[Dan Rentea]

Yes, just a couple of weeks ago with the 70-200mm G Master f2.8 … after thirty minutes I went 'meh', gave it back, and resumed with my K-1.

I have been a FF Sony shooter for four years now, BTW, but you, Dan …

My comment wasn't intended to offend you. I was asking if you used A7R III after the firmware update because as I said in the previous comment, the af of Sony's third generation of cameras was quite unpredictable in terms of eye af and overall tracking. I'm shooting with A7 III quite often because I have a friend that I go out with who has it. I've shot a lot with it in order to improve my shooting experience with EVFs (training my eyes basically). I hated that camera before the af firmware update and after the update it became pretty close to what Sony adverts looked like at the release of that camera.

You used to be dismissive of photographers buying shiny new things for the sake of being shiny new things.

I still am and I don't buy new things, I just play with new things. There is a difference. I bought EOS R because it helps me, but I have also my DSLR for wildlife.

You used to defend your little Canon 6D against all the mirrorless novelties, and yet you've become a publicist and salesman for them, by that listing you did in the other thread of all the new and upcoming R mount lenses next year.

I still defend photographers who go out and practice all day long and improve their technique. I go out as much as I can with a lot better photographers than me and I use a lot less expensive gear than they use. As I said many times, all cameras released in the last 5 years can do the job done with proper technique and experience. For some specific shots you need to work extra and for some situations you may loose certain moments. When you loose more and more important moments due to demanding/difficult subjects, you either get over them, you either go back and practice more, or you go and upgrade your camera, your lens or both. I was out a week or so ago to shoot some birds with 6D (the first model) and I got consistent results because I know that camera very well. I also missed some shots which I know I normally wouldn't have missed them and I remembered why I bought 5D Mark IV. I share my experience without any reason to convert anyone, but because as I told you, I find user experience more important than internet reviews or lab tests. It's not my fault that some people can't forget about camera brands and extract only the informations they need or they think they can use.

Or is It really you, maybe it's Surfar who's hacked your account and is posting all this …

I quite liked the old Dan, he wasn't the besotted type, the born again.

I had some private conversations with him and he's quite a nice guy, as I'm sure most of people here are. Trust me, if we had this discussion over a beer and with some models posing for us, a lot of what I say or what you say would have had a different impact and understanding. But we have to deal with the shortcomings of forums and hope that our comments are not received in a wrong way. It seems we have to work harder and practice more in this regard.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 09-19-2019 at 04:09 AM.

[Trickortreat]

We know. From this post, and all your others.

Yes - I have my own way of thinking, served me extremely well in my life

But do you like "staged" sporting events?

Staged sporting events? Like Pro Wrestling? No i dont like those "sports"

My guess is that you aren't aware of all of the "action" images that you have seen have actually used flashes.

Might be the case, I don't know

A lot of the best skate boarding/snow boarding shots are taken with the use of strobes and without them the images are much flatter (and it may be harder to freeze the motion.

Ah.. Yes, might be of this reason... havent seen a lot of skating/snowboarding photos at all. I don't like those "sports"

[hadi]

aside from the cost and all, the advantage i find with mirrorless is:
1) size. Sure, you add any lens onto the body and the size goes away. Maybe. However, even with a batter grip and a decent sized lens on the Sony A7RII that I have, it is still smaller than my K1+battery grip+similar sized lenses. The Sony weighs considerably less too. So if traveling, even with the weight of extra batteries added, it is considerably lighter. (I do enjoy heavier gear, so the weight doesn't really impact me much. but if traveling, i would want lighter and smaller gear).
2) convenience of batteries with the grip. sure, the battery life on DSLRs is considerably better. but i do fear that one day the battery pins may break off on my K1 battery grip when i'm trying to access the battery in the body. the Sony a7rII makes it so easy to access both the batteries through the grip. less moving parts. less changes of things to break. Moreover, i do enjoy the versatility of charging battery IN the camera if we are in a pinch.
3) limited chimping. I have gotten so comfortable with my K1 that i hardly ever chimp after I've taken the image as I know how the end result will look. However, with the Sony a7rII, it limits my chimping even more as I can see almost what the entire image will look like at the end. get everything right in the camera is a great thing to see.
4)focus peaking!!! Sure the k1 has it too. And technically speaking i can use live view and it will result in something similar to evf would allow through focus peaking. however, the ability to zoom into an image in a greater fashion than on the K1, I am getting more keepers on the sony than on the pentax when focusing manually. maybe its my limited experience as a photographer?

however, with that being said, the EVF so far (of all the cameras i've seen/tried with evf), i still prefer the optical view finder over EVF as looking at screens (in my opinion) will never be sufficient to optical view finders due to lag and how light is reiterated in the EVF
i also enjoy how my pentax feels in my hands, so i'm not ready to fully transition over 100% to sony, though some of my favorite lenses are only compatible on Sony and not on pentax.

