I suspect you have nailed it! All those things happening = longer blackout > my friend being upset.
I don’t know how it will feel for me - at some point I’ll find out.
dSLR
I know this might be useful for some people, but I have my doubts if I’m going to want to change from dSLR.
Thanks for making this so easy to understand.
I think that at 100%, they are so close that maybe it doesn’t matter.
I made screen captures, and here they are, combined into a single comparison photo.
I’m going to forget about replacing my Nikon 50; after careful testing, I have no complaints.
My eyes tell me the Voigtlander is a hair sharper than the Nikon.
Time to forget about this, and go back to taking photographs.
Your welcome,
Liveview and writing are because of a internal ram, a buffer, possible at the same time.
When i shoot burst of images i get EVF liveview wile i see writing images to SD icon.
One of the plusses in mirrorles is 4k pre-shooting modes.
Say you want to shoot a rallycar which launches from a bumb and you don’t see the car very early.
1 select the 4k preshootmodes.
2 manual focus at the point you expect the desired image.
3 select Aperture for DoF to catch the car complete. (focus peaking, the blue dots help with that.
Then when you hear the car aproaching press shutter and start recording, when you release when the car is just pass, you have a high speed burst of images. And then just select the best one and the camera creates a jpeg.
It records a 4kmovie and only stores in a buffer 1 minute or so and when you release the shutter only then it stores that minute as movie on the SD.
This is also used for internal focusstacking and something else.
(im always forgetting to use it. 
)
Because of the good video capabilities a mirrorless camera has you can use those highspeed captures as a burst of images. (normal video is 25 50ips in pal. European moviespeed.)
So it isn’t all bad or worse.
Every system has pro’s and cons. Thus the purpose and the way you like to use a camera makes the choice for which best not just a detail as mirror or no mirror.
Peter
I would call that “spray and pray”, but I can see where it might capture a better image than the few frames when I started capturing images. I enjoyed waiting for the perfect moment to press the shutter release, but there were images I missed doing it this way. When I got home from covering a race, I would likely have at least two to three hundred images - and if each of those was say, even ten images per “burst”, that would be two to three thousand images.
I can see where this capability might have helped me, but after trying it once, I think I’d be telling myself “never again”.
[quote=“Joanna, post:171, topic:24619”]
Not sure what you mean by this because all of these kinds of focusing issues are in practice a non-issue for mirrorless cameras because by their nature their focusing system is looking at and focusing on the actual image on the sensor.
Conversely, the focusing sensors in DSLRs are looking at an image after it is split and reflected, and that opens up several cans of worms all related to the accuracy of manufacturing processes and tolerance stackups. Not only is the manufacturing accuracy of the individual pieces important, but it’s also very important to accurately locate them in place. And whoops, just drop the camera… it doesn’t take much to knock something out of kilter.
It’s totally amazing that cameras work as well as they do.
I said in that post that the lens in question was a NIKON 24-70 f2.8. That is not a cheapie but a pretty pricey lens made to Nikon’s best specs at the time. The focus shift/breathing problems still exist today, to some extent even in the $20k pro video lenses.
I didn’t said it would work for you, i did said every system has it’s pros and cons.
Like m43 can handle a “light” 20Mp 800mm tele for less then a FF at 400mm
At the cost of slower shutterspeeds dje the smaller sensor.
The con is smaller sensor and the pro is long tele which you can carry on a hike.
Wile the FF has as Pro a larger sensor and as con more weight then you like to carry on a hike with long tele’s.
Mirrorslapping equals noise, wile a mirrorles can handle three kinds of shutters
Full open close , electronic and hybrid, (electronic open and mechanic closing.
So you can silence the body.
The blackout of mirroless is one side of the system. For your friend a dealbreaker so be it. For others not so much.
4k features? Some use it every day others never.
There are some key features like contrast AF or phase detect AF or DFD. Which are in all photography a thing. (unles you are on only manual modes.)
Other key feature is DoF per Aperture number. Can’t break that and turn it around.
A macro shooter which uses magnifyingglasses like raynox dcr 250 are most likely not shooting FF if they can avoid it. (DoF is to small to get insects in full focus)
You need to use a system for a wile before you can judge if it’s suites your usage.
