Why go DSLR?

[Uhooru]

<p>I always carry my DSLR to weddings. That way everyone thinks I belong there! </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>50ms of shutter lag is probably not of great importance considering that it takes hundreds of ms for the brain to process input - both delays can be adjusted by anticipating when the peak moment is going to happen (by experience). The issue with the EVF delay is that it is variable, depends on how dark the scene is (darker scene apparently results in more delayed EVF image) and if you follow a moving subject on EVF and hold the subject's position in the frame constant, assume the same velocity of subject movement continues through to the time of exposre, at the time of exposure the subject won't be in the position in the frame as indicated by the EVF. If one uses an optical viewfinder, this kind of discrepancy doesn't exist and linear anticipation works to produce images with the subject in the correct place in the viewfinder - the shutter delay doesn't destroy it unless the subject abruptly stops its movement just before the picture is taken. Since the EVF delay is not constant, but variable, and as the corrective action depends on the angular velocity of the subject movement (how fast you're turning the camera basically) it can be difficult to compensate for the EVF delay e.g. in sports photography. The shutter delay is much easier to deal with in my experience than EVF. With EVF I cannot catch the subject expression when they're communicating with someone, like I can with optical viewfinders. I also don't find the viewing experience with EVF enjoyable since it can fluctuate ... although it has some advantages.</p>

<p>People who use mirrorless cameras for street photography probably do not use the viewfinder to time the shots but look directly at the subject, past the camera. That's why there is no timing problem, assuming the shutter and AF delays are short enough. But if you use a telephoto lens it is incredibly difficult to hold the subject in the frame with predictable compositional results by holding the camera at arm's length ... and without the OVF the timing and composition are likely to be very difficult to predict.</p>

<p>Each camera type has its advantages obviously - otherwise they wouldn't be on the market. However, I don't expect DSLRs to disappear in the foreseeable (20 years) future. As far as I know they are currently taking back market share from mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>The greatest problem with EVF for me is that I simply can't manual focus with one. Magnifying a portion of the screen makes it slow to operate as well as it interferes with focusing and composing at the same time. The advantage of the EVF is that it supposed to show an image that is closer to what the end result is but in reality most EVF's I have tried don't do that. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Again, it's all about preference, give and take. They each have their pluses and minus, no best.</p>

<ul>

<li>TTL viewing</li>

<li>LCD</li>

<li>RF viewing</li>

<li>EVF</li>

</ul>

<p>As for total lag, it's the totality of</p>

<ul>

<li>Body reaction</li>

<li>AF/MF</li>

<li>Shutter</li>

<li>and LCD/EVF refresh rate</li>

</ul>

<p>For instance: Ilkka's Fuji X100 has zero EVF lag, the leaf shutter's super quick, but the AF is damn slow. Now, if you's shooting a stationary subject, it'd be a super quick camera! But if the subject(s) is still, one could use a 4x5:) It's like the leica M6...OVF w/fastest shutter lag but MF. This might be the reason you see many leica M shooters adapting to the fuji and think the fuji is very fast...</p>

<p>The RX100 has a small LCD lag, but it's AF is quick, as well as the fast (electronic) shutter lag.</p>

<p>The OMD, for example, has a slower shutter lag due to the focal plane shutter. But it has very fast AF and the refresh EVF is 120hz (fast compared to 60hz, which it also has).</p>

<p>Now, if you have, say, the Canon G12 series, the EVF lag (60hz maybe?), snail AF and snail shutter lag. Now if your reaction time is not very good and you are shooting in the dark...</p>

<p>0.50 <strong>reaction</strong> + 0.656 <strong>AF</strong> + 0.07 <strong>shutter</strong> + 0.03 <strong>refresh rate</strong> = 1.256 sec <strong>total lag</strong> no very good to say the least...</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>My $0.02 cents as both a DSLR (D700) and a mirrorless camera (NEX6) user:</p>

<p>***MY*** reasons for using a DSLR:</p>

<ul>

<li>Nikon CLS lighting</li>

<li>Tracking AF</li>

<li>Reach (400mm and up)</li>

</ul>

<p>***MY*** reasons for using a mirrorless camera:</p>

<ul>

<li>Small and lightweight (especially for street photography)</li>

<li>I can use just about any lens, e.g., M-mount, F-mount, etc... with the appropriate adapters, which I do have.</li>

</ul>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Ilkka's Fuji X100 has zero EVF lag, the leaf shutter's super quick, but the AF is damn slow.</em></p>

<p>Well the camera I have is the X100<strong>s</strong>, which has reasonably fast and reliable AF (phase-detect AF sensor points embedded on the main sensor) in good light when the subject is reasonably stationary, but tracking approaching subjects (in continuous AF mode) is limited to center focus point only and is in my opinion impractical. The camera displays the playback image for a split second after every shot in the viewfinder and I haven't figured out how to turn it off. This is distracting when shooting several images in a sequence, trying to maintain the AF point on the subject. In low light, the AF slows down as then (AFAIK) it resorts to contrast detect AF and with a large sensor and relatively fast lens, the camera has to go through a number focus steps to find the optimal focus so it takes a bit of time. The original X100 was all contrast detect AF and it was slower. For stationary subjects in most conditions I find the X100s AF to be fine. It's the implementation of tracking that bothers me - I want to choose the focus point in continuous AF freely and I don't want the viewfinder to show playback in this situation - it is distracting.</p>

[stinshoff]

<p>I think everyone's ignoring the elephant in the room - most mirrorless cameras are just plain ugly. Actually, the cameras themselves aren't bad, but there's just something about big lenses on these small camera bodies that seems way out of proportion. I've got no gripe with mirrorless cameras teamed up with pancake lenes, but long lenses just look better on SLRs.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Although I do care about how good a camera look I think some of the mirrorless are quite pretty. I think the ones from Fuji are good looking much better than many low end DSLR's.</p>

[shicane_wilson]

<p>It simply the best! Its on the tongue of almost every third photographer out there and you just can't miss it..</p>

[Larry_G1664882113]

<p>To me,it depends on the circumstances. Sometimes a good point and shoot is easier and lesscumbersome to use than a DSLR and gets great results. Most other times, working with a DSLR on a tripod offers more control and creative opportunity. Ultimately, it's the human eye that matters more than the camera. </p>