jcboy3

It is technically a computer. The rest, just reread my post until you understand it.

Billynikon Loc: Atlanta

I have a great deal invested in my cameras and my lenses. To go mirror less, I would have to reinvest in a bunch of other stuff. Therefore, mirrors are better, for me.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

The Xt-3 claims refresh at 60 FPS. I think that is above the threshold of human vision.

markwilliam1

Totally agree! The lag the op stated exists but talking milliseconds Not observable so not an issue anymore.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

No it's technically a micro processor. Here's the difference, a device commonly referred to as a computer is designed for many, many, many tasks while a micro processor is designed for one or a few very specific tasks.

No sense rereading your post. You obviously have virtual blinders on and can't see past the obvious.

Yes, there is lag time, you can't eliminate lag time. No, lag time is not an issue in newer devices because it is so small it is irrelevant. Newer technologies have pretty much eliminated any appreciable lag time. It's something that's still measured because it's a number that one manufacturer can say is better than another, even if the difference is 2 one hundreds of a second, which is irrelevant.

Bipod

Has anyone considered that the short FFD means lens mount
tolerances are much more critical on mirrorless cameras?

With a short back focus distance, being off by even a fraction of a
millimeter might make an image at infinity (e.g., the moon) unsharp.

Say the FFD is off by 1 mm. In a Nikon F-mount (46.5 mm),
that's a 2.2% error. In a Nikon Z-mount (16 mm) that's a 6.3% error.

And lens adapter tolearances will have to be even tighter, since
there are two mounts involved. Total play is the sum of the
play in each mount.

Anyone who switching to mirrorless and planning to use an adapter
for existing lenses should think about this. You have probablby
never used an adapter to a lens mount this short, which such critical
tolearances.

It would be a darn shame to buy the $2300 Canon EOS R, buy the $199
Canon EF-/EF-S to EF-M adapter, and then have to throw out all your
existing glass anyway because the lens mounts are worn (but still OK
on the old mount, where tolerances are less critical and there is no need
for an adapter).

jcboy3

Common reference is irrelevant. It's a computer.

You can quote some lag times, if you think it's irrelevant. Waging doesn't prove your point.

And finally, lag time is definitely significant in some mirrorless cameras. It is, therefore, an item to be considered when looking at mirrorless in general.

Bipod

And you measured this how?

Bipod

I'll bet you are willing to swear that the speed of light is instantaneous.
After all, you've used a flashlight. 2 of them!

And that the sun goes around the earth. I watched it do that today!

This is why have scientific testing.

Bipod

I don't need to read to know that the speed of light is instantaneous.
I own 2 flashlights! How about you?

Obviously the sun goes around the earth. I watch it do that eveyday.
Doncha ever look out the window?

(The plural of "anecdote" isn't "evidence". Casual observation is not
a substitute for scientific testing.)

markwilliam1

My My bipod I’m taking real world experiences. I thought you knew that. I agree scientific testing is important but it doesn’t apply when actually using a modern mirrorless. I observe no lag time in my cameras. Note I said observe.

gwilliams6

You argument is moot. First Mirrorless cameras take their focus directly off the entire image sensor, which is far more accurate than a DLSR which takes its focus off a small focus sensor below the mirror (yes a small portion of the image in a DSLR is directly through the mirror and down to this small focusing sensor). And in a DSLR you have mirror slapping constantly up and down against buffer material. In a DSLR there are many factors that over time can cause mirror misalignment, along with flange wear, affecting proper focus measurement to reflected mirror and focus sensor. . That is why lens micro adjustment is often necessary for each individual DSLR camera and lens. NOT so with mirrorless which require no lens micro adjustments because the lens focus measurement you read is the same as what the lens image is actually projecting on the sensor even with any flange wear.

Another significant advantage of mirrorless over DSLRs. Bipod, I truly wish you knew what you were talking about, even once.

