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



## hmatthes (Mar 17, 2018)

As a 30 year Canon EOS "fan boy", member of CPS, advocate for full frame -- The other guys have given us one helluva challenge: The A7-III (due April 10th)

Priced like a 6D-II, performs better than anything Canon sells (well, I've never shot 1Dx), they finally have me tempted.

CPS loaned me a M5 which I found very lacking compared to the user interface and performance of EOS.

We are behind in sensors (My Leica Q out resolves my 6D), woefully behind in autofocus of action, and our feature set is below others price-for-price.

The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass and they would all focus better.

I never thought that I would think seriously about leaving...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 17, 2018)

It may have changed the segment in your mind, but as yet there is no evidence it has changed the _market_ segment. Canon really only cares about the latter.


----------



## slclick (Mar 17, 2018)

Wait? Are you telling me Canon is *******?


----------



## BillB (Mar 17, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> As a 30 year Canon EOS "fan boy", member of CPS, advocate for full frame -- The other guys have given us one helluva challenge: The A7-III (due April 10th)
> 
> Priced like a 6D-II, performs better than anything Canon sells (well, I've never shot 1Dx), they finally have me tempted.
> 
> ...



Maybe the place to start would be by asking yourself how your current equipment limits the quality of your photography, and then ask what you hope to achieve with new equipment. Then there are the questions of whether the new equipment will actually do what you think it will, and how much you are willing to spend.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 17, 2018)

Please just switch brands. Whatever the reason, just switch. I switched from Ford to Hyundai last week. Nobody cared, but forgot to go on a Ford forum and berate Ford. Rats! I'm a much better driver behind the wheel of a Hyundai.

Wait! You've already switched? I thought you were waiting on the April release of the A7 III? Has the Sony guerrilla marketing team really stooped this low?



hmatthes said:


> As a 30 year Canon EOS "fan boy", member of CPS, advocate for full frame -- The other guys have given us one helluva challenge: The A7-III (due April 10th)
> 
> The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass and they would all focus better.





hmatthes said:


> *Mirrorless?*
> Hell Yes I Want One -- IF:
> It natively uses my EF glass
> 
> ...



What a difference a year makes. Not knocking your decision, just the drama. Enjoy your new camera.

BTW: Shouldn't your $4,000 Leica Q out do your 6D?


----------



## dak723 (Mar 17, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> As a 30 year Canon EOS "fan boy", member of CPS, advocate for full frame -- The other guys have given us one helluva challenge: The A7-III (due April 10th)
> 
> Priced like a 6D-II, performs better than anything Canon sells (well, I've never shot 1Dx), they finally have me tempted.
> 
> ...



If you believe all you have written, then what are you waiting for? Go buy the Sony! And enjoy it!

If you have written the above because you want to complain, you will get no sympathy (or agreement) from me. Having tried the A7 II, for my photography it was no better than the 6D I owned in any way. But that was my photography, and yours is obviously different if you have come to conclusion that Canon "is way behind in sensors." If you tried the M5 and found it "very lacking," I would not agree as I own one and find it very easy and fun to use. Yes, it is not a "pro-level" camera nor is it supposed to be for under $1,000.

If "performs better than anything Canon sells" includes ergonomics, then I would disagree. If "performs better than anything Canon sells" includes color, then again, not in my opinion. I don't do any action photography, but have never heard that Sony is better at tracking focus, but if you think it is, by all means what are you waiting for? Since you have tried the metabones adapter and find it works great for you, you would be foolish not to buy the Son. So, why do you hesitate and start a thread on the forum? What purpose does that serve you exactly?

Go get your new Sony and enjoy!


----------



## hmatthes (Mar 18, 2018)

I am still here because Canon has treated me very well for many years. Canon has the best glass. Canon has the best user experience. Canon has a wide range of compatible camera bodies. I use a SL1 as backup when traveling. 
My point is that I am truly begging Canon to accelerate the release of a FF EOS. 
I’m not “flaming” and I have not jumped ship. 
Merely a disappointed loyalist who does examine alternatives.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 18, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> I am still here because Canon has treated me very well for many years. Canon has the best glass. Canon has the best user experience. Canon has a wide range of compatible camera bodies. I use a SL1 as backup when traveling.
> My point is that I am truly begging Canon to accelerate the release of a FF EOS.
> I’m not “flaming” and I have not jumped ship.
> Merely a disappointed loyalist who does examine alternatives.



This is just how "the market" works. Right now, it's only people with special requirements who demand FF mirrorless. Over time, the broader market at each segment may start to demand them as well. In the early part of the transition maybe a few photographers switch outright, while others buy the new tech as part of their kit, and keep "old reliable" close at hand. At some point, both new purchasers and longtime owners may find the new tech is adequate for all needs, and sales for the "old reliable" fall off. There will be a transition curve over time, and it will be driven by the aggregate purchasing decisions of the entire market, not by special needs.

It is a major error to assume that your specific needs are representative of the entire market, or any segment of it. (that includes you, AvTvM  ). You can bet that Canon is watching the market, but you shouldn't expect a FF mirrorless to be the 5D5, it's much more likely that it will be something like a 6D, where there's less expectation of perfection and total reliability.

Sorry, that's the best I can do. If you can't wait, buy yourself an A73 and metabones adapter to soothe your hunger pangs.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Mar 18, 2018)

Within a year Canon will be selling APS-C mirror-less cameras for well under $1000 that will meet the needs of 99% of users who wish to own an ILC in addition to their smartphones. This will completely cut Sony off from the entry level market just as their Canon's Rebels own the DSLR market. Canon knows you build a market from the bottom up not the top down. Sony's expensive toys will be left gasping for air in a shrinking market.

