FF Mirrorless Needed in 2018 -- A7-III changed the segment !

[The Fat Fish]

Ignoring DR, video functionality is something very few other brands are so reserved about putting in their cameras. For sure, the A7III would match my needs quite well but isn't it a shame I need to switch brands? There's lots I like about Canon and I certainly won't be alone in needing to offer video and stills on one job. Sony, Fuji, Panasonic all value hybrid stills/video and even Nikon are slowly heading that way. Can Canon not simply match them? It just seems a shame to leave what is a great system because of one feature. It just so happens it's a feature I MUST have for my work.

If 4k video is really important to you, at the moment, your only real Canon options are 5DMk4 and 1DXII. In those cases, DPAF is much better than what the competition offers, though certainly, EVF may accomodate your style of shooting better, and Panasonic, unarguably, has some desirable video-centric features.

But I have met numerous wedding & event photographers who really dread 4k jobs and do everything they can to talk people out of it, or simply don't offer it, even though their gear supports 4k.

I would ask, do people want 4k because they really want to make substantial 4k videos, because they want to check a box on specs, or because they're trying to future-proof? At 1080p, I think that Canon has many options that are excellent, including the forthcoming and very inexpensive M50. In the space that DSLRs and MILCs appeal to, I think that MF video is less a thing, and where it comes to AF, DPAF is just so much better than the competition -- seeing the AF hunt jitters on people's wedding videos is painful.

Neither the 5DIV or 1DXII are good video options. I’ve hired the 5DIV and the 4K video is rage inducing. Not only is the 1.74x crop painful to deal with and makes getting wide shots and using prime lenses impossible, the file sizes are a nightmare. The 1DXII would improve on the crop a bit but that doesn’t help with the file sizes. There’s no excuse for MJPEG codec as it’s no better quality than those using 100mbps codecs.

As for 4K, my clients pay more for the future proofing and any 1080p jobs I shoot in 4K anyway. It allows me to downsample for better quality 1080p (the standard Canon 1080p is soft and hasn’t changed in 10 years). 4K also allows me to crop in.

DPAF is a nice feature but it’s only about 10-15% better than the competition. It’s also no use if the rest of the video implementation is not that useful.

I bought into Canon back when they cared about video. The 5DII and 550D were great options and kicked off the video DSLR market. Now the 1080p is identical to what it was 10 years ago and the 4K is borderline unusable. Why have they turned their back on one of the markets that gave them such a good reputation?

 

[unfocused]

Yes, we've been on the same side of that argument for years. I was arguing against the notion that "if you can't get a great pictures with X, then the problem is you." It's true that a good photographer can make an interesting photo with just about any gear. It's not true that a great photographer can get the desired photo of a specific subject/action with any gear. A good photographer knows the limits of the gear, and adjusts technique and expectations to match.

There are also times, however, that the right answer is to either:

1) Come back under more favorable conditions, or
2) Augment the light with a flash or strobe

The second actually doesn't bother most the birds very much at all, and the advantage of a small bird is that even a relatively small softbox (like a rogue flashbender) can produce very nice results.

Adding a third opinion here.

I'm not a "dynamic range is everything" sort of person either. On the other hand, I will certainly say that there are occasions when your two options won't work. Baseball games are a good example. You can't control the time or light and you certainly can't be firing off a flash.

I truly appreciate the dynamic range of the 1DX II when I'm trying to shoot a baseball player wearing a cap in the midday sun and dressed in a white uniform. With Canon's modern sensors I can pull up the shadows to get the player's expressions and drop down the highlights to get the uniform. Now, I usually need two layers to do this, but that's pretty basic processing.

So, yeah, being a good photographer is important, but there are times when being simply knowing the limitations of our equipment and adjusting accordingly won't work.

Still, I think we are all in basic agreement. Too much is made of the minuscule differences in modern sensors and people who disparage any brand are usually saying more about themselves than about the equipment. I also wonder if some of the dynamic range people might not benefit from learning a few basic Photoshop skills.

 

[Talys]

I'm not a "dynamic range is everything" sort of person either. On the other hand, I will certainly say that there are occasions when your two options won't work. Baseball games are a good example. You can't control the time or light and you certainly can't be firing off a flash.

I truly appreciate the dynamic range of the 1DX II when I'm trying to shoot a baseball player wearing a cap in the midday sun and dressed in a white uniform. With Canon's modern sensors I can pull up the shadows to get the player's expressions and drop down the highlights to get the uniform. Now, I usually need two layers to do this, but that's pretty basic processing.

