Help with upgrade from T3i?

[Hawk]

Thanks, ya I am more of one of those shooters that likes to be methodical about it hehe. Old school I guess. Also on XT1 you can leave what you want on auto and just set FStop or Shutter speed just like DLSR. At least with my shooting I spend 95% of my time in Aperture priority. Just using the aperture ring to me is a big deal its kinda like driving a manual or automatic sports car you are just so much more connected with the manual transmission. I am the same with cameras.

As far as the lenses the A7II kit lens is reviewed very poorly on several sites for bad distortion and other issues. Also its only F4 which is a stop worse than what I have now. I don't really wanna go back to an F4 lens and pay $1200 for it. Fuji has primes that are 1.2 which is even faster than my current lens. Fujis kit lens is even 2.8 for a little before settling out to f4 and is less than 1/2 the cost. I also looked at alot of the test images from the 70-200 E mount G glass and its looks ok its not nearly as sharp as my Canon 70-200. The Fuji also has a 50-140 F2.8 zoom. I know its not as long as my L glass but its also 2.8 and again I rarely max out my 70-200 so I think it will work for me. There are some good reviews on the Fuji glass and it looks very well made and sharp to me. Very little distortion etc.

Again I am comparing the Fuji X line of lenses to Sony Full Frame as I am choosing between these two cameras XT1 A7II. The only Sony Zeiss lens I am reading good things about overall is the 55 F1.8. And to be honest Sony charging another $500 for their 70-200 is laughable to me when you can get Canon L glass way cheaper. I guess from what I have read people are mixed on the Sony glass and when its as much or more than L glass that makes me think its just not worth it. I understand FF glass is always more $$$, but being more than lenses that have been used for years and are known quantity IDK.

I guess every review on the A7 that praised it was using legacy glass Leica, EF, Nikon etc. Barely anyone was praising the stock lens line up. I just don't want to spend 100s on adapting lenses to it.

A6000 is just not my cup of tea. I am not looking forward to going back to menus and buttons. I can play that game with my T3i right now and spend nothing. Also on dp review the noise from the a6000 is pretty close to my T3i so I think its more of a side grade.

Also after using the EVF in the XT1 it is way better than the a6000 or A7 they aren't even in same league if you look through them. XT1 is sharp and large EVF. A7 has very grainy look and wasn't nearly as big. It felt so compressed in its little window. I frame with VF so it probably sounds stupid but I would lean towards the best EVF and the Sonys didnt impress me at all. Maybe its better outside but BB I could barely even read letters on signs with it, looked very low res and grainy. After using it I almost thought man I am going back to optical how would you ever use that.

Sure I am the most indecisive person ever LOL. I just like the old school XT1 design and the glass is getting good reviews from alot of places and it has best EVF IMHO.

 

[Tinky]

My point in saying this, which it appears I could have been a lot clearer on, was that the H.264 encoder, though the source of additional artifacts and poor encoding performance on its own (and potentially some of the softness I was complaining about earlier), this has little to do with the IQ improvements you cited (less jellocam, mainly a function of the sensor readout architecture, better NR which is the responsibility of the Digic image processor, and less moire which could potentially be a combination of both) since those as cited are introduced or corrected earlier in the image/video pipeline, using some elements potentially shared by both the video and JPEG pathways, unlike the encoders which are entirely distinct.

Didn't I also specifically refer earlier to the influence of digic (which you cite for NR at least and moire in part)

Either way it seems you are determined to try and get on my tits big time by twisting or distorting whatever I say. Well congratulations, you are there mate. Theres a word for that.

 

[WIDEnet]

Sure I am the most indecisive person ever LOL. I just like the old school XT1 design and the glass is getting good reviews from alot of places and it has best EVF IMHO.

I really do feel you on prefering that method of working; when I first started I just had my 550D and lots of old manual primes working all manual of course, and it really was relaxing and refreshing. Now that I'm an event shooter I really can't afford that kind of luxury, but in a way I do miss the old days...by which I mean 9 months ago haha.

