[audiobomber]

That's a niche feature, useful primarily to action photographers. On mirrorless cameras it's worse than a niche feature --- it's a "paper" feature, since it's largely useless on a mirrorless camera (because mirrorless systems are woefully lacking in the type of lenses needed for action photography).

Not only lenses. The Mirrorless "slide show" when shooting at 8+fps makes the camera virtually useless for action.

[osv]

Not only lenses. The Mirrorless "slide show" when shooting at 8+fps makes the camera virtually useless for action.

agreed that mirrorless could be virtually useless for people who don't know how to operate cameras, but i've been able to somehow work around it on the a7r, at 600mm



---------- Post added 10-01-15 at 04:56 PM ----------

another a7r shot, 1/2500th at 600mm, the lens and adapter cost me $1129? gosh, i wish that i would have listened to pentaxforums crop experts, telling me that it couldn't be done with mirrorless, i wouldn't have even tried

[Rondec]

In the end, EVF versus OVF seems to be a matter of taste. I prefer an OVF myself, but depending on what you are used to, you may prefer an EVF. Certainly most folks who shoot a lot of action seem to prefer an OVF.

All of these cameras are decently sized once you consider the lens. I very much doubt that Osv has saved much size by mounting his 600mm lens on a mirrorless camera rather than on a traditional SLR. I certainly don't know many folks who have elected to purchase a mirrorless camera, most I know have gone for an SLR, but it does seem like there is less call to upgrade. There are no killer features on new SLRs that would make me want a new one before my current ones are worn out.

I expect the mirrorless market to plateau, unless somehow it ends up being cheaper to make than traditional SLRs. Certainly it hasn't been cheaper so far and Sonys lenses are pretty steep to boot.

[audiobomber]

[/COLOR]another a7r shot, 1/2500th at 600mm, the lens and adapter cost me $1129? gosh, i wish that i would have listened to pentaxforums crop experts, telling me that it couldn't be done with mirrorless, i wouldn't have even tried

Sorry, I'm not impressed at all. I could have shot those at 1fps and MF. I'm talking about reeling off a couple of dozen shots at a quickly moving target. With MILC, your view is of the last shot you took instead of the actual position of the target. NFG.

[osv]

Sorry, I'm not impressed at all. I could have shot those at 1fps and MF..

and yet we aren't seeing any pics in your post that would prove that you shot surfing at 600mm, using mf, now are we...

your exact words were "makes the camera virtually useless for action", and i just proved that you were wrong.

need to see more? because i got better shots than that.

With MILC, your view is of the last shot you took instead of the actual position of the target.

no, the evf goes dark between shots... the real problem here is that *you* can't shoot action unless you have a spray 'n pray camera

---------- Post added 10-01-15 at 07:30 PM ----------

I very much doubt that Osv has saved much size by mounting his 600mm lens on a mirrorless camera rather than on a traditional SLR.

that's true, the lens overwhelmed everything else, and when af is set to go off at half-press on the shutter, i'd rather be doing that shutter function with the old k10d shutter, it just feels more predictable... i really don't like the a7r shutter button for af use, it's every bit as bad as i expected it would be.

point is that mirrorless can deliver action shots in a big way, if you know how to use it, even if it's not ideal.

sony ff mirrorless is way overpriced, however... when a nice camera like the k3 costs half as much as a nikon crop camera with similar pq...

[audiobomber]

and yet we aren't seeing any pics in your post that would prove that you shot surfing at 600mm, using mf, now are we...

your exact words were "makes the camera virtually useless for action", and i just proved that you were wrong...

You proved no such thing. Shooting an action frame or two in focus is no feat. Shooting a sequence is a feat, and a MILC is the wrong tool due to the slide show. With an OVF I can track the subject with my vision, no problem. With a MILC, I can't because I keep seeing the last shot instead of the subject.

Here you go, MF, 675mm equivalent (FA 300mm f4 and Kenko 1.5X TC). I've also shot sports with this combo, but it can't compare to a K-3/DA*300/1.4X TC for action. Nor can your Sony.

[osv]

You proved no such thing.

your exact words were "makes the camera virtually useless for action", and i'll again prove that you are wrong.

fyi, bif is not action sports because there is no decisive moment with panning a bif shot... you have no clue what it takes to shoot action.

this is the perfect decisive moment, notice how both feet are off of the board... if mirrorless was "virtually useless" how did i capture that? tell us how your noob spray 'n pray would have improved this shot...

---

Last edited by osv; 10-22-2015 at 08:16 AM.

[northcoastgreg]

You're telling me that no-one with a DSLR gets 'G.A.S.'?

Where did I ever say such a thing? I merely said "the majority of serious photographers" are pragmatists rather than neophiles. Majority could mean 50% plus one. It certaintly doesn't mean "no one." You just didn't read my post carefully enough and then, perhaps because you didn't like the general tenor of it, you misinterpreted it.

In fact the bit I have put in bold is absolute tosh.

