Topic Wiki

Copied From the Learn Photography Master Thread: Lesson 1


Choosing a camera: Point and Shoot vs. Mirrorless vs. DSLR


Before you even start thinking which camera model to buy, you have to decide something much more important: the type of camera. There are three main types of cameras on the market today, and they each offer some things the others don't. Let's take a quick at them and see what the differences are and why you might choose one over the other.


Point & Shoots (P&S): These are by far the most popular cameras out there. Usually extremely compact, they're all easy to use, relatively cheap, and deliver great images. The point & shoot ranges from tiny shirt-pocket cameras such as the Canon Elph series, to large superzooms (sometimes called all-in-ones or bridge cameras) such as the Panasonic FZ series, to 'advanced' P&Ss like the Canon G series or the $2800(!) Sony RX-1. All P&Ss have fixed (non-removable) lenses.


Point & Shoot pros:
--- Amazing selection: At the time of this writing, B&H has 328 cameras in stock listed under Point & Shoot. A basic Canon Elph-style camera usually has a 3-8x zoom lens, a 3" screen, 1080p video, image stabilization, and a million other features. Should you could choose a superzoom, you'd get a 24-50x zoom, manual controls, a viewfinder, and (usually) a hotshoe for flashes. Advanced P&Ss will give you even more control, better, larger sensors, and higher quality lenses. Want a camera your baby could drop into a bowl of cereal? There are currently 18 different shock and waterproof cameras [url=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ipp=100&Ns=p_PRODUCT_SHORT_DESCR|0&ci=8612&N=4288586279+35+4052359761&srtclk=sort]available
. Want a screen that swivels? Built-in GPS? WiFi? Check, check, and check. One screen not enough, you want two of 'em? Check!
--- Cheap: Even a $100 P&S will give you better pictures than a $500 camera from 5 years ago. You do not need to spend a fortune to get amazing pictures.
--- Light and easy to carry: No excuses for not shlepping the camera. If fits into your shirt pocket, a purse, just about anywhere.
--- Great video: Most current cameras are capable of recording 1080p HD video, or at least 720p. Combined with ubiquitous image stabilization P&Ss are capable of outputting awesome video.
--- Easy to use: Most P&S will only have an Auto or P mode, although some advanced or superzoom models will have full manual control. In Auto mode all you have to do is press the button. Some cameras even have an 'intelligent' auto feature where it could detect if you're shooting a flower, a portrait, etc. and adjust itself accordingly. This actually works pretty well on most cameras. In P mode you get a bit more control (you could turn the flash off, adjust the picture brighter or darker, etc.), but the camera still handles most of the decisions making for you.


Point & Shoot Cons:
--- Image quality relative to mirrorless and DSLRs: Yes, P&Ss will give you great picture quality - when situations are ideal. But if you plan to be shooting a lot in darker situations (indoors, your kids' school play) you will notice a considerable difference in quality compared to the other two. Sharpness will also not be as good as the others - the combination of a small physical lens, a small sensor, and over-zealous noise reduction (more on all of these later) is not a recipe for razor-sharp photos. These factors will be much less of an issue with advanced cameras such as the Canon G15, although a mirrorless or DSLR will still be far better.
--- Hard or impossible to achieve certain effects: You know that portrait look where the entire background is just blurred into creamy nothingness? That's one of the hardest things to create with a P&S (and conversely one of the easiest things to do with an SLR/mirrorless). Later on I'll show you some techniques to force this effect out of a P&S (to a degree), but the physics are simply not in your favor.
--- Speed: Compared to a DSLR, the P&S is practically a turtle. It takes a few seconds to turn on, zooming takes time, every setting change takes time. Most importantly though, is the speed at which the camera takes the picture. While a DSLR focuses almost instantly, a P&S could take a second or two. Once the image is in focus, there is a maddening delay called shutter lag, which is the time between you pressing the shutter button and the camera actually taking the picture. Between focusing and shutter lag, it could sometimes take 3 or more seconds to get your shoot, at which point the moment may be long gone. Later on we'll discuss some techniques for speeding this process up, but it'll still take far longer than a DSLR.
--- Not much control: The flip side to the P&S's ease of use it its lack of control. Want to lower your flash power so that people don't have that 'deer in headlights' look? Tough noogies. Want to change your aperture? Your shutter speed? Ain't happenin'. Of course some cameras do let you change all that, but a) they're in the minority by far, and b) since these are secondary features, you'll probably have to dig through 6 menu pages every time you want to make a change.
--- Limited expandability: A P&S is a closed system. Want a longer or wider lens? Want to use filters? No dice on most cameras. This is also a big issue if you ever want to dabble in lighting - it'll be quite difficult with a P&S.
____________


DSLRs: The big, black, "professional" looking cameras. Big, heavy, and (relatively) expensive, these have interchangeable lenses and optical viewfinders. The big players are Canon and Nikon, with Sony and Pentax having a small but dedicated market share. A typical 'starter' DSLR will have a 18 (Canon) or 24 (Nikon) megapixel sensor, come with an 18-55mm lens, and have actual buttons for only the most important tasks. As you move up through the lineup, you'll get more direct buttons and knobs, status LCDs, better focusing/metering systems, more lens support, metal or magnesium bodies, weather sealing, wireless flash control, higher frame-per-second rates, and more. You also get better kit lenses (that's the lens that comes with the camera) as you move up, and at a certain level (usually the third camera in the lineup) you'll also be able to buy the camera body by itself without any lens.