[MJKoski]

I honestly think mirrorless is total gimmick right now. I have liveview with one button in K-1 and that's it.

Manufacturers are using MILC as a tool to sell people all their photostuff again in different clothing. They should instead focus on making use of short register distance but all that is happening is huge lenses weighting more than their DSLR counterpart thanks to f/1.0 disease.

[steve bastiman]

I have both and...

Pros (Panasonic gx-85)
1. More compact.
2. No shutter (noise, vibration, and something else that can break)
3. Live View is far superior to my K3 II
4. Better video (which I never use)

Cons:
1. I need my reading glasses to take photos (especially manual focus).
2. Almost took a basketball to the head because of lag on the display. (sometimes 1/2 second delay matters).
3. I prefer a large camera (personal preference).
4. If I forget my reading glasses, I have to hold it far enough away to negate the size benefit.

If I need a lightweight, good camera that won't be used for action... I grab the Panasonic. The rest of the time it's the Pentax K3 II. I do like having both to choose from but the Pextax is my primary camera.



---------- Post added 09-12-19 at 08:44 PM ----------

Oh, if I choose to, I can get an adapter and use all of my wife's Canon lenses (full auto with the right adapter). Or buy adapters and use lenses in manual from other brands.

I'm in a similar position - Panasonics G9 & GX8 and Pentax KS & KP - If I need a lightweight, need the reach of the 100-400 lens or am just out on a recce I grab the Panasonic, otherwise and especially if it's astro I use the Pentax K3 II - quite often I'll shoot the same scene with both.

[Belnan]

I think the automatic/manual in cars is a good analogy. Unfortunately now if you want a manual transmission options are limited and good luck with the resale. Autos now have better acceleration and fuel efficiency than manual transmissions. However if you really want to have some fun driving a sports car or even an average car the you want a manual. With that being said I don't think that you will see many new cars with one in twenty years but it doesn't mean you can't go have a little fun right now.

[PDL]

I think the automatic/manual in cars is a good analogy. Unfortunately now if you want a manual transmission options are limited and good luck with the resale. Autos now have better acceleration and fuel efficiency than manual transmissions. However if you really want to have some fun driving a sports car or even an average car the you want a manual. With that being said I don't think that you will see many new cars with one in twenty years but it doesn't mean you can't go have a little fun right now.

A car analogy is just that an analogy, open to wide interpretation.

Most of my cars have been standard transmissions. I learned on both automatic and standard, but I just enjoyed standards more, since driving was just something we did for fun back in the day. I also used pure manual cameras for most of my photography although when aperture priority cameras came out I jumped on them. Now days I shoot AV over 99% of the time with setting the camera on manual when I am shooting in theaters for the non-profits I support. I am really thankful that digital cameras, shooting RAW, have such wide latitude that I can tweak after the fact. Using current digital cameras you can change the characteristics of the camera on the fly and in short order, which is just not all that easy to do with a purely manual camera.

As for the car analogy, most of the up and coming people don't understand manual transmissions. They might get a better feel for what is going on if they drive a car with paddle shifters or their equivalent. I would love to have enough money to purchase a high end car with good paddle shifters. If it is good enough for F1 then it is more than good enough for me.

---------- Post added 10-16-19 at 08:55 PM ----------

Unfortunately now if you want a manual transmission options are limited and good luck with the resale.

If you are worried about resale, then I question why you bought a car. A car, truck, SUV etc. is not an investment it is a means of transportation.

Please note: All of the cars I have owned were well over 10 years in my possession. The idea that you "invest" in a vehicle is pure folly. Vehicles do not increase in value, they are not an investment. I for one drive them until the cost of keeping them running is larger that what they are worth as trade in bait. (Current car, 2008 Subaru Impreza - less than 60K miles, previous two cars - 2002 Jaguar X-type given up in 2016 with over 160K miles - 1995 Eagle Talon traded in for the Subaru with over 170K miles) I never did give a second thought to "resale" on cars, tools, cameras, computers and other consumables.

[hadi]

A car analogy is just that an analogy, open to wide interpretation.

Most of my cars have been standard transmissions. I learned on both automatic and standard, but I just enjoyed standards more, since driving was just something we did for fun back in the day. I also used pure manual cameras for most of my photography although when aperture priority cameras came out I jumped on them. Now days I shoot AV over 99% of the time with setting the camera on manual when I am shooting in theaters for the non-profits I support. I am really thankful that digital cameras, shooting RAW, have such wide latitude that I can tweak after the fact. Using current digital cameras you can change the characteristics of the camera on the fly and in short order, which is just not all that easy to do with a purely manual camera.

As for the car analogy, most of the up and coming people don't understand manual transmissions. They might get a better feel for what is going on if they drive a car with paddle shifters or their equivalent. I would love to have enough money to purchase a high end car with good paddle shifters. If it is good enough for F1 then it is more than good enough for me.

