KirkD said:
Yawn. People have been making those comparisons and predictions for years, and not a single one has come true - indeed, the opposite has happened. But you carry on living in your dreamland :
Upvote
0
FF Mirrorless Needed in 2018 -- A7-III changed the segment !
- Thread starter hmatthes
- Start date
Yawn. People have been making those comparisons and predictions for years, and not a single one has come true - indeed, the opposite has happened. But you carry on living in your dreamland :
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Hflm said:
This is exactly the problem with this debate: significant difference is subjective. You look at these charts and see big differences, I look at these charts and I see three cameras all very close together. You consider 2/3 stop of increased dynamic range at higher ISOs to be important, I don't see it as that significant. I look at the noise charts and see three cameras clustered together.
I'm not saying you are wrong and I am right, I'm just saying that what is important to some people can be unimportant to others.
scyrene said:KirkD said:
Yawn. People have been making those comparisons and predictions for years, and not a single one has come true - indeed, the opposite has happened. But you carry on living in your dreamland :
Because the differences between a Blackberry and an iPhone are comparable to the differences between a DSLR and a mirrorless camera? I don't think so. The "Crackberry" market never advanced because they only appealed to yuppies. iPhones have always been marketed to the masses. One product was never going to have a mass market appeal, the other changed the way people communicate in fundamental ways.
Anyone who believes that taking the mirror out of a digital camera is going to revolutionize the industry in the same way as iPhones is delusional.
Upvote
0
Getting 2/3 of a stop more at higher ISOs helps us a lot when post processing a few thousand images after a wedding. I can see that when using the LR presets we built on the 5div or A9/A7riii files. Colors look better with the Sony sensors, noise levels when pushing stay lower, extra cropping possibilities open up. Maybe a client won't see it as clearly as we do, but I prefer every gain there is. That is especially noticeable with faces (shadows below nose, hair, throat) and dark suits.unfocused said:
At dpreview, the RAW comparison tool indicates almost a stop over the 5div. I need to test it myself, as I get the A7iii tomorrow.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_1=sony_a7iii&attr13_2=canon_eos5dmkiv&attr13_3=sony_a7iii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=12800&attr16_3=12800&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.19015097052480223&y=-0.747921137339056
Attachments
Upvote
0
Hflm said:
If you're taking wedding photos, why not just light it properly? These things called flashes, you know
Although, if the scene is as dark as the DPR shot, you won't be able to autofocus, so it wont' matter. And, Sony does have the most miserable flash options of all the systems, both first and third party.
Upvote
0
Talys said:Hflm said:
If you're taking wedding photos, why not just light it properly? These things called flashes, you know
Although, if the scene is as dark as the DPR shot, you won't be able to autofocus, so it wont' matter. And, Sony does have the most miserable flash options of all the systems, both first and third party.
There are things like churches, which often are very dark in Germany (all over Europe, to be more precise) and flashes aren't usually allowed at all. Very easy to end up at ISO 12800 at f2.8 with a 70-200 or 24-70.
Otherwise, we use flashes of course, but we and our clients don't like dance floor images looking like normal daylight images. Doesn't reflect the mood well, looks often artificial and people don't find it nice if our big Profoto's would fire constantly to lit the full place. Very good for videographers, too. The bride and groom determine the light setting on a purpose. Using flash to get a black light and flare and fill flash for the subject is our way to go.
Regarding focussing: setting effect off, all our Sony lenses open up the aperture and I can focus as fast as in good light (a button press on the A7riii). Never had issues with A9/A7riii and all our lenses. The 25/2 (24/1.4 on Metabones), 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 don't need to be stopped down a lot mostly, too, so that that is not even necessary. You have an A7riii? In that case use the FE35/1.4 at f9, iso 64k etc. with effect off, flexible spot medium and it works like a charm even there.
The Godox system works extremely well. With x1ts one even has AF assist light. But the most reliable triggers for me were the Phottix Strato ii ones, I used with Nikon and Canon alike. With Mitros+ or Juno I can trigger all Stratos with SB910 or Rx600 flashes if required, too. Where is the problem? The Elinchrom and Profoto works extremely well, too.
