melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
nmerc_photos wrote:
in the beginning there were a lot of people hesitant to make the switch, but now I haven't seen one negative thing about mirrorless comparatively - other than price. and price is no longer an issue.
You can’t have looked far, but then you don’t seem to have found the shift key either.
The weak points of mirrorless AF have been well aired here and elsewhere. For example, recent mirrorless cameras are great at tracking animals across the frame in most conditons, but have real problems with low contrast subjects in dim light, even a slow-swimming duck in open water. And the R3 at least has a tendency to drop off the subject and rack the lens right out to the foreground or background foliage, requiring manually refocussing to recover. A while ago I took it and the 100–500 outside into the cloud of butterfies in my back yard, and it just would not stay on the subject. I went back in the house, got out the 1Ds Mk III and 180 macro, went back out and nailed it on the first shot.
If architecture’s your bag instead, know that no current mirrorless body from Canon, Nikon or Sony has cross AF sensors. (The OM Systems ones do.) It’s one of the things people are hoping are in the upcoming R5 Mk II and R1.
mirrorless is better in every way. you can use the same optics as you would a DSLR, and every lens will perform better on the mirrorless body.
Mirrorless is better for most of the people, most of the time, which is enough to destroy the market for new DSLRs. Image quality is exactly the same on Canon mirrorless compared to DSLR, slightly worse adapted to Sony under some lighting conditions due to artifacts from their phase detection pixels.
The last high end Nikon DSLRs were very close to mirrorless in tracking (Nikon’s “3d tracking” on the D850). Canon may have been less good (I don’t know how good the 1DX Mk II was) and my R3 is better than my 1Ds MK III and 1D Mk III. Tracking is useful to me, but irrelevant for someone shooting urban architecture for example.
Except in very dim light, the viewfinder of my 1Ds Mk III is vastly better than that of my R3, which has the best viewfinder of any Canon mirrorless and is considered by many to have the best viewfinder on a mirrorless camera from any brand (some Sonys have more dots, but display at reduced resolution when focussing). The R3 has wildly inaccurate white balance in the viewfinder, despite the image and the review on the rear LCD being right. It has limited dynamic range. It sometimes shows weird blue-green fringing on edges.
I can only assume people think mirrorless viewfinders are great because they’ve never used a Canon 1-series or the old Olympus OM-1 and OM-2. Those are the cameras I’ve been using for most of the last 40 years. I did use the original 5D for about 4 years and hated the viewfinder. Most Canon SLR viewfinders have been horrid. If that’s what people are comparing with, yes, mirrorless is better.
BTW, I did advise the OP not to buy the 1DX Mk II upthread, but not because it was a DSLR. It was because it had old technology like the cards.
|
