Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. Collapse Details
    #31
    Senior Member jamedia.uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    581
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by alaskacameradude View Post
    I dunno, I just today shot around 1200 photos in heat ranging (depending on
    who you believe) from 106-111 degrees at the west regionals of the little league world
    series. With a Sony mirrorless. As for cold, I use it every winter in Alaska. Not
    sure if that is extreme enough conditions for you, but I've never had a single hiccup....
    and even if they are not extreme enough, the conditions I use Sony mirrorless cams
    in are certainly not 'air conditioning and a Starbucks.'
    yes.... but... if you are not shooting Wimbledon are you really a pro ? :-)

    The question is what sort of photography does the OP want to shoot?
    I can understand that 14 8 hour days with your eye on the viewfinder for 95% of the time it might make a difference. but for most other photography I think not.

    Then it comes down to what else the OP wants to do. Video was mentioned and you have to use an EFV for that. (for fixed position I tend to use a secondary 7inch screen tather than the EFV.)


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #32
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,722
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    Not really - if your eye needs to be at 'T2' to see the EVF and 'T64' to see the outside world then it becomes straining very fast as your eye has to 'rack iris' all day.

    Yes - seeing what the sensor is seeing is important but that is mainly done by 'chimping' before or after the shot.
    Old trick and old NFL Films guy said: When you're shooting and you take your eye away from the VF, close it. Open it back up when you put it back up to the VF. Then your pupil isn't constantly adjusting and you don't have to wait for it to re-adjust from the bright ambient to the VF level.

    But then you're right back to your argument, is THAT screen bright enough to show you a true image in ambient light.

    You know this as well as anyone, if evf's aren't good enough, then how have most of us been coming back with properly exposed video for all these years. The only real advantage I see to an optical VF is that you can look through the camera/lens and compose/frame a shot without the camera being turned on. A good EVF is going to show me what the sensor is actually seeing and you're going to know what is and isn't exposed properly or what is blown out before you take the picture, no "chimping" required. ; )


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #33
    Senior Member Bern Caughey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    4,221
    Default
    I still like rangefinders for documentary photography, but even Leica has transitioned to using an EVF (from Panasonic’s GH5) in their medium format ‘S’ cameras.

    On a related note: EVFs are often considered less than, but last time I used an optical viewfinder on an Alexa I was a bit shocked how dark it was with all the ND needed to tame the ISO 800 in broad daylight. Luckily I had a AC pulling focus as I wouldn’t have been confident doing it myself.
    Last edited by Bern Caughey; 07-26-2018 at 10:38 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #34
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    3,722
    Default
    Personally, I'd like to see something 5D size with the top prism/OVF replaced with something along the lines of a Zacuto Eye that could swivel up and down(at least 90 degrees vertical and maybe a few degree negative from horizontal. I don't need teeny-tiny cameras most of the time. I think the Sony a7 series are too small to actually actively shoot stills with. I don't have big hands, but I actually thing the grip on the 5D could be a little larger. When your hand is gripping something like that for extended periods of time, the smaller the grip the harder it is on your fingers/joints, etc.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,537
    Default
    Getting back (sort of to topic)

    I still think glass is best and probably will be for some time. I think our eyes are much more sensitive to refresh rate and strobing and the like than we realise.

    In terms of video monitoring.. I (having come from a Hasselblad to video) have never really enjoyed any monitoring experience. My DP502 is OK, my sony finders useless, and most screens way too shiney out in the sun.

    I would therefore pick for stills a DSLR until there was a good reason not to.

    The rotating EVF mentioned above could be that (although proper (film) DSLRs did have a range of prisms including top down!)
    https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...indergroup.jpg

    Back to what customers want today.. Im sure its a quick way to get pics on to social media - they dont care about how you monitor the image.