I always find it funny to hear sarcastic comments from people like you, who obviously don't know what they are talking about.
Upvote
0
Hflm said:Talys said:Hflm said:
If you're taking wedding photos, why not just light it properly? These things called flashes, you know
Although, if the scene is as dark as the DPR shot, you won't be able to autofocus, so it wont' matter. And, Sony does have the most miserable flash options of all the systems, both first and third party.
There are things like churches, which often are very dark in Germany (all over Europe, to be more precise) and flashes aren't usually allowed at all. Very easy to end up at ISO 12800 at f2.8 with a 70-200 or 24-70.
Otherwise, we use flashes of course, but we and our clients don't like dance floor images looking like normal daylight images. Doesn't reflect the mood well, looks often artificial and people don't find it nice if our big Profoto's would fire constantly to lit the full place. Very good for videographers, too. The bride and groom determine the light setting on a purpose. Using flash to get a black light and flare and fill flash for the subject is our way to go.
Regarding focussing: setting effect off, all our Sony lenses open up the aperture and I can focus as fast as in good light (a button press on the A7riii). Never had issues with A9/A7riii and all our lenses. The 25/2 (24/1.4 on Metabones), 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 don't need to be stopped down a lot mostly, too, so that that is not even necessary. You have an A7riii? In that case use the FE35/1.4 at f9, iso 64k etc. with effect off, flexible spot medium and it works like a charm even there.
The Godox system works extremely well. With x1ts one even has AF assist light. But the most reliable triggers for me were the Phottix Strato ii ones, I used with Nikon and Canon alike. With Mitros+ or Juno I can trigger all Stratos with SB910 or Rx600 flashes if required, too. Where is the problem? The Elinchrom and Profoto works extremely well, too.
I always find it funny to hear sarcastic comments from people like you, who obviously don't know what they are talking about.
I don't really care but I think there is an important point to be made. Some folks will say I switched to Sony and I love the interface, colors and autofocus. Some say I switched to Sony, but I hate the Sony colors and interface. Some love everything about Sony. Some say Canon glass on Sony is fantastic. Other say it doesn't work well at all. What is my point? Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are right. Same goes for me and everyone else. Many people could not care less about 2/3rd of a stop dynamic range above a 5d4. I don't, but that is just me.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Hflm said:
Again, this illustrates the subjective nature of the discussion. Looking at the DPReview comparisons you linked to, I see the difference between terrible and horrible. Neither of which would I ever provide to a client.
As an aside, I also note that the setting you chose was "low light," which seems to be underexposed compared to their "daylight" setting. I say that because the low-light exposures seems noticeably darker than the daylight exposures, which should not be the case if they were both properly exposed.
In addition, if you move the cursor around, some areas of the scene actually look better with the Canon and some look better with the Sony.
Again, it's all very small differences and quite subjective. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that these differences are very small and do not have the kind of impact that many forum users seem to think they do.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Well, to be fair, we've known for years that Sony is the way to go if you have a fetish for chronic, severe underexposure.
Upvote
0
Funny how you talk about "pouring" in the same breath as Sony. Care to talk about heating too?KirkD said:
Also, you assume Sony is ahead.
KirkD said:
Amazing. The Sotroll bunch (all three of you) know each other. All of your personal acquaintances are switching to Sony. You should make more friends. FYI: All of my personal acquaintances are switching to Canon after buying the yet to be released Sony. That's everyone I know.
Warren Buffett lives!!!KirkD said:
Why don't you specifically list what the awesomeness is that Canon must come out with to save itself? That way we can all look back to here from Q2 2019 and see what a wizard you are.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Hflm said:
I guess I live in a different part of the world. I have never attended a wedding ceremony at which camera flashes were not permitted.
