How mature is mirrorless technology?

Discussion in 'Mirrorless Digital Cameras' started by rodeo_joe|1, Jan 29, 2017.

  1. 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)
     
  2. Quite mature I guess but I don't think there is a camera that's suited for all occasions. There are different needs when you shoot for the web or sports or full blown posters. Mirrorless fits into this equation, they have their strengths and weaknesses. As long as you realize this and see if it fits your needs they are ok.
    With regard of the hotshoe, hasn't Sony gone back to the standard one with a contact in the middle?
     
  3. As you say, you have a lot of Nikon lenses, and I assume that you like these lenses because you still want to use them. In that case, I would choose a Nikon DSLR because it is the best fit for your lenses, and a Nikon DSLR is not much more expensive than the A7II. It is like my case, I like the Pentax K lenses and that's why I use Pentax DSLR even though the lens can be used in some way on other cameras.
    I don't like the design of Sony cameras but I assume that you do. In that case I would use the lenses that best fit for the Sony's cameras.
     
  4. I think mirrorless is a "mature" technology. For Sony you would eventually want to get Sony lenses and flash, same with Fuji and Olympus systems. For Canon the latest mirrorless M5 apparently works well with older EF and EF-S lens and flashes but it's a crop model,
     
  5. Absolutely. DSLRs still have some strengths in niche areas, but that won't be for long. All but high-end DSLRs should be dead by now, but buying habits lag behind technological progress. Still, everyone has their tastes, and the market caters to those tastes.
    The day will come when integrated cameras like the RX10 can replace system cameras for the press, such as those assigned to cover the Olympic games. It sounds ludicrous, but then nobody believed the rumours that the A7s was to have a maximum ISO of 400,000.
    Me, I have not updated my NEX bodies recently. The newest camera I own is an NEX-6. I had an A7 but I sold it as I rarely used it. I personally like the APS-C (half-frame) sensor with 135 format SLR lenses. Some like to use a Speedbooster or some other type of focal length reducer, but I don't. If I had to shoot, say, football, or birds, I'd first go for the A6500, then perhaps the OM-D E-M1 II.
    I'm not sure what my next camera will be. A6500? E-M1 II? XT-2? TL? So much choice.
     
  6. I would say the autofocus on my Fuji XT10 is not quite as good as it is my Nikon D50 but very close.
     
  7. going mirrorless". In particular I feel a call to Sony's Alpha7II​
    What do you think the A7II can do that, for example, a Nikon D750 can't? What are the advantages you expect? Just the 200g loss in weight (at least partially eaten up by the extra batteries you most certainly will need to carry)? Is video important to you? Unless you are indeed planning to exchange your lenses, you seem to me to lose more than you could possibly gain.
    I have seriously contemplated a move from Nikon to Sony when the A7 was released. I have since come to the conclusion that the grass isn't greener on that side of the fence and that such a move gains me less than I stand to lose. I have an A7 that I use with some manual focus M-mount lenses, and recently added two Sony FE lenses to the bag to add utility to the system. I have not and will not adapt my Nikon lenses though and have no plans on extending the Sony system further.
    from loss of AF​
    At least one adapter is now out there that enables AF of Nikon AF-S lenses on a Sony E-mount cameras though they seem to be some distance away from maturity.
    In terms of handling, I find it quite difficult to adapt from using a Nikon DSLR to using a Sony mirrorless; getting used to the Sony AF setup still is my biggest challenge. I only have a first generation A7, so things have likely improved with the A7II.
    should wait for the A7III or some such to be announced​
    Most definitely as I fully expect a A7III to be announced in 2017 - and a D750 successor as well.
    Re: flash. I don't like that proprietary interface either and purchased one Sony flash, ended up never using it and eventually sold it. AFAIK, one needs to resort to third party radio triggers to get a decent off-camera flash system set up.
     
  8. My transition from Nikon to Sony is complete, and I'm not looking back. There are some things a DSLR does better than the Sony A7, but not things that are essential to the situations I deal with. On the other hand, I find the Sony's in-body image stabilization (IBIS) and silent shutter (A7Rii) of utmost importance. Focusing, both manual and automatic, is superior in the Sony, and the total weight of my "kit" to do the same things is 40% less than with the Nikon. Twice the resolution of a flagship Nikon (more, considering there is no AA filter), is a bonus feature, moving well into medium format territory. If I did sports and action photos, my choice might be different, and my needs are not necessarily your needs.
    Single-servo focusing is just as fast in the Sony as Nikon. Where Nikon excels is in continuous focusing and tracking. Tracking is held back in the Sony due to engineering decisions, easily fixed in firmware. Nikon has a faster continuous frame rate, 12 v 5, but Sony easily compensates with 4K video, which captures 10 MP images at 60/sec.
    With adapters, it is easy to use Nikon lenses on the Sony. Some adapters allow auto-focusing with AF-S lenses and aperture control with G and E diaphragms. I started out using my existing Leica and Nikon lenses, but have now replaced them with Sony/Zeiss equivalents. Dedicated lenses let me use automation features on the Sony, and are generally smaller, lighter and have much better image quality than DSLR lenses. The need for such a long back focus in a DSLR imposes compromises in optical and mechanical design that are only partially overcome. It is important to note that you can use legacy lenses with good results. You don't have to start from scratch.
    You can use a Nikon flash on the Sony A7, without any special adapter. It's mostly manual, although you can use the flash's built-in photocell for automatic exposure. I used my Sony for over a year before buying a dedicated flash. The high ISO capability and wide dynamic range works exceptionally well under natural light. However there are times a flash is best. A dedicated flash is highly automated and works even better than the Nikon system (on Nikon), which is saying a lot. My radio triggers work directly on the flash shoe. I alway use manual flash for off-camera and multiple unit work. It's far easier to use a flash meter and a few test shots than to fiddle with TTL. Sony did release a TTL system last year, but I'm not interested.
    A mirrorless camera with an electronic viewfinder places a lot more demand on the battery than a DSLR, which is largely passive. Furthermore the batteries are smaller, 1050 MaH compared to over 5000. In practice, I get about 2 hours or 300 images per charge. Batteries weigh all of 12 grams, so carrying a few extras is not a big deal. At $50 each for Sony brand (half that for no-name), they aren't a financial burden either. For extended use, I can power the A7Rii through its USB port. This is useful for extended video shooting or event portraits. I can run all day (> 8 hours) using a 20,000 MaH battery pack, with room to spare.
     