DSLR pros:
--- Image quality: This is the number one benefit of the DSLR - even the cheapest camera and lens combination will give you better pictures that any point and shoot, even if the P&S costs much more. (B&H currently lists 3 DSLR kits (camera and lens) for $450 - that's cheaper than some P&Ss.) Looking at pictures of a P&S and a DSLR side by side, you'll be blown away by the difference in sharpness, color, and dynamic range (explained later) of the DSLR. When it comes to low light, there's no contest; the DSLR wins hand down.
--- Control: In a DLSR you have control over every single shooting parameter. There are no limits to what you could create; everything's at your beck and call. Flash power, exposure, color, and most importantly, RAW shooting. (I'll get into far more detail on that last thing later.)
--- Special effects: Out of focus backgrounds? Easy peasy. Long exposures? Timelapse? You bet.
--- System expandability: DSLRs are sometimes called 'system cameras'. This is due to the fact that unlike P&Ss, a DSLR is not just a camera; it's at the heart of an entire system. Each brand has dozens of lenses available, plus many more from third-party lens manufacturers. You could get flashes, transmitters, remotes, and many other goodies and they will all work seamlessly and communicate properly to one another. BTW, this is why you should choose your first SLR very carefully: you're probably buying into a system. First you get a camera and lens, then another lens, then maybe another lens or a flash, and then the a new camera comes out so you buy that. It's quite the pain to switch to a different brand once you're bought in to the system.
--- Viewfinder: By definition, a DSLR is a single lens reflex camera; what that means is that inside the camera just behind the lens mount there's a mirror, which projects the image from the lens into a prism, which in turn shows up in the viewfinder. The big advantage of this is that when you look through the viewfinder you're actually looking through lens, and as such are seeing exactly what the lens sees. This gives you an extremely accurate and life-like view, which makes it easy to compose your shots properly. A viewfinder also lets you use the camera in bright light without worrying about not being able to see the screen.
--- Speed: A DSLR is ready to shoot almost instantly after being turned on. No matter where you are, be it a menu or playing back you pictures, a slight tap of the shutter button and the camera is instantly ready to shoot. Focus is nearly instantaneous, and shutter lag is pretty much a non-issue. Another speed aspect is continuous shooting - holding down the shutter button while the camera rattles off picture after picture. An entry-level camera  could easily do around 4.5fps (frames per second), while higher level cameras could do 7 or 8 (or 12, if you count the $6800 Canon 1D X).


DSLR cons:
--- Size and weight: There's no getting around it: DSLRs are big and bulky, especially if you're carrying more than one lens.
--- Price: DSLRs start at about $450, and go way up. One of the most common cameras, the Canon T4i, will set you back about a grand. And then you want to buy another lens. And another one. And another one... :D
--- Video: DSLR video is a really weird situation. On the one hand the quality is INSANE. Just look on Vimeo and see what people have been doing with the Canon 5DMk2 and Mk3 and you'll see what I mean. On the other hand, if you look at the behind the scenes video of one of those, you'll see that the camera is mounted on a rig costing $10K or more. The rig stabilizes the camera and provides support for the focus controls, the zoom controls, the sound system, and many other things. Why is all this necessary? Very simple - because the camera does a horrible job at all this if left to it's own devices. Focusing during video is horrible, especially if anything's moving through the scene. What this means is that if you're buying an SLR and are planning on taking videos of your kids running around in the park, you will be sorely disappointed - nothing will be in focus half the time, and when the camera finally does achieve focus, the built-in mike will have picked up every grind and whirr of the lens as it moved back and forth. Canon has made some progress on eliminating these issues with their new STM lenses, but for now that's only two cameras and two lenses, and even that isn't perfect.


__________


Mirrorless: Known by many different names (ILCs and EVILs for example), the industry has seemed to settle on Mirrorless lately. This was the brainchild of a joint venture between Olympus and Panasonic, and was aimed on creating an interchangeable-lens camera in with a P&S body and DSLR-like image quality, and has been wildly successful. Olympus and Panasonic are still the major players with their Micro 4/3s system, followed by Sony with their NEX line. Many others have tried to take over market share from the big 3, but have been largely unsuccessful mainly due to inferior products. Nikon 1, Canon, M, and Samsung NX are examples of fairly unpopular systems.


Most mirrorless cameras have a P&S form-factor, albeit somewhat larger. With the exception of Olympus and Panasonic, the lenses are not interchangeable between brands, but adapters are available to convert practically any DSLR (or old rangefinder camera) lens to just about every system. Most adapters will not autofocus the lens, so it's not exactly a perfect solution.


Mirrorless pros:
--- Size and weight: This is the main draw for most people. While not exactly pocket sized once a lens is in place, it it still a fairly compact kit and could be carried in a purse with ease. It's more like a large P&S than a small DSLR.
--- Price: Generally cheaper than a DSLR of a similar level. The Panasonics and Olympus (Olympusus? Olympi? ??? ) especially seem to be on sale more often than not.
--- Image quality: About as good as an SLR, simple as that.
--- Expandability: Like DSLRs, these cameras are part of a system. In the last couple of months more and more third parties have started to make lenses too. Micro 4/3s is a much more robust system then Sony NEX though, with many more lenses available.
--- Video: Video on mirrorless cameras is insanely fantastic. Similar in quality to an SLR, but with the ease of use of a P&S. It focuses quickly, perfectly, and fairly quietly.


Mirrorless cons:
--- Lenses: Far smaller selection than SLRs, although to be fair most important lenses are covered.
--- Image quality: A DSLR will still have slightly better image quality, especially in low light scenarios.
--- Viewfinders: Most don’t have viewfinders at all, which make it harder to use in low light. Some of those have axillary finders you could out in the hotshoe (usually at exorbitant prices or some reason), but these are just to give you a general idea of what the camera is seeing.
--- Batteries: Uses batteries like a P&S (200-400 shots), while a DSLR usually gets around 2000 shots per battery.
--- Speed: Focusing, while worlds better than P&Ss, isn't quite up to DSLR standards yet, but that's getting better every day.
--- Control: While mirrorless camera offer the same level of control as DSLRs, very often you'll have to dig through menus to get to where you want to. The main point of mirrorless being cutting down on size, buttons and knobs were eliminated without mercy.


___________


Lesson Summary:
--- Point & Shoots are great for most everyday shooting. Cheap, more options than you could ever want, great image quality and video. Quite difficult (but definitely possible - I'll show you how) to get the 'pro' look.
--- DSLR are king when it comes to image quality, control, and expandability. For the best pictures in any situation, go for a DSLR. Video, not so much.
--- Mirrorless cameras are the best of both worlds, with some caveats. Amazing image quality, the best video, and fairly small and portable. Less control and versatility than an SLR, though.

___________


For the full lesson series visit the Learn Photography Master Thread.

____________________________________________________

Links to additional Info:

Learn Photography Master Thread: Lesson 2: Camera specs - What do they mean, and which ones matter to me?

Canon's DSLR naming scheme
Nikon's DSLR naming scheme
« Last edited by Curlyhead on August 10, 2016, 11:42:18 AM »

Author Topic: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread  (Read 383579 times)

Offline deze

  • DansDeals Copper Elite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2012
  • Posts: 3
  • Total likes: 0
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #280 on: December 18, 2013, 01:50:56 AM »
anyone who bought the camera, printer deal and plans on keeping the printer. caanon is having a b1g4 free deal on paper
http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/free-gift-paper-and-scrapbooking-kit-promo?WT.mc_id=C126149

Online Something Fishy

  • Global Moderator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 8862
  • Total likes: 6266
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 44
    • View Profile
    • Kosher Horizons
  • Location: Iceland
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #281 on: December 18, 2013, 09:31:37 AM »
I am not a good photographer nor do I take a lot of pics what camera/s should I be looking at (up to $400).

S110 if you want better quality, one of the elphs (530 is a good option) if you want something smaller and cheaper.
Check out my site for epic kosher adventures: Kosher Horizons

Offline Mordy

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Silver Elite
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 640
  • Total likes: 4
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #282 on: December 18, 2013, 01:10:04 PM »
Couple of comments and opinions:

1) For a wireless shutter remote, I like this one from VidPro:
http://www.amazon.com/RC-22-Universal-Wireless-Control-Shutter/dp/B00EAS8RTY
It is radio controlled, similar to the one Fishy linked above, except it has a universally adaptable plug for different cameras, so it will likely be compatible with whatever body you pick up in the future as well (I like staying brand agnostic and future-proof).

Another thing to consider if you got the T3i however, is the Magic Lantern "hack" (they don't like it when you call it a hack). Magic Lantern adds some cool options to the stock firmware for remote shutter control, including the ability to take a shutter at a certain audio decibel (clap your hands, etc) or only when subject is in focus, etc. And also offers a built in intervalometer, so you can do timelapses and all that, all without buying any additional accessories. Cool stuff.

2) "What the diffuser does is simply enlarge the source" I think a better explanation is to say it "softens" the light by spreading it out. An enlarged light source (like a giant halogen bulb for example) will still create harsh shadows and extreme contrast, arguable much worse than a small flash. You don't want it bigger, you want it softer. For example, the old campfire trick where someone shines a flashlight directly under their chin to look scary, that's sort of an example of the problem. The light is giving off harsh shadows and extreme bits of bright and dark contrasting with each other, which looks cool in that situation, but not so much when you are trying to capture a smiling subject. You want the light to spread out more, and soften the shadows so that the contrast isn't so harsh. That's what a diffuser does- it "diffuses" (ie. spreads out) the light so that it isn't as harsh. As Something Fishy sort of hinted to, having a large complicated diffusion system built into the body of a camera is not reasonable to manufacture. Also, it does tend to dim the output somewhat, so some folks may wish to not use a diffuser if shooting a larger area (standing farther away also helps diffuse the light so it wouldn't even be beneficial). In a nutshell, you have options to make the flash work for you, or choose not to use it at all. Remember, having the flash built in on these things is a novelty- when I was little, I remember my dad had to go get his flash and attach it to the camera everytime we needed it!

3) I LOVE THE MILK CARTON FLASH! Mostly because it is so something I would have done!

4) Speed of the memory card is far less important if you aren't shooting video or continuous shutter mode in RAW. These cameras have a buffer large enough to hold a frame or two (sometimes more) in memory until the card is ready for more. If you are shooting jpeg, I'd be surprised if you ever hit the end of the buffer without trying to. That being said, any class 10 card should be more than enough, and if it was a toss up between a more reliable brand Class 6 or a cheapo brand class 10, I'd even go with the Class 6. I believe Something Fishy did a guide to memory cards in the other photography thread.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 01:15:21 PM by Mordy »
Mobile Enthusiast Extraordinaire

Visit one of the Tech Blogs I write: http://www.techcitement.com

Offline Knaper_Chuchem

  • Dansdeals Gold Elite
  • ***
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 164
  • Total likes: 0
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: NYC
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #283 on: December 18, 2013, 05:46:59 PM »
The G15 is now $299 on Amazon from Adorama.

Guys, I registered 2 Amex cards for the Amazon/Amex deal. I remember reading how to use 2 cards on one sale. If anyone can please send me the link where it's spelled out I'd greatly appreciate!

Offline ari9

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jun 2012
  • Posts: 368
  • Total likes: 6
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #284 on: December 18, 2013, 05:58:07 PM »
The G15 is now $299 on Amazon from Adorama.

Guys, I registered 2 Amex cards for the Amazon/Amex deal. I remember reading how to use 2 cards on one sale. If anyone can please send me the link where it's spelled out I'd greatly appreciate!
buy gift cards

Offline Knaper_Chuchem

  • Dansdeals Gold Elite
  • ***
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 164
  • Total likes: 0
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: NYC
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #285 on: December 18, 2013, 06:22:00 PM »
Just bought the G15 for a mere $249.00 + Tax (Free Shipping)!!!

Thanks Dan for the Amex/Amazon deal. And you can find all the details here how to use multiple cards on one deal.

And last but not least thanks for Fishy for the great advice on cameras!!!

FYI, the Canon G15 is still $299 on Amazon. If anyone can notify Dan about it before it's dead again, so other people can benefit as well it'll be appreciated. 

Offline noturbizniss

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 7118
  • Total likes: 140
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 4
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: North Jersey
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #286 on: December 18, 2013, 10:04:47 PM »
From what I've read the 70-300 is significantly better than the 75-300 and since it's money in my pocket either way I'll go with the better one.
What about the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0011NVMO8/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1]Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II. The reviews seem to say its comparable to the 70-300 (which may not be so good >200mm, especially >250mm).  I may be able to save anywhere from 10-50 selling the 70-300 on ebay and buying the 55-200mm, but only if it really is better. Thoughts?
READ THE DARN WIKI!!!!

Chuck Norris...
...can still do FT method
...READS THE WIKI!!!

Online Something Fishy

  • Global Moderator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 8862
  • Total likes: 6266
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 44
    • View Profile
    • Kosher Horizons
  • Location: Iceland
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #287 on: December 18, 2013, 10:08:30 PM »
What about the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0011NVMO8/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_4?ie=UTF8&psc=1]Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II. The reviews seem to say its comparable to the 70-300 (which may not be so good >200mm, especially >250mm).  I may be able to save anywhere from 10-50 selling the 70-300 on ebay and buying the 55-200mm, but only if it really is better. Thoughts?

70-300 is definitely worth $50 more than the 55-250.
Check out my site for epic kosher adventures: Kosher Horizons

Offline noturbizniss

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Dec 2012
  • Posts: 7118
  • Total likes: 140
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 4
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: North Jersey
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #288 on: December 18, 2013, 11:21:41 PM »
Thanks
READ THE DARN WIKI!!!!

Chuck Norris...
...can still do FT method
...READS THE WIKI!!!

Offline jaywhy

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Posts: 3781
  • Total likes: 70
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #289 on: December 19, 2013, 08:10:08 AM »
SF,

I'm thinking of selling all my Canon gear and getting the Olympus OM-D E-M5 or M1.

I'e been reading some amazing reviews about these cameras. I'm really attracted to the small form factor and the image quality seems to be on par with most DSLR's. Supposedly, it is really good in low light even though the sensor is smaller than APS-C.

What are your thoughts?

Offline Dan

  • Administrator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime 50K Diamond Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 68893
  • Total likes: 17269
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 16442
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: CLE
  • Programs: UA GS, AA EXP, DL Dirt, Hyatt Glob, Fairmont Lifetime Plat, DD Diamond, Blocked By @NeriaKraus
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #290 on: December 19, 2013, 02:14:09 PM »
This tripod and this one seem quite nice.

As for a diffuser for the NEX-6  :P...


Bought the Dolica, thanks.
So, directions for using a milk bottle? Gotta do some surgery on it I'm assuming?
Save your time, I don't answer PM. Post it in the forum and a dedicated DDF'er will get back to you as soon as possible.

Offline Mordy

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Silver Elite
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 640
  • Total likes: 4
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #291 on: December 19, 2013, 06:34:34 PM »
Bought the Dolica, thanks.
So, directions for using a milk bottle? Gotta do some surgery on it I'm assuming?

LOL- basically Dan, you want to soften and scatter the light. I think Something Fishy was half joking when he posted the picture, but his point is that you don't necessarily have to BUY something specially made for your camera to do that. In fact you can use household items like tracing paper, milk jugs, certain types of thin fabrics, etc. I've used a sheet of baking/wax paper with a clothespin holding it onto an off camera lamp. The lamp directly was casting harsh shadows, so I wanted to soften it. Anything white and semi transparent that will scatter and soften the light is fair game...

In the case of the milk bottle, I think the idea is to cut a shape that will fit over the flash and use the rubber band to hold it in pace. Or, depending on how the shape of the bottle vs shape of the flash is, you might be able to cut a nice shape that will stay on its own, like these guys did:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2013/03/20/diy-photography-hacks-soften-pop-up-flash-with-an-empty-milk-carton/
Mobile Enthusiast Extraordinaire

Visit one of the Tech Blogs I write: http://www.techcitement.com

Online Something Fishy

  • Global Moderator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 8862
  • Total likes: 6266
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 44
    • View Profile
    • Kosher Horizons
  • Location: Iceland
Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #292 on: December 19, 2013, 07:39:19 PM »
Bought the Dolica, thanks.
So, directions for using a milk bottle? Gotta do some surgery on it I'm assuming?

I'm not aware of any diffuser made for the NEX, so basically I was saying that you'd have to make your own.

The link that Mordy put is a good one, or just google "DIY flash diffuser" for all kinds of different tutorials. You may even find one dedicated to the NEX-6.
Check out my site for epic kosher adventures: Kosher Horizons

Online Something Fishy

  • Global Moderator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 8862
  • Total likes: 6266
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 44
    • View Profile
    • Kosher Horizons
  • Location: Iceland
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #293 on: December 19, 2013, 07:56:47 PM »

SF,

I'm thinking of selling all my Canon gear and getting the Olympus OM-D E-M5 or M1.

I'e been reading some amazing reviews about these cameras. I'm really attracted to the small form factor and the image quality seems to be on par with most DSLR's. Supposedly, it is really good in low light even though the sensor is smaller than APS-C.

What are your thoughts?

Scary decision to make, but one that could be very good. Just make sure that you know ALL the advantages and disadvantages of your new system vis a vis your old one.

- Like you said, IQ is nearly equal to APS-C. Low light will not be the same, but pretty darn close.
- Continuous AF is not nearly as fast as a DSLR (single AF is just about the same these days)
- All things being equal, the smaller sensor will have more DOF, so you'd need longer/faster lenses to achieve the same shallow DOF that you may be used to.
- Make absolutely certain that M4/3 offers the lenses you need/want at the quality you need/want (and it probably does) Remember to consider weather sealing and other tangential details like that (if these are important to you).
- IIRC the Olympus has in-camera IS, which is wonderful.
- Consider accessories like flashes, remotes, battery grips, etc. Make sure that you'd be able to cover everything you need.
- Your battery life will be horrible compared to what you're used too with DSLRs.
- Consider handling. It's a different form factor, so make sure it's comfortable to use.

These are just a few points off the top of my head... I'm sure there are many more. Just make sure you think this through thoroughly.

After all that, if you make the switch, your kit will be half the weight and about the same quality. Now THAT would be awesome :D.


Check out my site for epic kosher adventures: Kosher Horizons

Offline jaywhy

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Sep 2012
  • Posts: 3781
  • Total likes: 70
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 7
    • View Profile
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #294 on: December 19, 2013, 10:47:39 PM »
Scary decision to make, but one that could be very good. Just make sure that you know ALL the advantages and disadvantages of your new system vis a vis your old one.

- Like you said, IQ is nearly equal to APS-C. Low light will not be the same, but pretty darn close.
- Continuous AF is not nearly as fast as a DSLR (single AF is just about the same these days)
- All things being equal, the smaller sensor will have more DOF, so you'd need longer/faster lenses to achieve the same shallow DOF that you may be used to.
- Make absolutely certain that M4/3 offers the lenses you need/want at the quality you need/want (and it probably does) Remember to consider weather sealing and other tangential details like that (if these are important to you).
- IIRC the Olympus has in-camera IS, which is wonderful.
- Consider accessories like flashes, remotes, battery grips, etc. Make sure that you'd be able to cover everything you need.
- Your battery life will be horrible compared to what you're used too with DSLRs.
- Consider handling. It's a different form factor, so make sure it's comfortable to use.

These are just a few points off the top of my head... I'm sure there are many more. Just make sure you think this through thoroughly.

After all that, if you make the switch, your kit will be half the weight and about the same quality. Now THAT would be awesome :D.
Thanks.

I've really been looking into this and I think I'm going to take the plunge.
IQ is where I'm used to, low light performance is very good, lots of accessories, the lens selection is very good too, not as extensive as Canon's but definitely fits my needs. The Olympus M3/4 are all weather sealed and freeze-proof. I rarely use continuous AF so that's not an issue. The only issue is the battery but I can always carry a spare or two.
Right now, the size and weight of my DSLR kit is a major impediment to me using it more often. I think cutting the size and weight in half with the same quality is definitely worth cutting some corners.

Now, Olympus OM D E5 or E1? ;)

Offline Mordy

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Silver Elite
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 640
  • Total likes: 4
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #295 on: December 19, 2013, 11:17:48 PM »
As someone who owns both Canon DSLRs as well as Micro4/3s, I'd like to weigh in on this, as some of my opinions are different from Something Fishy's.
I don't own an OM-D, however I do own other Olympus cameras and am somewhat familiar with their flagship model.

- Like you said, IQ is nearly equal to APS-C. Low light will not be the same, but pretty darn close.

The OM-D's Sony sensor is excellent for its size. While I agree when Something Fishy says the best DSLRs will still outperform it in IQ, the DR and highlight rolloff as well as color reproduction can easily surpass the entry level DSLRs (like a Canon Rebel) in my opinion. This is a praise I'd have difficulty giving to most other mirrorless cameras, and rather unique to the OM-D from what I've seen. Its really something special, and surprisingly considered "pro-level", which is a rarity in mirrorless.

- Continuous AF is not nearly as fast as a DSLR (single AF is just about the same these days)

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here. Continuous AF in the world of Micro4/3 is head and shoulders faster than a DSLR! This mount was designed for hybrid cameras, one of the reasons I initially adopted it (video use for facial tracking in real time). In fact, the Micro 4/3 spec sheet includes extra pins to feed the body the necessary phase-detection data for live continuous focus. That's why we had smooth focusing video camera lenses in micro4/3 YEARS before Canon could offer anything remotely similar!
This is actually one of the major PROs of the platform, not a con!

- All things being equal, the smaller sensor will have more DOF, so you'd need longer/faster lenses to achieve the same shallow DOF that you may be used to.
This is true. You need to go wider to get the same field of view, and lose some of the shallow focus that makes everything so dreamy. On the plus side, a smaller sensor means lenses designed for the mount can be focally reduced (this is where things get fun), but compressing the image circle smaller using the same amount of glass. The end result is a wider and faster lens that is roughly the same amount of glass to produce.
For example, the Nokton 25mm F/0.95 would be extremely difficult if not impossible to produce for a Full frame DSLR, but is widely available for m4/3 and gives the same FOV and DOF as a full frame 50mmf/1.4, but with more light to boot!
Olympus has some really sweet constant F/2.0 zooms that use this technology to achieve it as well- they basically took the optics of their larger older lenses, and reduced the focal point so that the photons are condensed. More light and wider FOV, win-win!

If you want to use larger full frame lenses on this body, look into the Metabones speedbooster (shamless plug for blog post on the subject: http://techcitement.com/hardware/new-metabones-adapter-makes-your-slr-lenses-better-stronger-faster/#.UrO_PvRDu3I ), which is basically an adapter for mirrorless bodies that will shrink the image circle from a full frame lens and make it wider and gain a stop of light. This was unheard of until recently (supposedly) because there was some sort of patent on it that finally expired. Crazy times we live in!

- Make absolutely certain that M4/3 offers the lenses you need/want at the quality you need/want (and it probably does) Remember to consider weather sealing and other tangential details like that (if these are important to you).
The biggest con with M43 versus big names like Nikon and Canon is the lens selection. There are far more lens options for DSLRs, and more price competition with third party options (sigma, Tamron, etc). There are third party Micro4/3, but they are fewer and farther in between. That being said, Olympus has some incredibly sharp zooms, and Panasonic has some pretty incredible ones I'm hoping to buy sometime in the near future. Meanwhile, you can always adapt larger camera mounts- and in fact, this is where it really gets interesting!

You see, because micro 4/3 lacks a mirror, the flange distance (that's the distance between the lens and the film/sensor) is shorter than any DSLR (since that mirror takes up space). Nikon DSLRs have one of the largest gaps, which is why you can't really mount other types of camera lenses on it- if you did, your focus would be off because the glass is too far away from the sensor. However, you can mount a Nikon on a Canon EOS, since it has a smaller flange distance than a Nikon. The adapter would take up the space of the difference, and hold it exactly where it needs to be for proper focus. But you can't mount the old Canon FD lenses, because they had shorter flange distances than both the Canon EOS and Nikon mounts.

But... mirrorless is smaller than ALL OF THEM! So old obscure lenses that are still sharp and amazing can be adapted to them! In fact, since most people have no use for them anymore, they tend to go for dirt cheap!
I picked up a Canon FD 135mm f/2.8 for... wait for it... $7! SEVEN!

My favorite is the 35-105 constant f/3.5, which I showed on an olympus with an adapter earlier in this thread (and I think I paid $50 for):


The metabones adapter would actually shrink the image circle to cover more of the micro-4/3, effectively making this a 24-73mm f/2.8 constant zoom!
So yes, your native lens selection may be more limited than a DSLR, but it actually opens up whole new worlds for hobbyists and tinkerers to play with some excellent glass not available to DSLR shooters!

- IIRC the Olympus has in-camera IS, which is wonderful.
That's true, and its spectacular!

Quote
- Consider accessories like flashes, remotes, battery grips, etc. Make sure that you'd be able to cover everything you need.
A legit concern. Although, since the OM-D is considered one of the few mirrorless Pro-level cameras, it has gained some traction in the photography accessory world. Olympus makes grips, I'm not sure if I've ever seen one without it in the real world come to think of it.

Quote
- Your battery life will be horrible compared to what you're used too with DSLRs.

Now this is another point of contention I'd have. The mechanics of a mirrorless camera are simpler than a DSLR (using a small shutter curtain instead of a mirror that would need to flip, and silent shutter mode requires no moving parts at all!). Snapping a photo requires less energy on a mirrorless than a DSLR, and considering these don't necesarily have smaller batteries (OM-D especially), what on earth would make you think that? My micro4/3 cameras outlast my Rebel batteries easily.
Quote
- Consider handling. It's a different form factor, so make sure it's comfortable to use.
Yes and no. The OM-D is a big camera for a mirrorless, and much closer to a DSLR in ergonomics than your average mirrorless. One of the selling points is supposed to be that it works and feels like a DSLR in most applications.

...I don't mean any disrespect, your camera knowledge is priceless. I'm starting to wonder if Mirrorless just isn't your thing. :)
« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 12:09:06 AM by Mordy »
Mobile Enthusiast Extraordinaire

Visit one of the Tech Blogs I write: http://www.techcitement.com

Offline Zevwolf

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Gold Elite
  • ******
  • Join Date: Apr 2013
  • Posts: 799
  • Total likes: 23
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #296 on: December 20, 2013, 12:22:23 AM »
How does the s110 compare with sx280?

Online Something Fishy

  • Global Moderator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 8862
  • Total likes: 6266
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 44
    • View Profile
    • Kosher Horizons
  • Location: Iceland
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #297 on: December 20, 2013, 12:56:22 AM »
As someone who owns both Canon DSLRs as well as Micro4/3s
Let me just say for the record that I own both Nikon DSLRs and Sony NEX ;).

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here. Continuous AF in the world of Micro4/3 is head and shoulders faster than a DSLR! This mount was designed for hybrid cameras, one of the reasons I initially adopted it (video use for facial tracking in real time). In fact, the Micro 4/3 spec sheet includes extra pins to feed the body the necessary phase-detection data for live continuous focus. That's why we had smooth focusing video camera lenses in micro4/3 YEARS before Canon could offer anything remotely similar!
This is actually one of the major PROs of the platform, not a con!
Again, you're talking video while I'm talking photo. Tracking a moving subject while shooting continuous photos and keeping the subject in focus shot-to-shot is the weakest point in the mirrorless focus system. Even now that the newest cameras have on-sensor phase detection, this is not nearly as effective as the dedicated focus sensor DSLRs have. You use the words "live continuous autofocus" - that's what video is, and as you say, this outperforms DSLR video any day of the week. Continuous photography, OTOH, is not "live" in that sense. The subject is moving 6 times further between each frame than in video (considering 30fps video and 5fps photo). Tracking these larger increments properly is simply not as attainable with ML cameras as opposed to DSLR.

The ML focus system is is a pro (and a helluva big one) for video. But for stills it's a major con.

For example, the Nokton 25mm F/0.95 would be extremely difficult if not impossible to produce for a Full frame DSLR
There's always the $11,000 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux full frame lens if you're looking for a bargain :D.

If you want to use larger full frame lenses on this body, look into the Metabones speedbooster (shamless plug for blog post on the subject: http://techcitement.com/hardware/new-metabones-adapter-makes-your-slr-lenses-better-stronger-faster/#.UrO_PvRDu3I ), which is basically an adapter for mirrorless bodies that will shrink the image circle from a full frame lens and make it wider and gain a stop of light. This was unheard of until recently (supposedly) because there was some sort of patent on it that finally expired. Crazy times we live in!
The biggest con with M43 versus big names like Nikon and Canon is the lens selection. There are far more lens options for DSLRs, and more price competition with third party options (sigma, Tamron, etc). There are third party Micro4/3, but they are fewer and farther in between. That being said, Olympus has some incredibly sharp zooms, and Panasonic has some pretty incredible ones I'm hoping to buy sometime in the near future. Meanwhile, you can always adapt larger camera mounts- and in fact, this is where it really gets interesting!
You see, because micro 4/3 lacks a mirror, the flange distance (that's the distance between the lens and the film/sensor) is shorter than any DSLR (since that mirror takes up space). Nikon DSLRs have one of the largest gaps, which is why you can't really mount other types of camera lenses on it- if you did, your focus would be off because the glass is too far away from the sensor. However, you can mount a Nikon on a Canon EOS, since it has a smaller flange distance than a Nikon. The adapter would take up the space of the difference, and hold it exactly where it needs to be for proper focus. But you can't mount the old Canon FD lenses, because they had shorter flange distances than both the Canon EOS and Nikon mounts.
But... mirrorless is smaller than ALL OF THEM! So old obscure lenses that are still sharp and amazing can be adapted to them! In fact, since most people have no use for them anymore, they tend to go for dirt cheap!
I picked up a Canon FD 135mm f/2.8 for... wait for it... $7! SEVEN!
My favorite is the 35-105 constant f/3.5, which I showed on an olympus with an adapter earlier in this thread (and I think I paid $50 for):
The metabones adapter would actually shrink the image circle to cover more of the micro-4/3, effectively making this a 24-73mm f/2.8 constant zoom!
So yes, your native lens selection may be more limited than a DSLR, but it actually opens up whole new worlds for hobbyists and tinkerers to play with some excellent glass not available to DSLR shooters!
The entire reason for this whole conversation is because jaywhy wants to sell his Canon kit due to the size and weight, so this doesn't apply to him :). Although anyone else reading this thread would find this incredibly useful.

Now this is another point of contention I'd have. The mechanics of a mirrorless camera are simpler than a DSLR (using a small shutter curtain instead of a mirror that would need to flip, and silent shutter mode requires no moving parts at all!). Snapping a photo requires less energy on a mirrorless than a DSLR, and considering these don't necesarily have smaller batteries (OM-D especially), what on earth would make you think that? My micro4/3 cameras outlast my Rebel batteries easily.
The mechanics of the shutter is irrelevant. What matters is the fact that I could keep my DSLR powered on for weeks at a time and take over 1000 pictures on a battery, while a mirrorless camera would not last a couple of hours in any normal shooting situation. What kills the battery on a ML is the fact that the LCD has to be on at all times while shooting. And using the viewfinder won't help much, since guess what - it's an LCD too. Smaller and more efficient that the main one, to be sure, but still an incredible battery hog.

While shooting with a DSLR, the LCD screen is on for two seconds after the picture is taken, if at that (many people just turn that off too). That means that the only power loads are coming from the metering/focusing systems (6 seconds per shot, if that), IS (if the lens has it), and the other regular electronics (sensor during exposure, A/D converter, etc. etc.). And yes, the mechanics of the shutter. What load do you think a minuscule servo motor puts on the battery, compared with a constantly-running LCD???

But all this is really a waste of time. Just look a CIPA numbers:

Olympus OM-D E-M1: 350 shots per battery
Sony NEX-6: 360 shots per battery
Canon T5i: 440 shots per battery
Canon 70D: 920 shots per battery

And to use your words: "Snapping a photo requires less energy on a mirrorless than a DSLR" - very true. But not taking a picture with a DSLR takes no power, while a mirrorless is constantly draining the battery via the LCD. And this is why your statement that "why in the world would I say that considering that they don't necessarily have small batteries" has no merit - even with the same batteries, one camera drains power constantly while the other doesn't. Simple as that.

...I don't mean any disrespect, your camera knowledge is priceless. I'm starting to wonder if Mirrorless just isn't your thing. :)
Well then don't be disrespectful. How dare anyone disagree with me!

But seriously, it's been a while since I've had a long, geeky, camera argument with someone. I'm enjoying every moment :D.

I think the underlying difference between us (as we've both brushed upon over the last couple of days) is that we're coming from very different places. I'm a photographer; you seem far more video-centric. AF means completely different things to each of us; you use your equipment in a completely different way than I do. (I think that's probably why you say that your M4/3 battery outlasts the Rebel, you're probably using it mainly in live view. Then it'll have both the LCD drain of ML and the mechanical drain (however small) of DSLRs. But I digress.)

And regarding if mirrorless is my 'thing', while it's not my primary tool (by far), I'm as intimately familiar with them as with DSLRs. In fact, my day job is 100% on the technical aspects of photography, not the artistic. I design and develop photography and lighting equipment, so I know technical things most people - and even testing websites (DxOMark, DP Review, et. al) - don't even dream about. Of note to this conversation, some of the things I'm working now on or have worked on in the recent past are batteries, inverters, and yes, lens mount adapters (including Metabones-type ones).
Check out my site for epic kosher adventures: Kosher Horizons

Offline Mordy

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Silver Elite
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 640
  • Total likes: 4
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #298 on: December 20, 2013, 02:27:44 AM »
Nice- let's keep geeking it up, then. :)

There's a lot of truth in that I'm coming at this from a different angle, but photography is a passionate hobby of mine (I'm a lens fanatic and love to tinker) as well as picking up the occasional product photography gig on the side. To be fair, when doing photography I'm less traditional... I'll use the EVF and autofocus lenses when shooting kids and events, but otherwise I'm using magic lantern to give me focus peaking meters on the LCD with vintage glass. Or the ghost image feature (overlay a previous picture onto the live view) so I can line up images for mannequins or stop motion to be EXACTLY where the previous one was. In fact when I'm using the viewfinder I still have the LCD on displaying current settings, so I guess my LCD is always active. So, your explanation is valid- I'm clearly not your average DSLR user, so I guess I'm just special. :)

I find that for my use, which is probably unrealistic for everyone else, the mirrorless batteries last longer than my DSLR. So I jumped on the accusation that it would be the opposite. Sorry about that. It is when you use it like I do.

Let me just say for the record that I own both Nikon DSLRs and Sony NEX ;).

Right. I figured I'd chime in since he's talking about Canon and Olympus, which I happen to own. I'm also intimately familiar with the micro 4/3 lens situation for both hobby and work, and thought perhaps I had some useful perspective.

Quote
Again, you're talking video while I'm talking photo. Tracking a moving subject while shooting continuous photos and keeping the subject in focus shot-to-shot is the weakest point in the mirrorless focus system. Even now that the newest cameras have on-sensor phase detection, this is not nearly as effective as the dedicated focus sensor DSLRs have. You use the words "live continuous autofocus" - that's what video is, and as you say, this outperforms DSLR video any day of the week. Continuous photography, OTOH, is not "live" in that sense. The subject is moving 6 times further between each frame than in video (considering 30fps video and 5fps photo). Tracking these larger increments properly is simply not as attainable with ML cameras as opposed to DSLR.

I don't see why this should be different. The mechanics of how that works, be it video or stills, should be the same. A portion of processing power (over various CPUs in the case of some of these bodies) is dedicated to the focus system, which tracks objects moving in real time. One could argue that it is harder to do with video, since the rest of the processing power has to go into scaling the frame down to 2MP for 1080p, and encoding it into h.264 (not a light task for a little embedded chip to do 30-60 times a second) as well as all the things that would go into image acquisition for stills. To have a processor dedicated to specific tasks is necessary, and that's something many mirrorless cameras have actually gotten RIGHT versus traditional DSLRs in my experience!
I usually use my Canon for shots that involved continuous shutter just because my favorite autofocus lens is native to it, but the few times I used the continuous mode on my GH2, the thing kept everyone in focus even shooting shallow DOF at 140mm. I wasn't at all surprised because I figure, if it can handle the arduous task of properly re sizing a video frame better than a DSLR*, it can rapid fire stills as well.

*DSLRs such as Canons are notorious for actually not being fast enough to properly resize a frame to HD in real time. They do it by actually throwing out most of the data (aka line skipping) to keep up with the rest of the processing. The result is softer picture with lots of moire and aliasing. One of the big pros of the GH2 over the Canon DSLR system for me shooting video, is that the GH2 offered a dedicated image resample system that did away with moire and aliasing, as well as the ability to keep subjects in continuous AF. At the end of the day, unless I missing something (and please do fill me in, I'm very curious!), I don't see why a mirrorless camera wouldn't be as good if not better in stills doing a similar task!

Quote
Well then don't be disrespectful. How dare anyone disagree with me!

Hey, remember when you made up the specs of an imaginary camera when someone asked about the 60D? LOL! :P

Quote
In fact, my day job is 100% on the technical aspects of photography, not the artistic. I design and develop photography and lighting equipment, so I know technical things most people - and even testing websites (DxOMark, DP Review, et. al) - don't even dream about. Of note to this conversation, some of the things I'm working now on or have worked on in the recent past are batteries, inverters, and yes, lens mount adapters (including Metabones-type ones).

We should talk, then. Outside of this. I'm an experienced beta tester for some companies you've probably heard of. :)
Mobile Enthusiast Extraordinaire

Visit one of the Tech Blogs I write: http://www.techcitement.com

Online Something Fishy

  • Global Moderator
  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • **********
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 8862
  • Total likes: 6266
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 44
    • View Profile
    • Kosher Horizons
  • Location: Iceland
Re: Which Camera Should I Get? Master Thread
« Reply #299 on: December 20, 2013, 03:12:04 AM »
Nice- let's keep geeking it up, then. :)

There's a lot of truth in that I'm coming at this from a different angle, but photography is a passionate hobby of mine (I'm a lens fanatic and love to tinker) as well as picking up the occasional product photography gig on the side. To be fair, when doing photography I'm less traditional... I'll use the EVF and autofocus lenses when shooting kids and events, but otherwise I'm using magic lantern to give me focus peaking meters on the LCD with vintage glass. Or the ghost image feature (overlay a previous picture onto the live view) so I can line up images for mannequins or stop motion to be EXACTLY where the previous one was. In fact when I'm using the viewfinder I still have the LCD on displaying current settings, so I guess my LCD is always active. So, your explanation is valid- I'm clearly not your average DSLR user, so I guess I'm just special. :)

I find that for my use, which is probably unrealistic for everyone else, the mirrorless batteries last longer than my DSLR. So I jumped on the accusation that it would be the opposite. Sorry about that. It is when you use it like I do.
I figured :). That was just too ludicrous a claim, I knew there had to be something more behind it ;).

I don't see why this should be different. The mechanics of how that works, be it video or stills, should be the same. A portion of processing power (over various CPUs in the case of some of these bodies) is dedicated to the focus system, which tracks objects moving in real time. One could argue that it is harder to do with video, since the rest of the processing power has to go into scaling the frame down to 2MP for 1080p, and encoding it into h.264 (not a light task for a little embedded chip to do 30-60 times a second) as well as all the things that would go into image acquisition for stills. To have a processor dedicated to specific tasks is necessary, and that's something many mirrorless cameras have actually gotten RIGHT versus traditional DSLRs in my experience!
I usually use my Canon for shots that involved continuous shutter just because my favorite autofocus lens is native to it, but the few times I used the continuous mode on my GH2, the thing kept everyone in focus even shooting shallow DOF at 140mm. I wasn't at all surprised because I figure, if it can handle the arduous task of properly re sizing a video frame better than a DSLR*, it can rapid fire stills as well.

*DSLRs such as Canons are notorious for actually not being fast enough to properly resize a frame to HD in real time. They do it by actually throwing out most of the data (aka line skipping) to keep up with the rest of the processing. The result is softer picture with lots of moire and aliasing. One of the big pros of the GH2 over the Canon DSLR system for me shooting video, is that the GH2 offered a dedicated image resample system that did away with moire and aliasing, as well as the ability to keep subjects in continuous AF. At the end of the day, unless I missing something (and please do fill me in, I'm very curious!), I don't see why a mirrorless camera wouldn't be as good if not better in still doing a similar task!

That's because you keep on focusing on the processor and are ignoring the basic difference in methodology. The processor has nothing to do with the camera system; you could theoretically put any processor in any system. The important difference is between contrast and phase detect.

A DSLR uses phase detect. That means that the AF sensor will look at the point to be focused from two slightly offset points (kinda like a stereoscopic 3D idea). It will then overlay one over the other until they match up. Using the very basic math of seeing by how many degrees it had to adjust the two images by to be one, it triangulates the distance to the subject. Once it knows that the subject is, say, 6 feet away, it'll instruct the lens to move to that position. This is a gross oversimplification of the idea, but the point is that the system takes a single reading, and it knows right away where to set the lens to. Since there is only one reading and one lens movement involved, this system is extremely fast. Now if you had a faster processor and/or faster motor in your lens, this process will be even faster. Bit even at its basic level, it's extremely speedy.

Now if you're shooting continuously, no matter where the subject went in the frame, it'll re-acquire focus nearly instantaneously, because its just a very speedy system.

Mirrorless cameras on the other hand, use contrast detect. The system will look at the point to be focused, and try to find a clear contrast between light and dark areas. This step in and of itself is relatively slow, since it could get lost easily. What if there are no clear differences in tonality, for example? Once it finds a promising area, it will try to make this light/dark border as distinctive as possible. If the border becomes sharp, then the picture will be in focus.

However, when it finds a promising area, unlike phase detect, this system has no idea about the distance of the subject. So what it does is it starts moving the lens back and forth, near and far, trying and experimenting until if thinks it got the best possible border. This is a very slow process. Here again a  faster processor or lens motor goes a long way to make it faster, and with a stationary subject this actually approaches phase detect speed.

However in continuous shooting, this whole process has to be repeated over and over again. Problem is, how could it do its typical trial and error, focusing back and forth, when the subject is constantly changing distances? It could go back and forth for weeks! Fortunately, it is fast enough to eventually figure it out. Fast enough to be useable, but not nearly as fast - or as accurate - as phase detect.

We should talk, then. Outside of this. I'm an experienced beta tester for some companies you've probably heard of. :)

The testing I was talking about is not beta testing, but technical and industrial testing. I'll give you an example:

Ever seen a filter test or comparison? The internet is full of them. A series of photos, with the filter, without the filter, with a different filter, ect., followed by a proclamation of which one is best.

I've also tested filters. But what I did was very slightly more elaborate 8).

I spent over $30k lab testing different filters and brands. We had spectrophotometers measure the precise light transmission and wavelengths of each filter. We had scanning electron microscopes examine every glass, coating, and supporting ring. We did all sorts of stress testing (drop, abrasion, pressure, lateral force). We did an entire swath of environmental tests - both short and long term (staining, heat, freezing, moisture, salt, fog, sand).

I could tell you exactly which brand's UV filters actually filter out UV rays - and at what wavelength - and which do nothing. I know what every brand's multicoating is made out of, how it's layered, and whether it's applied in a vacuum or painted. I know who makes bogus transmission claims and who doesn't. I know the grade of aluminum everyone uses in their rings, and how strong it is under any numbers of conditions. I know the type of construction, retaining, and sandwiching every filter has. I know how color neutral they are, and how it would change in time, if at all. I could tell you the exact difference between Schott, ColorCore, and WaterWhite glass, and each grade of them.

I know which filter is best for someone on a tight budget, whether or not it's worthwhile to go with a "better" brand, and what filter you should take to Iceland vs. the Grand Canyon.

When I work on a project, I go to an absolute extreme (maybe even insane :P) level to know every singe technical thing there is to know about it.
Check out my site for epic kosher adventures: Kosher Horizons