Do you happen to know anything about social psychology or behavioral economics? I didn't think so.

I have the A7RII, but I also have the 645Z and a Canon DSLR that is on permanent loan to my brother in law. I also have 3 film cameras. I'm not the gollum of the photographic world, so which camp do I sit in?

You obviously don't sit in any camp. You're sui generis. You do realize that many (if not most) serious photographers can't afford an A7RII, let alone a 645Z?

If I were rich, I'd probably get a 645z and an A7RII as well. Why not? But I don't make the mistake of assuming everyone thinks like me.

Yes mirrorless is relatively infantile, but that is not to say that it won't mature. I remember a similar discussion when digital first became mainstream... we know how that one transpired...film is still there but is a minority.

The advantages of digital in relation to film were much greater than the advantages of mirrorless in relation to DSLRs, so the analogy does not really hold. Furthermore, digital technology wasn't really all that disruptive or expensive. Nearly everyone in the market for a camera already owned a personal computer. If they owned film gear, all they needed was to buy either a wide angle zoom or a standard zoom and they were done. The rest of their lenses they could continue to use on their digital cameras, sans adapters or ergonomic maladroitness. And to cap it all off, the transition to digital occurred (mostly) during an economic boom period, when consumer confidence was high, and consumer purchasing power readily attainable. If the move to digital required (1) everyone to replace all their lenses (to retain fully functioning AF and avoid the kludginess of adapters) and many of their accessories and (2) was undertaken during a period of economic decline, eroding consumer confidence, and massive debt, we would have more people, maybe many more people, still shooting film today.

[itshimitis]

Where did I ever say such a thing? I merely said "the majority of serious photographers" are pragmatists rather than neophiles. Majority could mean 50% plus one. It certaintly doesn't mean "no one." You just didn't read my post carefully enough and then, perhaps because you didn't like the general tenor of it, you misinterpreted it.

You suggested that all MILC were neophiles. I was making the point that that is an erroneous argument.



Do you happen to know anything about social psychology or behavioral economics? I didn't think so.
Yes. I used to sell consumer devices - cellphones to people so do understand the whole 'shiny, new' psychology. I sold using other skills - these sales passed the investigation by SWMBO when the customer got home.



You obviously don't sit in any camp. You're sui generis. You do realize that many (if not most) serious photographers can't afford an A7RII, let alone a 645Z?

If I were rich, I'd probably get a 645z and an A7RII as well. Why not? But I don't make the mistake of assuming everyone thinks like me.

I do understand that I am fortunate enough to be able to afford both cameras, but then I have no other vices that other people have. I don't smoke, I don't drink that much and don't buy brand new cars. I work in a feast or famine industry and buy my gear in feast time and trade in when times aren't as great. But that wasn't my point. My point was that you were making generalisations about buyers of MILC and DSLRs and suggesting that DSLR owners don't get G.A.S. If you think you didn't say that, then I suggest you re read your post yourself.



The advantages of digital in relation to film were much greater than the advantages of mirrorless in relation to DSLRs, so the analogy does not really hold. Furthermore, digital technology wasn't really all that disruptive or expensive. Nearly everyone in the market for a camera already owned a personal computer. If they owned film gear, all they needed was to buy either a wide angle zoom or a standard zoom and they were done. The rest of their lenses they could continue to use on their digital cameras, sans adapters or ergonomic maladroitness. And to cap it all off, the transition to digital occurred (mostly) during an economic boom period, when consumer confidence was high, and consumer purchasing power readily attainable. If the move to digital required (1) everyone to replace all their lenses (to retain fully functioning AF and avoid the kludginess of adapters) and many of their accessories and (2) was undertaken during a period of economic decline, eroding consumer confidence, and massive debt, we would have more people, maybe many more people, still shooting film today.

Using big words makes you look intelligent only to yourself. Once people have to reach for a dictionary, you've already lost the argument. Try skipping the flannel next time.

In the words of Rudyard Kipling: "don’t look too good, nor talk too wise"

[audiobomber]

tell us how your noob spray 'n pray would have improved this shot...

Yeah, cause a pro sports shooter would never use a DSLR or high continuous fps.

[itshimitis]

I will agree that MILC isn't yet ready for sport/action at the highest level.

[D1N0]

@osv No exif. Could be any camera.

[osv]

you've already lost the argument.

northcoastgreg lost the argument before he posted, because he's never shot a ff digital camera.

---------- Post added 10-02-15 at 11:48 AM ----------

@osv No exif. Could be any camera.

here is the OOC jpeg from one of the shots above, it has full exif:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/z8ocokc6vfobzux/DSC04797.JPG?dl

---------- Post added 10-02-15 at 11:57 AM ----------

Yeah, cause a pro sports shooter would never use a DSLR or high continuous fps.

[Doundounba]

This rumor is pretty persistent. Just reappeared from new sources at Mirrorless Rumors: Samsung will really kill the NX camera system.

[D1N0]

More than one korean source this time: Google Translate