  9. I find the Sony A7 series to be wonderful cameras. Top-notch image quality. Super adaptable to manual focus lenses. Great native glass. I have zero regrets leaving my Nikon D800 and Canon 5D MkIII DSLR systems behind for my personal work. The light and compact nature means I carry it more. This is no small advantage. My very first impressions of the A7 are HERE
     
  10. I use six manual focus SLR Nikkors with my A7. For my kind of work (no sports) they are adequate. The flash I use with the A7 is an Olympus FL-36, which has a sensor of its own. I use an extension cord for off camera work.
     
  11. Batteries weigh all of 12 grams​
    Edward. your scale needs calibration; the Sony A7 battery (NP-FW50) is 42g. And, as already established in previous threads, your claimed 40% reduction in weight going from Nikon to Sony does not take into account the boat anchor and kitchen sink that were in your Nikon bag and didn't make it into the Sony one and certainly did not compare apples to apples.
    At $50 each for Sony brand (half that for no-name), they aren't a financial burden either.​
    Not that Nikon's EL-EN15 is any more expensive (or larger), it just lasts about 4-5 times as long. You are probably thinking of the larger Nikon EN-EL18 for Nikon's pro-level bodies (and some external battery grips). I had one non-Sony battery and recently had to throw it out when it started to swell and was hard and insert and remove from the battery chamber. Not taking the risk with third-party batteries anymore.
    Dedicated lenses ... are generally smaller, lighter ...​
    Some are and some aren't. And for some, I can't shake the feeling that they are still the large-flange-distance designs and not specifically designed for the smaller one of the mirrorless bodies.
     
  12. No maturity in mirrorless cameras regarding battery life lets hope! We can beat this up all day as its hard pressed to find a list of reasons not to go mirrorless. The energy and resources pouring into mirrorless is obvious as the advances have become a spectator sport in of itself. Amazing the rapidity of features in tech from release to release. The reasons for eliminating the mirror have been a known, known for how many years now? The mirror, I think will find its way to obsolescence.
     
  13. My scale is correct, my memory was not. Still an extra 200 grams is not a deal-breaker. With regards to Nikon, my only frame of reference is a series of pro-level bodies, starting with a D1x. With regard to total weight, I used my postal scale.
    My Nikon "kit" consisted of a 17-25/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 300/4, a D3 body, flash and miscellaneous brackets and hardware. Together with the backpack, it weighs 30-35 pounds, depending on the deployment. I carry what I feel I need, based on what I have needed in the past.
    My Sony kit consists of an A7Rii, A7ii, 16-35/4, 24-70/2.8 (a useful boat anchor), 70-200/4, Loxia 35/2, Loxia 50/2, Basis 25/2, Basis 85/1.8, flash and miscellaneous brackets and gadgets, weighing just over 20 pounds. Much of the savings is selecting f/4 zoom lenses rather than f/2.8, supplemented by fast primes. F/2.8 zooms are necessarily large and heavy, with little difference between the mirrorless and DSLR variety. The small ThinkTank backpack fits easily under the seat in an airline, whereas the larger Nikon kit only in the overhead.
    There's another important benefit of mirrorless. The Sony cameras have a self-cleaning sensor, which has been highly effective. It is an adjunct of the IBIS mechanism. In the last two years, I've only needed to clean it manually on two occasions. With Nikon, it's required every three weeks.
     
  14. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    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?​

    For me, it's not about the technology, it's about the glass. And Fuji has it over Sony. And Nikon for that matter. My Fuji 10-24, 16-55, and 50-140 zooms are better than my equivalent Nikon trinity set of zooms in terms of sharpness and image stabilization. The Fuji 56 f1.2 and 90 f2 are top notch primes! Fuji has been making lenses for some of the biggest names in cine and still photography for decades.

    I finally tested the waters with the Fuji x-t1 a year ago and it soon became my main camera. If I needed faster AF or my mini-studio with Nikon sb speedlights and pocket wizard tt5 ac3 system, then I would revert back to a Nikon dlsr. I've now had the x-t2 since Sept and the AF is faster than all my Nikons and consequently have started selling off my Nikon gear. I keep one Nikon dslr simply because I sometimes have to set up three sb speedlights into softboxes for a location portrait. It wont be long though before Fuji catches up in the ttl flash dept.

    I don't shoot jpg but apparently they are the best SOOC jpgs on the market. The raws from the the Fuji take less massaging in post than the dull flat Nikon nefs do. Customer service with Fuji is outstanding and there is almost no need for a Fuji Pro Service as more time is spent in transit than actually at Fuji. This is amazing and I'm not used to that turnaround. This can not be said for Sony. Or Nikon. The wifi app for Fuji to Android phones is brilliant compared to anything else I've used. Sometimes I have to put my camera in sensitive areas with sensitive people so I put it on a tripod, walk away, open my phone, and I get live view on my phone. I can control almost all functions of the camera and with the silent electronic shutter, everyone is happy! So you've asked if the technology is here yet? In my opinion, not only is it here, but it has surpassed Nikon and Canon.
     
  15. From reading Rodeo Joe's original post, I get the impression that he is only considering full frame but I may be wrong about that. If indeed the case, then the only mirrorless options are Leica and Sony and the latter is the only one mentioned. Staying within the realm of Sony vs Nikon, the decision is not as clear cut as many make it appear here (by comparing to APS-C or even m4/3 mirrorless). IMHO there is very little gained by moving from FX Nikon to a Sony A7 camera IF one doesn't also change the lenses (like Edward did).
    With regard to APS-C (DX), things are different as Nikon doesn't provide even a modicum of DX lenses whereas Fuji and Sony have a couple more lenses to choose from. Adapting Nikon FX lenses to DX bodies already brings up issues, doing it with non-Nikon cameras doesn't make much sense to me (given that Nikon has quite good DX camera bodies).
     
  16. With each generation it would seem that any inherent limitations are either resolved or ameliorated. Remember that Moore's law in mirrorless also applies. If something can be fixed with software it will be fixed and that seems to be the way of things with mirrorless. We thought that a glass prism viewfinder was the only way to go and now OLEDs and the processing speed has made them even better. And seeing all we need in the finder has been a joy. Hard to go back to the pentaprism mirror combination. Live view is so nice. I would say it is time to try mirrorless as so many of us have, RJ.
     