Bipod

The term "microprocessor" now refers to all processor ICs. Sometimes it is
shortened to "processor".

A central processing unit (CPU) used to be great big cabinet full of boards,
now it's a chip. The chip does the same work as the cabinet..

For example, Intel Zeon chip can have up to 22 cores, which means it contains
22 processors on one chip, yet is is still referred to a "microprocessor". This
is example of a very fast chip that pulls a lot of power.

Digital cameras use low power-consumption microprocessors, which even so
are very powerful compared to anything that existed a few decades ago. The chip
is capable of running a bunch of concurrent processes, if the firmware or
software supports it. The chip itself is general purpose, but intended for portable
devices, where battery life is important.

These days, all processors are blazing fast compared decades ago. But unfortunately,
that doesn't mean that all systems are fast. Far from it.

Technically, a digital camera that is controlled by a microprocessor is an example
of an "embedded computer system" or "embedded system" for short. There are a
lot of challenges in the design of a embedded system.

True. At a minimum, no signal (energy carrying information) can travel faster than the
speed of light (in whatever medium the signal is traveling through).

False. A slow input/output device, a shortage of RAM, or inefficient software/firmware
can bring any processor to its knees -- even a supercomputer.

Typically, the bottleneck in a digital cameras is moving data from one place to another.
Image sensors produce megabytes of data. That data has to be moved either one
bit at a time (via a serial bus) or 8, 16, 32 or 64 bits at a time (parallel bus). Large parallel
buses take up a lot of room on board, so high-speed serial buses are now the norm.

Access to RAM is much slower than access to processor registers, and access to SD cards
is incredibly slow (by comparison).

I spent a good portion of my life waiting for very large, fast computers to respond
or finish tasks. Every system has bottlenecks and is designed for certain operating
perameters. Start clicking on icons as fast as you can and chances are you'll bring
the computer you are using to read this post to its knees.

It's like a race car: everything has to be tuned just right and driven just right or you
won't see the speed you were expecting.

Digital cameras are expected to work under a varety of conditions, and also have many
modes and configurable settings. This makes them difficult to test. If you try hard
enough, you can probably find a setting that will cause your camera to be veeerry slloooow.

Bipod

You picked a good example. That's a fast shooting camera.

BUT, under any and all conditions and settings? I don't know.

Still photographers use diffrerent camera feature than videographers do.
For example, in JPEG mode it has to do compression (number crunching)
after ever shot. And all it takes is an occaional lag to really mess up your
shooting.

99% of its voyage, the RMS Titanic did not hit an iceberg.

Bipod

Many things that can be done optically, can also be done opto-electronically.
Just as optics can be good or bad quality opto-electronics can be good or bad
quality. But there is are crucial differences:

OVF:
Lag: approx. 0 ms
Power drain: 0 mA
Constrast: as many stops as the camera lens
Color: as good as the camera lens

What are the chances that your next OVF won't meet these specs? Zero.
How much extra will you have to pay to get one that does? Nothing.

The cheapest Kodak Instamatic ever made had an OVF that was zero lag,
zero power drain, contrasty, and perfect color -- because that's inherent
in an OVF. It wasn't large, it wasn't bright, it wasn't TTL -- but it
had some great features --that we used to take for granted.

It used to be that when you bought a new camera, you peaked in the
viewfinder--if it was big and bright, you bought the camera. You didn't have
to worry about lag, battery consumption, limited dynamic range, or bad color,.

But with an EVF, every model will have different lag, different power drain,
different dynamic range, different color. And you'll have to shell out to
make sure your next one is no worse than your last one.

That's getting to be the way with every single subsystem in a digital camera:
you got to keep paying more to get the same benefit you had before.

The drawbacks of OVFs are well known -- but so are the solutions.
As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the OVF in a good
DSLR. For dim light, you need a fast lens -- but then, so does the
sensor.

The EVF has potential, as of today it's not a step forward, it's a step
sideways -- into a bunch of new problems.