Is mirrorless really better thand DSLR? (modern versions only) (Page 47): The new improved more polite version of myself would simply call that a “highly imaginative” post.

User ID

Wyantry wrote:

It would seem a mirror and a pentaprism introduce ... (show quote)

The new improved more polite version of myself would simply call that a “highly imaginative” post.

User ID

catchlight.. wrote:

The mirror-less myth persists when it comes to sharpness and could not be further from the truth. In reality, a tilt-shift lens on a dlsr, especially for corner to corner sharpness is unbeatable.

Thaz why I use my T/S lenses on a Sony ... cuz I’ve just never bought into myths about myths, as promulgated by typical sorryazzed “online experts” who believe that a sensor can be affected by the user interface. Maybe you’d attempt to explain how a sensor might be influenced by the presence, or absence, of a mirror and a prism ? Give it a try. I’m here mainly for the entertainment value anywho !

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

CHG_CANON wrote:

Mirrorless cameras are a way of feeling, of touching, of loving. Images captured from behind a mirror are cold, heartless and uncaring.

This is pretty funny actually. Bogus but funny.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

User ID wrote:

The new improved more polite version of myself would simply call that a “highly imaginative” post.

I MEANT to include that the ONLY degradation to the image would be in the viewfinder light-path due to interfaces and perhaps prism internal reflections, not the in light-path to the sensor array.

By the time I saw the mistake it was too late to edit.

My fault.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Wyantry wrote:

I MEANT to include that the ONLY degradation to the image would be in the viewfinder light-path due to interfaces and perhaps prism internal reflections, not the in light-path to the sensor array.

By the time I saw the mistake it was too late to edit.

My fault.

Let's call out another mistake: the EVF - Electronic View Finder - can be used for both image composition and image review. So, you're idea of difficult to see situations for the rear view finder is removed / not applicable for MILC by doing the image review via the EVF.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

CHG_CANON wrote:

Let's call out another mistake: the EVF - Electronic View Finder - can be used for both image composition and image review. So, you're idea of difficult to see situations for the rear view finder is removed / not applicable for MILC by doing the image review via the EVF.

And the EVF has nowhere near the image quality delivered by mirror/prism designs, does it? And likely never will. So “what-you-see” is not 100 percent of “what-is-actual”.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Wyantry wrote:

And the EVF has nowhere near the image quality delivered by mirror/prism designs, does it? And likely never will. So “what-you-see” is not 100 percent of “what-is-actual”.

Other than your biased opinion, what makes you think the EVF is inferior? Anything actual, such as usage?

BTW: if you find image review from an rear-screen LCD or a camera view finder is relevant, I have some property in Florida I'd like to talk to you about, a real deal.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

CHG_CANON wrote:

Other than your biased opinion, what makes you think the EVF is inferior? Anything actual, such as usage?

BTW: if you find image review from an rear-screen LCD or a camera view finder is relevant, I have some property in Florida I'd like to talk to you about, a real deal.

Were you not stating not-so-long-ago that the image-view on mirrorless cameras (rear screen and maybe (?) VF) was so very useful as both a preview/focus device as well as a white balance and exposure-spectrum option?

(BTW, I am budgeting for a Canon Full Frame mirrorless right now. Currently in the range of EOS RP or equivalent.

User ID

CamB wrote:

This is pretty funny actually. Bogus but funny.

Entertainment value is the UHH priority.

User ID

Wyantry wrote:

I MEANT to include that the ONLY degradation to the image would be in the viewfinder light-path due to interfaces and perhaps prism internal reflections, not the in light-path to the sensor array.

By the time I saw the mistake it was too late to edit.

My fault.

Good that I used my new improved somewhat less acerbic reply mode ;-)

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Wyantry wrote:

And the EVF has nowhere near the image quality delivered by mirror/prism designs, does it? And likely never will. So “what-you-see” is not 100 percent of “what-is-actual”.

I just addressed this in another thread. First of all electronic viewfinders have come a long way and not only can they rival an optical viewfinder in quality but they also offer some clear advantages. I can see scenes through my Z7’s viewfinder that would be too dark with my D500. I’ve used the viewfinder on the Z7 when shooting 30 second exposures though a 10 stop ND filter and not only can I see and focus but I actually see what the exposure looks like.

rit z Loc: Upstate New York

I hope that was meant as a joke

User ID

rit z wrote:

I hope that was meant as a joke

(Download)

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

rit z wrote:

I hope that was meant as a joke

And we have no clue what you’re talking about because you didn’t click “quote reply”

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Ysarex wrote:

Here's the classic example from Zeiss/Hasselblad. ... (show quote)

I can personally back that up. In the late 70s, I purchased a 38mm Biogon F4.5 (scavenged/salvaged from a SWC Hasselblad) that was mounted, shutter and all, onto a 4x5 Sinar lens board. It was installed in a Sinar F front standard, and had a hand grip attached to the bottom and a 21mm Zeiss viewfinder on the top center of the standard. The grip was equipped with a cable shutter release. The idea behind the camera was that the lens was wide enough to cover a 6x6 up to a 6x9 format, making it very suitable for shooting with 120/220 roll film backs. The extension and volume anamorphic distortion was non-existent. The 21mm viewfinder was a Schneider intended for its 21mm Leica lens, but was good enough for all but the fussiest composing.

Years later I found a Contax rangefinder with a 21mm Biogon F2.8 and the matching Zeiss viewfinder which had the exact same qualities as it's bigger brother.

The store was FotoCare, on 5th Ave at the corner of 21st St if memory serves me right. They were right in the middle of the photo district in NYC, where many photographers had their studios in the cheaply rented/leased loft spaces.

This old article from the Washington Post describes the Biogon's "magical" properties. It is my understanding that the biogon lens formula was first introduced by Zeiss in 1934, and it is a symmetrical design (the element groups in front of the entrance pupil are of similar size and position as the rear element groups). Many wide/ultra wide lenses are reversed telephotos. I don't understand lens design, but I do understand the benefits in this case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/galleries/essays/001117.htm