All other are just forcast’s and predictions.
I wish I could…
Time to fast rewind for a minute. @Wolfgang and @Joanna were suggesting I look into buying Nikon’s 70-300 lens. I found a refurbished lens I bought direct from Nikon. It is so light it just doesn’t feel like a 300, but it works great!!!
Here’s the first test shot, but I still had to crop a little:
MM2_0158 | 2022-02-05.nef (28.1 MB)
MM2_0158 | 2022-02-05.nef.dop (13.2 KB)
Thank you all for the advice. I can now sell or trade my 80-200 - would work fine as a boat anchor. Actually, I loved that lens - but I like the new one much more!!!
That would be my opinion
Can I suggest you lower the exposure compensation on the Nikon shot to -0.5? One thing we haven’t really discussed is how contrast can affect perceived sharpness and, in reducing the exposure on this shot, it brings back a bit more detail in bright areas.
Whoah! Not me. I recommended the 28-300mm 
Well, almost, but you used f/16 instead of f/10, thus introducing a smidgen (technical term 
) of diffraction.
Although, as we have discussed, for the use you would be making of this image on a screen, it wouldn’t be worthwhile.
In fact, given the pixel pitch of your D750 sensor, if you want ultimate sharpness without diffraction, you might like to try f/6.3 since the DoF indicated for the 220mm focal length you used, at the distance you focused (47m / 220ft) should be just about 5m (16ft) at f/6.3 without diffraction.
It’s just a shame that cameras don’t show the distance the auto-focus found, which would make it easier to calculate the best aperture for a desired DoF.
Incidentally, here’s the ExifTool command to retrieve that distance…
exiftool -focusDistance YourFileName
I wonder how reliable that figure is. In the other images of @mikemyers with the 50mm lens all the Nikon pictures showed 6.31m while he was focusing on infinity.
George
I am guessing he might be using Auto area selection in auto-focus mode and the result depends on what object the camera picked up on.
Don’t forget that, with a 30µm blur spot, with a 50mm lens at f/10, hyperfocal distance is 7.6m to give everything from 3.8m to infinity acceptably sharp without diffraction.
In ViewNx2 the focuspoints can be made visible. All 3 Nikon images shows 1 single focuspoint at the same subject at the opposite of the water.
AF-A was only in #2. In #1 AF-s and in Df Dynamic area 3D.
George
… love it – so far for consistent testing [ slight sarcasm off ]
Heheheh. Which is why this kind of pixel peeping comparison really isn’t worthwhile unless you are planning on printing big.
Although there were different AF settings, the cameras seemed to have focused on the same subject. Even though it would have been good practice to set the cameras to the same settings, the cameras secured the validity of the test as far as focus distance is concerned.
It’s about the reliability of the mentioned distance. All the camera’s say 6.31m.
George
Since 6.3m isn’t that far off the hyperfocal distance of 7.6m, with the kind of subject Mike is shooting, it just means the furthest buildings might be a tiny bit soft, so nothing really to worry about in the context of the images produced.
Without wanting to offend anyone, but the simplest solution to the problem is not to take pictures when the sky is just gray
At least I’ve given up because this eternally gray sky here has been really annoying me for weeks. It doesn’t matter what you photograph. Except maybe macro
That being said, you can certainly pimp any sky. And with Luminar Neo you can even replace it with just one click.
The question, as with so many discussions here, including in relation to coloring, is what is the goal? Should the photo reflect the original situation as far as possible in terms of, let’s take color and brightness? Or do I have to compensate for things like big differences in brightness that a camera just can’t handle? But sometimes the statement or mood of a picture with darker parts than in reality is perhaps only interesting because the viewer’s attention is drawn to other aspects of the picture.
Or do I like it rich in contrast and trendy? Or why does a photo have its best effect in black and white? What I want to say is that the artistic statement of a picture is revealed in a variety of ways and from the type of motif. In the end, however, every evaluation is purely subjective. For example, I’ve found that when I use HDR to display a sky with clouds with higher contrast, viewers often like it better, even though the sky didn’t really look like it. I’m always torn as to which version I end up taking. On the one hand, the scene should be realistic, but when light, sun or clouds aren’t playing along, you’re tempted to help a little