Mirror or Not? (Page 3): These are beautiful. I assume the hummingbird standing on the feeder was shot wide open at a fast shutter speed. Handheld or tripod?

Elskipo Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

These are beautiful. I assume the hummingbird standing on the feeder was shot wide open at a fast shutter speed. Handheld or tripod?

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Cameras with mirrors have a place in the photography world...but just not in mine. I haven't shot with one in about a year now, and I can't think of a time where I would have needed a camera with one.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Elskipo wrote:

I've been shooting with Canon SLR's since long bef... (show quote)

My DSLR hasn't left the closet shelf in many a month. I use an Olympus EM1 and EM5, with a mix of m43 and non-m43 lenses. The EM1 does a good job with sports and birds, but the EM5 is weak with both (the EM5 does have the advantage of, to me, better low light+long shutter speed images).

I have no desire to return to a big-bodied camera and all the heavy lenses that entails. I have a very versatile kit that weighs in at a bit over 3 lbs, which made the mountain hikes I took last week a whole lot more fun.

I don't hesitate to print at whatever size I want to. The window-sized prints do get a trip through Perfect Resize if I think the image is one that will benefit from that, particularly I've cropped it when editing.

cwaters Loc: San Carlos, CA

Does a mirror-less camera have some sort of beam-splitter mirror, or is the main sensor used for both the live-view and the EVF display?

gessman Loc: Colorado

Elskipo wrote:

Ok, you convinced me. I'm going to be on the beach at Tybee Island next week and I'll give it a try with the Sony. Even if they don't come out I already have way more seagull pix than I can use in a lifetime.

This seems to be an important video as it pertains to this thread and many of the comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

cwaters wrote:

Does a mirror-less camera have some sort of beam-splitter mirror, or is the main sensor used for both the live-view and the EVF display?

I was told at the camera shop that both live view and EVF use the same sensor "output". It seems to make sense, however, at this point, my tech-know-how is lacking, so you could tell me anything.

cwaters Loc: San Carlos, CA

Morning Star wrote:

I was told at the camera shop that both live view and EVF use the same sensor "output". It seems to make sense, however, at this point, my tech-know-how is lacking, so you could tell me anything.

That would also agree with what n3ge said, and makes sense to me.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

gessman wrote:

This seems to be an important video as it pertains to this thread and many of the comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU

Thanks for the link......a really detailed yet easy to understand test. Best part? Not condescending at all!

Peasant1 Loc: Chicago

Elskipo wrote:

Ok, you convinced me. I'm going to be on the beach at Tybee Island next week and I'll give it a try with the Sony. Even if they don't come out I already have way more seagull pix than I can use in a lifetime.

Here are two gulls I shot today on a Lake Michigan pier. The first one was shooting right into the sun while on the pier. I had a large single point focus box, and my GX7 had no problem grabbing the gull instead of the background. The second one I had the sun behind me and could actually see the bird coming in.

(Download)

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

Elskipo wrote:

These are beautiful. I assume the hummingbird standing on the feeder was shot wide open at a fast shutter speed. Handheld or tripod?

I see phlash46 hasn't yet responded, hope he/she doesn't mind I go ahead...
For the hummingbird, the aperture was f/8, exposure time 1/320 second, ISO 1600, focal length 300 mm.
The other bird was shot at f2.8, 1/320 second, ISO 200 and focal length 100mm.

Elskipo, do you run Windows as your operating system? If you download the photo to your own computer (click on "download" below the photo, then save the image to your computer), then navigate to the photo in the Windows Explorer, click on the photo in W.E. and the above information shows up in a bar across the bottom of the Explorer. You may have to make this band taller (grab and drag the top edge upwards) to read all the info.
If you're using a Mac, I'm afraid I'm no help at all, although I expect there would be something similar.

gessman Loc: Colorado

Peasant1 wrote:

Here are two gulls I shot today on a Lake Michigan pier. The first one was shooting right into the sun while on the pier. I had a large single point focus box, and my GX7 had no problem grabbing the gull instead of the background. The second one I had the sun behind me and could actually see the bird coming in.

Man, you sure didn't cut yourself any slack with that first shot and both it and #2 look real good. I got a chuckle at #2 - it looks like that bird has a modified Go-Pro on that left wing tip taking a "selfie" doing a hard left bank turn while pulling the landing gear up. Good job!

gessman Loc: Colorado

Cykdelic wrote:

Thanks for the link......a really detailed yet easy to understand test. Best part? Not condescending at all!

That young man does a good job. A lot of the younger folks who do videos like that don't seem to be perceived as being quite as condescending as some of the older people. Condescension shouldn't be a part of photography but there's a pretty huge "prima donna" factor among photographers for some unexplainable reason. :shock: :mrgreen: :D

MarkD Loc: NYC

I have nothing against mirrorless. I just don't see a need to switch now. My usual kit for shooting around the city includes a D5200, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Sigma 18-200 Macro OS HSM, and sometimes a Nikon 10.5mm FF Fisheye. Without the fisheye the kit weighs about 3 pounds, and with the FE it still weighs under 4 pounds. I'm 71 and I can still carry that around all day without a problem.

On the other hand, I can see the day coming when moving to a mirrorless, even if it only saves 1 to 1 1/2 pounds makes sense to me.

Canon seems to be sensitive to the weight issue. It's new SL-1 is noticably smaller and lighter than my D5200, and their new 10-18 IS is much smaller and lighter than my Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. I hope Nikon gets the message. I remember when the Olympus OM-1 came out and shrank the 35mm SLR. Maybe the SL-1 will do the same.

Tonym2s Loc: Florida

I'm old fashioned a bit of a fuddy duddy from the days of film. But if for some reason that screen stops working due to damage or what ever or the view finder I can still take pics thru the view finder of my Olympus E5 DLSR.
It's a heavy beast but glass rules!

Elskipo Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Tell us more about Perfect Resize.