Trey Ratcliff Updates "DSLRs are a dying breed"

[Experiment_626]

Remember also, younger people are quite used to "screens." I think for the most part, people who prefer OVFs are simply people who are used to them. I don't think they hold any special appeal for most young people who have always used LCDs/EVFs before.

If, let's say, we're talking about an EVF in place of the traditional OVF in a camera with a form factor like a DSLR, then the potential is for electronic viewfinder that is better, in many ways, than the OVF. But even though younger people may be used to a display, holding a camera out in front of your face as opposed to right up against it seems inherently less stable to me.

Very high resolution and a lag time so short it seems instant are the keys to an EVF in a camera that looks like a DSLR but no longer needs a mirror.

Scott

 

[havoc315]

If, let's say, we're talking about an EVF in place of the traditional OVF in a camera with a form factor like a DSLR, then the potential is for electronic viewfinder that is better, in many ways, than the OVF. But even though younger people may be used to a display, holding a camera out in front of your face as opposed to right up against it seems inherently less stable to me.

Very high resolution and a lag time so short it seems instant are the keys to an EVF in a camera that looks like a DSLR but no longer needs a mirror.

Scott

Correct, I'm talking about an EVF -- viewfinder, not simply an LCD. The high end Sony cameras already have extremely high resolution EVFs. They only lag at high burst rates, as of now.

The questions will become, how many people are really solely devoted to an optical viewfinder, and is it worth keeping an entire mirror mechanism solely to enable an optical viewfinder.

The whole reason the mirror was created, back in the day -- it was the best way to get a "live view" that was identical to the camera view. That's no longer true.

I suspect that Nikon and Canon will eventually start out offering both types of dSLRs -- a mirrorless EVF version and a mirrored OVF version. Sales and pricing will dictate whether they ultimately pick just one or the other.

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

I guess it would take a lot of practice getting used to shooting "that moment" where its a split second thing to get it right, we all know what "that moment" is, the first kiss, a childs first goal, the jump during a recital. That's why that instant trigger is so important, you wanna get it without motor driving F, the other open wathing the whole scene, if you're focused solely on a screen to see the shot, how do you focus on the background? seriously, I get a headache thinking about how I'd get my eyes to focus that quick between the 2 situations... I really look forward to seeing how the mirrorless game pans out, but I don't think they're there yet...

 

[havoc315]

I guess it would take a lot of practice getting used to shooting "that moment" where its a split second thing to get it right, we all know what "that moment" is, the first kiss, a childs first goal, the jump during a recital. That's why that instant trigger is so important, you wanna get it without motor driving F, the other open wathing the whole scene, if you're focused solely on a screen to see the shot, how do you focus on the background? seriously, I get a headache thinking about how I'd get my eyes to focus that quick between the 2 situations... I really look forward to seeing how the mirrorless game pans out, but I don't think they're there yet...

I'm confused.... How is there any difference between a dSLR and a mirrorless with EVF in what you're talking about?

EVFs should allow easier composition as they provide 100% coverage and tend to be larger than consumer OVFs.

I shoot with a Sony dSLT. While technically it still has a mirror, it utilizes EVF and LCD, just like a mirrorless camera. Composing shots, if anything, is slightly easier than when I used a regular dSLR.

 

[zackiedawg]

I guess it would take a lot of practice getting used to shooting "that moment" where its a split second thing to get it right, we all know what "that moment" is, the first kiss, a childs first goal, the jump during a recital. That's why that instant trigger is so important, you wanna get it without motor driving F, the other open wathing the whole scene, if you're focused solely on a screen to see the shot, how do you focus on the background? seriously, I get a headache thinking about how I'd get my eyes to focus that quick between the 2 situations... I really look forward to seeing how the mirrorless game pans out, but I don't think they're there yet...

I shoot with both an OVF and an EVF, so I've become pretty accustomed to the nuances of both - I'd have to say in the example you post here, it shouldn't be any problem at all with an EVF. Getting 'that moment' is easy enough - sometimes moreso - with the EVF - as you not only get to frame for the shot but also can see the exposure, white balance, etc on screen...even for those of us who know how to set our exposures, there's still some nicety in being able to see it and make tiny adjustments on the fly. Plus, there are a few mirrorless cameras that use electronic first-curtain shutters - so the reaction time from shutter press to shot is infinitesimal...faster than quite a few DSLRs in fact. EFCSs are usually only on high-end pro-body DSLRs, so it's a nice feature to have in a little mirrorless camera - for speeding up reaction time on the shutter as well as reducing shutter vibration.

