Are mirrorless cameras "mature" yet? At the moment it just feels a bit tacky, almost like it only exists to give the manufacturers a cut-cost way of making a camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 4S Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2448 Image Height 3264 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:03:15 18:55:34 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/2.4 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 64 Lens Aperture f/2.4 Brightness 7.0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 4.28 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 680 Image Height 645 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2739775
to think i almost bought a K-01.
>>2739779
>
>>2739779
>Oh no, someone is attacking mirrorless cameras! I feel like this is literally threatening me on an emotional level, time to make it personal!
Translated by Bing!
>>2739787
kekles
>>2739807
>white boarder
>>2739777
With the price cuts it was a pretty good deal imo, that sensor was great at that time
>>2739812
No, it's a couple of guys with mental issues, who don't seem to learn that their abuse does no good for anyone, or that there is a filter function on 4chan.
>>2739807
>blown sky
Tell us more about how you know what the fuck you're doing.
>>2739822
it's not blown?
>>2739827
Think again dipshit.
>>2739829
What's an overcast sky?
>>2739833
Overcast skies aren't white. Go outside one day.
>>2739834
Clever! I'm not getting into this with you again, because you clearly don't learn. So who's beating the dead horse now? I don't clip my overcast skies, only you do it.
>>2739775
Honestly, pancake lenses from a major DSLR manufacturer like Canon were a game-changer for the mirrorless market. The M4/3 market segment might be mature (and contains plenty of pancake options), but no serious photographer wants to shoot M4/3. The APS-C and FF mirrorless markets are too immature to even be viable, I'd say. Mirrorless cameras have a huge number of compromises, which they promise to make up for with their compact size, but the problem is that most of the lenses aren't compact, and the compromise in ergonomics is too great to deal with such badly designed lenses. This is one of the reasons why I still prefer my Pentax with its pancake primes to any mirrorless camera (and I have owned several).
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model DSC-WX1 Camera Software Paint.NET v3.5.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.4 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2010:05:21 13:41:59 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/3.2 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 160 Lens Aperture f/3.2 Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 7.97 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2739848
Sadly, the options are too few to make the system 100% viable and most lenses for mirrorless systems look like this.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot S90 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Lens Size 6.00 - 22.50 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.01 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2012:02:25 08:01:22 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/2.0 Lens Aperture f/2.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 6.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3648 Image Height 2736 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative ISO Speed Rating Auto Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Full Auto Image Size Large Focus Mode Single Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal Subject Distance 0.300 m White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Image Number 115-2579
>>2739849
Fuji X-T10 with 35mm f/2
vs
Whatever you want with a 35mm lens on it.
>>2739853
>Fuji
>>2739854
Just because Sony doesn't know what they fuck they're doing with anything but sensors, doesn't mean nobody is doing it.
digital as a whole isn't "mature" yet, we've been shooting digital professionally for only two and a half decades, consumers for only 15 years
To put it into perspective consumer photography has been around 126 years
so everything is fair game really, only time will tell.
until then, you just do you. people in 2030 will still be able to appreciate barbarian 18-24MP technology because honestly it doesnt matter
great for snaps or IG posts, doesnt feel intrusive and easily portable.
prob shit for anything moving or you spend an arm for the a7rii whereas you can something similar for half the price.
for what its worth i went to the playstation experience in SF and i saw a handful of videographers using the a7rii
>>2739858
>digital as a whole isn't "mature" yet,
And the majority of people who get a DSLR realize that buying a "crop" camera is literally just a stand-in until "full frame" cameras' prices come down, hence, the constant referring to "full frame equivalent" when talking about focal lengths.
>>2739861
>what is relativity
looks like snaps to me, wheres the strobes?
>>2739862
>hence, the constant referring to "full frame equivalent" when talking about focal lengths.
People do that for the sake of understanding when conversing about shots. If I tell you it's 50mm, (but it's on M4/3) you're going to be confused. Nobody does it because they someday hope to have Full Frame.
>>2739868
No, I don't agree. I've been using "crop" DSLR cameras for almost 10 years now and I fully understand that a 50mm lens is a telephoto, not normal.
>>2739871
For you, yes. But if you tell me "I shoot all my portraits on a 50mm lens" I won't know what the hell you're talking about, because 50mm is not a field of view.
>>2739873
I shoot all my portraits on a 50mm lens on my 60D.
You know exactly what I'm talking about.