  17. I would only be interested in a full-frame body,
    which eliminates Fuji (for the present), despite the
    excellent reputation of its lenses and build-quality.
    Although I have reservations about their pointless
    tinkering with sensor geometry, while retaining the
    crazy surplus of green sensors - just like a Bayer
    matrix.

    I'm not sure how the resolution of the A7ii is made
    out to be remarkably greater than my D800. Maybe
    by 10% or so, and that would be very lens
    dependant. However I'm interested to hear that
    adapters are available that retain AF and auto-aperture. That's gratifying news.

    I must admit to being grossly dissatisfied with
    Nikon's AF performance. It seems to miss more
    than it hits, unless you chance on a lucky
    combination of lens and camera body. AF fine-tune is just a fudge to overcome manufacturing sloppiness IMO.

    Nikon's VR is nothing to shout about either, and that's becoming more important to me as I get older and more shaky. Any drop in equipment weight is also welcome.

    All that said, my main interest in mirrorless is
    because I see it as a more logical use of digital
    sensors, with no need for a cumbersome moving
    mirror/gg screen and pentaprism to place restrictions on metering, AF and lens
    design. As well as introducing added vibration and
    limiting frame rate. While the added mechanical complexity must compromise reliability.

    Since I find myself using my DSLRs in Live View mode about half the time, it seems a logical step to "pare down" the mechanics of the camera to only what I find essential. But as a long-time SLR and DSLR user I'm a bit apprehensive about jumping ship to mirrorless.
     
  18. I've been using mirrorless for years now, with an EVF on about half of the cameras I've bought. For the first time, with my Olympus OM-D MD5 II (which replaced my original MD5), the EVF is as good as it needs to be, which, for me, means as good as an SLR.
    So, for me, mirrorless is now mature. (As Thom Hogan says, mirrorless and SLR aren't two different kinds of cameras. Only their viewing systems are different.)
     
  19. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    I looked very hard at Sony A7 mirrorless last time I bought a Canon 5D body. Clearly the weight/size reduction is limited if I continued to use my satisfactory f4 Canon L zooms, plus whatever adapter is necessary to secure similar operation the those lenses on the 5D.
    The surprising thing was that the dedicated Sony zoom lenses weigh as much as my Canons. By the time I bought the new lenses, new filters, rings etc and whatever RRS might want to sell me so I can continue to use my tripod head with a Sony, you could be looking at the most expensive small scale weight and size reduction you could ever imagine.
    Of course I'm not valuing the increased resolution terribly highly. That's because I'm not unhappy where I am and also because Canon have places I could go on the 5D to achieve that without any lens changes at all. What I really wanted was a significant weight and size drop without losing quality or functionality, to keep me carrying a quality camera system around for another 5 years or so, and at a total cost to change that is reasonable in the context of what I got from it. And I concluded I wasn't going to get those with the current Sony lens offer.
    You obviously get different views of lightness and size depending where you start out. I note that Edward has a Sony system weighing over 20lbs. My bag with a FF Dslr and zooms already weighs less than that. But he started out with large and heavy Nikon zooms and a fistful of primes. I didn't, so I'm going to be harder to please.
     
  20. Nothing wrong with full frame, just as there's nothing wrong with Fuji X-Trans APS-C. The obvious weight issue advantage lies within Fuji and if one is interested in staring at hundreds of images for hours comparing Fuji X-Trans imagery next to full frame imagery, you would come to the conclusion that Fuji has the edge, I have. Now that Fuji has made it loud and clear with the release of their, 23mm F2, 35mm F2, and recently the 50mm F2, lens weight is a slam dunk. I see a theme and purpose for what Fuji is doing and I think their on the right path. I've heard their firmware is bunk, I think the comment is bunk. So far the only thing I don't get with Fuji is, what camera is their flagship camera, the XT-2, or the XPRO-2? or are they even interested in that concept. I don't know, but when thinking in terms of Mirrorless technology and its maturity, Fuji pops up as the one that has lead and made the most of the overall solution.
     
  21. The A7ii is 24 MP and has an AA filter. I think the D800, at 36 MP with an AA filter would have higher resolution, except legacy Nikon lenses don't keep pace. Tha A7Rii is 42 MP and no AA filter, clearly surpassing either one in resolution.
    AF in the Sony has a theoretical edge in accuracy over that of a DSLR. The focus sensors are embedded in the Sony sensor (399 in the A7Rii), an inherently co-planar. AF is accomplished by separate sensors in a DSLR, subject to errors in alignment, hence the provisions for fine tuning in software.
    While f/2.8 zooms are inherently large and heavy, I have found that f/4 zooms work very well on the Sony, at a substantial savings in size and weight. Short primes (50 mm and smaller) are much smaller for the Sony and their DSLR counterparts, which are generally inverted telephoto design. The Sony 24-70/2.8 is the outlier. Sony does not have an f/4 version worthy of consideration. The f/2.8 lens is as good as any prime for the Sony in that focal length range. I use it most of the time, more than any other lens. When I want to travel light, the Loxia 35/2 (manual) is my usual choice.
    I have nothing against Fuji gear, but I don't have any and can't speak from experience. I leave that to others.
     
  22. Mature enough. I'm using Fuji X-Pro2 and like it very very much.
     
  23. Is this really the layout of Fuji's X-trans sensor?

    https://www.fujifilm.eu/fileadmin/products/DigitalCameras/ProSeries/FinePixXPro1/features/img/x-
    array.jpg

    If so, how the heck does that work? The whole point of the Bayer array is that a single photosite step in any direction gives a neighbouring 4 cell cluster of RGGB sensors to be processed; effectively yeilding a detail resolution one photosite small.

    Looking at the X-trans array as shown, it's obvious there are clusters of 4 adjacent green sensors that can yield nothing but green information and therefore no interpolated detail - madness!

    I'm sure that can't be the true geometry. Can it? Surely that diagram's been made up by some numpty in Fuji's marketing department.
     
  24. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    This might be of interest, Joe

    http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotography.com/blog/2015/11/what-makes-fujis-x-trans-sensor-unique-an-excerpt-from-my-fuji-x-trans-lightroom-processing-guide-booklet
    Nothing wrong with full frame, just as there's nothing wrong with Fuji X-Trans APS-C. The obvious weight issue advantage lies within Fuji and if one is interested in staring at hundreds of images for hours comparing Fuji X-Trans imagery next to full frame imagery, you would come to the conclusion that Fuji has the edge, I have.​

    Me too, Don. I'm loving this 24mp x-trans III.
     