---------- Post added 10-16-19 at 08:55 PM ----------


If you are worried about resale, then I question why you bought a car. A car, truck, SUV etc. is not an investment it is a means of transportation.

Please note: All of the cars I have owned were well over 10 years in my possession. The idea that you "invest" in a vehicle is pure folly. Vehicles do not increase in value, they are not an investment. I for one drive them until the cost of keeping them running is larger that what they are worth as trade in bait. (Current car, 2008 Subaru Impreza - less than 60K miles, previous two cars - 2002 Jaguar X-type given up in 2016 with over 160K miles - 1995 Eagle Talon traded in for the Subaru with over 170K miles) I never did give a second thought to "resale" on cars, tools, cameras, computers and other consumables.

Just playing devils advocate here, yet I buy cars to flip them and make money off of them. It does require a LOT of work, and you keep looking around, but once you find a great deal, you ride it for a few months, then flip for a a grand or two more and ultimately make more money than you put into it.

it isn't the norm though, and a lot of people would not want to go through the effort of it. But that is the only solution where buying a vehicle is 'investment'. everything else, i agree with, that it is a debt, and not the good kind (mortgage for example, being the good kind of investment/debt)

[Reality_Check]

My buddy's Sony makes a cool "pew pew" noise when he takes photos. It sounds like a sci fi laser blaster. So there's that.

This almost made me burst out laughing. Good thing I'm alone in the stalls at work at the moment.

Thanks for the laugh!!

[PentaMiCL]

Not an intrinsic benefit of mirrorless but I think having a mirrorless line that matters to the company really pushes the manufacturer to improve sensor-based AF. The change happened to Nikon as soon as they started working on Z6/7.

[ThorSanchez]

Huge benefit of mirrorless: when you look at Medusa through an EVF you're fine. Look at Medusa through an OVF and you're immediately turned to stone.

[clackers]

Huge benefit of mirrorless: when you look at Medusa through an EVF you're fine. Look at Medusa through an OVF and you're immediately turned to stone.

Buddy, there's a mirror in the OVF. It's well known that Perseus used a K-10D.

[DamienW]

"Benefits of mirrorless"...this is one of those subjective things, right?

So...for me...I have, currently in use, the Pentax K5ii, KP, K-01, MX, and Olympus E-M5 II. My son also has a Panasonic GM1.

Live View: I really like the K-01's focus peaking. On the KP, it doesn't seem to work as well for me (maybe I haven't set it up properly), and live view is clunky anyway. On the E-M5, I haven't even set up the focus peaking yet because you have to go through some menu options to do so and I haven't gotten around to it.

Size: The size of my mirrorless cameras is a big advantage...although, the mirrorless K-01 is the ugly duckling here since it still needs to have the flange distance of all other K-mount cameras. My MFT stuff benefits from the smaller sensor size, so it's not necessarily 100% down to the mirrorless factor there.

Illumination: It can be hard to see what's going on through the OVF of my KP in dark situations...my E-M5ii can still give me some detail on the EVF. That said, the EVF's do not provide the complete lack of lag that you get with an OVF.

Simplicity: Ok...on the surface, I'd say that the mirrorless are simpler, and therefore should be less prone to issues right? Not sure. It's electronic complexity vs mechanical complexity really. Of course, SLR's have picked up much of the electronic complexity anyway (except my MX, which, if you are good at guessing speed/aperture settings, can be used without any batteries whatsoever).

For me...size is probably the biggest thing. Because of that, I stick mostly to the E-M5ii when out and about, but take the KP (and a bunch of primes) if I'm out specifically to take photos. The K-01 tends only to be used for product shots and still-life at home (after all, it's still pretty big, and has no EVF anyway). This is the gear I have though...had I a Sony A7iv or something like that, then I may decide to rely solely on that camera. I've thought about selling my Pentax gear and going all in with MFT, but the photos from the Pentax are better. As I say, this might be different had I some Sony or Fuji APSC or FF gear instead.

The little Olympus is a lot of fun though, but that's only partly due to it being mirrorless. I'm probably leaning more towards mirrorless, but I still like using DSLR's. Overall, I feel like my Olympus MFT mirrorless stuff complements my APSC SLR Pentax gear nicely.

[Zooland]

I honestly think mirrorless is total gimmick right now. I have liveview with one button in K-1 and that's it.

Manufacturers are using MILC as a tool to sell people all their photostuff again in different clothing. They should instead focus on making use of short register distance but all that is happening is huge lenses weighting more than their DSLR counterpart thanks to f/1.0 disease.

You are very right about that.

[ZombieArmy]

On the KP, it doesn't seem to work as well for me (maybe I haven't set it up properly)

I think it comes down more to the fact that the KP has a substantial amount more resolution so it'll show the flaws a bit more. Though I've had some good luck with the peaking mode.