How mature is mirrorless technology?

<p>XE-!, autofocus tracking for wildlife:)<br>

<img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-v8VxtajBqIQ/WJiKT15fWcI/AAAAAAAAB3M/It5PUDpYP7karSuGv_FthwPMW8-eD4v0QCLcB/s1600/Sloth.jpg" alt="" /></p>

However, you are correct that the X-T2 is head in the chart at certain values such as 500, 800 and 1000. - ilkka_nissila

Illka, "certain values"? I see that the x-t2 leads the D5 in DR in ALL values up to roughly 1200 iso. The x-t2 then slightly falls behind the D5 until we get to 32180 iso where the x-t2 once again surpasses the D5. For 1/3 of the iso range, a range most owners rarely use, the D5 has slightly better DR. For the remaining 2/3's, the D5 has worse DR than the x-t2. That's incredible for aps-c against a Nikon flagship and is far from certain values. Here is the chart we are qualifying our posts with: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Fujifilm%20X-T2,Nikon%20D5

It's also easy to find user comments not recommending the X-T2 for tracking moving subjects in low light because of the AF, and this is from owner-users - ilkka_nissila

I made newbie mistakes when I first started using the x-t2 and wasn't getting the optimal results that I am now. How fortunate for the internet that I didn't report those findings in the comment sections and then have others take them at face value. Setting the x-t2 up and using the AF can take a bit of a time. The AF performance also greatly depends on grip, boost mode, lens, and if FW is updated. My Fuji primes are slow yet my 10-24, 16-55 and 50-140 zooms are blazing fast. I've pegged "The Angry Photographer" as the Ken Rockwell of Youtube but he has valuable info and has saved me a ton of trial and error time setting up the AF.

When I searched for review on the topic I was only able to find videos demonstrating the X-T2's AF tracking in sunlight, not in a dimly lit medieval church which is what my concern is about (to justify spending money, I expect better performance in difficult conditions than what I have available now). Don't get me wrong - I would be happy to get the X-T2 for its silent shutter for example, to use for moments where silence is critical, but it would have to be able to handle the most difficult AF tracking in a dim chuch center corridor, using fast lenses - ilkka_nissila

The only Nikon I know of that is better than the X-t2 is the D5/D500. Maybe the D750, but I have no experience with that camera.

And no, I don't buy into the X-Trans hype, from what I've seen it performs fine at mid ISO such as 400 but the waxy skin effect on the X100s at ISO 6400 was a total show-stopper for me. - ilkka_nissila

I'm not sure why you are using the shortcomings of the X100s (x trans II) to try and knock down the x-t2 (x trans III)? The infamous smudged greens and waxy skin hasn't shown up for me on the x-t2. A little bit of research would show the new x trans III has greatly improved results over that x100s sensor.

I think the mirrorless is still in its infancy, but only time will tell.

That was stated a couple of years ago and since then the rate of evolution within mirrorless has exploded! There is a strong belief system underway for mirrorless that driven by a couple of dynamics; Size, weight, portability, image quality or impact, and a unpretentiousness. Compact camera's made their way because of their ease of transport, mirrorless is the answer to those requiring more IQ for Professional applications. So there's a top down, bottom up sensibility of mirrorless that has got the attention of the photo enthusiast. Some are referring this to, "Hype," my take is, " the attractiveness of logistics." We can thank the link to rangefinder camera's to the birth of mirrorless.

I'm considering "going mirrorless". In

particular I feel a call to Sony's Alpha7II, mainly

because I have a lot of full-frame Nikon glass that maybe I could use on it. Apart from loss of AF, any reason why not? I would probably convert to compatible glassware over time, as funds allow.

 

My previous experience with mirrorless is through

a variety of bridge cameras. No problem with using

an EVF or rear screen. In fact some of my better

composed pictures have been taken with bridges.

However those cameras generally lacked response, and battery life could be better.

 

So how do users find the latest generation of

"serious" mirrorless cameras. Do you think they're a mature technology yet? Or do we have some way

to go?

 

Maybe you feel there's room for improvement and I should wait for the A7III or some such to be announced?