  25. I have a couple of Nissin di700a flash guns and the Air Command unit. They work very well TTL with my A7 (i) off camera e.g. for macro. Each has a drop down diffusion grid which does a good job.
     
  26. My main complaint about most modern pro-oriented cameras is that about a third of the capabilities are taken up with recondite video options that are of zero interest to me. I would happily get rid of all that to simplify the menus. For pros though video seems to be what it is all about these days so these will be staying, I'm afraid. If you feel the urge to try something new and can afford it, then why not go for a Sony body, there is not much to lose (the resell/trade in value notwithstanding). I personally have very little interest in using all my ancient lenses on a new body, I have just sold some Canon lenses that I just do not use. My aim is simplification.
    I am still in the DSLR camp as I take a lot of sport and dance and prefer the rapid shooting and tuned AF for these. What you gain in size from a mirrorless I think you lose in good handling with larger lenses. The weight difference is not very significant for full frame as pointed out above, and I don't much care for the low battery life of mirrorless, I am even finding the lower battery capacity of the the 5DIV slightly off putting. This is something you can get used to though. I am surprised you find the Nikon AF unreliable. I have never felt this with my Canons.
    Having said this, when the kids have left home and I no longer need my 70-200 f2.8 etc, I am pretty sure I will be using the Fuji APS system - guaranteed smaller size and weight, unless Canon have something exciting up their sleeve.
     
  27. Fuji-X-TRANS sensor technology as we know the RGB photosites on the sensor have a random array that has proven useful to control moire because of the omission of the AA filter. What is less commonly known is that the random array is also constructed to get the Red wave length of light to focus on the same plane as Green and Blue. Historically lens manufacturers have constructed Apochromatic lens elements to get Red to line up with Green and Blue. Remembering back in the day when Schneider built two Super-Achromat lenses for Hasselblad that were exorbitantly expensive to provide an excellent result to get RGB to focus in harmony on the film plane, I think they were a 250mm and a 500mm Super Achromat by Schneider. Fuji's method is to gather RGB light from the lens as its the sensor that rigs Red to focus along with Green and Blue. Certainly there is an explanation more in depth that is available, I'll try to dig it up as it provides detail of the the individual counts of color photosites that makes this possible. Basically, the sensor is selectively shifting Red to get inline. https://www.flickr.com/photos/71196598@N08/
     
  28. I have a Nikon D750 that I really like and am going to keep it even though I am going to get a Fuji XT2. I shoot with guys that have the X series bodies and am impressed enough to buy one and some Fuji lenses. The ease of operation, the colors out of the box, lots of knobs and the convenient size made me a believer along with their nice assortment of really nice lenses.
     
  29. I'm using Sony APS for compact size and I think it's quite mature.
    For portraits, I use an A6000 with a 50mm lens. The alternative would be an FX Nikon and 85mm lens. Here's the comparison:
    [​IMG]
     
  30. My issue with smaller formats than full-frame is
    that you have to have lenses with a ridiculously
    wide aperture to get a really shallow depth-of-field.
    Diffraction kicks in earlier at small stops as well. Lenses with large apertures tend to be big and heavy, somewhat offsetting the small size and weight of the camera body.

    OTOH, a smaller format lets you use an aperture like f/2 in low light and still have an adequate DoF. There are pros and cons, but on the whole I prefer the look of images from the larger format. I don't think I could get along with 4/3rds at all.
     
  31. I think that someone on this site once made the point that mirrorless APS-C was the sweet spot for quality, size, performance and cost. I think that is becoming more true over time, as I would prefer an APS-C mirrorless system over any 'full frame' system except the Leica M.
    I'm a huge fan of the A7 and the SL but I still would choose an XT or A6000 over those.
     
  32. To respond to the question of how users get on with m4/3:
    I started of with an Olympus EP-2. Although capable of good images, it was an appalling camera to use. In fact when my EM-1 was away for repair, I picked up the EP-2 and just couldn't understand how to use it. That rear screen was awful anyway and I could not use both the hot shoe VF-2 and flash at the same time, hopeless for macro.
    These things were overcome with the EM-1, plus it used RC flash, my normal use being off-camera. I welcome the stop-smaller aperture effect for macro. Even down at effective aperture of f22 and f32, any diffraction is difficult to see and is easily removed by software. I have no interest in updating to EM-1ii.
    I have a full frame Sony A7R which will make good use of my heritage wide and ultra-wide angle lenses and my full frame 1:1 Printing Nikkor 105mm macro. (I am considering a Laowa 12mm with shift, which will give 24mm with shift on m4/3).
    I am not a shallow DOF enthusiast, wide-angle work being mainly buildings and landscapes.
     
  33. Did you ever try one Joe? You could be in for a big and pleasant surprise!
     
  34. There's another important benefit of mirrorless. The Sony cameras have a self-cleaning sensor, which has been highly effective. It is an adjunct of the IBIS mechanism. In the last two years, I've only needed to clean it manually on two occasions. With Nikon, it's required every three weeks.
    You're talking of a 2007 Nikon camera and comparing to recent models from Sony in 2017. What is in a decade?
    Sensor cleaning (by a system which shakes the debris off the sensor automatically) has been a standard feature in most Nikon DSLRs since 2008, depending on the exact model (apart from the D3400 and D3X).
     
  35. I also have a camera (Olympus) with sensor cleaning but the kind of sticky bits from the natural environment don't shake free and a clean once or twice a year is required. It will depend on where you change lenses.
     
  36. Sony has a self-cleaning sensor only for models with in-body image stabilization. What's happened in 10 years at Nikon? The D5 does not have this feature.
     
  37. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Nikon has finally just added wifi and tilting lcd screens. Such a shame after 30 plus years with Nikon and to watch them sit on their laurels while newcomer Fuji and its X-T2 does 14fps with auto focus that's on par with all Nikkon bodies except the D5. And at 2/3's the cost. The X-T2 is a dslr killer.
     
  38. "I think that someone on this site once made the point that mirrorless APS-C was the sweet spot for quality, size, performance and cost"
    true, and you can use the old DSLR lens. what's not to like (except if you're a dedicated full time sports shooter)
     
  39. The revelations of the huge leap in autofocus improvement between the XT-1 and XT-2 is still sinking in.
     
  40. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Yes, Don, they are. I can only imagine the X-T3.
     
