5 ms·

This was true in the past, but I don't think it's the case now. Professional mirrorless cameras support extended batteries and use the same sensors and processo

by ggreer 5y ago

This was true in the past, but I don't think it's the case now. Professional mirrorless cameras support extended batteries and use the same sensors and processors as their DSLR counterparts. For example: Canon's EOS R5[1] uses the same processor[2] as the EOS-1D X MkIII[3]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_R5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_R5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIGIC#DIGIC_X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIGIC#DIGIC_X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_X_Mark_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_X_Mark_III

asdff 5y ago
The autofocus system is different, though, and it matters for things like sports. The system housed in the optical viewfinder is faster than the one used in the live view sensors (which are comparable R5 and canons DSLRs as you state). The battery difference is also huge and very significant for professionals. A 5d lasts like 900 shots, an R5 lasts 300 shots. A pro will be switching batteries on an R5 a ton and will have to pack more in the bag, even with an extended battery grip, compared to a 5d or a 1d which has this grip essentially built into the body already (hence the size). No matter how far sensor technology marches forward, having to keep the sensor active and a small screen running in the viewfinder is going to use a lot of battery, compared to looking at the light in front of you through a prism, which uses none of course.
- NAG3LT 5y ago
  The market is moving towards MILC, including Canon's and Nikon 's top sports bodies (R3, Z9). With fast sensor readout and improved processing power, they will focus better than 1DX3 and D6 in most circumstances. Both with grips and larger batteries. They won't match DSLR at idle battery life, but the differences in shots when taking many bursts will be much smaller than CIPA suggests. Technological replacement happens when new tech has important advantages over the old, without needing to outperform it in every single way.
  - geerlingguy 5y ago
    They may not focus better in every scenario, just 'different'. And I've found there are certain types of photography where focus on even entry-level mirrorless destroys the DSLR experience. But for sports and wildlife, you do need to get the highest-end bodies for a pleasant AF experience that can match the high-end DSLRs like the D850, D500 (which IMO were basically 'magic' in giving keepers once you understood the system). The bigger advantage with mirrorless, as the image processing pipeline catches up, is the ML algorithms that can run on the entire image giving more control over focus tracking in weird situations, where the more optical AF systems in DSLRs don't have as much data to build from. It's crazy how good AF got over the years on DSLRs, and it's also amazing how quickly all three (Sony, Nikon, and Canon) have put together competent AF pipelines in their mirrorless bodies. Sony leads here a little, but just barely, and mostly because they were all-in on high-end mirrorless before Nikon or Canon really got serious.

by ggreer 5y ago

asdff 5y ago

The autofocus system is different, though, and it matters for things like sports. The system housed in the optical viewfinder is faster than the one used in the live view sensors (which are comparable R5 and canons DSLRs as you state). The battery difference is also huge and very significant for professionals. A 5d lasts like 900 shots, an R5 lasts 300 shots. A pro will be switching batteries on an R5 a ton and will have to pack more in the bag, even with an extended battery grip, compared to a 5d or a 1d which has this grip essentially built into the body already (hence the size). No matter how far sensor technology marches forward, having to keep the sensor active and a small screen running in the viewfinder is going to use a lot of battery, compared to looking at the light in front of you through a prism, which uses none of course.

NAG3LT 5y ago
The market is moving towards MILC, including Canon's and Nikon 's top sports bodies (R3, Z9). With fast sensor readout and improved processing power, they will focus better than 1DX3 and D6 in most circumstances. Both with grips and larger batteries. They won't match DSLR at idle battery life, but the differences in shots when taking many bursts will be much smaller than CIPA suggests. Technological replacement happens when new tech has important advantages over the old, without needing to outperform it in every single way.
- geerlingguy 5y ago
  They may not focus better in every scenario, just 'different'. And I've found there are certain types of photography where focus on even entry-level mirrorless destroys the DSLR experience. But for sports and wildlife, you do need to get the highest-end bodies for a pleasant AF experience that can match the high-end DSLRs like the D850, D500 (which IMO were basically 'magic' in giving keepers once you understood the system). The bigger advantage with mirrorless, as the image processing pipeline catches up, is the ML algorithms that can run on the entire image giving more control over focus tracking in weird situations, where the more optical AF systems in DSLRs don't have as much data to build from. It's crazy how good AF got over the years on DSLRs, and it's also amazing how quickly all three (Sony, Nikon, and Canon) have put together competent AF pipelines in their mirrorless bodies. Sony leads here a little, but just barely, and mostly because they were all-in on high-end mirrorless before Nikon or Canon really got serious.