[monochrome]

Find the lens you love and buy the camera it goes on " is still true in my mind. If wanted steller 24mm, after poking around the web yesterday in this thread
Pentax FA*24/2 or A 20/2.8 ? - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com

I'd look at Sony first. But, I can't really see 24mm being big part of my life.
That being said, with my DA*55 1.4 being my favourite prime at the moment and the DFA* 50 1.4 being even better, I'm not seeing a lens from Sony that even matches the 55 at a quick glance.

I might someday sell a lot of the stuff I’ve collected and never use (It’s a lot of work!) but I don’t see myself leaving Pentax - because the DFA50/1.4 exists. I can see myself selling all the APSc gear except the KP.

AFA the OP’s original question, I haven’t seen a compelling reason to switch to mirrorless. There’s nothing I want to do with my K-1 and KP that I can’t do but could do with a MILC, including focusing where I want to focus.

[nocturnal]

This forum is nothing compared to the hellscape that is youtube. DPR/Jared/Others are borderline toxic when it comes to DSLRs.

I remember a small snippet I saw of Jared doing a piece on the 90d and M6 Mark 2 and he, no joke, said he didn't want to use the screen on the back of the 90d for a scene where it would have been advantageous because he thought it didn't look pro. That is just sickening to me. Mirrorless users are the ones who really need to get a grip on reasons for both existing.

I don't know why you would torture yourself watching these annoying (most of them are) youtube presenters, I find the likes of who you mention to be instantly depressing just like FB is.

There are a few better presenters but you have to filter out the "ugly" ones. I just watched a nice video by Ewan Dunsmuir using a 645Z and others in New Zealand, I find learning about locations probably the most interesting part.

Any videos starting with a nerdy guy shouting "yo what's up youtubers" gets switched off in a millisecond.

Avoid the venomous people, we are supposed to be enjoying this right? What's the point in venom anyway over bits of equipment?

The creative art of photography is where the love is.

[disconnekt]

I don't know why you would torture yourself watching these annoying (most of them are) youtube presenters, I find the likes of who you mention to be instantly depressing just like FB is.

There are a few better presenters but you have to filter out the "ugly" ones. I just watched a nice video by Ewan Dunsmuir using a 645Z and others in New Zealand, I find learning about locations probably the most interesting part.

Any videos starting with a nerdy guy shouting "yo what's up youtubers" gets switched off in a millisecond.

Avoid the venomous people, we are supposed to be enjoying this right? What's the point in venom anyway over bits of equipment?

The creative art of photography is where the love is.

Yep, nowadays its getting easier to tell the difference between the one's that are just ramblers/toxic/non-informative & the ones that are actually informative, will give the pros/cons of a specific camera/brand, comparisons, & generally fair criticism

[Trickortreat]

I did the same basic calculation for Canada a few years ago, and came up with a need to have an installed generation capacity of 19GW continuous, to replace the gasoline used daily in Canada. I find the numbers you have to be perhaps Over stated, the German population is 83 million compared to Canada at 35 million, so a little over 2:1 and I am quite certain that Canadians are on average driving bigger less efficient cars, and driving them further on average, than Germans, so I would like to know how you came up with 10 times the required installed capacity to charge the cars.

I made my estimate based upon the gasoline consumption published at the time of I think 110million litres per day at an average latent heat to mechanical power conversion of 25% (diesels I know can approach 40%) and assumed for electric cars a net efficiency of 80% to cover charging efficiency, power conversion losses in the vehicle drive package, and motor losses etc.

But regardless, it is a big new investment in guaranteed generation capacity, the only way i can see it happening is a rethink of nuclear. The reduction of fossil fuel electricity generation has largely been achieved by reduced demand by improvements in efficiency, specifically lighting, air conditioning, and electrical appliances. To illustrate this point, I have lived in the same house for 35 years, and use less energy now, than 35 years ago, even though we now have 2 fridges in place of one, central air vs no air conditioning, and a lot more electrical stuff plugged in all the time, like computers, wifi and network gear........ while at the same time upgrading windows and insulation (this reduces cooling loads)

But, I suspect there is not much room for further improvement, and all my efforts really have done is to help maintain the status quo as the population in Canada increased by 30%.


To the op, sorry for hijacking the thread

Large scale nuclear iant economical. Most calculacions greatly underestimate waste disposal and decomissioning costs.
There should be a strong move to gen 4 reactors before nuclear actually starts competing in all parameters with renewables.
There is also the safety concern.

[Serkevan]

I find the numbers you have to be perhaps Over stated,

It was the peak power draw with everyone charging their car at night; normally you would have less of course, but common procedure is to have more installed capacity than peak expected draw).

