS R and an 85mm lens. It was shot at f2 and it's part of a series of 7 images taken in a burst. I have quite a lot experience shooting with DSLRs at this aperture and believe it or not, with DSLR you need even a bit of luck along with a proper technique to get all images in focus. Keeping the Af exactly on the eye on a moving subject with a DSLR is not an easy job, especially if you shoot at an aperture between f1.4 and f2.8 and for this kind of shootings a mirrorless camera to me is more useful due to eye af and due to the fact that the Af points are spreaded all over the frame.

[D1N0]

For manual focus shooters like me the EVF. I find myself using live view on the K-1 almost exclusively to nail focus, which is impossible to do reliably through the OVF.

[biz-engineer]

Keeping the Af exactly on the eye on a moving subject with a DSLR is not an easy job

Yes , you just ask the subject not to move and that's how you save 5000 euros by not needing an advanced AF system. Why spend a lot of money when you can do the same with a lot less money?

[Trickortreat]

What if your subject is a 100m sprinter?

[Dan Rentea]

Yes , you just ask the subject not to move and that's how you save 5000 euros by not needing an advanced AF system.

Yeah, sure!

---------- Post added 09-13-19 at 01:17 PM ----------

What if your subject is a 100m sprinter?

For those I don't know. But if they move too fast and me and my camera can't keep up, I will try panning shots.

[biz-engineer]

What if your subject is a 100m sprinter?

You ask him for a photo session outdoors, or even in a studio, not during the race. The best professional photos of our regional rugby club are taken in a studio with strobes. Of course hobby photographer want to be able to get good photos without proper setup, they are the customers targeted by Sony by making feature that allow anyone with no know-how to take Ok (but not great) pictures. All this is very consumer.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-13-2019 at 06:30 AM.

[y0chang]

One thing lost in the OVF vs EVF argument is the fact that some people can't focus well enough to read small text on a screen the size of a postage stamp. The headache that it causes by eye strain means I only use EVFs on my mirrorless, when there is bright direct sunlight. That is one inherent benefit of an OVF, less eye strain. I'm sure as EVFs improve it will be less eye strain, but inherently it's no different than looking at a slide under a loupe and that will never change. You can make the slide more detailed (resolution) or make the loupe optics better (magnification optical quality) but your eye is still focused on a tiny screen, which your eye isn't designed for

[D1N0]

What if your subject is a 100m sprinter?

Pre-focus on the finish line. Spray and pray

[normhead]

Keeping the Af exactly on the eye on a moving subject with a DSLR is not an easy job, especially if you shoot at an aperture between f1.4 and f2.8 and for this kind of shootings a mirrorless camera to me is more useful due to eye af and due to the fact that the Af points are spreaded all over the frame.

Whatever....


The camera is more useful to you on those occasions where Eye AF is a thing. However, it's rarely a thing. So my guess is most of the time, there's no real advantage. Although I wouldn't actually expect anyone to admit that.

[Dan Rentea]

Whatever....

Whatever what? You posted an image taken an f9. You have enough DOF there to shoot an elephant and keep it all in focus.

The camera is more useful to you on those occasions where Eye AF is a thing. However, it's rarely a thing. So my guess is most of the time, there's no real advantage. Although I wouldn't actually expect anyone to admit that.

The OP asked about the differences between mirrorless and DSLR. I said that I tend to grab the mirrorless camera most of the time despite the fact that I have a very good DSLR because it gives me a better overall shooting experience despite the fact that I'm not yet 100% comfortable with EVF. And I said many times that eye af and silent shooting are the only things that interests me when comes to mirrorless. If the next generation of DSLRs will manage to include these 2 things then I will be more than happy because optical viewfinders are still the ones I like most.

[Apet-Sure]

In any case, it's tiring hearing the same polar extreme opinions time and time again regarding DSLRs and OVFs, mirrorless and EVFs.

Mirrorless mirrorless on the wall, what's the most useless argument of them all?

