Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Outdoor Photography, June July
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 next> last>>
Aug 4, 2022 08:13:19   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
tcthome wrote:
How about tomorrow?


Tomorrow is a better yesterday.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 08:15:57   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Wallen wrote:
True. The advert and write-ups are basically saying DSLR's are now useless. Even worse are the snobs riding the trend, who flaunt the new gear and infer that those still using DSLR's are idiots.

IMHO, manufacturers would even sabotage the next generation to force buyers to like their preferred model, as what happened to the D7200.

The D7200 is viable business camera, the replacement D7500 was meant for personal use. The value of the model line went down instead of up.
IMHO, they sabotage the upgrade so that the D7500 will not compete with the D500 which they were pushing forth then.
True. The advert and write-ups are basically sayin... (show quote)


That's a pretty broad brush to paint the entire industry as evil, when in fact, your gripe is very specific to just Nikon. Rethink your life choices, and you'll see you could lead an entirely new life, a life free of mirrors, a life free of Nikon.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 08:16:54   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
elliott937 wrote:
I know this is going to upset some, but I'm eager to read reactions.

From the June/July of Outdoor Photography, and from an article titled "The Mirrorless Future Is Now", all sounding so promising. But here is a direct quite which I will type here.

"Though the potential of mirrorless camera systems was intriguing, the nascent technology also posed limitations that would take years to resolve. Early mirrorless cameras relied on sensor-based contrast-detection autofocus, which lacked the responsive accuracy of the phase-detection autofocus offered by DSLRs, and their electronic viewfinders were relatively sluggish, dim (especially in low-light scenes) and low-resolution, providing suboptimial experience compared to the optical view-finders in DSLRs."

Quoted straight from the June/July issue of Outdoor Photography.

Thoughts?
I know this is going to upset some, but I'm eager ... (show quote)


They were referring to the "Early Mirrorless Cameras"! What did they say about the current crop?

We can always pick and choose what we quote, but statements out of context are worth diddly squat!

---

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2022 08:16:56   #
mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA
 
elliott937 wrote:
I know this is going to upset some, but I'm eager to read reactions.

From the June/July of Outdoor Photography, and from an article titled "The Mirrorless Future Is Now", all sounding so promising. But here is a direct quite which I will type here.

"Though the potential of mirrorless camera systems was intriguing, the nascent technology also posed limitations that would take years to resolve. Early mirrorless cameras relied on sensor-based contrast-detection autofocus, which lacked the responsive accuracy of the phase-detection autofocus offered by DSLRs, and their electronic viewfinders were relatively sluggish, dim (especially in low-light scenes) and low-resolution, providing suboptimial experience compared to the optical view-finders in DSLRs."

Quoted straight from the June/July issue of Outdoor Photography.

Thoughts?
I know this is going to upset some, but I'm eager ... (show quote)

Early mirrorless were 15-20 years ago. A lot has changed since. Your quote is worthless.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 08:33:35   #
User ID
 
mindzye wrote:
Aw c'mon now. Tomorrow is SO yesterday, and in just the near future!

These days the future just aint what it used to be no more.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 08:39:04   #
User ID
 
Bill_de wrote:
They were referring to the "Early Mirrorless Cameras"! What did they say about the current crop?

We can always pick and choose what we quote, but statements out of context are worth diddly squat!

---


And worth(?) at least ten pages (using "worth" to describe the worthless) of knee jerk replies from the lemmings.

Yes "diddley squat" is worth ten pages of UHH cuz it will earn ten pages with no effort at all. Its parallel to fishing: Trolling is the lazy laid back way to hook as many fish as possible. Youll even hook a few by the belly.


(Download)

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 08:42:31   #
jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America
 
User ID wrote:
And worth(?) at least ten pages (using "worth" to describe the worthless) of knee jerk replies from the lemmings.


Contradictio in Terminis

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2022 08:53:50   #
User ID
 
jlg1000 wrote:
Contradictio in Terminis

Is something worthless if it has earning power ? What if the only currency it can earn is worthless ? The next ten pages will be worth a steaming heap of rubles and a mountain of zimbucks.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 10:25:03   #
Wallen Loc: Middle Earth
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
That's a pretty broad brush to paint the entire industry as evil, when in fact, your gripe is very specific to just Nikon. Rethink your life choices, and you'll see you could lead an entirely new life, a life free of mirrors, a life free of Nikon.


Yep, it is pretty broad, and nope not specific to Nikon. I just used it as an extreme example. You conveniently overlooked the first part of the post which says "they" are doing adverts to make it seems that the DSLRS are now useless. Canon too is player there.