So, yeah, being a good photographer is important, but there are times when being simply knowing the limitations of our equipment and adjusting accordingly won't work.

Still, I think we are all in basic agreement. Too much is made of the minuscule differences in modern sensors and people who disparage any brand are usually saying more about themselves than about the equipment. I also wonder if some of the dynamic range people might not benefit from learning a few basic Photoshop skills.

Right -- I'm not saying that every photograph must be perfectly exposed or deleted; nor that having modern dynamic range adjustment capabilities isn't helpful. And, like you say, sometimes the best shot is just the best shot you can get. And I mean, who doesn't use lightroom sliders, right?

You're right with whites; more DR helps in the sense that you don't need to underexpose a little just to capture details and then correct in post, and that makes for better photographs overall, with less effort.

But still: if you can't get it to work with 13.5EV's of DR, 14.5EV's isn't going to magically fix things.

 

[scyrene]

Yes, we've been on the same side of that argument for years. I was arguing against the notion that "if you can't get a great pictures with X, then the problem is you." It's true that a good photographer can make an interesting photo with just about any gear. It's not true that a great photographer can get the desired photo of a specific subject/action with any gear. A good photographer knows the limits of the gear, and adjusts technique and expectations to match.

There are also times, however, that the right answer is to either:

1) Come back under more favorable conditions, or
2) Augment the light with a flash or strobe

The second actually doesn't bother most the birds very much at all, and the advantage of a small bird is that even a relatively small softbox (like a rogue flashbender) can produce very nice results.

This is way way beside the point but I have to disagree re. flash for bird photography.

 

[Orangutan]

The second actually doesn't bother most the birds very much at all, and the advantage of a small bird is that even a relatively small softbox (like a rogue flashbender) can produce very nice results.

This is way way beside the point but I have to disagree re. flash for bird photography.

Feel free to start a new thread if you want to discuss this further.

 

[dak723]

Ignoring DR, video functionality is something very few other brands are so reserved about putting in their cameras. For sure, the A7III would match my needs quite well but isn't it a shame I need to switch brands? There's lots I like about Canon and I certainly won't be alone in needing to offer video and stills on one job. Sony, Fuji, Panasonic all value hybrid stills/video and even Nikon are slowly heading that way. Can Canon not simply match them? It just seems a shame to leave what is a great system because of one feature. It just so happens it's a feature I MUST have for my work.

If 4k video is really important to you, at the moment, your only real Canon options are 5DMk4 and 1DXII. In those cases, DPAF is much better than what the competition offers, though certainly, EVF may accomodate your style of shooting better, and Panasonic, unarguably, has some desirable video-centric features.

But I have met numerous wedding & event photographers who really dread 4k jobs and do everything they can to talk people out of it, or simply don't offer it, even though their gear supports 4k.

I would ask, do people want 4k because they really want to make substantial 4k videos, because they want to check a box on specs, or because they're trying to future-proof? At 1080p, I think that Canon has many options that are excellent, including the forthcoming and very inexpensive M50. In the space that DSLRs and MILCs appeal to, I think that MF video is less a thing, and where it comes to AF, DPAF is just so much better than the competition -- seeing the AF hunt jitters on people's wedding videos is painful.

Neither the 5DIV or 1DXII are good video options. I’ve hired the 5DIV and the 4K video is rage inducing. Not only is the 1.74x crop painful to deal with and makes getting wide shots and using prime lenses impossible, the file sizes are a nightmare. The 1DXII would improve on the crop a bit but that doesn’t help with the file sizes. There’s no excuse for MJPEG codec as it’s no better quality than those using 100mbps codecs.

As for 4K, my clients pay more for the future proofing and any 1080p jobs I shoot in 4K anyway. It allows me to downsample for better quality 1080p (the standard Canon 1080p is soft and hasn’t changed in 10 years). 4K also allows me to crop in.

DPAF is a nice feature but it’s only about 10-15% better than the competition. It’s also no use if the rest of the video implementation is not that useful.

I bought into Canon back when they cared about video. The 5DII and 550D were great options and kicked off the video DSLR market. Now the 1080p is identical to what it was 10 years ago and the 4K is borderline unusable. Why have they turned their back on one of the markets that gave them such a good reputation?