Hey now, I wouldn't call that indecision; you just had to consider all your options first. And it sure looks to me like you've finally decided on your choice and have plenty of research, reasons, and thought to back that up. Once you truly fall in love, everything else is really just a formality--same with me and picking colleges, for example; I know the feeling. But you want to be sure, of course...but I say just go for it if you know inside yourself the XT-1 is the one you really want. If you order if from Adorama you get a full 30 day return period; almost like renting except without all the cost. If you really don't like it after that or have second thoughts then you can always send it back and try something else. So, if you are really 100% sure (or at least 90%), then it's time to squeeze the trigger I guess!

In any case, I know I've said this before, but again, all the best of luck to you, and let us know how it goes!

Didn't I also specifically refer earlier to the influence of digic (which you cite for NR at least and moire in part)

Yes indeed! But it sounded like you were confusing the functions and effects of the video and JPEG encoders with that of the image processor (and sensor readout circuitry) so I wanted to clear that up. Not the biggest or most uncommon conflations, but I can be a pit precise and picky sometimes, and as someone who obviously knows quite a bit about the intricacies of camera video processing I thought you'd appreciate it.

Either way it seems you are determined to try and get on my tits big time by twisting or distorting whatever I say. Well congratulations, you are there mate. Theres a word for that.

I apologize if I came off as overly blunt, rude, or critical and I'm sorry that you seem to have taken it personally; I am just generally rather anal when it comes to accuracy in discussing photo and particularly video-related technical matters. As a shooter yourself, I'd imagine you might be able to understand the value in being picky about all the little details...or maybe that's more a DoP thing. Dunno.

I certainly do appreciate what you have to say, even if we don't necessarily agree on everything, but I must admit it was a bit odd that you kept bringing up issues from a video perspective repeatedly when A. This was posted in the stills photography forum, B. The OP never said anything about video originally, and C. Hawk specifically stated at least once that video wasn't his priority. I understand you are interested in that element and obviously have a lot to contribute but perhaps this wasn't exactly the best venue for the depth you went into on video.

I must note, perhaps over-critically, that besides your very useful first post and your valuable comment cautioning Hawk against investing in less mature and consistent system like Sony, it just seemed like the rest of your posts were either targeted at me or on a rather tangential course about video that had little to do with what the OP was asking (stills IQ and NR). Of course, I did spend quite a bit of time responding to you as well so I am surely not blameless either, but I at least tried to also respond to Hawk in detail as well.

But again, your first post, again, was very good though and closely reflects my experience with the 550D, 60D and 7D. It's just unfortunate that we got off on this note, I really do feel I could learn quite a bit from your depth of real-world experience. I can just get a bit caught up in the details (not that you've noticed) and people can take it as attacking them when I'm only trying to ensure that we both have an accurate and precise understanding of the issues. If you are not okay with that then I understand, and I really don't know how much I am going to be active on this forum so you probably won't run into me again elsewhere. I really only joined to help Hawk out and to correct the rather bothersome inaccurate statements of the rather poorly spoken film aficionado a while back, which I never did end up doing. And certainly not to pick a fight with you, I 100% agreed with what you had to say in your first and only post at that point in the thread, more so than anyone else's.

Anyway, it's getting late and I'm talking myself in circles. Time to go to bed...maybe we can bury the hatchet in the dawn light of a new day, eh, and agree to disagree sometimes?

 

[berger]

would think of the EOS 7D Mark II

 

[WIDEnet]

That information might have been helpful two weeks either, but as Hawk (the OP) stated in his most recent post 10 days ago, they already made their choice, and neither the 6D nor the 7D2 were in the running at that point. Furthermore, if you read the first post, you would have known Hawk's main complaint with his 600D was its poor low-light performance, on which the 7D2 is only a minimal improvement on in RAW relative to its cost, unlike the cheaper 6D or all of the other suggestions.

