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 21:11:04 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 103
Message-ID: <outdjo$9md$>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 02:11:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="fd61e976093da4130c44652eb24082a6";
logging-data="9933"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TGL79zyC4UL+pJBR0gxvG2mNfTypDm8I="
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:PGeE/lfjdfR1afOg9TF+cZYK3n4=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/19/2017 8:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2017, Neil wrote
> (in article <out9g5$l0i$>):
>> 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.
> I have never been a video shooter, and even now that I have 4K available in
> the X-T2 video is the least of my priorities.
The point I was trying to make is that functional EVF technology 
pre-existed digital still cameras by decades, so there was no excuse for 
the way they were implemented.

> My first experience with an EVF was a Nikon Coolpix 5700. That had a tiny,
> and barely functional EVF, and I very quickly decided that generation of EVF
> was not for me, so I made the move to DSLR, and back to OVF. I was also still
> shooting film in an SLR, and a rangefinder with manual focus only back then.
I was primarily an SLR user, Olympus OM1 & OM4, Leica R5, and Rolleiflex 
TLR, later a 6008i (in hopes of a decent digital back being available), 
all with prime lenses. Those are the standards that I compare with 
digital options, and have yet to find one I like.

OTOH, there are several P&S cams that I think are decent. I took my Oly 
TG-4 to the Galapagos last year and got many shots that would not have 
been easy with a DSLR.

>> 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.
> As I have said, I am primarily a still photographer, not video, and these
> days I find myself shooting primes, and using MF as much as I use AF
> depending on circumstances, and subject matter. AF-C is pretty much a default
> for any kind of action photography of any type for me.
> Today I have several prime lenses where my absolute preference is to use
> manual focus via EVF with the focus aids such as digital split-image, and
> focus peaking (my prefered MF method) Fujifilm provides me.
> I am still not a fan of manual focus with any of my DSLRs, but I can see
> where it would be valuable in macro photography with techniques such as focus
> stacking, and utilization of a focus rail come into play.

best regards,