  41. I don't believe in changing paradigms for the sake of it, but the shift from DSLR to mirrorless is more inevitable than the shift from film to digital. Film cannot be replaced (ATM), but DSLRs can be, and have been. DSLRs still hold proverbial Berlin, while film resurgence and mirrorless encircle the city and close in by the day.
    Some people don't like to see their paradigm become overturned, and I have to say I do sympathise. There is something nice about the reassuring heft of a pro level DSLR. However, they're eventually going to be extinct.
    So what's the next paradigm? I think I can see it. And I guarantee you that it will face similar criticism that mirrorless faces today. The next paradigm was hinted at by Phillip Greenspun and others, over 15 years ago: the merging of stills and motion at a low price point. This hasn't happened yet - compressed on-board 4K is not the same thing. The RED cameras already have the performance, but they are a little bit big and they cost a lot.
     
  42. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    I'm often forced to use electronic shutter and I've had a couple images ruined by rolling shutter. A few more also ruined under certain Arri stage lighting that produced banding. I solved that by lowering my shutter speed to 1/100th or slower but this isn't always ideal. Hopefully soon we get global shutters.
    And for the Fuji Windows users, Iridient is now available for Windows and not just Mac.
    http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/xtransformer_download.html
     
  43. The D5 does not have this feature.​
    Yes, it does. As does the D4S, D4, D3S, and about every other camera Nikon has introduced since 2007 (your D3 was one exception (Ilkka already mentioned the others); the D300 introduced at the same time as the D3 does have that feature).
    X-T2 does 14fps with auto focus​
    But does the viewfinder keep up when tracking something that moves? Every mirrorless I have checked out so far has this combination of EVF lag and blackout that makes it hard to actually track anything properly. On a DSLR, it takes 10+fps to make this a breeze; at slower fps, the blackout periods are rather long and tracking precision suffers too.
     
  44. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    But does the viewfinder keep up when tracking something that moves? Every mirrorless I have checked out so far has this combination of EVF lag and blackout that makes it hard to actually track anything properly​

    The X-T2 with battery grip and in boost mode bumps the evf from 60Hz to 100Hz and is the best I've seen. It's still not as nice as a slr with a fast shutter speed but you get used to it, Dieter
     
  45. Under normal light, the Sony A7ii and A7Rii viewfinders update about 60 frame/sec. There is no perceptible delay nor jerkiness in the image. However under extremely dim light the sample interval lengthens once there is no more gain to be had in the viewfinder circuit. The viewfinder maintains a brightness similar to the final image, provided the live effects option is turned off. The shutter lag is estimated at less than 20 sec.
    Lag is increased under certain circumstances, such as live effects on and TTL flash. The flash takes a preview frame to set the exposure, adding about 1/2 second to the lag.
     
  46. Film resurgence? Dream on!
    In what way can film not be replaced?
    Because if you haven't noticed, it already has been.

    Adding video to stills cameras, or vice-versa, is no
    paradigm shift. It's been happening for years.
    Although video is demanding of the viewer's
    attention and requires equipment to be viewed.
    While a print is passive, contemplative and
    meditative in nature. Same equipment to capture,
    entirely different outcomes in viewing perception.

    BTW. I'm still drawn to the Sony A7Rii, or it's successor. Looking at sample shots online the A7Rii produces clearly superior image quality to any of Fuji's APS offerings. In fact I see very little difference between X-trans shots and a Nikon D7200, which I already own. Apart from less yellow discrimination in the X-trans and greater overall colour saturation. Something that could easily be tweaked in post.
     
  47. the A7R II is indeed incredible, but the X-trans camera's, especially new versions, are quite good, are quicker, lighter and less expensive.
     
  48. It's still not as nice as a slr with a fast shutter speed but you get used to it, Dieter​
    Nice of you to admit the shortcoming. And, so far, I haven't gotten used to it. But my A7 certainly is not at the forefront of technology anymore (if it ever was). Totally unacceptable AF and EVF performance for anything that moves and that one needs to pan with. The fact that most (all?) EVFs still resort to displaying a still image (the last one taken) when the fps rate goes up makes it hard to follow a moving subject when panning; one simply doesn't get to view where the subject really is. People can hype up mirrorless all day long; as long as it doesn't take actual behavior while shooting into account, it's not more than touting of data without much if any comprehension of their meaning in real life. 60fps, 100fps, 120fps EVF refresh rate means very little unless it does in fact enable you to see where your moving subject actually is - and I don't think an EVF will ever be as good in that regard as the optical viewfinder of a DSLR that itself adds zero latency to the viewing process. No EVF will ever achieve "no delay"; the question simply is will it ever update "fast enough" to allow "real-time" viewing?
    To me, many of the so-called advantages of mirrorless have either be debunked as myths or simply never materialized. As always, since I am not interested in video at all, my arguments solely apply for what I use a camera for:still photography.
    Rodeo Joe, all I can suggest it to rent an A7RII for a period long enough to thoroughly test it and find out if it suits what you shoot and how you shoot. What matters/works for others may not work for you. It certainly is not as black and white as many make it out to be (mirrorless is the future, DSLR is dead); there's a whole lot of gray tonality in between.
     
  49. I agree with Dieter. The DSLR will take a long time to die because it is well proven and it is currently unmatched for shooting fast moving objects, particularly in low light. With matched AF lenses there is no real downside to using them, apart from the largely philosophical objection to mirrors moving. The weight difference is usually exaggerated as discussed.
     
  50. Its a tough pill to swallow when the consumer spends its hard earned monies in a brand, or camera system that is soon to be obsolete. Welcome to the digital realm it goes with the territory and people will defend their investment to the hilt as far as going blind to many realities. There is a direct connection to what people think of their camera as to how much money they spend.
     
  51. will defend their investment to the hilt as far as going blind to many realities​
    First, cameras aren't investments; they are tools. Second, I am not defending anything. Third, at least for myself, I don't believe I am blind to realities, which is exactly why I don't jump onto the mirrorless bandwagon if it clearly means stepping backwards and getting less than what I have now. You might be hard pressed to find a list of reasons not to go mirrorless; I don't have that problem at all. My evaluation came to the conclusion that mirrorless is not the right tool for my job, not yet anyway. For some aspects, it's a draw, for some that are important to me, mirrorless just doesn't cut it. Splitting between the two systems might be an option, but at least for me, I am not ready for that yet either.
     