As a groom or bride I would not want my wedding memorialized at ISO 12,800. In that case, forget the video, because it would look like the Blair Witch Project
If it came to that, I'd choose a different venue.I haven't met any wedding photographers that shoot most of their stuff at 5 digit ISOs. I'll take your word that in your part of the world they exist... I sure pity them, even more so, their customers.
Hflm said:
Flashes done right don't look like normal daylight images. If you're using flashes well, they should look very natural, and folks looking at the photography shouldn't even be able to tell that you're using a flash.
Put it another way. If they have "that flash look", you're doing it wrong.
Hflm said:
Using Sony lenses at wide open apertures, one should hope that autofocus in good light isn't an issue
But wait... What? A camera should be able to focus when it ISN'T a wide open aperture. And when there ISN'T good light. A Canon DSLR can!
There are plenty of reasons. You take corporate headshots at F/11, for example. And sometimes, there's just less light. I don't mean nightclub dark; just mood lighting dim. Like AF on cat that's lit by the fireplace
Anyways, autofocus with Sony lenses, even in poor light, I think is tolerable, but there is lots of room for improvement.
Hflm said:
It wasn't a sarcastic comment at all.
First, my biggest point of dissatisfaction with Sony flashes. The hotshoe looks like this:
And the flash receptacle looks like this:
It is so damned fragile with its stupid pins that both the hotshoe and the flash need covers on them when not in use. And, you actually need to cover the Sony hotshoe if nothing is in it... just to prevent problems with rain.
How crazy is that?
In my opinion, Phottix is an overpriced system considering that its build quality isn't really that great (not much better than Godox), with a limited number of options. You're basically stuck with Odin + Mitros if you want HSS. I'd suggest that if you want remote triggers, Cactus is a better way to go, because you can get HSS out of other brands of flashes. If you don't care about HSS and you're just going to use the flashes manually, I would suggest, just use a single contact transmitter and someone else's flashes.
I think Godox is your best bet with Sony. But that is really, really sad. I mean, these are NEEWER flashes, for heaven's sake. When that's your best flash option, including Sony's own, I think that my point that Sony's flash ecosystem is the poorest of all the major brands is a statement of fact, not an opinion or sarcasm. Let me point out that they aren't weather sealed at all. And, their build quality is terrible, worse and more inconsistent than Yongnuo flashes. While there isn't anything wrong with them, they're not very rugged. I know that in the Canon world, most photographers that rely on speedlights would much rather use the 1st party Canon flash than the Yongnuo knockoff (and certainly not the Godox ones).
On the Godox transmitter end, you have your choice between the reasonably nicely built transmitter that has terrible ergonomics (X1T-S) or the really nice ergonomic one (XPro-S) with the beautiful display, that is made cheaply, and has some bugs. Also, the flash illuminator on the Godox hotshoe flashes made for Sony don't actually work on Sony bodies. Why is that?
On the upside, Godox has a series of strobes which are natively compatible with the 2.4Ghz system. Not that they're really great strobes or anything, but they're ok for a basement studio.
Regarding Profoto and Elinchrom: I was talking specifically about flashes, not studio strobes. Since I don't have Sony transmitters, I couldn't tell you how well this works or not.
Now, Sony has a really nice wireless transmitter. What they should do... is build a GN60 flash that actually works with it. That shouldn't be so hard, right? But hey, it will have those ridiculous pins on the bottom.
Upvote
0
Talys said:Hflm said:
Using Sony lenses at wide open apertures, one should hope that autofocus in good light isn't an issue
But wait... What? A camera should be able to focus when it ISN'T a wide open aperture. And when there ISN'T good light. A Canon DSLR can!
To clarify, Hflm is saying that with the 'setting effect off' (like turning off exposure simulation on Canon live view), the lens opens to max aperture for AF, then stops down to the selected aperture for the shot, just like Canon cameras do when using the viewfinder (that's why the VF doesn't get darker when you stop down, unless you press the DoF Preview button – the lens is always wide open, except during actual image capture).
