Photoclubalpha

Sony A6000, Panasonic GH4, Olympus E-M1, Fuji XT-1, Nikon D4s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd ... wlxOVS6h8A

Pretty good video comparison.

Personally, I always use AF-S and single shot mode in all cameras I have used since the early 1970s.

I always like reviews from the Camera Store. Mirror free cameras are certainly catching up in this last bastion of superior dslr performance. (Thanks to Kirk Tuck for the "mirror free" nomenclature.)

We visited a National Trust garden at the weekend to see the late spring flowers. Lots if cameras in evidence, and of course many of these were dslrs, all of the way from the top to the bottom of the Canon range. There was even a Pentax! I was surprised that I also saw several Oly. Panny, Fuji and Sony mirror free cameras in use, as well as compacts. I think the high number of compacts was due to the the demographics; more older people who I guess have less smartphones. Not a scientific study, but the first time I have seen this sort of breakdown of cameras in use.

Recently in Turkey I saw mirror free cameras from time to time along with lots of DSLRs, digicams, and, of course, smartphones. I think I saw more tablets being used as cameras though than mirror free.

2005 and 2013 papal ceremony:

That is a great comparison shot Henry, thanks for sharing.

That's actually a pretty disturbing image there Henry. Those people experienced this event through their device and as such, weren't really there.

Agree there is a tendency for people to view events through a device rather than to see it. Tech is great but sometimes we spend too much time looking at a display rather than what's going on. Still photo folks are used to this we usually have a camera stuck to the eye

as seen in the internet...

bfitzgerald wrote:Agree there is a tendency for people to view events through a device rather than to see it. Tech is great but sometimes we spend too much time looking at a display rather than what's going on. Still photo folks are used to this we usually have a camera stuck to the eye

Well, we need Susan Sontag or Roland Barthes to explain us more about it, but they are not with us anymore... Probably Humberto Eco can do it.

But this phenomenon, looking at the event through the filter of a devise is not new. Like selfies, What was new yesterday was the upskirt (like the duchess showing her round butt last week...), and today, well today I don't know what is the new thing...

When I go to an event, lets say, a concert or so, I don't usually take pictures. And, if i finally do it, it will be by the end. Because I don't enjoy the event through the camera. I do work through the camera, it is a filter, or a shield, that protect me from the whole experience -but if I'm at a concert of an artist I really like, i don't want to be "protected, I want the full experience.

I guess at some point, younger people will realize they are missing something, or they will just adjust and enjoy life trough a devise.

Those mirrorless thingies are definitely getting better, but how competitive would they be when the light level goes south?
Greg

Greg Beetham wrote:Those mirrorless thingies are definitely getting better, but how competitive would they be when the light level goes south?
Greg

I am basically a dawn to dusk photographer rather than a creature of the night so your concerns are some what different too mine. We have had a number of mainly night flowering orchids which required night time macro shooting but that was it.

Snapshots excluded of course.

pakodominguez wrote:as seen in the internet...

That's a good one.

peterottaway wrote:
I am basically a dawn to dusk photographer rather than a creature of the night so your concerns are some what different too mine. We have had a number of mainly night flowering orchids which required night time macro shooting but that was it.

Snapshots excluded of course.

They ain’t my concerns either but they would probably be someone’s, those who shoot action in low light maybe but that’s not me.
It’s ok to show how good those MFILC’s are in reasonable light and that’s fine but like I asked are they still going just as good as the D4 when the light level drops down to indoor stadium light level for example, that’s what the test didn’t show, I’m not trying to pick nits, it’s a relevant question if they want to promote them or give the impression they are a cheap alternative to a D4, do a complete test, not half a test.
Greg

Ps yeah good joke H and probably not far from the truth either, poor old JC would be in trouble these days trying to have a bit of privacy while raising up from the dead. Actually they had tablets way back then too, just that they wrote on them with a chisel.

I'm not sure if you have seen it Greg but the Dave Tameling article from March titled Sony Alpha A7r comparison in low light. This is more about focus accuracy in available dark than focus speed. He compared the A99, Nex 5r, Nex 7, A7r at f 2.8 and at f 4.0. Basic conclusion CDAF is superior to PDAF. I would have attempted to use similar lenses rather than a combination of primes and zoom lenses but I don't think that undermines the general tenor of his conclusions.

The Panasonic GH4 has CDAF along with something new called DFD (Depth-From-Defocus) which is supposed to make the CDAF even faster. Here is some info:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/p ... h4TECH.HTM

With the GH4, Panasonic has introduced an all-new autofocus algorithm that eliminates many of the drawbacks of contrast-detect autofocus, and delivers AF speeds approaching those of traditional SLRs. DFD stands for "Depth From Defocus," and to understand what this is all about and why it's such an impressive innovation, let's first take a quick look at how camera AF systems work.

Here is a short interview and a few photos of roller derby with m4/3 (Olympus E-M1 and Panasonic GH4). It looks like some action in not so great light:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05/30 ... our-thirds