Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Hans Kruse on November 06, 2015, 08:41:03 am
-
http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/11/03/how-to-design-mirrorless-right/
It seems I'm not alone in the feeling that mirrorless is still not where it should be. It's odd as many of the things on the lists are already solved for DSLR's. Changes for changes sake sometimes and others the not invented here syndrome, I guess. My feeling is that in 3-5 years mirrorless is ready for adoption by me as most issues have been removed and reinvented.
-
Yes, most items on that list appeal to me, and seem doable – for one thing, almost all of them are done in _some_ mirrorless cameras. Maybe some of the current lacks are because a lot of mirrorless cameras so far have been aimed at users
a bit far less skilled and demanding than Ming Thein, so that what is good for him (and us?) is not desirable for the target customers of most models. But there is clear evolution towards models and lenses that appeal to more demanding photographers, so I share your optimism.
One question though: are there "many things" that "are already solved for DSLRs" but which no mirrorless cameras does, and if so, what are they? Perhaps you are referring to features of higher end "professional grade" SLRs that I have never experienced!
P. S. a Big "like" for bodies that vary in size and control design according to the intended usage and lens selection. For example, a deep handgrip with substantial battery capacity, either built-in or as a convenient accessory.
-
They need to start making truly pro-grade mirrorless cameras, with emphasis on functionality and ultimate capability rather than on small size/weight (same with the lenses).
Many of the foibles with mirrorless cameras now are because they're small, not because they're mirrorless - but, because of their price and full-frame status, they're competing against full-size SLRs. Compare them with miniature/small SLRs and you'll find that they, too, have a similar list of issues. The problem isn't one of technology, but one of will and market segmentation. For too long, they've sold mirrorless cameras as some sort of upgrade to a point-and-shoot, with emphasis on portability and small size, rather than as professional tools capable of replacing an SLR.
-
I agree with his wish list but for me as an amateur shooter most things are nice to have (non-essential) or very personal (ergonomics/haptics/menu structure).
He's also asking for things that a lot of DSLR's also still lack.
For me it's still not either/or. EVF mirrorless shine in some areas while OVF DSLR's in other. There is still not one camera that can do it all (or both). That's why I own and use both :)
-
Some of the stuff I would like to see in the Sony A7's would involve making them a bit larger: top LCD, and AF joy stick on the back. I would have no problem with making them a bit larger, but I guess Sony wants to show that they can make a FF MILC the same size as a 4/3 MILC...
As for the rest of Ming's list, it is all very personal and specific to the way one shoots. Some of those things IMO relate to the fact that all MILC options are not yet true "systems"; I think Fuji is close, and perhaps Olympus.
-
I love it when people who are bloggers get to make all the rules. Little bit like Digilloyd. Basically they are the Kardashian's of the camera world.
As someone who makes his living shooting I think the Sony is currently pretty great for certain things. And the D810 is pretty great for certain things. And the Phase IQ backs are pretty great.......
In the film days I owned and used at the same time, Sinar 8x10, Linhof 4x5, RZ, Contax and Nikon/Canon
Why do we expect one camera to be the do all end all today?
For one year in, the Sony is pretty damn good for not having a lot of people to rip off. Consider Canon and Nikon's big advances in the last 3 years? (Nikon has had zero. No camera advances, no new interesting lenses. The chip on the 810 is great but again, is Sony) Yes, there are things on the Sony I want to improve but same with most cameras. I'm not sure that Sony will do it though based on their past history of messing up every single product line that they have ever had. Fingers crossed.
-
I love it when people who are bloggers get to make all the rules. Little bit like Digilloyd. Basically they are the Kardashian's of the camera world.
As someone who makes his living shooting I think the Sony is currently pretty great for certain things. And the D810 is pretty great for certain things. And the Phase IQ backs are pretty great.......
In the film days I owned and used at the same time, Sinar 8x10, Linhof 4x5, RZ, Contax and Nikon/Canon
Why do we expect one camera to be the do all end all today?
For one year in, the Sony is pretty damn good for not having a lot of people to rip off. Consider Canon and Nikon's big advances in the last 3 years? (Nikon has had zero. No camera advances, no new interesting lenses. The chip on the 810 is great but again, is Sony) Yes, there are things on the Sony I want to improve but same with most cameras. I'm not sure that Sony will do it though based on their past history of messing up every single product line that they have ever had. Fingers crossed.
I agree. I've yet to meet the perfect camera for all situations I like in photography whether it's DSLR or mirrorless. I doubt the perfect camera will ever exist that satisfies every opinionated photographer, blogger, pundt, etc. Then there are some very creative photographers who have produced marvelous work with a smartphone. Opinions about perfection are ways to while away the hours when you're not out making photos.
I'm just going to keep plugging away with my DSLR when that makes sense and my Fuji X-T1 when that makes sense to me. Blather on.
-
I love it when people who are bloggers get to make all the rules. Little bit like Digilloyd. Basically they are the Kardashian's of the camera world.
Great analogy, brought a smile to my face.