  52. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    The DSLR will take a long time to die because it is well proven and it is currently unmatched for shooting fast moving objects, particularly in low light.​

    That was the case up until the new X-T2. In my Nikon/Fuji world, there's only one Nikon DSLR that is slightly better than the Fuji X-T2 for low-light auto-focus and it costs $6500. I didn't upgrade from the D4s to D5 because the X-T2 was a better camera with better IQ. Certainly, the Nikon D5 has great high iso images, it's King, but they achieve this at the expense of low iso dynamic range. The D5 is a decade behind in DR at 200iso and looks like my old D300. In broad day light, the slight edge that the AF on the Nikon D5 may have, is of no consequence for the shooting I do. At the next Olympics, I'm certain we will see Fuji nestled in there along with Nikon and Sony. The straight-out-of-camera jpgs and film simulation settings on Fuji are miles ahead of Nikon, Canon, and Sony and has been enough for many jpg shooters to switch.
    Totally unacceptable AF and EVF performance for anything that moves and that one needs to pan with. The fact that most (all?) EVFs still resort to displaying a still image (the last one taken) when the fps rate goes up makes it hard to follow a moving subject when panning; one simply doesn't get to view where the subject really is.​

    It is different and takes some getting used to and would agree with the X-T1. But try the X-T2 with the grip and on boost, I think it would surprise you as leaps and bounds were made in the AF and EVF dept. Also, the predictive focus for subject movement with Fuji is fantastic. As is the image stabilization. At first when shooting, I kept thinking I missed the shots and the camera is bunk, but when you open up the files on the LCD to check, you're surprised to see that they are all in focus. One thing I have noticed with the Fuji is that you get more shots in focus when you are on CH shooting as opposed to CL or S. It seems that 11 or 14 fps is really beneficial to getting positive results from the AF system. This makes post production a pain, of course.
     
  53. "Looking at sample shots online the A7Rii produces clearly superior image quality to any of Fuji's APS offerings." I have never bought a camera by looking at sample images on a computer screen. You seem sold on the Sony so you should get one.
     
  54. Every week I hike up the High Peaks Trail at Pinnacles National Park. It's my Wednesday outing. From the parking lot the shortest route to the High Peaks is 3mi and 2000 feet up fairly steep hiking. When you are up there if you sit down for a little and have a snack and water you will see Condors putting on a show. They have 10 ft wingspans and they glide, land on the rocks, jump off the rocks and it's just grand.
    The weird thing is the Photographers stay in the parking lot with jumbo Nikons and wait for the Condors to fly overhead 2000 or 3000 feet up and then snap away. I have taken calling them parking lot camera's. The reason they sit down there for boring shots with no background is because they cannot carry the camera's to where they should be.
    My longest lens is a 50mm so it's useless for that type of shot. Last Wednesday I was up there and met 4 other retired persons and the five of us watched the show for quite some time. We all had binoculars. My FM2n was the only camera among us. I am not a landscape or wildlife photographer myself. I am more about family photogrphy and I burn a lot of film doing that. I do carry my camera hiking as I am staying in shape to hike Half Dome this year and will want my FM2 with me. You also have to carry enough water for an entire day when you hike Half Dome.
    Anyway a person can buy a jumbo parking lot camera or something else. My advice is to buy something that you can carry so that your photography is not limited to a few feet from your car. . If your interested in the Fuji check out the Ted Vieira you-tube channel as he is a Las Vegas Professional and he shoots Fuji and is a former Canon shooter. He also shoots film for his personal work which is what brought me to his channel.
     
  55. The weird thing is the Photographers stay in the parking lot with jumbo Nikons and wait for the Condors to fly overhead 2000 or 3000 feet up and then snap away.​
    So basically these lenses are effectively shelf queens that get to play outside a little bit. But these people would never trade across to a mirrorless system, anyway, and it's not a conversation they would entertain. Having such huge lenses and cameras is a kind of social signalling. Their satisfaction comes from the fact that they can afford that stuff - and show it off.
     
  56. Their satisfaction comes from the fact that they can afford that stuff - and show it off.​
    And here I thought that applies to Leica users only. Even without flaunting huge lenses.
     
  57. Well people buy camera's for all sorts of reason I suppose. Big camera's, little camera's, old camera's etc and it's should be fun for whatever it is you wish to do. The mirrorless is just a different style and probably a lot depends on what you actually take photos of and what appeals to you.
    From my standpoint being someone that is out and about a lot, spends a great deal of time hiking or cycling I want a camera that I can carry along with food and water for the trip. Well actually I do not carry a camera when cycling as I do not stop. I just roll out the driveway for 2 to 4 hrs and ride the bike. I have my cell and posted up a photo of the hills on my Strava account yesterday. Others have different needs and interests.
     
  58. There is nothing "random" about an X-Trans filter. It consists of a 3x3 array with green cells in the center and four corners, with red and blue in the center of each side. Alternate arrays are rotated 90 degrees, which provides some distribution of R and B cells. However G cells are lumped into 2x2 squares, the antithesis of randomization if it is intended to reduce color aliasing.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter
    A Bayer filter consists of 2x2 cells with G on opposing corners, R and B on the remaining corners. The R and B orientation is consistent throughout the array. Unlike the X-Trans arrangements, no colors ever share a common side
    In both examples, there are two G cells and one B and one R cell in each array.
    Only Foveon sensors have coincident color filters, but have little market penetration. Whether that is due to licensing restrictions or other factors is hard to determine.
     
  59. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Any uncomfortable adjustment period I've had to make with the EVF on the Fuji was quickly over-shadowed by the joy of keeping ones eye to the viewfinder and still being able to adjust my shutter speed, iso, f stop, and exp comp with with three large physical dials and and an aperture ring. What a freeing feeling it is to adjust ones settings while still paying attention to the scene in the viewfinder. My instincts and muscle memory with film slr bodies quickly returned. The EVF also brightens and darkens in relation to over and under exposure. It's also 1005 silent and therefore unobtrusive. This new environment is an entirely different approach to shooting, for me. These "mirrorless" attributes make it very difficult to return back to my dslrs.
     
  60. Just going along with what I see on the net, you-tube and such I think the Fuji is very popular. It has that Across 100 simulation that appeals to me. Street shooters buy the X-Pro 2 because it is like a rangefinder. Optical or Sci Fi, take your pick.
     
  61. So basically these lenses are effectively shelf queens that get to play outside a little bit. But these people would never trade across to a mirrorless system, anyway, and it's not a conversation they would entertain. Having such huge lenses and cameras is a kind of social signalling. Their satisfaction comes from the fact that they can afford that stuff - and show it off.​
    Wow, are you sure you're not projecting all this onto them?
     