>>2739862
>full frame prices come down
Digital will eventually get near film. That is, we'll see regular users on 35mm and professionals as a minimum on medium format. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBhxzqYJnN4
(Off-topic note for the whole sensor size debate: This is the same guy who stresses that since crop format sensors have improved, the difference between crop and full-frame digital is now NEGLIGIBLE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY)
>>2739875
I know you're talking about an 80mm equivalent, and I think that way because I shoot a full frame camera, and have for many many years. When buying or choosing lenses for my APS-C walkaround, I also do the conversion to be sure that I'm getting the lens I need, and because I think in terms of my most used system.
>>2739878
>Digital will eventually get near film. That is, we'll see regular users on 35mm and professionals as a minimum on medium format
Not until they can knock the size of the cameras, and more importantly, the lenses, down.
>>2739881
Mirrorless medium format when?
>>2739884
>>2739897
Something tells me this isn't digital.
>>2739900
IT IS
you haven't seen these before? medium format alpas with digital backs
I haven't checked out all of the Sony ML options but I'm pretty sure the flagship A7RII does not have dual card slots, correct?
That alone is a deal breaker for any camera I might buy.
>>2739902
Still seems pretty dumb to have a camera where the main advantage is thin depth of field and your viewfinder doesn't even show depth of field.
>>2739908
That's not the main advantage of that camera. And you could have a back with liveview, I guess.
>>2739924
>I guess.
>>2739908
>the main advantage is thin depth of field
>>2739929
What do you think the advantage of medium format is, friendo?
>>2739900
>>2739936
>MF does not actually give you thinner DoF than 135 because the lenses are slower.
For a given field of view, you still end up with thinner depth of field, in spite of the lenses being slower.
>>2739939
The most common 80/2.8 lens on 645 has roughly the same FoV and DoF as the most common 50/1.8 lens on 135.
Look up calculations or try it yourself if you don't believe me.
Lenses faster than f/2.8 are quite rare for 645 and almost nonexistent for 6x6 and above, while on 135 you can easily go up to f/1.2.
>>2739948
>on 645
Right. I thought we were talking about medium format cameras, though...
>>2739952
>645 is not MF
Yeah, sure.
On 6x7, the same 80/2.8 will be ~equivalent to a still pedestrian 40/1.4 on 135.
>>2739908
On 6x7 you got 105mm 2.4 which is 50mm equivalent with shallow as fuck dof
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2013:10:18 22:22:02
>>2739967
If you step back for a second and let go of "bokeh is a goal in and of itself" what is the benefit of blowing the fuck out of the background to this extreme? That background looks pretty vanilla as it is, and the environment would add some power and communication of freedom and openness, which goes along really well with the idea of casual nudity, so why not include it in the shot?
>>2739960
Compare the sharpness of a MF and 135 lens with same DoF shot wide open where both lenses cost the same
>>2739973
We were talking about possibility of getting shallow dof on mf, not it's esthetic value
>>2739967
f/1.2 on 35mm.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7R Camera Software ILCE-7R v1.02 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 0 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2013:01:02 04:23:25 Exposure Time 1/3200 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 50 Brightness 7.4 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 7360 Image Height 4912 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation High Sharpness Hard
>>2739979
Why do you need to to begin with? Under what context do you even need that little depth of field?
>>2740012
Not him, but full-height portraits with shallow DoF have a certain attractive dreamlike quality.
You do get bored of the effect mighty quickly though.
>>2740028
>attractive dreamlike
It only looks that way when you're still amazed by bokeh, and how much of it you can get. This is another scene that would be just fine at f/11.
Also, what the hell is going on in the foreground? Some pretty terrible cloning? Or is this a failed Brenizer?
>>2740028
last time I checked my dreams werent riddled with appealing specks of blur in the distance
if you want to make dreamlike pictures, find dreamlike subjects, lighting, perspectives and places.
Dreamlike scenes are never made in camera
>>2740031
>>2740035
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2740031
Bokeh can add certain "depth" and emphasizing on most important objects.
>>2740048
your image has the most important objects cropped out
>>2740050
xDDD
>>2740028
Those who get bored of it quickly all become streetfags and product shot fags where you need everything in focus, and in the case of street, it's for no reason at all save for being paranoid about a subject's sharpness.
And you can achieve MF DoF easily if you use the Brenizer method
>>2740048
When emphasizing aspects of your photo, thin DOF should be your last resort. It's literally throwing away information. You start with light, color, texture, form, shape, etc. Using bokeh to isolate a subject is the laziest way to do it, and it's why you see beginners chasing it, and talented practitioners avoiding it when they can.