The one and only area where EVFs really lag behind OVFs are in continuous burst shooting while panning with a moving subject. Because of the signal blackout during the shutter actuation, the EVFs end up showing you a constantly flipping slideshow of the last shot taken - it's only off by milliseconds, and doesn't much matter with a stationary target, but it does present some difficulty when tracking a fast moving subject that can be prone to erratic movements, because you won't know the direction changed until just a few milliseconds after it happened - the tendency to overcorrect to try to catch up to the subject tends to cause you to lose the subject in the frame. Unlike what is often said, that 'EVFs make action/birds-in-flight/etc impossible'...it's still perfectly possible to get such shots - it generally requires a little adjustment to get used to it, and most moving subjects can still be shot in burst and tracked in focus...the one area where you might find your hit rate a little higher on an OVF is with small, fast moving subjects that are erratic and random, and trying to pan with them while firing off a continuous burst. Since very few people actually shoot this type of subject and in this method, EVFs generally won't hinder most people's photography capabilities at all.

Of course, EVFs cause OTHER issues, such as increased battery drain...but as a bi-OVF/EVF shooter, it's really not hard at all to switch between the two even shooting the two bodies side-by-side.

 

[havoc315]

I shoot with both an OVF and an EVF, so I've become pretty accustomed to the nuances of both - I'd have to say in the example you post here, it shouldn't be any problem at all with an EVF. Getting 'that moment' is easy enough - sometimes moreso - with the EVF - as you not only get to frame for the shot .

Another advantage of capturing the "moment" with a mirrorless/EVF/LCD combo, is the ability to switch seamlessly between LCD and EVF. Lift your eye away from the viewfinder to take in the whole scene.... and the composition can continue to appear on the LCD. Start out using the LCD to compose your shot, then seamlessly switch to the EVF. Or solely use the LCD... if it is articulating, easily hold the camera at the right position for framing your shot, without needing to kneel down uncomfortably to peer through the OVF.

So to me, when you can seamlessly switch between EVF and LCD -- no need to push a button, lock up the mirror and sacrifice fast autofocus -- it becomes much easier to compose your shot, to take in the whole environment, to capture the "moment."

As you correctly state, the *only* time that lag is currently an issue is with faster burst rates. Though this problem should decline as processors become faster and buffers become larger. Sony dSLTs can shoot at approximately 3fps without any lag... so you can get some continuous shooting without lag. This *should* improve over time. (Though as the camera makes increase megapixels, it can also make this problem worse as the camera needs to cycle through larger images).

 

[Animagic!]

Kinda late to the discussion but I'm also in the SLT boat. The last time I went to the parks I used both my NEX and my SLT, suspended from the same harness. I frequently jumped back and forth between the two for different types of shots. But at the end of the day I preferred my SLT significantly more than the NEX. Two SLT's would have been much better. Don't get me wrong, I love my NEX. I have not plans to retire it despite moving to an A mount.

However, the NEX is a pain to change settings on. Poor menu and not enough buttons. Can I change what I need to? Yes. Can I do it faster and easier without looking away from my viewfinder on my SLT? Heck yes. However, to be fair I'm sure that the A7 solves a lot of these issues. The grip, dials, and new menu might make it very similar to the SLT experience. Fingers crossed that it does. I genuinely want the A7 to be an amazing camera.

But I love the larger SLT bodies. Like others have said, I like the heft and stability. I hope I don't offend anyone with this comparison but I think of photography a lot like shooting a rifle. The principles of shooting and photography are actually pretty similar. You need to be steady, optics are important, knowing the right moment to pull the trigger/shutter, etc. Like cameras, the rifle's make and model make a difference. Modern hunting rifles have a huge push toward lighter and smaller. Everyone seems to want the lightest, shortest rifle available. They sell like hotcakes. Personally I like them long and heavy. Heavy rifles are more stable and have less recoil, making them easier to shoot accurately. I don't mind carrying 9 lbs of rifle all day on a hunt instead of 6 lbs. To me that extra 3 lbs is negligible weight for a much better shooting experience. Same with an SLT/dSLR. That larger, heavier body is better to me than a petite NEX. I notice no weight difference running around the parks. The size has never inhibited or inconvenienced me in any way. And most importantly, the SLT is simply MORE FUN to use.

I've mentioned it before but I still prefer A mount over the anemic and costly E mount. Significantly more lenses to chose from at cheaper prices is my preference. I think the A7 is a really cool idea. A tiny Full-Frame is nothing to scoff at. However when I feel ready to leave crop-sensors and move up to a Full-Frame camera and have to invest in all new glass anyway, I'll probably jump ship to the more stable Canikon. I love Sony cameras and I don't plan on giving up on the A mount any time soon (got a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on preorder!). But if (not "when," simply if) A mount is killed off to be replaced by the E Mount NEX then I have no intention of sticking around. I'm not going to limp along with a converter to keep using my A mounts on an E mount body. Nor do I have any interest in an E mount SLT. It's just not my thing.

But I don't want to be a Debbie Downer or Negative Nancy. I know there are a lot of E Mount/NEX enthusiasts out there. I'm sure they'll love the A7 and props to Sony for making a Full-Frame that's so small and portable. Even if it's not necessarily my thing, I find the A7 to be very exciting news and I am really glad that Sony did it!

 

[Daisy14'sDH]

Thanks for the clarification gentle Dissers! I'd love to try one out, maybe start with the Pentax K-01 to get a feel for it...