They can keep searching for the ideal camera, in the meantime I'll just keep making pictures with the old-fashioned disoptimal cameras I own ;)
-
I love it when people who are bloggers get to make all the rules.
Except that he not making the rules; he is making suggestions and comments based on his experience and needs. At most, his comments are a very small voice amongst photographers, and I would hope that this group as a whole does make the rules (through market forces and such) that the camera makers follow, or ignore at their peril. And the "rules of the market" work better if as many as possible of us get to express our opinions and wishes, don't you think?
(If Ming Thein got to propagate his opinions as widely and as loudly as Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes get to propagate theirs, that would be a worry . . .)
-
One item on my wish list but not Ming Thein's: I would like some lower magnification options in live view (both the one-eyed and two-eyed versions) such as 2x or even 1.4x, like teleconverters.
Why? Mainly because in some situations, that would be enough to substantially improve manual focus or checking of details, without the problem of losing sight of the target when working with a long focal length. Also because sometimes I know I am going to crop (not having a long enough focal length available, or wanting loose framing with an erratically moving subject), and I would like a somewhat enlarged view while still seeing roughly all of my target composition.
The Olympus EM5 has part of this, but through the back-door: the 2x digital teleconverter mode magnifies the VF image 2x, crops the JPEG to that, but still outputs the full frame to the raw file. But turning it on and off is a bit fiddly.
-
One item on my wish list but not Ming Thein's: I would like some lower magnification options in live view (both the one-eyed and two-eyed versions) such as 2x or even 1.4x, like teleconverters.
Why? Mainly because in some situations, that would be enough to substantially improve manual focus or checking of details, without the problem of losing sight of the target when working with a long focal length. Also because sometimes I know I am going to crop (not having a long enough focal length available, or wanting loose framing with an erratically moving subject), and I would like a somewhat enlarged view while still seeing roughly all of my target composition.
The Olympus EM5 has part of this, but through the back-door: the 2x digital teleconverter mode magnifies the VF image 2x, crops the JPEG to that, but still outputs the full frame to the raw file. But turning it on and off is a bit fiddly.
This can be done in the Fuji world if I understand correctly what you want, quite easily so: press the magnification and rotate the wheel which cycles between: no magnification, 100% and somewhere around 50%.
The other thing that he complains about the LCD off and only the viewfinder can be done on Fuji, less complicated than he claims. On the X-T1 press on the view mode and cycles through 4 options: LCD only, LCD on and EVF with eye sensor, EVF only, EVF only with eye sensor (turns on only when you look through it).
-
It seems likely that, in the end, the better mirrorless cameras for serious multi-application shooting would be Canon/Nikon DSLRs whose mirror would have been replaced by an EVF.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I enjoy reading Mr. Ming's take on things as he comes at it from a perspective quite different to mine. He's a guy who earns his living at this creative endeavor whereas I'm just having fun. So I can afford to be kinda blasé, if not exactly happy, about operational stuff that must be genuinely frustrating when you need to get the shot.
When I think about it there are plenty of things I'd like to see EVF cameras do better. So I'm glad there are folks like Ming doing their best to encourage less complacency from the camera makers.
-Dave-
-
This can be done in the Fuji world if I understand correctly what you want, quite easily so: press the magnification and rotate the wheel which cycles between: no magnification, 100% and somewhere around 50%.
The other thing that he complains about the LCD off and only the viewfinder can be done on Fuji, less complicated than he claims. On the X-T1 press on the view mode and cycles through 4 options: LCD only, LCD on and EVF with eye sensor, EVF only, EVF only with eye sensor (turns on only when you look through it).
Thanks; frustratingly, I cannot find a description of the degrees of magnification given by the "click on real wheel" method, and the only one illustrated is a big zoom to the selected AF region.
The Olympus EM5 easily allows toggling the rear screen on and off, so I mostly have it off, except when making menu settings.
A third point: Fujifilm claims a very short 1/200s lag for the EVF in the XT10, which sounds negligible, but I have never had a chance to handle that camera.
All in all, it seems that almost evertthing of interest to me on MT's list is already out there, or very close; unfortunately no one brand or camera has my ideal combination yet. Olympus and Fujifilm together would almost do it, and throw in Sony's easily-copied idea of charging batteries in the camera via USB power, which would allow a USB power pack to carry weeks of off-the-grid power for my needs. And add Leica's new EVF, which is clearly not designed or made by Leica (maybe by Panasonic), so I am sure it will be available to other brands for their high-end models soon.
-
It seems likely that, in the end, the better mirrorless cameras for serious multi-application shooting would be Canon/Nikon DSLRs whose mirror would have been replaced by an EVF.
This may indeed turn out to be the case, but I suspect CaNikon won't experience smooth sailing with their existing PD-AF lens lineups once they ditch the mirror. I also suspect this is a major reason why they have yet to dip their toes into the EVF water with even basic backwards-compatible 35mm format EVF cameras. Thus it may be wise for them to hold off as long as possible while improving on-sensor PD-AF tech as much as possible, thereby to minimize the negative aspects of mechanical slop from the lenses. In the end I think it'll take a new generation of hybrid PD/CD-AF lenses to carry the Big Two completely over the hump.