[normhead]

Whatever what? You posted an image taken an f9. You have enough DOF there to shoot an elephant and keep it all in focus.



The OP asked about the differences between mirrorless and DSLR. I said that I tend to grab the mirrorless camera most of the time despite the fact that I have a very good DSLR because it gives me a better overall shooting experience despite the fact that I'm not yet 100% comfortable with EVF. And I said many times that eye af and silent shooting are the only things that interests me when comes to mirrorless. If the next generation of DSLRs will manage to include these 2 things then I will be more than happy because optical viewfinders are still the ones I like most.

Dan, I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but shallow DoF is not the only way to create subject isolation, for many of us it looks fake.It's been that way for 70 years, the argument between the "Use Shallow DoF" and the "Learn some composition skills" camps. You speak to one camp.

I'm not going to criticize your image, more than to say it didn't inspire me to rush out and by your camera. Not because I can't, but because it would be pointless. Odd how you take it on yourself to be critical of images, because they aren't to your taste. That's just reprehensible . We are all capable of getting what we want. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing a portrait at ƒ9. Get used to it.

My point is, if you like eye AF go for it. But any given person may decide not to do that and be quite happy. If that's all MILCs have to offer, it's irrelevant to me and many others, most fo the forum actually. Do you like this or that. If they like yours, maybe Eye AF will help, if you like mine, you don't need it.

Just a bit of info to help folks understand the context.

[vector]

For manual focus shooters like me the EVF. I find myself using live view on the K-1 almost exclusively to nail focus, which is impossible to do reliably through the OVF.

Have you done AF Fine Tuning with your manual lenses? It certainly isn't as convenient as the AF ones since you have to do the setting as "Apply All", which means you have to remember to set it for each camera/lens combo when you put the lens on. But once you get it dialed in, the focus indicator in the OVF for manual focus is just as accurate as it is for AF lenses. I am doing this with my Samyang 85mm and 35mm f1.4 lenses and I can do portrait shoots outdoors with my kids and nail focus on the eyes at 1.4-2.0. The most recent outing I had only 6 out 96 images out of focus, mostly at f2 with the 85mm. I figure that's pretty darn good for MF with an OVF on a DSLR.

To keep track of the body/lens combinations I have a spreadsheet in google docs that I can open on my phone so I can see where to set each lens with my K1/K3/K5. Obviously this is one place where mirrorless is more convenient but I would hardly say it's not possible to do with an OVF.

[normhead]

Have you done AF Fine Tuning with your manual lenses? It certainly isn't as convenient as the AF ones since you have to do the setting as "Apply All", which means you have to remember to set it for each camera/lens combo when you put the lens on. But once you get it dialed in, the focus indicator in the OVF for manual focus is just as accurate as it is for AF lenses. I am doing this with my Samyang 85mm and 35mm f1.4 lenses and I can do portrait shoots outdoors with my kids and nail focus on the eyes at 1.4-2.0. The most recent outing I had only 6 out 96 images out of focus, mostly at f2 with the 85mm. I figure that's pretty darn good for MF with an OVF on a DSLR.

To keep track of the body/lens combinations I have a spreadsheet in google docs that I can open on my phone so I can see where to set each lens with my K1/K3/K5. Obviously this is one place where mirrorless is more convenient but I would hardly say it's not possible to do with an OVF.

The reason for using Live View is it clearly defines where the depth of field is, based on where your camera is focussed, and with most images in macro, the fact that the OVF AF tells something is in focus without really telling you exactly what. There simply is no comparable OVF setting until a hybrid viewfinder comes out. This is most useful for macros where the placement of the DoF will be critical. But for macros I use the back screen, usually tilted.Whether the viewfinder is OVF or EVF makes no difference because I'm not going to lie on my stomach in the mud to look through the viewfinder.

For subjects further away from the camera, nailing ƒ1.4 images is not really all that difficult. To me the supposed advantages seem like hyperbole.