Subject: Re: Thread shows how DSLR's have fallen compared to mirrorless
Full headers:
From: Neil <>
Subject: Re: Thread shows how DSLRs have fallen compared to mirrorless
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 20:00:53 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Message-ID: <out9g5$l0i$>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 01:00:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="fd61e976093da4130c44652eb24082a6";
logging-data="21522"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Z2jLQ5aMAxeBqcdQcOZkVHeVS8nCNogc="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QQfvtnEf231sohtBsXKZyCzvNQI=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/19/2017 7:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2017, RichA wrote
> (in article<>):
>> Shooting with a DSLR, trying to manually focus with an OVF and controlling
>> blur-inducing problems caused by mirror-slap and the like is trying to say
>> the least.
>> Nikon's focus confirmation works pretty well, but not as well as using a
>> magnified image in a top-grade EVF. 40+mp on a DSLR might not be the smartest
>> thing to go with if an equivalent mirrorless is available and you want the
>> sharpest image. Of course, DSLR's still have the best focusing for a moving
>> subject and action, but then no action shot ever makes full use of top pixel
>> counts anyway. Put it another way, you just paid $3500 for a lens capable and
>> built for resolution, why sabotage it down to the level of a $400 lens?
> Regardless of the technical details of that article and subsequent debate, I
> can only speak to my experience.
> With my old SLR’s with focus screen and/or split-image, and rangefinders
> with traditional split-image focusing I was quite happy to have nothing but
> manual focus.
> Then came my various compacts, and DSLRs with autofocus none of which
> provided manual focus I felt I could truly rely on.So with my Nikon DSLRs,
> Fuji E900, and Canon G11 I always used AF, and never considered MF. Nturally
> I had my fair share of rejects due to bad AF focus acquisition.
> Then I moved to Fujifilm mirrorless with EVF where manual assist is,Peak
> Focusing or electronic split-image. My preference is for Peak focusing which
> make manual focusing very accurate, and a breeze, and now that I can rely on
> that accuracy, I find that I really enjoy using manual focus. With my
> X-series mirrorless, EVF cameras, when I am not pressed for time, I find that
> it is simple to confirm AF by checking with manual override peak focus when I
> have AF+MF set in shooting preferences.
> I am sure that AF in newer DSLRs such as the D500, or D850 is superb, but I
> have been spoilt with what an EVF delivers these days.
IMO, it's a more complex problem than EVF resolution. Throughout the 
'70s I was doing a lot of video production. Video cameras had EVFs at 
comparatively very low resolution (640x480), but that didn't hamper 
manual focus in the least. The video cams' EVFs also displayed exposure 
and other image qualities via "zebra stripes" and such. By comparison, 
digital cameras with EVFs were useless toys to me because they lacked 
these sophistications from decades earlier.

Another issue along those lines is that the video cameras had zoom 
lenses, not the varifocal lenses that came with the digital cameras. 
Varifocals are a PITA, and since manual focus lenses work(ed) so poorly 
on those cameras (DSLRs included) the overall experience was a real 
turn-off for me.

best regards,