-Dave-
-
This may indeed turn out to be the case, but I suspect CaNikon won't experience smooth sailing with their existing PD-AF lens lineups once they ditch the mirror. I also suspect this is a major reason why they have yet to dip their toes into the EVF water with even basic backwards-compatible 35mm format EVF cameras. Thus it may be wise for them to hold off as long as possible while improving on-sensor PD-AF tech as much as possible, thereby to minimize the negative aspects of mechanical slop from the lenses. In the end I think it'll take a new generation of hybrid PD/CD-AF lenses to carry the Big Two completely over the hump.
-Dave-
I don't see why the lenses from Canon and Nikon would not work really well on a mirrorless body. Both have a complete f/2.8 and f/4 zoom lineup plus lots of very good primes. So they are in my opinion well positioned to just replace or add a FF mirrorless body. I'm sure they will when they have a good one to add.
-
All I want is twin memory card slots..
Hello ??
;D
-
All I want is twin memory card slots..
Hello ??
;D
In a small camera? I don't think it will happen?
-
I don't see why the lenses from Canon and Nikon would not work really well on a mirrorless body. Both have a complete f/2.8 and f/4 zoom lineup plus lots of very good primes. So they are in my opinion well positioned to just replace or add a FF mirrorless body. I'm sure they will when they have a good one to add.
Fully agree Hans, the breadth of their lineups are mouth watering vs. some other brands and they can develop their bodies to match their own lenses. Question will be if they will go the Sony/Leica/MFT route of a very short registration distance and create an open system with adapters or if they would keep the DSLR registration distance (so just remove the mirror) and remain a closed system. Time will tell but it will be interesting to see how they implement it (if at all)
-
It seems likely that, in the end, the better mirrorless cameras for serious multi-application shooting would be Canon/Nikon DSLRs whose mirror would have been replaced by an EVF.
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed. The only wonder is that they haven't done it yet!
Personally, I can't wait. Just the advantage in terms of focusing - manual and automatic - should be considerable. I dread having to use the PDAF system in my D810, the accuracy and consistency is dreadful, especially with the Sigma Arts.
-
In a small camera? I don't think it will happen?
The rumour mill is suggesting the next Fuji Pro might have a pair of SD slots.
I always take that stuff with a grain of salt of course, but you never know.
Seems a helpful upgrade if Fuji are looking to take business of Nikon and Canon.
-
I enjoy reading Mr. Ming's take on things as he comes at it from a perspective quite different to mine. ... I'm glad there are folks like Ming doing their best to encourage less complacency from the camera makers.
-Dave-
Agreed. I like Ming - he's a virtuoso photographer and comes across as an intelligent and pleasant person. One of the few bloggers who're worth listening to! He's sometimes a tad overzealous but there it is.
Alex
-
It seems I'm not alone in the feeling that mirrorless is still not where it should be. It's odd as many of the things on the lists are already solved for DSLR's.
And some not ..
To paraphrase Ming : " So let’s do something positive, once and for all. Here is a short list of essential things that every DSLR camera should have, and not necessarily to the exclusion of other functions."
1- PDAF/CDAF
2- Focus peaking and exposure zebras are a must.
3- Adaptable lenses (inc AF where applicable) with Sony/Minolta, Leica (M,R) and CaNikon glass.
4- Auto switch from AF to to magnify live view with peaking (MF) by simply rotating the lens' focus ring
5- Sensor-based IS like the M4/3 or A7II series cameras effective on all lenses (common sense required here)
6- Alternative to touch screens: add remote camera control via smartphone with NFC (including selecting focus points by touch).
7- Customizable menus and shortcuts (read: assignable buttons and QM)
8- The option to charge or run over USB power like the A7II series.
And a shorter 'to-do' list for both MILC and DSLR's:
1- An ETTR metering option, based on RAW, that exposes until a certain percentage area of the frame clips (settable by the user).
2- Selectable mechanical and electronic shutter options - leaf shutters are great (and combined with an electronic shutter to hit higher speeds). Electronic first curtain should be standard.
3- Ability to write files to a USB attached SSD as well as the internal memory card either at capture or later.
Edit:
And all MILC lens manufacturers should make a Leica style coupling ring that allows you to mount two lenses back to back ...
(http://www.leicastories.com/img/leica_stories/in-the-bag-cameras/ls-gear-coupling.jpg)
-
And some not ..
To paraphrase Ming : " So let’s do something positive, once and for all. Here is a short list of essential things that every DSLR camera should have, and not necessarily to the exclusion of other functions."
1- PDAF/CDAF
2- Focus peaking and exposure zebras are a must.
3- Adaptable lenses (inc AF where applicable) with Sony/Minolta, Leica (M,R) and CaNikon glass.