>>2740078
>You start with light, color, texture, form, shape, etc
Right. And why you can't add to all of this bokeh? It's just as tool as other elements you listed, that can sometimes literally "make" image, bring together otherwise disjointed elements and give it unique atmosphere
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Epson Camera Model PerfectionV700 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1999 Image Height 1557 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:06:06 09:24:23 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1315 Image Height 1024
>>2740085
>And why you can't add to all of this bokeh?
You can. Of course. However:
>It's literally throwing away information.
It's not just a painted line on the floor, guiding you to something awesome, it's a leash that forces you to go.
>can sometimes literally "make" image
If you look at images and enjoy the idea of bokeh, yes. If you like images for what they can communicate, and how they can tell a story, very usually not.
In the image you posted, the tones are all pretty much the same, the light is all pretty much the same, the colors are all pretty much the same, the textures are pretty much the same. Losing the environment provides no benefit to the image, and doesn't let you explore or sink into the scene. it's "LOOK AT THIS HAND ON THIS LEG OR GET THE FUCK OUT"
>>2740087
>throwing away information
->
>throwing away unnecessary information
It's the point of it
You hating on a tool that can be used appropriately and can be not. Thrashing it completely is pretty dumb.
>>2740095
There is no thrashing. There is the statement that it should be a last resort, and a very basic explanation as to why. If there is unnecessary information in your frame, then get rid of it. Move your body. move your subject. Use lighting to your advantage. Blowing away your scene because you can't be bothered to find a better one is not a path to a good body of work.
>>2740099
It can be used not only as technical tool to remove "unnecessary information", it can be used to achieve shitload of artistic decisions, as unique lighting depiction, pop-out depth, atmosphere, etc.
>>2740051
>but not if youre standing in a fucking field where the in focus subject comprises 15% of the frame like this
>Not knowing what negative space is
>on /p/
>>2740108
>Using a concept as photo 101 as negative space from which to look down on someone from.
Also,
It doesn't have to be obliterated to be negative space.
Y'all know that the larger the format, more sharpness and less tonality compression, and that this applies to oof and transition areas as well.
Y'all know that, even if the fov is similar, the rendering of a 105mm lens on 6x7 is very different of that of 50mm on 35mm; and this would be especially noticeable with wide angle fov equivalents...
>>2740127
>the rendering of a 105mm lens on 6x7 is very different of that of 50mm on 35mm
From the same perspective at an equivalent aperture, this is patently false. The photos will be identical.
>>2740128
>From the same perspective at an equivalent aperture, this is patently false. The photos will be identical.
retard.
>>2740145
prove it, retard. Should be very very easy.
>>2739777
I bought it, was p worth desu.
To the people posting in this thread who have never received any kind of photography training, listen up.
>>2739924
>>2739929
>>2739936
>>2739948
>>2739960
>>2739967
>>2739973
>>2739976
>>2739980
>>2740020
>>2740128
And in particular:
>>2740012
>>2740031
>>2740035
>>2740048
>>2740051
>>2740078
>>2740085
>>2740087
>>2740099
>>2740107
The word "bokeh" is not synonymous with the term "shallow depth of field." Bokeh is talks about the qualities of a lens, like chromatic aberration, distortion and vignetting. Lenses produce bokeh at all apertures. Shallow depth of field is what you call it when only the subject is in focus and the rest of the frame is blurry.
As for the people who are totally ignorant of the reason why someone might want to control the depth of field in their photograph (I assume you all shoot P mode or full auto mode 100% of the time), it has plenty of uses. Some of the best portraits are composed with a thin depth of field. If you want to know why some compositions benefit from highlighting only the subject, pick up a photography how-to book for once in your life.
Finally, I'd like to address the claims made in >>2739948 about depth of field.
>The most common 80/2.8 lens on 645 has roughly the same FoV and DoF as the most common 50/1.8 lens on 135.
There may be cases where FF lenses match MF for shallowness of depth of field, but that is not the case at all focal lengths.
Additionally, it is not the case that the fastest FF lenses are very sharp at the widest aperture, whereas it may often be the case that the equivalent MF lens is.
Using lenses and cameras that actually exist...
>http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
At the wide end...
Canon 5D, 20mm f/2.8
Subject distance: 5 feet
Depth of field: 3.55 feet
Pentax 645D, 35mm f/3.5
Subject distance: 5 feet
*Depth of field: 2.13 feet
Normal...