As usual, your post is more about what your priorities are. In my case, a 10-15% better AF system (DPAF) makes Canon the only option I choose for video. That is a deal breaker as far as I am concerned and why I would never consider the other brands until they "catch up.". So, depending on your priorities, one could just as easily say, "Why can't Sony, Panasonic and Nikon do what Canon can do for video?"

Not saying you are wrong or that you shouldn't switch - because your priorities and needs are not the same as mine. But to assume all companies will offer the same features isn't happening. Some companies are going to concentrate more on stills and others more on video. They don't all have the same patents. They will have different pros and cons. You can whine about it or figure out a way to make it work even if that means switching brands.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

I started out with an Argus C3 in the 60's. After decades of chasing after good film, there aren't any complaints about DSLRs. Most are excellent, but I chose Canon because the colors are so accurate. In the early days, film color accuracy and latitude mostly sucked. There is no perfect DSLR, it only matters what your priorities are.

 

[3kramd5]

I started out with an Argus C3 in the 60's. After decades of chasing after good film, there aren't any complaints about DSLRs. Most are excellent, but I chose Canon because the colors are so accurate. In the early days, film color accuracy and latitude mostly sucked. There is no perfect DSLR, it only matters what your priorities are.

And an advantage digital has is the ability to profile for color and correct losslessly.

Incidentally I don’t find my canon jpeg colors are necessarily more accurate than others I’ve had, they just tend more one way than another (e.g. red vs green).

 

[Talys]

As usual, your post is more about what your priorities are. In my case, a 10-15% better AF system (DPAF) makes Canon the only option I choose for video. That is a deal breaker as far as I am concerned and why I would never consider the other brands until they "catch up.". So, depending on your priorities, one could just as easily say, "Why can't Sony, Panasonic and Nikon do what Canon can do for video?"

Not saying you are wrong or that you shouldn't switch - because your priorities and needs are not the same as mine. But to assume all companies will offer the same features isn't happening. Some companies are going to concentrate more on stills and others more on video. They don't all have the same patents. They will have different pros and cons. You can whine about it or figure out a way to make it work even if that means switching brands.

I'm not really sure I'd characterize it as "10-15%" anyways.

When it comes to Nikon, the D850 live view/video autofocus so bad that it's hardly describable with words. I mean, you're probably better off manually focusing.

On the Sony, my issue isn't speed. I mean, the AF speed of a 70-200/2.8 or 24-105/4 (two popular video lenses) isn't like it's 85%-90% slower than a Canon, and even if it were, in video, I'm not sure that I would care.

My real problem with video on Sony is that I watch paid-for event and family videos that were recorded on Sony MILCs, and when it's autofocused, I can see the autofocus hunt. It might be like a 1 second autofocus but for a fraction of a second, it goes too far, then backtracks, and that just looks very unappealing and amateurish.

In comparison, DPAF autofocus looks so smooth and professional. I will avoid the entire conversation of MF vs AF for video, simply because I think that most of the market for DSLR/MILC video wants AF.

In terms of the full frame coverage that Fat Fish was talking about, I just can't imagine that, even without going to ultrawides, 16-35, is not wide enough, even with 1.7 crop. I mean, that's 27mm full frame -- who needs to shoot video wider than that?

 

[padam]

In terms of the full frame coverage that Fat Fish was talking about, I just can't imagine that, even without going to ultrawides, 16-35, is not wide enough, even with 1.7 crop. I mean, that's 27mm full frame -- who needs to shoot video wider than that?

It is not necessarily just about how wide you can go, it is more to do with using the same lenses and getting the same aesthetic for video. Neither the 16-35mm f/4 with IS or the f/2.8 is ideal for a photo/video lens (a 24-105mm f/4 IS would be a lot more useful).

FF photo/video was the thing what got many people into buying the 5D Mark II in the first place (and 1080p was good at that time, it is still good today for some, but there are other features that are lacking - deliberately limited - besides a touch LCD and DPAF).
Yes, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 works ok (still no IS, rolling shutter can be noticeable), but do you really need to buy extra lenses just to use that 4k? While there is also a crop on the 1DX II, it is much more manageable with less rolling shutter as well. But I'm not sure how good is it as a run-and-gun camera, it is just very big, heavy and also quite expensive.

While the Sony offers much more features that are useful, the color, ergonomics, much wider range of affordable lens options and AF still makes Canon very strong even with all these limitations, and it will be interesting to see which direction they will go with mirrorless: even more limitations or cutting back on those.