  62. I'm with you Edward. I can't see how the X-trans
    sensor works the way Fuji claim. In fact their
    publicity blurb makes out the pixel sampling is
    done over a 6x6 photosite area, not 3x3.
    <p>
    Now if Fuji had come up with some really clever geometry, like triangular photosites, and sampled them in true RGB triads, then I'd applaud them for doing away with the 50% redundant green sensors. However, that doesn't appear to be the case. It seems more like they're selling a new regal wardrobe malfunction to me.
    <p>
    As for a little X-trans sensor delivering better IQ than a full-frame one; I see absolutely no evidence of that. Quite the reverse. And how much "dynamic range" can you get, use or see in an actual picture, as opposed to lab measurements? Are we talking about Subject Brightness Range, Smax/Noise-floor, Image Brightness Range or something else? Because no slide film could show much over 7 stops of SBR and it never seemed to prevent anyone taking perfectly useable pictures with it.
    <p>
    As for not using any tool available, such as web sample images, to research a camera before purchase. I see that as blind buying and not at all sensible.
     
  63. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    As for a little X-trans sensor delivering better IQ than a full-frame one; I see absolutely no evidence of that.​

    Hi Joe, if this is in response to something I stated, I said the Nikon D5 and not full frame cameras. There's plenty in Google to explore in regards to the crummy DR of the Nikon D5. The D4s is still my first choice for all around shooting. An internet friend in Australia just did 10,000 raw images on a single D5 battery charge. That's a big deal for some.
    And how much "dynamic range" can you get, use or see in an actual picture, as opposed to lab measurements?​

    That answer depends entirely on how much one appreciates using the highlights/shadows/whites/black sliders in Adobe ACR. You can pull some amazing details out of the blacks on x-trans III sensors
     
  64. While the D5 has indeed relatively modest base ISO DR, the XT2 exceeds it at only ISO 100 and 200 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm), whereas the D5's DR is greater than that of the XT2 from ISO 1200 to 25600. The D5 base ISO DR is about 0.5 stops greater than the D300's, and 2.8 stops greater than the D300's at 2500 ISO and above. So I would say the D5's dynamic range is excellent in its typical ISOs of expected use; it is optimized for high ISO, high fps photography, not landscape. The images in press photography are are typically not extensively edited to lift shadows like landscape photographs often are, and the dynamic range does exceed that of the output media. Fuji ISO settings seem to not be comparable to other manufacturers settings and lead to increased headroom in the highlights but a darker picture than others so in real world when you actually want an image of a similar brightness in the final screen display, with the same shutter speed, youmay need to use a higher ISO on the Fuji to get similar luminosity to other brands' products. In dpreview.com reviews, they seem to always use a slower shutter speed on Fujis to get comparable brightness in the images at equal ISO and aperture, suggesting that the Fuji ISO settings aren't quite what one would expect. Furthermore what I found with the X-Trans sensor is that high ISO images tend to be smeared showing people like they were made of wax, this actually lead me to sell my Fuji X100s; it just wasn't suitable for what I do, the focusing was extremely erratic in tracking in low light, and image quality wasn't what the hype would have me expect. However, I would expect some improvement in the performance by then, but people still write articles about the waxy skin at high ISO.
    https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/
    The D5 does excel in the consistency of colour across the ISO range and in the broad range of color temperatures in daylight, the colours at ISO 25600 look similar to 3200 etc. and even when photographing outdoors in the arctic summer midnight skylight light, there is no blue cast. This has led me to successfully use ISO 102400 for wildlife (with DXO PRIME). What's more, the autofocus of the camera produces a remarkable consistency of in-focus pics even with fast lenses (f/1.4 and f/2) in dim light. I normally seem to get about 3% out of focus pics when photographing approaching people in daylight at f/1.4 (usually 105/1.4, but with other lenses as well), with the D5, and this increases to about 10% in dim light (at ISO 25600, f/2.8, 1/500s is I run into the first episodes of hunting but mostly it was still working with high consistency). The D5's AF performance in low light is quite something to experience; often getting single digit reject percentages in situations where the D810 may have produced 30-70% rejects (in difficult, dim, backlight). These have been mostly in single shot mode with continuous focusing. High speed bursts at 12fps may reduce the keeper percentange a bit but not as much as with some other tech. Overall, DSLR technology isn't mature but experiences some major developments from time to time though perhaps not in each iteration.
    I tried the X-T2 actually. The EVF is nice, for an EVF, and AF seemed to work decently in the store lighting but when I tried autofocus in high speed bursts, the focus was all over the place and nothing seemed to come out quite right. Perhaps it just doesn't cope with low light situations well, or I wasn't using optimal settings for the situation. If Eric has some comparison image sets or data with the D5 and XT2, with approaching people in indoor lighting with lens wide open, I would like to see that because to me it seemed like it wasn't working well for that kind of a situation. Otherwise nice camera. If you can try a church middle corridor lit at approximately exposure levels of ISO 12800, f/2.8, 1/250 with backlighting on the couple, it would be interesting to hear what kind of keeper percentages you get without distracting everyone with an autofocus assist light, and how the skin compares to D5. If you can get 10fps sets in focus with Fuji, that's quite an accomplishment in those conditions.
     
  65. @Rodeo joe
    Bunching green cells together may reduce the amount of color aliasing when de-mosaicing the image. However software other than native to Fuji may not take full advantage of the X-Trans features. Kodak hyped a similar "improvement" which went nowhere. Maybe we're waiting for variations on the Phase One pixel-shifting approach, which eliminates aliasing at the expense of time exposures for everything. What's the catch ;)
    The only time color aliasing is visible is for repetitive patterns at the limit of resolution, like ironwork railings in the distance. Any slip up in focusing, or lens limitations, and it's a non-issue. Not many lenses perform at that level for a non-AA, 42 MP sensor.
     
  66. @ Edward. There's a simple answer to improving
    Bayer's Green-redundant and wasteful filter layout. That's to substitute Cyan and Yellow filters for the two Greens. I suggested this a couple of years ago or more.

    The Green signal is extrapolated by subtracting the Red signal from Yellow, and the Blue signal from Cyan. You actually end up with 2 sets of data for all three Red, Green and Blue channels; since G1 (Y - R) can be further subtracted from Cyan to give Blue2, while G2 (C - B) is subtracted from Yellow to give Red2. This system is 250% more light efficient than the crazy Green-heavy Bayer scheme.