Canon 5D, 50mm f/1.2
Subject distance: 7 feet
*Depth of field: 0.42 feet
Pentax 645D, 75mm f/2.8
Subject distance: 7 feet
Depth of field: 0.77 feet
>>2740182
what are you smoking? I want some
>>2740234
hurr durr im a potaturr
>>2740182
you basically just repeated stuff that was in the posts above yours, but in a condescending manner
so fuck off
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SAGE IMAGING CORP. Camera Model SAGE Camera Software Adobe SAGE CS3 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 314 dpi Vertical Resolution 314 dpi Image Created 2008:10:11 14:21:21 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation High Sharpness Normal Exposure Time 1/400 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 60.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 768
>>2740234
Not that a dropout would know many professors.
lazy-ass dipshit, how could anyone get dropped out of fucking art school? Not a single differential equation, no advanced chemistry or statistics and mathematical methods class.
How can somebody so stupid to flunk such an easy schooling?
>>2740368
I work for those guys lmao
>>2739838
>The M4/3 market segment might be mature (and contains plenty of pancake options), but no serious photographer wants to shoot M4/3.
Serious photographers don't get hung up on specifications. They just choose whatever equipment they like working with. Someone who shoots pro sports probably isn't going to want to use m43, but it's a fine format for a travel or street photography, or just someone shooting for fun.
I've been shooting since before most of /p/ was born, and I've owned just about every top of the line camera made in the last 20 years, from medium and large format, to film SLRs, DSLRs, and rangefinders. I bought an Olympus OMD E-M5 back when they first came out, and it's been one of the best cameras I've ever owned. Sure there are some tradeoffs with the small sensor size, but the ergonomics are pretty good and the entire kit with body, lenses from ultra-wide to tele, and a carbon fiber tripod all together weighs less than a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8. I carried a bag full of Nikon pro gear for nearly a decade, and I've had enough of that. Mirrorless is definitely where it's at if you have carry your gear, so much so that I sold all my Nikon gear a couple years ago and now use m43 and Leica M exclusively. In some ways I even like the Olympus more than my M9. The Olympus is smaller, lighter, has better high ISO performance, in-body stabilization, a wider selection of lenses, can use Leica M lenses if I want (though focusing them sucks), and is vastly less expensive.
I'm not saying that everybody should be using mirrorless or m43, but the idea that it's not a viable option for "serious photographers" is just bullshit from people who aren't experienced enough to know what they're talking about.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-M5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Color Filter Array Pattern 682 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2013:05:22 23:53:31 Exposure Time 1/100 sec Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation High Sharpness Hard
>>2740511
What lens are you using for those funky corners? Is there anything like that for APCS Nikon cameras or is it just post?
>>2740562
Probably some double gauss derivative design.
>>2740562
A cheap 25mm f/1.4 C-mount CCTV lens with a C-m43 adapter. They're about $25 on amazon. It's not a highly-corrected lens to begin with, and the image circle is only barely large enough to cover the sensor, so you see all the distortion around the edges that would normally fall outside the sensor with a proper lens.
Not sure if you could adapt it to APCS. If the sensor size is any larger than m43 it's going to vignette badly, but you could always just crop out the center.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. Camera Model E-M5 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Color Filter Array Pattern 682 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2013:05:21 00:10:05 Exposure Time 1/125 sec Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation High Sharpness Hard
>>2740605
I actually kind of like that look it gives, with all that swirling spinning bokeh and stuff it's very much akin to the look of an old 1920s silent film
Are mirrorless cameras of any merit, or are they merely memecameras?
>>2740650
They're great if you only want 3-500 shots, shoot in good light, and don't need autofocus performance.
>>2740650
They are fine, but DSLR's are awesome.
Switching from a DSLR to mirrorless is a meme.
People only do it to sound interesting / hip, there are no real benefits.
>>2740650
Certainly the modern ones with on-sensor PDAF and everything are.
No longer has the mirror to be microadjusted or be down for PDAF to work.
So you can shoot at 60FPS or whatever else a mirror + PDAF measurement system couldn't take, and with any halfway reasonably mounted lens - it will get focus.
Also no need to move the mirror up to get exposure previews or whatever.
And then of course smaller size camera bodies and one less part that can easily break or require maintenance somehow.
>>2740684
> shoot in good light
Mirrorless cameras (A7S line) are the current kings of low light, anon.
> and don't need autofocus performance
Current mirrorless cameras have excellent AF performance.
>>2740627
There is so much wrong in this post that I don't know where to begin.
For starters, "perspective compression" is not a measurable quantity. Foreshortening is. And that is dependent on distance from camera to subject and nothing else.
>>2740684
Latest full-frame mirrorless cameras actually win at shooting in stupidly low light since you can't have the latest generation sensor, an ultra-fast lens and image stabilization on dslr all at once.
>>2740705
The Sonys also win unstabilized and with equal, non ultra-fast lenses (as long as they're sharp).
