Discussion in 'Nikon' started by mark_stephan|2, Aug 6, 2019.
Hmm... interesting. Never thought of this xenophobia.
There is no xenophobia here. The reason those cameras don't satisfy my requirement is given above.
It's a highly distorted viewfinder that only works with a narrow set of focal lengths and doesn't show the correct position of the focus points until after focusing. I would have long ago bought into the Fuji system if they had made a good optical viewfinder. There should be much less distortion and the image should be less fuzzy / higher optical quality. There should be decent clearance for eyeglass users, but unfortunately there isn't. Interestigly the X100s viewfinder is quite good by comparison and I like that, it's not as good as a Nikon FX DSLR viewfinder but I found it good enough to use. But I let that go as I didn't really like their sensor/image processing and the focusing was a disappointment as well. A newer model might be worth a look, though.
You don't like EVFs. Others, including I, consider them as an essential tool. Other than display of important information, superior focusing, and use in low light, the issue is open to discussion.
I do like EVF because it gives us a quick feedback of what would be the result. The main thing that most of us still don't understand is that I also need a View Finder and EVF is not really a View Finder (reason given above). Besides it is possible to have both EVF and View Finder with mirror and prism (if you insist to have EVF)
A better way to phrase it would have been “EVF doesn’t work for how I like to shoot.”
DSLR vs. mirrorless is not an "either or" situation. I regularly use both and I frequently have 1 or 2 DSLRs plus my Z6 in my camera bag.
Neither was AF vs. manual focus 30 or so years ago, or film vs. digital 10 to 15 years ago, and for a while I also use both Nikon 35mm and Contax medium format. My primary objective is to create great images. Cameras and lenses are merely tools to achieve that objective. I am happy to manual focus or AF, use Canon, Nikon, Sony or Sigma ... to achieve better results.
I see the mirror is one thing that is currently holding back my photography. SLR lenses are compromised in their design to leave 30mm or so behind the rear element for the mirror. The mirror flapping is limiting the fps and is also generating noise and vibration. Of course, we have been tolerating those limitations for 60+ years, and we can certainly continue to do so. However, if we can remove the mirror, it is a welcome change to me, but the quality of the EVF was not satisfactory until 2, 3 years ago. Even today, I still prefer the OVF in some situations, and at least among Nikon cameras, DSLRs still give me superior AF. Therefore, I'll keep using both until the balance changes.
Shun! I apologize first if my question is going to offend you. Back in the days when you used the FE, can you focus well without the split image focusing aid?
SLRs focus with the aperture wide open, which is an advantage for phase detection sensors. Phase detection is faster and direction-sensitive, amenable to predictive control of the lens. It is also subject to focus shift when the aperture is closed down for shooting. Sony, for example, chooses to start focusing with the aperture open, then close it once focus is achieved, and keep it closed until you start over again. Below about f/5.6, contrast detection takes over, which is slower and tends to hunt.
It's a matter or priorities. I suspect focus shift can be neglected at 12 MP, but not so much at 24 MP and above.
Recall that my first SLR was a Minolta SRT-101, which was designed in the 1960's. The only focusing aid was microprism, and I was not happy with it. Back then I also had a Leica CL and I preferred the rangefinder overlapping-image focusing. A few years later I added a newer Minolta, and that had center split image with a ring of microprism around it. I thought split image was the best approach back then, and I was a teenager. In 1997 I added a Nikkormat FT3, also with split image plus a ring of microprism. That continued to the FE and FE2, until I bought my Nikon N8008 (F801) in 1989.
It is human nature to resist changes. Frequently it is more comfortable with the known and familiar, rather than leaning something new and foreign. But looking back, from the Minolta SRT-101, FT3, N8008, F5 ..., my tools for photography have been improving, something drastically. Digital photography was a major leap forward and I couldn't believe how many people resisted it 10, 15 years ago.
I don’t know how to quantify which factors contribute to this, but my Fuji mirrorlesses (currently an XH1 and an XPro2) nail more accurate focus than my D800 nine times out of ten. I don’t know if it’s just having the focus sensing integrated with the image sensor or if they have a trick for fine focusing after stop down or if the lens design minimizes focus shift or something else. (Not that the D800 is a slouch - it does more than well enough, especially with the 24-70...)
I asked because people who prefer or need the focusing aid on a SLR would prefer the mirrorless. I prefer to focus on the ground glass only without any aid. And I would accept the mirrorless only if I can focus without peaking or magnify.
My A7Riii and A9 have a 3.8 MP EVF, which makes manual focusing reliable without magnification. Peaking is only useful as a last resort, since its precision leaves much to be desired. The E7 is much better, at 5.7 MP. I do not share your confidence in ground glass focusing, mainly because I used it for 40+ years. "F/5.6 and focus" is a good rule, while f/1.4 is hit-and-miss.
If you have the time, there is no substitute for manual focusing with magnification. The EVF lets me do that effortlessly.
For now I will stay with DSLRs and SLRs because I shoot both digital and film. A matching Z film camera would make the Z cameras appealing to me.
One time I thought it would be fun to put a manual 50mm f/1.2 AiS on my old D200. It was near useless because in dim light I could never get the focus close enough. On the Z6 it's trivial. Admittedly the D200 has a DX finder, none of which are fantastic, plus the screens aren't optimized for manual focus.
My reference point for SLR finders is the F3HP (I wear glasses). Putting that side-by-side with the Z6 (just did this a few minutes ago, F3HP with 50mm f/1.4, Z6 with zoom set to 50mm- it's the f/4), I can view right to the corners with the F3HP. It's ever so slightly constricted with the Z6. Other than that, it's no contest. I'm not very aware that I'm looking at an EVF with the Z6 and the ability to see what the image will look like trumps everything else. It's easier to see details in shadow areas. It's easier to focus manually, even without aids of any type. Just brighter and easier. Swinging the camera around, you get some blur and obviously the F3HP is perfect at the speed of light, so I can see where sports and action would be better with the SLR. OTOH, some very good action has been done with the Z6/Z7, so it's not a huge deal for most people.
This from somebody who previously thought there'd never be a mirrorless in his future, and that nothing could beat an OVF.
A matching Z film camera would have to be a rangefinder with the Z mount; a Leica M style rangefinder.
It would be interesting to make a rangefinder with the Z mount as the rangefinder coupling would be 100% electronic.
Ha! I just recently wondered if you could simulate a split image in the center of a mirrorless in software. Should be just a simple firmware upgrade.
For the digital yes but someone was asking for a film camera and thus that's not possible.
Fujis do that.
Out of focus
Better. (Hard to show this while holding both the camera and the iPhone.)
Separate names with a comma.