4- Auto switch from AF to to magnify live view with peaking (MF) by simply rotating the lens' focus ring
5- Sensor-based IS like the M4/3 or A7II series cameras effective on all lenses (common sense required here)
6- Alternative to touch screens: add remote camera control via smartphone with NFC (including selecting focus points by touch).
7- Customizable menus and shortcuts (read: assignable buttons and QM)
8- The option to charge or run over USB power like the A7II series.
And a shorter 'to-do' list for both MILC and DSLR's:
1- An ETTR metering option, based on RAW, that exposes until a certain percentage area of the frame clips (settable by the user).
2- Selectable mechanical and electronic shutter options - leaf shutters are great (and combined with an electronic shutter to hit higher speeds). Electronic first curtain should be standard.
3- Ability to write files to a USB attached SSD as well as the internal memory card either at capture or later.
An lot of those things are never going to happen in a DSLR though...
One of the few fundamental concerns I have about mirrorless is the irritating sensor reflections you get when shooting into the sun or other bright light source; the DSLR's longer flange distance sorts that out nicely. Other than that though, a mirrorless D810 with RAW ETTR metering, well implemented focus peaking etc would make me happy I'm sure.
-
An lot of those things are never going to happen in a DSLR though...
Exactly - you've just summarised the 'raison d'être' of the MILC ...
-
Hi,
Some of those things are dependent on sensors and cameras get those features when sensors provide them.
To these belongs on sensor PDAF and first electronic shutter curtain.
Best regards
Erik
And some not ..
To paraphrase Ming : " So let’s do something positive, once and for all. Here is a short list of essential things that every DSLR camera should have, and not necessarily to the exclusion of other functions."
1- PDAF/CDAF
2- Focus peaking and exposure zebras are a must.
3- Adaptable lenses (inc AF where applicable) with Sony/Minolta, Leica (M,R) and CaNikon glass.
4- Auto switch from AF to to magnify live view with peaking (MF) by simply rotating the lens' focus ring
5- Sensor-based IS like the M4/3 or A7II series cameras effective on all lenses (common sense required here)
6- Alternative to touch screens: add remote camera control via smartphone with NFC (including selecting focus points by touch).
7- Customizable menus and shortcuts (read: assignable buttons and QM)
8- The option to charge or run over USB power like the A7II series.
And a shorter 'to-do' list for both MILC and DSLR's:
1- An ETTR metering option, based on RAW, that exposes until a certain percentage area of the frame clips (settable by the user).
2- Selectable mechanical and electronic shutter options - leaf shutters are great (and combined with an electronic shutter to hit higher speeds). Electronic first curtain should be standard.
3- Ability to write files to a USB attached SSD as well as the internal memory card either at capture or later.
Edit:
And all MILC lens manufacturers should make a Leica style coupling ring that allows you to mount two lenses back to back ...
(http://www.leicastories.com/img/leica_stories/in-the-bag-cameras/ls-gear-coupling.jpg)
-
Some of those things are dependent on sensors and cameras get those features when sensors provide them.
Agreed - as the old saying goes: 'Don't put the cart before the horse '
To these belongs on sensor PDAF and first electronic shutter curtain.
Which is why they were already included in the list!
-
Hi,
My take on this is that the problem is that the lens needs to stop down before exposure, so this is mainly a lens problem. With manual aperture it should be no problem.
I have not tested this, I shoot with a lot of different lenses on cameras having EFCS (E1C) but have never seen a problem but I also don't shoot fast times.
The peaking function is overvalued, in my humble option. It is based on the viewfinder image and does not indicate accurate focus.
I also feel that both peaking and zebras need to be able to be toggled, just pressing a button and without fiddling in menus.
The need of dual slot cards is interesting. I fully sympathise with those demanding it. On the other hand MF digital backs never used to have dual CF slots and those cameras have been used with complains by a lot of wedding photographers, just to mention a group who usually say they need it. A lot of stuff can go bad on a digital camera, the memory card is just one of those. Good if Leica provides dual slots. And yes, I think it is a feature professional cameras should have.
I also agree that performance is what counts and the means to achieve it. The important thing is not PDAF or CDAF but that the things works.
Best regards
Erik
Electronic first curtain (E1C) needs to be improved before I consider it a must-have. On the a7II with adapted lenses it fails at shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec. and disabling it on this camera requires menu-diving. My biggest disappointment with this camera.
-
From article - "All of these problem beg the question: just how difficult is it to get it right? Evidently very much so, because not one of the cameras above is free from at least one massive glaring flaw"
Find any camera in any form factor which that could not be said about.
-
Hi,
One of the issues is that different users may have different priorities. If I designed the A7rII, it would certainly be different. But would it work Mr Thein? I doubt it, would it work at all? Quite possibly not. It is easy to make a personal Wishlist, to implement it in real life can be very hard.
Best regards
Erik
From article - "All of these problem beg the question: just how difficult is it to get it right? Evidently very much so, because not one of the cameras above is free from at least one massive glaring flaw "Find any camera in any form factor which that could not be said about.
-
All I want is twin memory card slots..