Because Sony is just good at making sensors.
>>2740715
Nikons use the same Sony sensors.
>>2740718
Toshiba sensors.
>>2740699
Then why is it that a 500mm lens makes the background appear closer to the subject than a 50mm does?
What is that called?
>>2740718
Nikon uses Sony and Toshiba sensors, but they're likely not the same as in the different sensors A7S, A7S II or A7R II that you'd think of in the context of lower light shooting on the Sony system.
>>2740684
>if you only want 3-500 shots
What?
>>2740684
>shoot in good light
Every camera on the market today performs more than fantastic in low light. Mirrorless arguably have an advantage because they have better image stabilization and lots of very fast lenses. Tell me when Canikon gets 17 purpose-built high quality lenses below f/2 and 4 below f/1.0, most for well under $1000.
>don't need autofocus performance.
Current high-end mirrorless cameras have better AF performance than all but the top-of-the-line DLSRs. Dollar for dollar they blow DLSRs out of the water.
>>2740721
Telephoto compression.
>>2740734
>Good luck autofocusing in low light, dummy
Never once had an issue with my OMD. If you're exclusively shooing at the bottom of a well on moonless nights and you get better results with a DSLR, good for you. But stop repeating nonsense about mirrorless being useless in low light. Performance is obviously more than adequate for 99.9% of possible uses.
>>2740721
Actually, it doesn't. At the same distance from subject to camera, 50mm lens and 500mm lens will depict subject/background relation in exactly the same way. You can crop the 50mm image to one tenth of the size both vertically and horizontally and you'll get the same image as a 500mm lens would give (just in much lower resolution obviously).
The catch is that in practical photography, you would never shoot 50mm and 500mm lenses at the same distance for a given subject. With a 50mm, you'll probably go much closer to it - and that's what will make the background appear farther from the subject due to the way perspective works.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2700 Image Height 1800 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2013:02:07 15:54:23 Exposure Time 10 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2700 Image Height 1800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2740743
Stop with that gibberish. It's obvious nobody is talking about the theoretical effect of using lenses exactly the opposite way from how people actually use them.
You're like that kid who sits at the front of the class and pedantically corrects anyone who says anything that isn't 100% technically accurate.
>>2740743
>>2740721
And this is how telephoto compression actually works. To keep the subject the same size relative to frame, you go farther from it as the focal length increases. As you go farther, the relation between the apparent size of foreground and background changes.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Anna Wu Photography Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 900 Image Height 600 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2011:08:30 22:14:17 Exposure Time 1/640 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.56 m Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 16.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1354 Image Height 1508 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2740734
> Good luck autofocusing in low light, dummy
Yes, the A7S series does that best of all cameras. No DSLR can match it.
> Mirrorless cameras suck shit at AF when light levels fall.
The best DSLR can't quite match even the A7R II when light levels fall.
Which isn't even AF-ing in as low light as the A7S:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6884391759/sony-alpha-7r-ii-can-match-or-beat-dslr-low-light-af-performance
>>2740746
Unless you're a savant, to be good at photography you need to know how cameras work on a slightly deeper level than "hurr durr this gizmo makes stuff blurrier". Just like painters study how human body works even if their style is far removed from realism.
>>2740742
99.9% of users are fucking casuals
>>2740749
Sony's PDAF systems revert to CDAF when light levels fall below EV -2. Also, focusing at those light levels require A) using F2 or faster lenses and B) shooting wide open. Now make a list of F2 or faster lenses with AF for the FE mount.
PDAF modules has been sitting at EV-3 for a while now, and the D5/500 is doing EV-4 now. And worse comes to worst, LV CDAF is still an option.
>>2740749
Have you actually read the article you linked? There is a very important caveat: AF performance on A7S increases with lens aperture, while DSLRs are essentially the same with any lens faster than f/5.6. And A7S manages to surpass a DSLR only with the fastest AF prime available for it.
>>2740751
Pentax AF doesn't switch on the AF assist light before EV -3
>>2740751
LV CDAF is absolute garbage on all DSLRs I've seen though.
>>2740755
>having an AF assist light
I just turn that shit off. If it's so dark it's not focusing, a little light probably not going to help unless your subject is 5 feet away. I carry a flashlight with me anyways.
>>2740756
For speed? Yes. Between ancient algorithms and PDAF optimized lenses that are poor at CDAF, it's not great.
For accuracy? Well, I don't know, I don't use it all that often. I figured they'd work fine, if slowly.
>>2740751
>99.9% of users are fucking casuals
On /p/ that's more like 50%.