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Talys said:Hflm said:
Using Sony lenses at wide open apertures, one should hope that autofocus in good light isn't an issue
But wait... What? A camera should be able to focus when it ISN'T a wide open aperture. And when there ISN'T good light. A Canon DSLR can!
To clarify, Hflm is saying that with the 'setting effect off' (like turning off exposure simulation on Canon live view), the lens opens to max aperture for AF, then stops down to the selected aperture for the shot, just like Canon cameras do when using the viewfinder (that's why the VF doesn't get darker when you stop down, unless you press the DoF Preview button – the lens is always wide open, except during actual image capture).
This is actually not how it works, particularly on native lenses. Frankly, it's messed up/inconsistent/arbitrary.
Native Lens
In One Shot (AF-S) mode: whether you set to f/32 or f/2.8, and setting effect on or off, it's all the same. Even when the screen is blacked out, when you go to autofocus, the camera opens the aperture (you can see it) and closes the aperture when it's done.
In Continuous (AF-C) autofocus, setting effect on, at f/32: For a moment, the camera will open up the aperture (you can see it), it autofocuses at full speed. But then it stays dark, and it can't autofocus for beans.
If setting effect is off, at f/32: The camera will APPEAR bright. The first thing you autofocus on will be at full speed. But then, even though it appears bright, it can't autofocus for beans on the second subject.
At f/2.8, the camera will autofocus as quickly as it can, regardless of setting effect.
I believe, based on what I've read, if the aperture is raised above f/8 on the A7R3, in continuous autofocus, the camera goes into contrast detect mode, instead of hybrid autofocus.
Adapted Lens
Who knows. The behavior is very inconsistent, and with Sigma lenses and Sigma adapter, I was able to make it not even try to autofocus at not-ridiculous apertures (like f/11). But, sometimes it worked too.
But really, WHO CARES. It's way in the weeds of the realm of TLDR. Here's what it comes down to.
In a dimly lit room, if you're using a Canon DSLR and a f/2.8 or f/1.4 lens, you can autofocus on whatever you want in whatever mode you want. It will just work.
On an A7R3, this might work, that might work better, or maybe it won't at all. It's fussy, and you have to set things and hope for the best.
Which comes to another point regarding the AF illuminator on the Godox X1T-S, that HFlm brought up, too. It "works" in the sense that it lights up until the camera focuses (which, is more than the Sony does...). That is surely better than nothing; however, it doesn't really work in that the camera can take a seconds to autofocus.
On a Canon with an AF illuminator, you can shut off all the lights, and you'll autofocus in the same fraction of a second as if the room is fully lit, when that AF illuminator turns on.
Upvote
0
CanonFanBoy said:
Well this won't convince some of the Holy Canon religious zealots here, but ...
A mirrorless camera that, in order of importance,:
1. has at least as good in-body image stabilization as Sony ... Canon absolutely has to have this in their FF mirrorless or I'm out of here.
2. has at least as good DR as the Sony A7III
3. has two card slots
3. has the phenomenal eye focus of the Sony A7III
4. fully articulating screen (the A7III does not have fully articulating)
Before I give my predictions, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say I've been a Canon fan since 1983, and have a lot invested in Canon glass, in addition to my 6D Mk 1 (primarily for landscape). I was waiting to upgrade to the Mk II, but it did not have the 4k I needed for video, so I also own a Sony a6500 and use it for all my bird photography and for videos.
Now for some predictions: Q2 2018 we will see a slight but noticeable drop in Canon sales as the Sony A7III cuts in. Q3 2018 a continuing slow drop in sales continuing from Q2. In Q3, Sony will announce its "non-basic" camera and the slope of Canon loses will increase significantly. This will be accelerated if Canon's FF mirrorless does not even measure up to the Sony A7III for those who were holding off to see what Canon came up with. By the end of Q2 2019, Canon's sales will have dropped 20 percent over Q2 2018 sales, with almost all the gains going to Sony. Sony is to Canon what Apple was to Blackberry.
Right now, it is only my investment in Canon glass that keeps me hoping they pull it out of the fire by the end of 2018.