In a small camera? I don't think it will happen?
Certainly doable. Have you not seen how really tiny Micro SD cards are?
-
One of the issues is that different users may have different priorities. If I designed the A7rII, it would certainly be different. But would it work Mr Thein? I doubt it, would it work at all? Quite possibly not. It is easy to make a personal Wishlist, to implement it in real life can be very hard.
I could state that I have several perfect cameras. For very specific jobs. They are however rubbish at other tasks. ;)
-
Electronic first curtain (E1C) needs to be improved before I consider it a must-have. On the a7II with adapted lenses it fails at shutter speeds faster than 1/1000 sec. and disabling it on this camera requires menu-diving. My biggest disappointment with this camera.
Thanks for the heads-up.
I find that the a7II's focus peaking is not sufficiently precise.
Widlight,
I've seen some of your shots and am well aware of your expertise re manual focus but believe the value of FP lies in the application of it and is very subject-dependent. BIF, wouldn't be an ideal target. I don't use it as a first line of defence but rather as an adjunct to live view, when it works, and very much so when I'm zone focussing with moderate wide-angles (28 & 35).
No, it's not a feature one can rely on 100% of the time, but if the shot lends itself to it - it is, to me, irreplaceable and I haven't noticed any inaccuracy in the Sony implementation of it, far from it and for zone focusing, if there's an edge somewhere, I use that rather than LV.
-
Indeed. The only wonder is that they haven't done it yet!
Personally, I can't wait. Just the advantage in terms of focusing - manual and automatic - should be considerable. I dread having to use the PDAF system in my D810, the accuracy and consistency is dreadful, especially with the Sigma Arts.
I use only Nikon lenses on my D810 (and Canon lenses on my 5Ds R) and have not seen a lack of accuracy and inconsistency. On the contrary I find the AF very fast and precise. So I'm not missing anything in that area. I like the uncluttered view finders of both cameras. I would be nice if both had a real ETTR shooting mode. The highlight weighted metering on the D810 is better than what Canon has, but still not very good and rather inconsistent. For landscape shooting this is really the only thing I'm missing.
So why haven't they made a mirrorless camera yet that fits the existing lenses? My guess is that they have both found that the DSLR is the best in most aspects and that a so and so mirrorless would send a very mixed message to the users of both systems. I'm sure they both have full frame prototypes for testing for some time now. I don't quite see why Canon or Nikon should change the mount and start all over with new lenses. It would be like shooting themselves in the legs ;)
-
It seems likely that, in the end, the better mirrorless cameras for serious multi-application shooting would be Canon/Nikon DSLRs whose mirror would have been replaced by an EVF.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree that serious multipurpose cameras will be SLR-sized (maybe not SLR weight - optical viewfinders and mirror boxes are heavy), but why necessarily Nikon or Canon? Sony has a head start with that technology and a long history in video/cinema equipment (which has a lot of similarities with mirrorless technology-wise) and, while it has a major weakness in terms of lens selection, the combination of mirrorless, on-sensor PDAF and moveable sensors (used in IBIS) potentially allow for ultra-fast focus with any lens. Meanwhile, Canon and Nikon have the most feeble mirrorless lineups out of any manufacturer, and their pedigree in optics rather than electronics doesn't lend them any favours in catching up either (although they could make a killing selling lenses with multiple lens mount choices).
I hope Sony launch their rumoured pro-level mirrorless body soon - even if its AF only matches the 5D3 or 6D, rather than the D4s or 1Dx, it would still be a huge first step forward, and would perhaps entice Sigma, Zeiss and others to start releasing more of their top lenses (Art and Otus series) in E-mount in addition to EF and F-mount (perhaps at the expense of A-mount, which is essentially dead, and Sigma mount, which I don't know why they ever bothered with).
-
I don't see why the lenses from Canon and Nikon would not work really well on a mirrorless body. Both have a complete f/2.8 and f/4 zoom lineup plus lots of very good primes. So they are in my opinion well positioned to just replace or add a FF mirrorless body. I'm sure they will when they have a good one to add.
The issue isn't optics but the mechanics of lenses designed for PD-AF. CD-AF easily bests PD-AF when it comes to accuracy, and this will become obvious to users once they start working with a camera that offers both systems. If continuous focusing speed is your thing you may not care about this. But if not you likely will. PD-AF lenses operating in CD-AF mode tend to be sluggish if not glitchy. Thus I'd expect Canon & Nikon to update their lens lines accordingly. (Of course maybe they're already doing so "under the hood.")
-Dave-
-
Do cameras like the Sony A7rII's, a6000's and Fuji X stuff need micro AF adjust ?
-
The issue isn't optics but the mechanics of lenses designed for PD-AF. CD-AF easily bests PD-AF when it comes to accuracy, and this will become obvious to users once they start working with a camera that offers both systems. If continuous focusing speed is your thing you may not care about this. But if not you likely will. PD-AF lenses operating in CD-AF mode tend to be sluggish if not glitchy. Thus I'd expect Canon & Nikon to update their lens lines accordingly. (Of course maybe they're already doing so "under the hood.")
