Originally posted by richandfleur Took some pictures at Whanganui Virginia Lake recently, and the DLSR is a right pain for any down low type shots.
Call me nitpicker, but it wasn't the DSLR that caused you the pain.
It didn't matter in this instance whether the viewfinder was optical or electronic; what would have helped the most is an articulating back LCD.
I found the K-1's LCD very helpful in this regard, noting that there are of course other (arguably less robust) solutions that support more extreme angles and more degrees of freedom.
Originally posted by richandfleur I love the optical viewfinder, but there are times when I use the DSLR in 'mirrorless mode' that I wonder why I just don't have a mirrorless in the first place.
Well, the reasons to not have a mirrorless in the first place would be (not trying to be exhaustive):
- wanting to avoid an EVF.
- not wanting to lose money when switching a complete system.
- wanting to avoid the intrinsic weaknesses of mirrorless cameras.
There is quite a bit to say about 3.; from the top of my head I'll just mention, potential striping and banding issues (due to OSPDAF), reduced battery life, worse ergonomics (if the camera is optimised to be compact), not saving in weight overall once extra batteries and multiple high-quality lenses are considered.
On the plus side, many mirrorless cameras do a lot(!) better in the video department than any Pentax DSLR and probably than most DSLRs, as they are trying to cover videographers as well as photographers.
Originally posted by richandfleur Newer EVFs are supposed to be a lot better, and the tech will only continue to improve over time.
Well, I'd highly recommend to try for yourself.
I recently tried the EVFs of a Fuji GFX 50S (USD $6500) and a Fuji X-H1 -- I don't have any interest in these cameras, I just wanted to learn about the state of the art of EVFs -- and the experience was really bad. First of all, there is the whitebalance issue; a room lit with artificial light that doesn't come from incandescent light bulbs just looks horrible, in my view. Of course you can adjust the whitebalance, but that's extra effort and my day would already be ruined.
There is also an unnatural brightness to the viewfinder and an artificial look that turns me off. For me personally, photography is not only about the results but also about the process and (just my personal problem) I wouldn't be able to find enjoyment in working with one of the current EVFs.
Also, note that on the X-H1, the viewfinder would sometimes just stutter a bit, similar to a micro stutter when playing games, but I'd call it a "mini stutter" or just plain "stutter" because it was quite off putting. The GFX 50S only showed the same stuttering when I was using AF. So yes, both cameras showed consistent, discrete lag, when I made them AF on something. It was like playing a bad video game, as opposed to photography. You get no idea how the experience really is from reading about EVFs, on DPReview for instance.
I haven't experienced this myself and perhaps it is a problem of the past, but some Sony models decrease the EVF resolution when they cannot keep up anymore (yuck). A definitely still current problem is that the EVF refresh rate completely tanks on some models when using burst mode. I'd be surprised if during the next Olympic games all the white lenses we are so used to seeing at the sidelines, will be replaced with mirrorless equivalents. The technology is not there yet, in my opinion. Note that even Rishi Sanyal wrote "
telephoto performance of adapted lenses is still quite poor (outside of the central region)." about a recent Sony model. I don't know how performance is on native telephoto lenses, but I do know that most mirrorless systems are not competitive in terms of what they offer in the long focal length range.
If these downsides don't matter to you then you'd just enjoy the perks of EVFs, such as being immediately able to see whether the image is exposed correctly, or having much better support for manual focus (as you can zoom in while having the camera to your eye). There may be more advantages, I'm not trying to be comprehensive here with my pros and cons; just trying to throw in some considerations that one does not always see emphasised in the mirrorless-friendly press.
Originally posted by richandfleur Autofocus can be right across the frame too, so tracking AF in a mirrorless seems much better than what my K-3 can do.
I don't want to disagree, but just bear in mind that AF point coverage and AF tracking performance are separate concerns. Not entirely unrelated, but still separate from each other.
There are a number of DSLRs which have much better AF tracking performance than your K-3. A K-1 II may even provide a useful increment (but still wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the DSLR game). Nikon's "3D" tracking is apparently very good in keeping a subject in focus even if it moves within the frame (within reasonable limits). So losing the focus on the goose wouldn't happen with a top-end Nikon, I'm quite sure of that.
Pentax has a rather poor version of that "3D" tracking; never tried it myself as I haven't shot anything moving with my K-1 yet.
I'm pretty sure there are also some DSLRs with a wider AF frame coverage, but none will compete with what mirrorless models can offer.
No free lunch though, as the OSPDAF may not be useful anymore in low light and can produce artefacts like striping and banding, as I mentioned before.
Also, bear in mind that "mirrorless" does not equate to good tracking. There are many older mirrorless models which are pretty bad at tracking. Even a modern model with OSPDAF may not be that competitive, if it doesn't have the computing power to keep up. I don't trust the mirrorless-friendly press to provide us with reliable information on that subject. If I went mirrorless, I'd consult reliable sources about which model can actually cut the mustard.
Originally posted by richandfleur I guess just saying there are limitations either which way you go.
Definitely!
It's a game of trade offs. Mirrorless cameras definitely have advantages. I think the (almost) complete liberty where to put the focus point without worrying that non-centre AF points may be "out" a bit, or just the reduced (but not completely eliminated) need for AF micro adjustments would be very nice to have. I'd also enjoy the better manual focus support.
However, there are also downsides and I highly recommend to try a camera for yourself before you make the jump.
Originally posted by richandfleur I am keen so see what improvement Pentax may bring to future cameras though, and hope it fits some of my requirements.
Same here! I hope they'll create a nice successor to the K-1 (II)!
Last edited by Class A; 01-08-2019 at 12:46 AM.