Upvote
0
KirkD said:
It's in the lens. Don't hold your breath for Canon IBIS. Of note, Canon doesn't even have patents in that space, AFAIK. Bye.
KirkD said:
So, a FF MILC is going to affect overall ILC market share? Sure. Right. Whatever.
KirkD said:
Don't wait around. Switch now to avoid later disappointment. The grass is greener, trust me. You can also relocate to here.
Upvote
0
Talys said:neuroanatomist said:Talys said:Hflm said:
Using Sony lenses at wide open apertures, one should hope that autofocus in good light isn't an issue
But wait... What? A camera should be able to focus when it ISN'T a wide open aperture. And when there ISN'T good light. A Canon DSLR can!
To clarify, Hflm is saying that with the 'setting effect off' (like turning off exposure simulation on Canon live view), the lens opens to max aperture for AF, then stops down to the selected aperture for the shot, just like Canon cameras do when using the viewfinder (that's why the VF doesn't get darker when you stop down, unless you press the DoF Preview button – the lens is always wide open, except during actual image capture).
This is actually not how it works, particularly on native lenses. Frankly, it's messed up/inconsistent/arbitrary.
Native Lens
In One Shot (AF-S) mode: whether you set to f/32 or f/2.8, and setting effect on or off, it's all the same. Even when the screen is blacked out, when you go to autofocus, the camera opens the aperture (you can see it) and closes the aperture when it's done.
In Continuous (AF-C) autofocus, setting effect on, at f/32: For a moment, the camera will open up the aperture (you can see it), it autofocuses at full speed. But then it stays dark, and it can't autofocus for beans.
If setting effect is off, at f/32: The camera will APPEAR bright. The first thing you autofocus on will be at full speed. But then, even though it appears bright, it can't autofocus for beans on the second subject.
At f/2.8, the camera will autofocus as quickly as it can, regardless of setting effect.
I believe, based on what I've read, if the aperture is raised above f/8 on the A7R3, in continuous autofocus, the camera goes into contrast detect mode, instead of hybrid autofocus.
Adapted Lens
Who knows. The behavior is very inconsistent, and with Sigma lenses and Sigma adapter, I was able to make it not even try to autofocus at not-ridiculous apertures (like f/11). But, sometimes it worked too.
But really, WHO CARES. It's way in the weeds of the realm of TLDR. Here's what it comes down to.
In a dimly lit room, if you're using a Canon DSLR and a f/2.8 or f/1.4 lens, you can autofocus on whatever you want in whatever mode you want. It will just work.
On an A7R3, this might work, that might work better, or maybe it won't at all. It's fussy, and you have to set things and hope for the best.
Which comes to another point regarding the AF illuminator on the Godox X1T-S, that HFlm brought up, too. It "works" in the sense that it lights up until the camera focuses (which, is more than the Sony does...). That is surely better than nothing; however, it doesn't really work in that the camera can take a seconds to autofocus.
On a Canon with an AF illuminator, you can shut off all the lights, and you'll autofocus in the same fraction of a second as if the room is fully lit, when that AF illuminator turns on.
The aperture behavior isn’t arbitrary as far as I know. It is based on the lens used. This was Sony’s perhaps unwise approach to dealing with focus shift. Lenses which are more susceptible to it act differently than lenses which are less suceptible to it.
This was one of my big frustrations with my a7rii, and part of why I sold it when I bought a 1Dx.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
FWIW being in the body doesn’t preclude it being in the lens, or vice versa (nor does a lack of a patent preclude development). In fact it appears the combination of ILIS and IBIS is quite powerful. Canon may not go there soon, but I would be surprised if they rule it out entirely.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
Technically, both are possible. But Canon has spent a lot of time touting the superiority of lens based IS. Of course, anything is possible...after all, Nikon touted their ED glass elements as superior to fluorite because, "Fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing." But now they've started putting fluorite elements in their supertele lenses (and it looks like they've finally updated their lens glossary to remove the knock on fluorite in the ED entry).
Upvote
0