-Dave-
CDAF is more accurate, but PDAF is a lot faster. When you need AF, it's generally because you need to focus on something quickly, or focus on a moving subject. Otherwise MF (+/- focus confirmation) is better. On-sensor PDAF works very well with current lenses and can provide a means for mirrorless cameras to focus and track moving subjects, which, up until now, has been their biggest weakness.
Also, the STM motors recently introduced by Canon are optimal for CDAF without losing any functionality for PDAF.
-
Do cameras like the Sony A7rII's, a6000's and Fuji X stuff need micro AF adjust ?
No.
The A7x has a an AF micro adjust menu setting but that's for A-mount lenses (only) using the LA-EA2 or LA-EA4 adapters. Native FE mount lenses don't need it. I'm not sure about Canon/Metabones combos, I haven't used any, but the manual says NO with unsupported lenses.
-
No.
The A7x has a an AF micro adjust menu setting but that's for A-mount lenses (only) using the LA-EA2 or LA-EA4 adapters. Native FE mount lenses don't need it. I'm not sure about Canon/Metabones combos, I haven't used any, but the manual says NO with unsupported lenses.
No, one does not need AF microadjust even when using the Metabones because AF is still done on the image plane. The only time you need to microadjust is when using A-mount lenses in combination with the LA-EA2 or LA-EA4 sony adapters which have their own internal PDAF system that is outside of the camera.
-
No micro AF adjust ?
Excellent - this whole mirrorless thing is gaining traction with me.. 8)
-
I enjoy reading Mr. Ming's take on things as he comes at it from a perspective quite different to mine. He's a guy who earns his living at this creative endeavor whereas I'm just having fun.
-Dave-
I thought he worked for Olympus (for a quid). Not true?
-
CDAF is more accurate, but PDAF is a lot faster. When you need AF, it's generally because you need to focus on something quickly, or focus on a moving subject. Otherwise MF (+/- focus confirmation) is better.
While mostly true enough this isn't how the majority of camera owners use AF. :) (BTW, Olympus' CD-AF is very fast indeed, though in continuous mode it doesn't track as well as PD-AF systems.)
Also, the STM motors recently introduced by Canon are optimal for CDAF without losing any functionality for PDAF.
Good. Hope Nikon takes/is taking the same approach.
-Dave-
-
While mostly true enough this isn't how the majority of camera owners use AF. :) (BTW, Olympus' CD-AF is very fast indeed, though in continuous mode it doesn't track as well as PD-AF systems.)
Good. Hope Nikon takes/is taking the same approach.
-Dave-
The majority of camera owners also use popup flash to try to light up a mountain... High-level gear needs to be designed for those who know how to shoot and know how to best use their equipment, not for those who can't focus on a nonmoving subject without AF.
-
The majority of camera owners also use popup flash to try to light up a mountain... High-level gear needs to be designed for those who know how to shoot and know how to best use their equipment, not for those who can't focus on a nonmoving subject without AF.
This is silly. I often use AF even when MF is an easy option. Why shouldn't I? I bow to no arbiter of "proper" equipment usage.
-Dave-
-
This is silly. I often use AF even when MF is an easy option. Why shouldn't I? I bow to no arbiter of "proper" equipment usage.
-Dave-
I use AF all the time even if I could use MF. I only use MF for landscape photography when DOF is challenged at f/16 and I don't want to stop down further. This would be in combination with use LV zoomed in to foreground and background to check DOF and acceptable details. As Dave says, why should one not use AF when AF is the best and fastest option. I would question many views of what proper equipment use would be. For me only the results count. How this is achieved in essence does not matter. Is it done the slow way by everything manual or the fast way of using as much automation as possible does not matter, except the timing factor which for me is very important. For others not.
-
I concur. I use AF when it is possible, even in landscaping, even with the much maligned 645 DF+. This whole notion that MF is the only real "F" is a bit silly.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3954/15020813223_cef4ce8698_c.jpg)
Credo 40, 645 DF+, AF and enough near-far detail to make focusing challenging. Have printed this in various sizes and am happy with the results.
-
I concur. I use AF when it is possible, even in landscaping, even with the much maligned 645 DF+. This whole notion that MF is the only real "F" is a bit silly.
I think some people confuse the term "auto focus" with "let the camera decide everything". I rarely use AUTO AF, meaning full auto where camera picks the focus point. I use Auto Assisted Focus 98% of the time, where I pick the focus point and place it where I need/want it to be in the frame. Then I let the electronics do the dirty work for me, i.e. turn the focus mechanism. It does it faster and more accurately than I can do it.
With the new face detection and closer eye focus system Fujifilm X-T1 has, I do sometimes let the camera do the whole thing, as is actually seems to work.
One example, taken with autofocus (gasp) and AE…
-
With the new face detection and closer eye focus system Fujifilm X-T1 has, I do sometimes let the camera do the whole thing, as is actually seems to work.