As for the numbers, Germany has 47 million cars (not counting commercial vehicles such as trucks tractors etc. which are another ~16 million), then checked the average power draw per model (most are 3.3 kW but a lot are coming in at 6.6 or 7.2 kW, so I chose 4 kW as a nice round number). So yeah, they *are* worst-case-scenario numbers, I would expect something closer to 60 GW on average or perhaps even less.
what I had as core assumption is that, if people defaulted to charging overnight, that would be a lot of strain for the grid.

I still think that the way forward involves banning intra-city car use and strenghtening public transport systems, a single-person (or even single-family) car will never be, by definition, nearly as efficient as a bus.

[biz-engineer]

Isnt taking a photo of sprinter actually doing his sprint far more interesting than some lifeless studio shoot?

There are tons of sprinter pictures taken in the wild, taken by amateurs, we don't know where to store them, value is zero. Much less paid sport images are taken in studios.

---------- Post added 14-09-19 at 10:48 ----------

Isnt taking a photo of sprinter actually doing his sprint far more interesting than some lifeless studio shoot?

Studio images are better, because the lighting and background are controlled and images can be re-taken many times until getting satisfactory results. Now, whether the shots are more interesting in studio or outdoors is not the question for camera makers to sell cameras. The hobby photographer who doesn't have access to a studio will want to take amateur photographs when going to a sport event, so he will be interested to buy a camera with good af tracking regardless of what he does with the images after going home.

[Rondec]

There are tons of sprinter pictures taken in the wild, taken by amateurs, we don't know where to store them, value is zero. Much less paid sport images are taken in studios.

---------- Post added 14-09-19 at 10:48 ----------


Studio images are better, because the lighting and background are controlled and images can be re-taken many times until getting satisfactory results. Now, whether the shots are more interesting in studio or outdoors is not the question for camera makers to sell cameras. The hobby photographer who doesn't have access to a studio will want to take amateur photographs when going to a sport event, so he will be interested to buy a camera with good af tracking regardless of what he does with the images after going home.

Very much so.

I bought a book by Joe McNally (The Moment it Clicks) which was a bit overwhelming in its descriptions of how he uses flashes to enhance his images and give his images more power. Sports photos taken in the wild can be impressive, but certainly track and field not as much. Beyond which taking images of a sprinter or typically going to be done from the side (you don't get in their lane and have them run directly at you) in which case it is more of a test of your panning ability, but much less hard on the auto focus tracking system.

Just on the overall subject of auto focus, it has come a long ways. Even with Pentax cameras, there should be no reason that you can't get the images you want if you make some effort and develop some skill and vision. And vision is actually more important -- an awful lot of images on the internet or very sharp images of nothing. They may have as much resolution as any image Ansel Adams ever produced, but they have no impact because, while the camera was good enough, the photographer wasn't.

[Lowell Goudge]

Large scale nuclear iant economical. Most calculacions greatly underestimate waste disposal and decomissioning costs.
There should be a strong move to gen 4 reactors before nuclear actually starts competing in all parameters with renewables.
There is also the safety concern.

The problems I see with renewables, that I see is the footprint required for the total power needed and the fact that you need up to 5 times the peak capacity to insure you can actually meet the load demand, considering wind and solar, and that efficient storage modes don’t really exist. I don’t disagree to some extent about nukes, but in hind sight I think that each of the three major incidents in the world were completely preventable. Also regardless of generation, the batteries are not exactly a clean eco friendly product especially at the production source, and there is also an issue of disposal and recycling

We would be better off with switching to hydrogen as opposed to electric cars in my opinion, and use hydrogen as the storage medium for balancing out the difference between when you can generate energy vs when it is needed. You can also use existing electric grid, to transmit electricity from the source to the user location and generate hydrogen at or close to the point of sale. I believe Germany is already doing this.

Again I apologize for hijacking the thread
,

---------- Post added 09-14-19 at 07:23 AM ----------

I still think that the way forward involves banning intra-city car use and strenghtening public transport systems, a single-person (or even single-family) car will never be, by definition, nearly as efficient as a bus.

I can’t argue there,

[Dan Rentea]

Studio images are better, because the lighting and background are controlled and images can be re-taken many times until getting satisfactory results.

I wouldn't call images taken in studio better. It depends on the client needs... You can control pretty much everything even when you shoot outdoor if you know your job. As long as you have flashes and modifiers, shooting outdoor means that you have an infinite studio at your disposal which I find it more useful than any high end studio. If you look at fashion or sports magazines, the trends start to shift more and more to lifestyle images of sport stars or fashion models doing their stuff in natural environment. Look also at latest commercial of Cristiano Ronaldo for example. There is not such options, to "re-taken many times until getting satisfactory results" because sport stars don't wait for the photographer to take countless images until they get a shot.

The hobby photographer who doesn't have access to a studio will want to take amateur photographs when going to a sport event, so he will be interested to buy a camera with good af tracking regardless of what he does with the images after going home.

