|
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
dtewsacrificial
Location: Bay Area, CA Gender: Male Total Likes: 390 likes
On my way out the door.
| | | | Re: Mirroless Vs DSLR < Reply # 1 on 2/12/2021 8:40 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | In an urbex context, often involving long exposures? Mirrorless will endow you the advantage of a light- (but really, signal- ) amplified viewfinder, which is useful in framing very dark and even almost-no-light conditions. Mirrorless will also allow a magnified viewfinder, which allows better manual focusing in situations where AF fails, or you are truly going for critical focus on something. Mirrorless also does not require the PDAF microadjustment calibration that is needed for the dSLR to perform at full potential (and worse, is missing from lower-end dSLRs). OTOH, dSLR won't use the imaging sensor when you are framing, which depending on your shooting style, might take a long time. This means that your imaging sensor will be used exclusively for exposure, which means it stays cooler, which in turn means that the SNR can be better. And dSLRs, by virtue of being bigger, tend to have better thermal characteristics. Also, the optical viewfinder is not limited by the display resolution, signal noise, or refresh speed of mirrorless' electronic viewfinder. I have found that it is easier to ascertain if multiple points-of-interest in a shot are all in okay-enough focus, or if the entire object-of-interest is within acceptable DoF. That said, I often work hard to achieve critical focus, so neither OVF nor EVF have even been entirely satisfactory. A hybrid would be great, and it has been threatened many times... but never came to fruition. This is all in the context of a 135-format ("full-frame") sensor. If you're talking about an APS-C sensor, then hands-down mirrorless for the simple fact that the electronic viewfinder can present an image to your eye as big as the manufacturer desires with no optical/physics limits. All things considered, though... mirrorless will likely be the dominant format of the future. dSLRs will probably continue to exist, but it won't be the default anymore. Edit: One more thing. If you also like to shoot film (which many do for a variety of reasons; I do it as a palate-cleanser to break out of my digital shooting habits), a dSLR system will allow you to do that by simply adding a film body. A noob thinks that the camera body is the most-important thing to put their money on... but anybody beyond one will know that the system (and for many non-money-earning* photographers, the lens collection) is what will end up being the bulk of your investment. Lenses tend to be good-and-relevant for decades. Camera bodies go obsolete in about 4 years. * (For money-earning photographers, lighting systems begin to take a bigger chunk.)
[last edit 2/12/2021 9:08 PM by dtewsacrificial - edited 2 times]
| |
| |
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 46 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739689426 pages have been generated.
|
|