One example, taken with autofocus (gasp) and AE…
The fact that the camera managed to stay focussed on the eyes is mighty impressive! ;) Few male non gay photographers could.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
Good point…
Getting back to state of mirrorless and focusing techniques… Before getting the A7rII I mostly used magnified live view whenever I wanted to achieve optimal focus. With the A7rII the PDAF points cover a large area so I can select a focusing spot just about anywhere, or rather almost anywhere, in the image. Also the A7rII is said to have very accurate AF, as far I did not make any observation to the contrary. So, now I use AF more than ever.
One other point I have seen was the EVF works very well in dark places. I was shooting in a few dark places, churches in France and Italy. The EVF was much better than naked eye without finder. Obviously there is a limit for EVFs. My exposures in those churches were in the 10-30s range at low ISOs. There are darker places than that. But the EVF worked for me in dark conditions. In bright conditions it is a different thing. An eye cup may be helpful.
Best regards
Erik
The fact that the camera managed to stay focussed on the eyes is mighty impressive! ;) Few male non gay photographers could.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This is silly. I often use AF even when MF is an easy option. Why shouldn't I? I bow to no arbiter of "proper" equipment usage.
-Dave-
Because AF lands it close (sometimes very close) and very fast, but MF can land it spot-on, if you have time to do it. Doubly so if the feature you want in sharpest focus is smaller than the size of the AF point. And sometimes 'close' just isn't close enough - a 42MP sensor is absolutely unforgiving of any degree of misfocus.
-
The fact that the camera managed to stay focussed on the eyes is mighty impressive! ;) Few male non gay photographers could.
Cheers,
Bernard
Have to clarify: that photo was taken with D800e & Sigma 50mm Art, not Fuji. AF spot aimed at the closer eye. In some cameras in the past they had a focusing system which followed the photographer's eye on the viewfinder. With that it would have been quite impossible… ;D
-
In some cameras in the past they had a focusing system which followed the photographer's eye on the viewfinder. With that it would have been quite impossible… ;D
Photography is such a hard job sometimes!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The fact that the camera managed to stay focussed on the eyes is mighty impressive! ;) Few male non gay photographers could.
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed, and it is also a fine example of pushing up exposure:)
-
Because AF lands it close (sometimes very close) and very fast, but MF can land it spot-on, if you have time to do it. Doubly so if the feature you want in sharpest focus is smaller than the size of the AF point. And sometimes 'close' just isn't close enough - a 42MP sensor is absolutely unforgiving of any degree of misfocus.
The fact that focus is sometimes not suitable for Af does not mean (in my opinion and experience) that AF is not even very good in 99%+ of the cases.
For landscape I focus with back button focus and one AF point enabled and I focus in the viewfinder where I want the focus to be with the chosen focal length and then I compose the shot and shoot. This works really well. I see no flaw in this approach. The chosen DOF need to be either known well in advance or checked and then LV is the best tool for that for me. This is an absolute minority of my shots where this is needed.
-
As I shoot 99% handheld, trying to focus manually with live view or enlarged focus point just does not work. I find that placing a focus point where I want and thus using auto assisted focus (AAF…) works at least 98% of the time. Good enough for me at least.
-
The fact that focus is sometimes not suitable for Af does not mean (in my opinion and experience) that AF is not even very good in 99%+ of the cases.
For landscape I focus with back button focus and one AF point enabled and I focus in the viewfinder where I want the focus to be with the chosen focal length and then I compose the shot and shoot. This works really well. I see no flaw in this approach. The chosen DOF need to be either known well in advance or checked and then LV is the best tool for that for me. This is an absolute minority of my shots where this is needed.
The point of this discussion has been first sidetracked, then completely lost in the minutiae.
The fact is, AF is optimised for action and moving subjects, and rightly so. Better to have an AF system that works well in situations where you absolutely need it (or as close to 'absolutely' as you can get, anyway) than to have a slower AF system that is potentially more accurate in situations where you could easily MF anyway, but which cannot keep up with fast action when you really need AF. PDAF is a lot faster than CDAF, although not as accurate (although on-sensor PDAF eliminates microadjustment and, potentially, focus shift too, if one is willing to sacrifice speed). Therefore, better a camera with a fast PDAF system for action, then manually focusing (or just accepting a bit of inaccuracy) when shooting still subjects, than a camera with a super-accurate CDAF system that can't keep up with moving subjects. You can replicate CDAF's accuracy on still subjects with MF, but you can't replicate PDAF's speed on moving subjects with anything else.
-
As I shoot 99% handheld, trying to focus manually with live view or enlarged focus point just does not work. I find that placing a focus point where I want and thus using auto assisted focus (AAF…) works at least 98% of the time. Good enough for me at least.
What about focus peaking? That's basically manually-operated CDAF, better than any ground glass and at least as accurate as Leica's rangefinder mechanism.
-
What about focus peaking? That's basically manually-operated CDAF, better than any ground glass and at least as accurate as Leica's rangefinder mechanism.