Commercial sport photographers, the pro ones, also use cameras with fast af, big buffer and high fps because they have to shoot dynamic images on location. A good example of a commercial sport photographer is Erik Valind ( Fitness ? Erik Valind Photography | 347-263-7458 | New York City ). Take a look at the min. 0:13 from the below video and tell me that shooting like that is easy with a K1, with a 5DsR or with any slow fps camera without very good and fast Af.

You Tube

You Tube

Or take a look at these beautiful images of the same guy taken with a fast camera. You can get the same results with a K1, 5DsR, D810? Probably yes, but you may spend additional 2-3 hours to get the same shots because of slow fps and not as fast af.

Erik Valind ? NYC on Instagram: ?Here is the Behind the Scenes look at how I captured those flying sand photos! This was such an insane move I didn?t expect to see it more??

Here is a video where he covers a little the shot from the desert, starting from min. 1:15.

You Tube

You Tube

What I like most from their work is that they use what think is best for a specific shot. A few comments back you said also that pro photographers use flashes and amateurs are using natural light. But if the natural light is good in studio or on location, the pros don't use flashes at all or they use just a reflector to soften shadows a little bit. Erik Valind is such an example of a commercial sport photographer who combines in his work natural light and flashes. Michael Woloszynowicz ( http://www.vibrantshot.com/gallery/fashion-beauty-book3/ ) is another great example of a photographer shooting 80% of the time with natural light. And he is a very well regarded fashion photographer. This guy doesn't need a fast af camera, but his images are printed large and therefore he is using a Phase One most of the time and a Nikon D850 if my memory is correct as a second camera. By the way, for the ones interested, Michael Woloszynowicz has one of the best retouching tutorials I've seen. Worth every penny.

[Aaron28]

is the mirrorless shutter silent? if so that may be a benefit.....
recently a friend of mine recording his 3rd album invited me in the studio to take some shots.....could not (or felt comfortable) take shots during the recording process and capture that emotion because the artifacts the k-1 shutter would prolly create....still got a few nice shots tho

[biz-engineer]

Or take a look at these beautiful images of the same guy taken with a fast camera.

Youtube videos are designed (and financed) to develop needs. Guess how some people can live off making youtube videos. Youtube is a vast content marketing platform.

[Dan Rentea]

is the mirrorless shutter silent?

Completely silent.

[biz-engineer]

Completely silent.

yes, with rolling shutter

[Dan Rentea]

Youtube videos are designed (and financed) to develop needs. Guess how some people can live off making youtube videos. Youtube is a vast content marketing platform.

This guy doesn't have an Youtube channel, but he has some online trainings and he did had an online presentation regarding how to control light which was organised by B&H and it was also transmited live online. Even if he or the other guy I mentioned were influencers, there is a lot of differences between those two and the guys like Northrup, Jared Polin, etc.

Again, I shoot with both DSLR and mirrorless and I tend to shoot more with the mirrorless camera because the eye af does help me most of the time and the silent shutter is also handy at some corporate events when I want or I need to be discreet. If they will manage to decrease the lag in the viewfinder with the upcoming firmware update, I may consider taking the mirrorless camera also for BIF. At this moment wildlife is the only reason I still pick my DSLR. And this was not a decision influenced by Youtubers. It was my decision after making my own tests with both cameras. I can live without mirrorless? Of course and I'm very comfortable and pleased by the performance of my DSLR. The differences in terms of performance are not that big as some people may think between mirrorless and DSLR. But for me and for my needs, mirrorless has a small advantage. If I was shooting landscape or product photography, I wouldn't needed a mirrorless because the things that made me buy the mirrorless (eye af, silent shutter) had zero impact for that.

For those interested in mirrorless, try and rent cameras first and see what you gain and what you loose if you invest in a mirrorless system. Some people (myself included) have headaches from EVFs and even if I used lots of mirrorless cameras in the last 2 years (because in my country renting gear is cheap) and the EVFs have improved a lot, I'm still not 100% comfortable with them.

[Rondec]

is the mirrorless shutter silent? if so that may be a benefit.....
recently a friend of mine recording his 3rd album invited me in the studio to take some shots.....could not (or felt comfortable) take shots during the recording process and capture that emotion because the artifacts the k-1 shutter would prolly create....still got a few nice shots tho

The silent shutter is the electronic shutter. Most mirrorless cameras actually have a mechanical shutter as well. The issue is that if you are taking images that involve motion, you can have some odd artifacts using the electronic shutter because it isn't a global shutter -- that is parts of the sensor are read at slightly different times. This is wiki article on the subject: Rolling shutter - Wikipedia

Electronic shutters have improved over time, but they still have some down sides and even most MILC users choose to use the mechanical shutter for the majority of shooting and only enable the electronic shutter for special situations.