But in any case, welcome to the forums. Protip: If you comment on posts nearer to the top of the forum (ie that are newer), your replies are more likely to have some kind of impact rather than making you look silly commenting on a long-stale thread.

Best of luck...

 

[Tinky]

That information might have been helpful two weeks either, but as Hawk (the OP) stated in his most recent post 10 days ago, they already made their choice, and neither the 6D nor the 7D2 were in the running at that point. Furthermore, if you read the first post, you would have known Hawk's main complaint with his 600D was its poor low-light performance, on which the 7D2 is only a minimal improvement on in RAW relative to its cost, unlike the cheaper 6D or all of the other suggestions.

But in any case, welcome to the forums. Protip: If you comment on posts nearer to the top of the forum (ie that are newer), your replies are more likely to have some kind of impact rather than making you look silly commenting on a long-stale thread.

Best of luck...

Thats a relief. It's not just me you speak to me that way.

I'm not being funny, but are you on the autistic spectrum at all? I don't mean that as a sleight or to be offensive, just, theres kind of a way to speak to folk?....

 

[WIDEnet]

Well hello again, Tinky. Long time no hear, eh?

Just yesterday I came across this article about video and the 5Ds that I thought you'd like...also, I noticed the latest EOSHD video quality rank places the 5DIII with internal ML RAW a full 10 spots above the C300, behind only the 1D C and the A7S with an external uncompressed 4K HDMI recorder. Not to negate the C300's other advantages, of which there are many for "video" style productions like what you and I do, but quality certainly isn't one of them (and nor is the 4x more expensive price). No to mention the $1k 5DII w/ML being right behind it, 9 spots ahead of the C300 and 12x less expensive. But I digress...

Thats a relief. It's not just me you speak to me that way.

Told ya, didn't I? Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh, but what did "berger" possibly think they could accomplish posting that? For all my criticism of you going OT about video and calling me a criminal, you obviously have a lot of expertise to share and usually seem to give at least some amount of thought on how to do it properly on a forum. Not only does this person lack that, why would anyone in their right mind want their very first post on a new forum be "would think of the EOS 7D Mark II" on a thread that's been dead for almost two weeks and for which reading the OP's original question would make it obvious that the 7DII would be the worst possible choice for the price to solve the OP's noise problem. C'mon, man.

People like you and I put a lot of effort into our posts trying to help people here (maybe too much, not to mention that exerted going after each other haha). I'd have thought careless, throwaway posts such as that would bother you as well.

I'm not being funny, but are you on the autistic spectrum at all? I don't mean that as a sleight or to be offensive, just, theres kind of a way to speak to folk?....

I know you're not trying to offend me, but this might be something better discussed via PM, no? Since if I really do have something like that, probably not something I'm going to be wanting to publicize. And if I don't, then it looks like you are publicly calling me out for something I don't have. Neither of which I'd assume you intend to do, given you are asking me an honest question. Thanks.

 

[Tinky]

My point was, there are ways of speaking to folk, I guess I was looking for a reason to make allowances.

The bar conversation test is always good. Ask yourself, 'if this person was sitting next to me in a bar, would I speak to them that way?'

I'm from Glasgow, where sh1t like the way you speak to people really wouldn't fly. We're pretty friendly, we're (Christian sectarianism and the issue of independence from england asides) easy going and tolerant, if somebody wasn't quite keeping up with the conversation we'd either be polite and include them, or make a wee joke to bring them up to speed.

We wouldn't get all arcey about it, because, there are ways of speaking to folk, and there are ways of getting a punch in the face. And in a glasgow bar, no matter your station in life, cheeky folk aren't above a punch in the face.

So maybe apply the bar room test to your next posting, avoid a rammy or a barney, eh Pal?*









*If ever in a glasgow pub and you've inadvertently strayed ontp religion, football or the referendum, and somebody calls you 'Pal', they aren't really your Pal. Take it as a 10s warning. Brace or run. Pal.