 

Also, what's support for non-dedicated and off-camera flash like? (I hate that stupid Minolta/Sony non-standard hotshoe BTW)

Take a look at the photos posted at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1255248?b=2 . Many of the photos are impressive. If you have good full frame Nikon glass, losing AF is a big sacrifice. Maybe if you make the switch, go all the way, buy a A7rii and get that high resolution sensor and sell your Nikon glass and get Zeiss glass. While the Zeiss glass is expensive, look at the photos in the website I referenced and make your own decision.

Good luck with whatever you decide..

I still feel the choice in the mirrorless field is quite limited. Fairly low-res APS size sensors from Fuji (whom I feel aren't being totally honest about the sensor technology they use), or high-res full-frame from Sony. I think I'll wait and see what a few more months brings.

I'm in no hurry. My Nikon DSLRs are serving me well at present.

I'm not sure why this thread seems to have turned into a Fuji versus the rest warzone either.

A friend purchase the Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4 for his A7 II yesterday. Hardly any space for my fingers between the lens and the grip. Very much prefer to use the D810 with Nikon 16-35 instead, even if a bit heavier than the Sony combo (not all that much though) and certainly a bit larger (which I consider an advantage in this case). <br><br>

Since I had a couple of old cameras and lens depreciating on the shelf, and before the original A7's trade-in value drops to new lows (once the A7 III is announced), I took advantage of the current discount and trade-in bonus to upgrade to the A7 II. Will find out in the next few days how much of an upgrade it really is. ;)

"Mature, for me, means it will be at the Olympics, NBA, and race tracks. If it is not, it is therefore still in its infancy. Or adolescence"

OK, mature = professional

maybe it's the lens that's important

for the rest of us with day jobs mirrorless has arrived

"I think 24 MP is the current high spot on all APC sized sensors. " - Exactly! That's low-res compared to the 36, 42 or 50 megapixels that are becoming the norm for full-frame sensors.

The Sony A7rii is a full-frame sensor camera. In that context, how are my statements not making sense?

Any way you cut it. APS-C just can't compete on sheer IQ with a larger sensor. I've ruled DX sized sensors out of my equation. So can we drop that debate please?

"I think 24 MP is the current high spot on all APC sized sensors. " - Exactly! That's low-res compared to the 36, 42 or 50 megapixels

It seems that if the camera doesn't have the highest in MP your not interested. Get the highest MP camera then, problem solved!

In that context, how are my statements not making sense? Any way you cut it. APS-C just can't compete on sheer IQ with a larger sensor. I've ruled DX sized sensors out of my equation. So can we drop that debate please?

Every time I hear this, I'm reminded of that hilarious

Zack Arias "crop vs. crap" video

Pixel count is not the be-all and end-all, as we all know. If you're doing high-end work, of course you probably should use a MFD kit - even an outdated one. I'm very happy with APS-C sensors, and in fact the new Fujis are better than most 'full frame' DSLRs.

Edit: Actually the new crop (pun intended) of Micro 4/3 cameras are brilliant. They could easily replace bigger cameras for news photography.

'Every time I hear this, I'm reminded of that hilarious Zack Arias "crop vs. crap" video'

Some sane perspective, thanks Eric

'Every time I hear this, I'm reminded of that hilarious Zack Arias "crop vs. crap" video' Some sane perspective, thanks Eric

You're very welcome, uhooru

Well, I think Zack Arias' opinion is negligible or "neg-lidge-able" in his own words.

Just use your eyes. Full-frame beats crop. Full stop, end of. For other reasons than pure megapixels. Bokeh, for one. There's a greater leap in the "look" of full-frame versus APS than there is in going from full-frame to a 44x33mm sensor. Leaving aside the ridiculous cost of so-called medium format digital.

APS and smaller formats have their place for reasons of greater DoF and inbuilt magnification. If I'm doing macro or telephoto, then a smaller format is definitely what I'm going to reach for. For sheer quality I'd rather go up a size thanks.

What I don't need is a flipping mirror, that's all.

So it seems that mirrorless technology might be more mature than the snide attitude of some of its users.

I feel a call to Sony's Alpha7II, mainly because I have a lot of full-frame Nikon glass that maybe I could use on it.

After five pages of discussion, it appears that you actually felt the call of the A7RII since it seems to be all about more pixels. If you indeed plan on using your Nikon glass, then there will be only a very slight (one pound or thereabouts) savings in weight and you should see some image improvements over the D800 you have. Given that both the D810 and the A7RII will likely see a replacement in 2017, it seems best to actually wait and see.