    It requires more processing, but most of that could be done at the analogue stage using adding and subtracting op-amps.

    Introduce a log amplifier stage before A/D conversion and I believe such a scheme would easily beat anything currently on the market.

    I'll charge just a small royalty per sensor from the first manufacturer to take the idea up, thanks!
     
  67. Wow! What a compliment to the XT-2 to be aligned in the same league as the D5! Didn't think we would get into this realm, but a compliment non the less. We fuji X-Owners found a proud little camera that for the money punches above its weight and I think that point in itself is where the perspective to take account. I don't think anyone to my recollection said the X-trans is the best solution in the market place to date, but here's my take. Fuji answered the call to create a camera that it light, built well, small enough in stature to travel with, deliver enough flexibility to be used in a studio setting, provide superior optics and more and do all this at a price point that is approachable. Having a solid camera to travel with is what got my attention. Street work, having it over my shoulder out and about, and convenient. People are attracted to this and it adding to sales success for Fuji. It's also the ease of use. The ability for the novice to see the exposure in the screen light to dark with the ease of a histogram check, gets the shot! I'm impressed at the stream of Photographs made by novices throughout the world that has delivered some good stuff. These cameras are making the average person look good, because the struggle to nail the exposure, the ability to edit in camera delivers making people feel good about their Photographic endeavors, its that simple. Simple is simple a nurture to mature mirrorless technology.
     
  68. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Ilkka, in that Petapixel link, those are the worst pictures I've seen come out of any camera in a long time. I'd take that article with a huge grain of salt.
    While the D5 has indeed relatively modest base ISO DR, the XT2 exceeds it at only ISO 100 and 200 (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm)​

    Great link, Ilkka. But not so quick. When I enter the camera bodies on the right hand panel, my results are entirely different. My chart shows the x-t2 has greater DR over the D5 up until 1200iso, not 200. The x-t2 then drops slightly behind the D5 for a bit, but when we get to 32180 iso, the x-t2 once again surpasses the D5 and has greater DR. Do we not see the same results? I then select the D300. It's not news, but the D300 at one point has higher DR than the D5.



    I tried the X-T2 actually. The EVF is nice, for an EVF, and AF seemed to work decently in the store lighting but when I tried autofocus in high speed bursts, the focus was all over the place and nothing seemed to come out quite right. Perhaps it just doesn't cope with low light situations well, or I wasn't using optimal settings for the situation. If Eric has some comparison image sets or data with the D5 and XT2, with approaching people in indoor lighting with lens wide open, I would like to see that because to me it seemed like it wasn't working well for that kind of a situation.​
    Our time is best spent with you exploring the internet as it is filled with accolades over the auto focus on the X-T2. You could take note of some optimal settings and return to the store and try it again and see what all the fuss is about because yes, your unsatisfactory experience suggests you weren't using it right.
    Wow! What a compliment to the XT-2 to be aligned in the same league as the D5!​

    I know. I still have a hard time believing it myself, Don. It was less than a year ago a colleague suggested I try a used x-t1 off of Craigslist to get my feet wet. It was a new world to me and seems like I was the last to know that Fuji is leading the market in optics and image stabilization. I can't believe how soft my 24-70 and 70-200 Nikons are compared to the Fuji equivalents. And they're half the cost.
     
  69. All this goes to show that reputation does not easily give way to reality. Sometimes, though, reputation gets blown to bits by new realities that cannot be resisted.
     
  70. Thanks for adding a little perspective to this conversation. Edward and Rodeo Joe's conversation almost makes one believe they know what they're talking about. How many sensors have they designed that are in production?
     
  71. In production - none, but designed, as opposed to
    simply copied ad infinitum from a flawed concept -
    one.
     
  72. Interesting. Can I ask who for? I understand if you can't say. What's your background? EE?
     
  73. My chart shows the x-t2 has greater DR over the D5 up until 1200iso, not 200. The x-t2 then drops slightly behind the D5 for a bit, but when we get to 32180 iso, the x-t2 once again surpasses the D5 and has greater DR. Do we not see the same results?
    Judging from the chart at ISO 400 and 640 the DR of the two cameras is approximately equal and at some between values the Fuji does appear ahead (but the user can usually choose to use those settings which give optimal results on their camera) which in this case would be 400, 640 or 1200 for the D5. However, you are correct that the X-T2 is head in the chart at certain values such as 500, 800 and 1000.
    Especially at 51200 I have to wonder about the result since it is much better than the maximum theoretically possible value ("Ideal DX" in the right tab) and also approximately the same as ISO 25600 which leads me to question the validity of the chart's data for the Fuji. Thus it may be that we have to disregard the results presented as simply not possible. It's simply not possible that the DR would not drop by increasing the ISO from 25600 to 51200 unless there is heavy noise reduction (smearing detail) being applied to the files.
    In dpreview.com's X-T2 review, one can check the noise and detail at ISO 51200 (RAW) and there appears to be a lot more chroma noise in the X-T2 images compared to the D5. Also there is considerable false colour in the text in the Fuji and the text is more clearly delineated in the D5 image. Thus to suggest the Fuji image is better here would require quite a stretch of the imagination.
    00eLgl-567694684.jpg
     
  74. If JPGs are used, unfortunately dpreview.com's site doesn't allow noise reduction to be turned off, so we cannot do a valid comparison for in-camera JPGs. Anyway, it is difficult to compare these cameras because of the different CFA used and many sites such as DXO do not test X-Trans for this reason.
    Our time is best spent with you exploring the internet as it is filled with accolades over the auto focus on the X-T2.
    Well, dpreview.com does comment the following on the AF of the X-T2: "
    • Camera's full AF capability only available with a subset of lenses
    • Subject tracking, while good, is not dependable enough for professional use
    • AF performance drops significantly in low light"
    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 of the camera. E.g.
    https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4033413?page=3
    "In good light and where the contrast was good, there were no issues but going into poorer illuminated areas, not even as bad as that of the wedding reception pictured above, AF became an issue as was tracking."
    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 such as 56/1.2 and from what I've read, that lens isn't the fastest focusing in low light. If I cannot use a fast lens to compensate for the smaller sensor then I'm not that interested. 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.
     
  75. Fuji XE-1 dynamic range :)
    [​IMG]
     
  76. XE-!, autofocus tracking for wildlife:)
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page