More accurate than Leica's rangefinder mechanism - but also very much subject and lens dependent. Not guaranteed to be applicable in all circumstances - you need an edge or two. Try to use it on clouds and you'll be twiddling until next year, try it on an eyeball with a 75 and you'll be mm accurate.
It's also dependent on your camera settings, not just the FP settings but your display settings too.
Wouldn't be without either.
+1
-
Using the a7II with long lenses I find focus peaking insufficiently accurate and most of the time I can focus manually more accurately, even without magnification.
Using the A7r or A7rII, I find any method other than zooming in and manually adjusting focus insufficiently accurate for critical focus.
36/42MP is extremely unforgiving - your mindset and methods must be more like shooting with a MFDB than with a traditional SLR, since the resolution is high enough to show the slightest inaccuracy or DOF limitation. (Incidentally, a sensor-based tilt function would be extremely valuable, since higher resolutions and larger print sizes now mean that what used to be acceptable with just a simple lens is now better done using a tilt-shift lens, for better focal plane control).
If you're shooting action, of course, this all flies out the window, with 'near enough is good enough' being the maxim, subject to the accuracy limitations of PDAF.
-
Using the A7r or A7rII, I find any method other than zooming in and manually adjusting focus insufficiently accurate for critical focus.
36/42MP is extremely unforgiving - your mindset and methods must be more like shooting with a MFDB than with a traditional SLR, since the resolution is high enough to show the slightest inaccuracy or DOF limitation. (Incidentally, a sensor-based tilt function would be extremely valuable, since higher resolutions and larger print sizes now mean that what used to be acceptable with just a simple lens is now better done using a tilt-shift lens, for better focal plane control).
If you're shooting action, of course, this all flies out the window, with 'near enough is good enough' being the maxim, subject to the accuracy limitations of PDAF.
Just to state the fairly obvious :) If you print at the same maximum size as many do on e.g. an Epson 3880 (max super A2) then there is no difference in how critical focus is or DOF. If you look at pixels in 1:1 in Lightroom then you and judge on a screen like the retina screen on the MacBook Pro 15" (220 PPI) and print the final print will be about a meter or so in width (with no cropping) from the 5Ds R. If you judge DOF from 1:1 on a screen with much less density like a large 30" screen at the old default of 2560x1600 then 1:1 would correspond to printing so large that you probably never would do that. Then on top of that you would need to judge what the CoC would need to be for a normal viewing distance. For a 100 cm wide print would you view this as close as you would view the screen? Probably not so the requirement goes down.
As previously mentioned I shoot with my 5Ds R focussing using the PDAF in the camera and for landscapes absolutely no issue with accuracy. Compared to the 5D III I don't see this camera to be more difficult to shoot with despite the difference in resolution from 22 to 50 MP.
The attached example which was a casual shot from yesterdays morning when out searching for the light was shot handheld at 1/125s at f/11. Viewing it in 1:1 in Lightroom at is tacksharp with very fine detail.
-
Just to state the fairly obvious :) If you print at the same maximum size as many do on e.g. an Epson 3880 (max super A2) then there is no difference in how critical focus is or DOF. If you look at pixels in 1:1 in Lightroom then you and judge on a screen like the retina screen on the MacBook Pro 15" (220 PPI) and print the final print will be about a meter or so in width (with no cropping) from the 5Ds R. If you judge DOF from 1:1 on a screen with much less density like a large 30" screen at the old default of 2560x1600 then 1:1 would correspond to printing so large that you probably never would do that. Then on top of that you would need to judge what the CoC would need to be for a normal viewing distance. For a 100 cm wide print would you view this as close as you would view the screen? Probably not so the requirement goes down.
As previously mentioned I shoot with my 5Ds R focussing using the PDAF in the camera and for landscapes absolutely no issue with accuracy. Compared to the 5D III I don't see this camera to be more difficult to shoot with despite the difference in resolution from 22 to 50 MP.
The attached example which was a casual shot from yesterdays morning when out searching for the light was shot handheld at 1/125s at f/11. Viewing it in 1:1 in Lightroom at is tacksharp with very fine detail.
If you print at large sizes (40x60" and 32x96" being my most common sizes), you can see a difference. At 22MP, out-of-focus areas, and areas which are slightly motion-blurred, are sometimes not apparent, as they are lost in the general mushiness of the image. At 42MP, though, and especially with even higher-resolution images stitched from multiple frames or from a MFDB, these flaws are quite apparent - instead of everything being equally sharp, you can see that one plane is quite visibly sharper than the rest of the image (making the rest of the image look 'wrong') or you can see motion blur where it wasn't previously apparent - stars may appear as short streaks, 2-3 pixels long, whereas a lower-resolution image would just render it as a single-pixel blob.
Basically, higher resolution gives you a better-quality print - razor-sharp 40x60s, for example - but this better quality also reveals every little technical flaw that isn't apparent in the mushiness of a lower-resolution image. You can hide the flaws by downsampling back to a lower resolution, but then you're back to the whole image looking mushy and no better than if you had taken it using a lower-resolution sensor.