The other 50% are gearfags who don't actually shoot anything.
>>2740760
The thing is I don't have to turn it off, it's never being used.
>>2740754
>DSLRs are essentially the same with any lens faster than f/5.6
Are they?
I'm fairly sure f/2.8 senses focus faster and more consistently than f/5.6 lenses on my D800.
I also notice AF gets worse when I add a 1.4X teleconverter to an f/2.8 lens.
Or is that just because by f/2.8 lenses have better AF motors?
>>2740760
I once had a 5d2 and it missed with its live view AF like 20% of the time. I don't even know how it's possible to fuck this up.
>>2740765
D800 has different AF points optimized for different apertures. Motors play a role too.
>>2740754
> And A7S manages to surpass a DSLR only with the fastest AF prime available for it.
Have you read the article?
It says the *A7R II*, it matches to outperforms the DSLR with decent primes around f/1.4 to f/2.
Nobody said those primes need to be f/1.4 or nearby for the A7S series, it just says that if you stick a fast prime on it, it will *even go further* than the manufacturer specified -4EV rating.
> while DSLRs are essentially the same with any lens faster than f/5.6
A great help when shooting at f/5.6 at -3EV... right?
This isn't relevant. So you need a decent prime (=< f/2 and sharp) lens for low light shooting, as you'd generally want anyways. DSLR still loose.
>>2740768
>different AF points optimized for different apertures.
Fairly sure bigger aperture is always better, no matter which AF point you choose.
Sure, the center AF points keep working all the way to f/8.
But the wider the aperture the more "phase" there is to detect.
>>2740765
f/2.8 pro zooms do work faster, but I don't know whether it's due to the aperture or the fact that they're pro zooms. There is definitely no further improvement with f/2 or f/1.4 primes (kinda similar to how you can't see the actual DoF in the viewfinder at f/2 and beyond)
>>2740772
>it will *even go further* than the manufacturer specified -4EV rating
Uhhh...the article states that it worked down to -3 with a f/1.4 lens.
>A great help when shooting at f/5.6 at -3EV... right?
If using a tripod, f/5.6 at minus gorillion EVs is nothing out of the ordinary.
>>2740774
>But the wider the aperture the more "phase" there is to detect.
The light to the PDAF sensors has to pass through a tiny hole in the mirror in addition to the lens aperture though. This limits the usable aperture of the lens.
>>2740780
>Uhhh...the article states that it worked down to -3 with a f/1.4 lens.
That's the A7R II, not the A7S.
The A7S can
> focus in conditions even dimmer than Sony's claimed -4EV, below the point at which the a7R II will give up.
> If using a tripod, f/5.6 at minus gorillion EVs is nothing out of the ordinary.
Nothing out of the ordinary for what, very long exposures?
So you buy an expensive low light shooter DSLR like an 1D X or D4S that is admittedly quite comparable with an A7R II, but yet still quite a bit worse than an A7S, in order to be able to AF the sky or a nearby tree or whatever other thing that does not move for a long exposure with your f/5.6 zoomie, or what?
>>2740765
They are. It's the physics of the AF module and how it only sees a small portion of the light no matter what you do. The speed's mostly the motor and whatever algorithms run lens side. I'm not sure why, but some lenses focus, hunt, and chatter a bit. I always figured focus algorithms ran completely camera side, but I guess not.
>>2740766
First generation birth pains. 5D2 and 40D were the first to have live view at the consumer level for Canon, right?
Let's make no mistake: Mirrorless is developing, DSLRs are "mature". Mirrorless cameras benefit from the software and hardware improvements constantly pushing towards smaller, lighter, faster, more efficient products. But it's not even close to mature. It's still in its infancy, or perhaps more accurately, it's teenage stages. Adult stage soon, fellow photographers. I'd give it max 3 years.
>>2740789
>I'd give it max 3 years.
There are basically only a few steps left:
1. On-sensor PDAF so continuous AF does not suck (now available only on a few cameras)
2. Viewfinders without rainbow shit and pixels visible to the naked eye (I guess Leica SL is the first)
3. Sort out the mess that is the FF mirrorless lens line-up.
>>2740790
What steps? The A7 II and A7R II are already out.
1. Is really fine enough
2. While not perfect. It's hard to discern a difference between that and an OVF already.
3. Great native primes on the high-end, great compatibility with almost all Canon EF lenses, one of the best systems for adapting manual lenses, Leica and Nikon smart adapters with AF in the works.
No, they're not perfect cameras yet, but they're really pretty much as mature as DSLR overall.