    As I said before I think silent shooting and fast flash synch are cool too. Id consider any stills camera with a fast flash synch.
    Last edited by morgan_moore; 07-26-2018 at 12:34 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #36
    Default
    Clients can't tell when photos are full frame vs say a crop sensor. Many people who shoot full frame will swear they can, but they can't. I will admit though, every once in a while a client who has no idea what he is talking about comes along and will require a full frame, but the truth is he would not be able to tell the difference if the project was shot on crop. I mention this, because isn't this the entire point of pro photography?... what your clients can notice. Again, even pro photlgraphers can't tell the difference between crop or full frame unless it is low light. If you do a lot of low light without lighting, then FF becomes much more appealing.

    There are a lot of the best lenses going full frame, but you can go crop and use the sigma 18-35 and 50-100 and you will lose nothing, and gain quite a bit of money into your pocket.

    Quote Originally Posted by camarade View Post
    Apart from a big bulky camera that looks expensive (people seem to like that... it adds to the sensation of "getting your money's worth"), what things to consider if getting back into the game?

    - 4K video ability (because why not)

    - HDR... these days it grabs multiple exposures in a single shot I would assume? Used to be static, tripod-only multiple exposures last time I had a DSLR.

    - Full frame for that extra IQ

    Anything else I should consider? Wifi used to be a thing for a while but it ate batteries... is that still around? Thanks.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    436
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by d90123 View Post
    Clients can't tell when photos are full frame vs say a crop sensor. Many people who shoot full frame will swear they can, but they can't. I will admit though, every once in a while a client who has no idea what he is talking about comes along and will require a full frame, but the truth is he would not be able to tell the difference if the project was shot on crop. I mention this, because isn't this the entire point of pro photography?... what your clients can notice. Again, even pro photlgraphers can't tell the difference between crop or full frame unless it is low light. If you do a lot of low light without lighting, then FF becomes much more appealing.

    There are a lot of the best lenses going full frame, but you can go crop and use the sigma 18-35 and 50-100 and you will lose nothing, and gain quite a bit of money into your pocket.
    A lot of people claim they can tell a difference in color between full frame and crop. They say the colors are richer or something.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #38
    Senior Member jamedia.uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    581
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by sgttom View Post
    A lot of people claim they can tell a difference in color between full frame and crop. They say the colors are richer or something.
    That is total BS. It depends on:
    The Sensor (they are NOT all equal)
    The light
    The lens
    The processing (mostly the processing)

    Also I have no idea what "full frame" is. If you mean the same size as a 35mm negative? I believe that is a half frame size. It has absolutely no bearing on digital sensor sizes and in any case not all sensors are the same.
    IF you are that worried you would be only shooting a digital medium format camera.


    On the internet a lot of people claim they can tell the difference at 10 decimal places where 99.99% of humans can't resolve past 5 decimal places. Yet still the "know" the difference.

    As since this thread has started Nikon have just release two new professional mirrorless cameras (with a new lens mount) you could look at those unless you are shooting at Wimbledon.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #39
    Senior Member jamedia.uk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    581
    Default
    I note that since this thread started both Nikon and Canon have announced professional Mirrorless cameras as replacements for some of their high end DSLRs.
    The day of the mirror (as with film and glass plates) is drawing to a close.

    Though as Scott Kelby said a year or two back (when he said he liked and used the Fuji mirrorless cameras) clients still expect you to turn up with big, heavy, expensive DSLRs even if the latest mirrorless will out perform them.

    It will take 5-10 years but the mirror is going.

    Edit (28 September 18) I have just seen a ZEISS newsletter re their high end mirrorless cameras. So that is Fuji, Nikon, Canon. Zeiss. IF you are starting still photography now that is the way to go. small and light, Especially if you want to do video as a side line.


    EDIT (5th August 2019) I was talking to a friend about mirrorless recenty and whilst looking for some information came across this article. Fascinating and puts a new perspective on things... However it is swimming against the tide. (it was published in 2016 and the last three years have shown it to be right but whose's listening....) I think part of the problem is the cross over stills/video market. The mirror is inthe way for video and those shooters raely use the viewfinder.
    https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
    Last edited by jamedia.uk; 08-05-2019 at 04:39 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •