>>4315613Lmfao, sports fags rely on burst, not snappy AF.
>>4315606Yes PDAF is inherently inaccurate vs contrast detect on the sensor.
If you've got more fractions of a second to spare, and care about "focus perfection", DSLRs and their blazing fast approximation for the focal point are not as good.
The point is, they're simply superior at fast acquisition of approximate focus which can be useful in some cases.
The mirrorless OSPDAF workaround is "fast enough" and a high continuous shooting rate combined with pre-release captures, letting you pump dozens of RAWs out from before/during/after the AF is engaging on the subject in hopes you get enough shots in focus.
DSLR dedicated AF will simply get you to the target faster, but their other aspects lag behind like FPS, fine tuning focus accuracy (contrast detect) and their live-view AF is typically crap in terms of speed. Because they use contrast detect in the live view, they can be just as accurate as mirrorless when photogrpahing still subjects but do get there slower.
>>4315650>They can focus plenty fast enough.Fast enough, not "as fast".
I'm not saying mirrorless is bad or anything. Just objectively a tiny bit slower.
>it doesn't matter if a DSLR can move to a certain point 5ms fasterSometimes it does, but usually not.
>if it's not as accurateSuper snappy shots usually aren't the ones you're going to pixel peep enough to care, but if you're trying to use f/1.2 with it yeah getting there fast doesn't help when your DOF is razor thin. When stopped down, it's good enough.
>and can't track movement as well.Mirrorless does better here without a doubt, but the whole argument is that DSLR AF in single point mode is the clear winner in terms of raw speed. If you're gonna fork over the reins and let the camera do eye/people/auto detect focus points and subject tracking then you're never going to benefit from DSLR's raw point speed, and that's okay.