>>2740841
>1. Is really fine enough
Even the best implementations of CDAF (e.g. E-M5II) fuck up on objects that are moving towards or away from the frame because they can't reliably determine the direction. If you try to shoot something like car racing with them, you'll get at least half of images out of focus.
>3. Great native primes on the high-end, great compatibility with almost all Canon EF lenses,
The native lens selection barely goes beyond the most basic primes and zooms (no primes wider than 35 or longer than 90, no f/2.8 zooms), adapted EF lenses don't work as snappy as native ones, and LA-EA4 is fucking bullshit. As much as I like mirrorless cameras, this is nowhere near as mature as Canikon DSLR systems.
>>2739775
>Are mirrorless cameras "mature" yet?
Yes, but its user base is still a bunch of children.
evidence: this thread.
>>2740750
>Painters need to study the human body to paint humans, therefore photographers need to study cameras to photograph... anything?
That's an impressive failure of an analogy.
You need to have an understanding of how camera settings affect outcome. You do not at all need an in-depth knowledge of the physics of lenses, or sensor construction, or any of the other technical stuff autists fixate on.
>>2740867
Which is why you're here stirring up shit, right?
>>2740878
>You need to have an understanding of how camera settings affect outcome.
We're talking about camera to subject distance here. This is stuff that you probably have to learn *before* any camera settings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEwpHChOkC0
>You can now AF with M-Mount lenses
DSLR are kill
>>2740866
> Even the best implementations of CDAF
We were talking about PDAF.
> The native lens selection barely goes beyond the most basic primes and zooms (no primes wider than 35 or longer than 90, no f/2.8 zooms)
So basically, the vast majority of users can directly get high-end glass for what they need, yes.
The rest can adapt a lot of glass.
> adapted EF lenses don't work as snappy as native ones
They work basically as snappy on an A7 II or A7R II as on most Canon bodies. This is really quite fine.
Some that don't have IS even gain IS from IBIS.
>>2740841
1) it really isn't. Nikon 1 is the only one that gets close.
2) it really isn't. EVFs still dont feel like OVFs.
>>2741114
>1) it really isn't. Nikon 1 is the only one that gets close.
Huh? It has a slower and lower end sensor than the better Sonys.
That sensor it has is also made by Sony, though, unless there's a new variant of it that I'm not aware of.
> it really isn't. EVFs still dont feel like OVFs.
Sure. OVF feel much worse, with how dark everything is and the basic UI and maybe 95% (if you're lucky) sensor coverage and all that.
Work at a camera store. Mirrorless is here in a big way now, you guys had better just accept it.
>>2741123
>Not knowing about Nikon 1 series AF
>>2739807
>You're in every thread
>Implying there's only one anon on /p/ who fucking despises you
Oh isi, you're so delusional
>>2740904
>We were talking about PDAF.
Only like 20% of mirrorless cameras you can buy now have PDAF.
>So basically, the vast majority of users can directly get high-end glass for what they need, yes. The rest can adapt a lot of glass.
I wouldn't say "vast" majority. Hell, I'm about as casual as camera users get, with most of my photos being vacation ones, but the FE lens line-up covers only one of three completely ordinary lenses I usually carry with me. And decent EF adaptability depends on having nothing less than a $3000 camera with a $400 smart adapter. This is not maturity, this is what EF system was in like 1988.
>>2741159
That was in 2012. The others caught up in the meantime.
>>2741240
>Only like 20% of mirrorless cameras you can buy now have PDAF.
That still means you can easily buy the feature, given that both the entry level and high end have options now.
"Mirrorless" in a general statement like this is already there now.
> but the FE lens line-up covers only one of three completely ordinary lenses I usually carry with me
With no possible substitutes? I wonder.
> And decent EF adaptability depends on having nothing less than a $3000 camera with a $400 smart adapter.
It also works great with the A7 II, a camera that is ~$1500. Either way, nothing too special for a new full frame.
>>2741336
So I have to carefully pick the camera to get features that are available on every DSLR.
You don't understand what "maturity" means. It doesn't mean quality, some arbitrary feature set or the ability to satisfy some arbitrary user base. It means that the system can reliably do things it's designed to do, without a multitude of caveats and huge changes from generation to generation. No one is disputing that mirrorless is very capable nowadays; the point is that the development is still in its very active stages.
>With no possible substitutes?
Well, I want a 24mm. Quality EF wides with an adapter are fat and expensive, and I don't like being limited to manual focus with M-mount.
>>2741378
>So I have to carefully pick the camera to get features that are available on every DSLR.