It is really broad because it happens, not only on cameras but also with other manufacturers. Sometimes so bad that it lead to new laws, like the Lemon Law.

And sadly, I hate to point out the way you want me to choose canon and mirrorless for an entirely new life, even as tasteless and annoying old joke, makes me think you're one of the snobs who think DSLR users are idiots.

Lots of people here look up to you. You should stick to saying something nice.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 10:27:10   #
b top gun
 
I "had" a Nikon Z6 II for about ten days; nothing about it pushed my buttons so I returned it; never charged its battery, never turned it on, so it was returned as new as it could have been. The extent of my mirrorless is my Samsung S22 plus which my granddaughter convinced me I should have. Last I checked, my three Nikon DSLRs were still functioning, still capturing quality images worth of being displayed, and getting more pics and videos per battery than any Nikon mirrorless out there right now.

Tell me this, Mr Mirrorless (CHG_CANON), if you are so sold on mirrorless, why are you still shooting film? HUH?

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 10:29:11   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
elliott937 wrote:
I know this is going to upset some, but I'm eager to read reactions.

From the June/July of Outdoor Photography, and from an article titled "The Mirrorless Future Is Now", all sounding so promising. But here is a direct quite which I will type here.

"Though the potential of mirrorless camera systems was intriguing, the nascent technology also posed limitations that would take years to resolve. Early mirrorless cameras relied on sensor-based contrast-detection autofocus, which lacked the responsive accuracy of the phase-detection autofocus offered by DSLRs, and their electronic viewfinders were relatively sluggish, dim (especially in low-light scenes) and low-resolution, providing suboptimial experience compared to the optical view-finders in DSLRs."

Quoted straight from the June/July issue of Outdoor Photography.

Thoughts?
I know this is going to upset some, but I'm eager ... (show quote)


They need to buy a newer mirrorless, I replaced my 5DIV with the R5 and the autofocus system of the R5 is far superior.

Reply
 
 
Aug 4, 2022 10:32:38   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
b top gun wrote:
I "had" a Nikon Z6 II for about ten days; nothing about it pushed my buttons so I returned it; never charged its battery, never turned it on, so it was returned as new as it could have been. The extent of my mirrorless is my Samsung S22 plus which my granddaughter convinced me I should have. Last I checked, my three Nikon DSLRs were still functioning, still capturing quality images worth of being displayed, and getting more pics and videos per battery than any Nikon mirrorless out there right now.

Tell me this, Mr Mirrorless (CHG_CANON), if you are so sold on mirrorless, why are you still shooting film? HUH?
I "had" a Nikon Z6 II for about ten days... (show quote)


So, you purchased a high end mirrorless, never turned it on but still found it to be so unimpressive that you returned it. I think that you should write a full review of the camera, I am sure that it will be well received.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 10:48:35   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
camshot wrote:
Mirrorless cameras all have a fault, often if you try to focus on a distant subject, it will focus on the further distance
and lock on. To change it, you have to point the camera at a close subject, quickly touch for focus and quickly try to refocus on your subject. Such as focusing on, say the eye of a deer, it often jumps to the distance beyond the subject, and locks. From what I understand this is a problem with all mirrorless cameras.


I’ve never had that problem with any of my mirrorless cameras.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 10:55:45   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
elliott937 wrote:
I simply wanted you to know what Outdoor Photography had to say about Mirrorless in the June/July publication.

I am neither opposed to mirrorless or in favor of mirrorless.

Bill


I’m just curious why you would pick the part about past issues and not what’s currently true.

Reply
Aug 4, 2022 11:06:03   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
jlg1000 wrote:
Right!

I went mirrorless in 2003 when I had to emergency-buy (on a short trip to Italy) a Canon digital compact camera (mirrorless by any meaning) after the horrible and violent death of my AE-1.

And yes, it was a lackluster, many problems... but nowadays, current MILC's * perform better * than DSLRs. They often have more focusing points, can use the actual content of the image to perform auto focus (think of eye-AF), the viewfinders are of stellar quality and do not get affected by the lens speed(*), EVF's show exactly what the sensor sees, etc.

Note *: This is a very important function for me, because I like to use ND filters, and on SLR's (film or digital), the OVF gets too dark... EVF's, on the other hand, are immune to this effect (to a degree of course... think astro)
Right! br br I went mirrorless in 2003 when I had... (show quote)


I also use ND filters and love that I can see the scene and even use auto exposure with the filter attached with my Z7. My OM-1 goes even further by having a virtual 6 stop ND filter.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.