Kill me now
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
Why, just why?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyjnDnaWINE
>>2804541
wy?
Butthurt DSLR user? Face it mirrorless is just better.
Technology progresses and new tech emerges that is better than old tech. Oh noes!
>>2804541
>"DSLRs are so big because they use the mirrors that were present in your parents' cameras
>shows a photo of a rangefinder camera
>"mirrorless lenses are lighter"
>shows G master lenses which are almost identical in size and weight to Canikon equivalents
Lmao
>>2804541
why is chad talking about cameras?
>>2804541
Is this a troll? Like a really nicely done troll? The images he throws up behind the presentation are gold, and I started losing it when he was saying "If you're into shooting sports, you should really consider mirrorless!" which is mirrorless's biggest weakness, along with a photo of a dozen guys all shooting DSLRs with lenses in focal lengths that mirrorless doesn't offer... It's amazing.
>>2804676
He's affiliated with Linus Tech Tips, who's an infamous PC knowledge guru on the web, hence relating camera lenses to "phone apps" although that still doesn't really make any sense at all.
Gotta keep in mind that this channel is designed by tech geeks, for tech geeks. Informative when it comes to things like computers, smart phones or tablets, but it's obvious they have little to no idea about the world of cameras or the photographers that use them. They're not completely out of their element for talking about cameras, but should have done some more homework before making this video.
>>2804685
If he has to explain like/dislike ratios, they aren't that good at youtube. Those haven't done anything but increment a counter for many years.
See you in my nightmares
>>2804541
what's a meerliss?
>>2804676
A few years ago, yes, but the new continuous autofocus on Sony's MILCs and the higher shooting rate is way better than anything DSLRs can offer. This is a simple fact. Frankly, mirrors are a dying system. It had a good run, but there is little point in them nowadays, except MAYBE for night photography. Needless to say, you will still get people defending them out of the same nostalgic reasons that cause people to still use film.
>>2804733
The a6300 doesn't come close to a 5Dmk3, 7Dmk2, 1Dx, D5, etc.
But that's fine, because it's a $1000 camera, not a $3000 - $7000 camera.
It doesn't have to compete. Which is why it's okay that they don't. But stop claiming that they do.
>>2804735
I will, if you substantiate your claims. When someone lists the specific advantages of a certain system for a specific task, well-documented advantages nonetheless, throwing a broad statement like "A does not come close to B, you're wrong" is not a very persuasive argument.
>slr are big and heavy
>mirror less are small and light
what is pen f
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.5 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.2 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 84 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:03:05 13:19:17 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/11.0 Brightness -0.5 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 56.00 mm Image Width 1800 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2804733
>but the new continuous autofocus on Sony's MILCs
Not even close
>the higher shooting rate is way better than anything DSLRs can offer
Maybe comparing A6000 to entry level bodies.
>>2804737
If I owned an a6300 and a 7Dmk2, I'd do a test video for you. Unfortunately, I only used both for a music festival for a weekend before returning the a6300. In bright sunlight, with top of the line lenses, they are more or less identical. Under a tent where the lighting is a lot more flat, the a6300 starts to struggle where the Canon doesn't, or at night with complex dim lighting and subjects jumping around on stage, the a6300 hit rate drops to about 50%, where the 7Dmk2 stays at about 95%.
I can't prove it to you, but I can promise you that it's true. On sensor points are still not nearly as good as a whole dedicated AF sensor. Hopefully they will be some day, and if you're only shooting certain specialized optimum situations, it will amaze you, but when you're doing demanding stuff in less than perfect conditions, you still need a DSLR.
>>2804748
Right, in a tent, with bad lighting and moving objects, MIRCs were still at a disadvantage in your case. That is not sports photography though. Fortunately, we do have a comparison of A6000 and 5Dmk3 in a sports setting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9I9ir6k8tw Note that the individual taking pictures is a professional sports photographer. I'm certain someone will call him a shill, idiot, sonigger and what not, but you don't seem like a stubborn idiot to me. I really don't see there not being a solid basis to argue that "sports photography is the mirrorless's biggest weakness".
>>2804746
>Maybe comparing A6000 to entry level bodies.
Only if your definition of entry level is everything from $0 to $5000, but granted, you can get more frames at the top range.
>>2804737
Do you need arguments?
Mirrorless are fine as long as all you care about is picture quality and body size. If you factor in anything else, they fall really short.
Mirrors are a dying systems only for fedoracore hipsters, mirrorless will replace the entry-some prosumer sectors of reflex cameras, which is a good thing, but big 'ol mirror boxes will always their own role, especially in the professional sector - throw in a big fat lens on a mirrorless camera and you're getting all the downsides of a mirrorless with none of the pros, so what's the point?
>>2804763
Evidence, not argument. Everyone and their mum can argue for their favourite whatever, few can provide replicable results. No offence, but I don't see much more than some form of nostalgic futurism in your post.
>>2804541
The DSLR became dead the moment mirrorless cameras got full APS-C sensors and standard lens mounts. Embrace the future OP, time to swap your chunky old Canon for a sexy modern Sony A6000.
>>2804778
too slow. g2gfast
>>2804778
>full APS-C sensors
So the Sony R1 in 2005, or the NEX-5 in 2010 (for interchangeable)?
>standard lens mounts
What does this even mean? As in more lenses for the mount?
>>2804778
Why do people always go for the A6000? I never got this, the NEX 7 is better in nearly every way except tracking AF, and can be had cheaper if bought used. Build, EVF, display, and controls are all objectively better and higher fidelity compared to the A6000. Why?
>>2804969
because sony shills only shill a select few cameras.
>>2804969
A6K has the menu system from the Alpha line which some people prefer, full sensor downsampled video, clean HDMI out, no purple vignetting with rangefinder lenses, slightly improved noise performance, supposedly faster refresh rate on the EVF. They really pulled about the same price used until the A6300 was announced, so it was more of a toss-up between the better build/higher resolution EVF and all the other shit
>>2804673
He was banging that girl off the photograph course and she explained a few things to him.
You know, that one you've loved for years.
>Mfw DSLR plebs will never enjoy the glorious a7s, zeiss 35mm T* combo
>>2805741
>Modern Zeiss
>>2805888
>weeb