Please, even with DSLR you can't pick a random one or you only get some line type PDAF points bunched up in the center of the camera.
Its one glance at the spec sheet for mirrorless cameras; this does not make a purchase hard.
> It means that the system can reliably do things it's designed to do
No problem there.
> without a multitude of caveats and huge changes from generation to generation
DSLR have a great multitude of caveats and quite wildly differing feature sets with things changing from generation to generation and models in individual lineups.
This is especially true for Canon and Nikon, the most popular DSLR brands.
At least Sony has a pretty coherent UI and software feature set from HX60 and RX100 P&S right through to A7R II and RX1R II, with only small incremental changes.
Canon and Nikon are a goddamn mess. And so are the features that relate to IL cameras. One model has AF motor, the other doesn't, one has an EVF, the other has an old OVF, one has the ability to microadjust a mirror, the other doesn't. It's all very messy.
>>2741457
>you can't pick a random one or you only get some line type PDAF points bunched up in the center of the camera.
All DSLRs at a given price point have fairly similar and predictable AF. Cheaper cameras work worse, expensive and "more pro" ones with more points work better. On mirrorless, the AF behavior might change massively not just between successive models, but even between firmware updates.
>quite wildly differing feature sets with things changing from generation to generation
>This is especially true for Canon and Nikon
What the fuck are you smoking? Canikon are the poster children for not changing stuff in their DSLRs. You can barely tell, say, a 5DS from the original 5D without the badge, and the features are basically "same with the numbers being bigger", plus video.
>One model has AF motor, the other doesn't, one has an EVF, the other has an old OVF, one has the ability to microadjust a mirror, the other doesn't. It's all very messy.
...Just admit that you have no fucking idea about Canikon DSLRs.
Microadjust what exactly?
>>2741539
> All DSLRs at a given price point have fairly similar and predictable AF.
A Pentax K-3 isn't like a Nikon D7100
A Canon 700D isn't like a Nikon D5300.
Your alleged rule does not work.
> On mirrorless, the AF behavior might change massively not just between successive models
Same thing for DSLR...
> but even between firmware updates.
You get / install the most recent firmware, and where is your problem now?
That there was a firmware update affecting AF stuff? Canon / Nikon and others also did that recently on their DSLR.
D800 and 7D II come up, among others. And they addressed *gasp* even more in firmware. Clearly DSLR aren't mature.
> Canikon are the poster children for not changing stuff in their DSLRs.
Nikon users also almost can't tell that the APS-C lineup (except the highest-end model) now comes without the motor required to support all their "d" lenses, right?
Lenses still have manual aperture control?
The old RAW file formats are still supported as output format? External ports are all still present? CF still supported? A-TTL flash still can be used? The batteries are the same or compatible? New lenses still all have filter threading for use with your filters?
A thousand things changed. That said, like with Sony's changes, I see no problem dealing with them - that's just kinda you.
> Microadjust what exactly?
The AF system.
>>2741123
>he doesnt know Nikon 1 is the only mirrorless system that can PDAF worth a damn
we're talking full subject tracking and depth tracking. the nikon 1's af is seriously good enough to use anywhere. Fuji and Sony might be able to make do, but people looking for AF performance don't want "make do".
it's just that the system has babby sensor syndrome, and Nikon can't design or market a camera worth a shit.
>>2739807
I really really like this one.
>>2741636
>A Pentax K-3 isn't like a Nikon D7100
>A Canon 700D isn't like a Nikon D5300.
If you actually used some of those, you'd find that yes, they are VERY much alike. Sure, Nikon spams more auxiliary focus points, but in practice there's little difference. And there's haven't been any major changes to how it works for the last ten or so years except more complex AF modules slowly trickling down to cheaper models.
>That there was a firmware update affecting AF stuff?
Fuji and Canon both had firmware updates that weren't just correcting some minor AF issues like on DSLRs, it literally made AF two times faster.
>The old RAW file formats are still supported as output format? External ports are all still present? etc.
This is all minor stuff, and yes, a lot of it remains unchanged. Nikon has used the same battery for their entire semipro lineup since 2010, the door with ports is on the same side since forever, pro lenses retain the same filter threading, etc.
But what's more important, the major things like the way you choose and mount lenses, what you push for focusing and what you see in the viewfinder remain unchanged. On mirrorless, even on the "how do I lens" side even just within the A7 line we started with 3 native lenses, then we got the silly semitransparent mirror adapter for A-mount, then everyone got excited for the slow but less ugly EF-mount adapter, and now just recently we have PDAF enabled so it's fast... This massively changed the lens landscape for A7 several times over just a couple years.