Canon uses the less demanding entry level market to hone their tech and marketing and will release higher performing cameras as the market and technology become available to support them. In the mean time they expand their already dominant line of lenses.

Canon is teaching a Master's Class in market development and every day I read posts by uniformed people who imagine they are losing or behind. Stupid Canon indeed. In the not too distant future I expect to read a post that begins with "remember when Sony made camera's?"


----------



## unfocused (Mar 18, 2018)

Let me see if I’ve got this right.

Canon has to hurry and release a full frame mirror less camera or you (one customer) are going to buy a Sony which has not been released yet.

You are shocked, shocked that your six year old entry-level 6D doesn’t have as good of a sensor as a yet-to-be released camera. And you are shocked that your six year old 6D doesn’t have a sensor as good as a $4,500 Leica.


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> I am still here because Canon has treated me very well for many years. Canon has the best glass. Canon has the best user experience. Canon has a wide range of compatible camera bodies. I use a SL1 as backup when traveling.
> My point is that I am truly begging Canon to accelerate the release of a FF EOS.
> I’m not “flaming” and I have not jumped ship.
> Merely a disappointed loyalist who does examine alternatives.



No, you were not in the top level quote, I meant it for someone else.


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2018)

I find it funny and weird that someone nicely discusses new technology or brand in a technical forum like this and people pounce on him as if he has committed a crime. 

Chill pill!!!


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 18, 2018)

sanj said:


> I find it funny and weird that someone nicely discusses new technology or brand in a technical forum like this and people pounce on him as if he has committed a crime.
> 
> Chill pill!!!



There are a lot of people who support Canon as if it were their favourite sports team. For me, I use Canon because I'm used to it and i have a large number of Canon lenses. If I had bought a Nikon film camera back in 1995 instead of a Canon EOS then I'd probably now be shooting Nikon and be perfectly happy with it.

Whatever we shoot with we're all photographers. Let's keep things civil, and let's comment to these threads with fair and balanced comments rather than attacking posters with ridicule and insulting memes. That is not what I am here for, and it doesn't reflect nicely on the community here.


----------



## Talys (Mar 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I find it funny and weird that someone nicely discusses new technology or brand in a technical forum like this and people pounce on him as if he has committed a crime.
> ...



There are a lot of people who seem to just want something new and different, which is what the A7iii is, at a cost lower than A7R3. It does some things better, at the cost of doing other things worse.

I'll say it this way: if you're simply bored of DSLRs and want to change the way you think about photography, go buy a Sony. It's an entirely different paradigm, with a whole other set of limitations and benefits.

If your goal is to have the best interchangeable lens point and shoot inthe world, the A7 series does an admirable job of it, at a tremendous price. It is easy to capture what you see down the viewfinder, much more so than any DSLR, for sure. And in that case, you'll add some great photos that are memorable to you, that nobody much cares about, because there are trillions of similar pictures on the internet.

On the other hand, if your goal is to _improve your photography_ and stand out from the endless well that is Flickr, be mindful that that phtography is still light, composition, and the capturing of a moment. The camera body and all the technology in the world improves none of that, not even one tiny bit, whether you're using a 1995 EOS or a 2018 Alpha. Ironically, to that point, the skills in the 90's I used a Minolta Maxxum, the granddaddy of the Sony Alphas. The skills I acquired then, like exposure, lighting, composition, direction, and perspective really have not changed in 30 years.

This is why it's ridiculous for me to hear that an A7iii has "changed the segment". What is "the segment"? A bunch of rich people who want to buy an expensive gadget to brag about the technology they own? Or hobbyists and professionals who what to capture light as a passion or profession?

I hope that "the segment" is the latter. You know, photographers.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 18, 2018)

1. Getting a Metabones adapter isn’t “Leaving Canon”, it’s “Adapting Canon”.

2. I’ve never used a 1DX or A7 so I can’t say from personal experience, but I really doubt Sony has better AF in Sports&Wildlife. This just sounds like more hyperbole from people trying to push Canon into improving their sensor tech. I want better sensors from Canon too, but I won’t be joining the parade celebrating the emperor’s new clothes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

3. The only thing Sony actually did better than anyone else here is Dual Card Slots, especially after the D7500 no longer has that feature, the A7III is now the cheapest “professional” body one the market for that reason alone.


Considering everything in general Talys hit the nail on the head.



Talys said:


> There are a lot of people who seem to just want something new and different, which is what the A7iii is, at a cost lower than A7R3. It does some things better, at the cost of doing other things worse.
> 
> I'll say it this way: if you're simply bored of DSLRs and want to change the way you think about photography, go buy a Sony. It's an entirely different paradigm, with a whole other set of limitations and benefits.
> 
> ...


----------



## dak723 (Mar 19, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> I am still here because Canon has treated me very well for many years. Canon has the best glass. Canon has the best user experience. Canon has a wide range of compatible camera bodies. I use a SL1 as backup when traveling.
> My point is that I am truly begging Canon to accelerate the release of a FF EOS.
> I’m not “flaming” and I have not jumped ship.
> Merely a disappointed loyalist who does examine alternatives.



Examining alternatives is definitely a good thing. Choosing the best camera for you is also a good thing. The reason for my earlier reply was simply meant to say: Beware of the Sony hype. I was suckered by it and luckily could return the two Sony's I bought to replace my Canon 6D. But if you don't think it is hype and your experience tells you that the Sony is way ahead of any Canon offering, you should switch. Since all the rumors seem to be pointing to a Canon FF mirrorless announcement by the end of the year, I guess it is up to you to decide whether the wait is worth it or not.

For those who seem to be upset anytime someone defends Canon, it seems only fair to try and balance those who constantly bash Canon and over-exaggerate the differences between Canon and it's competitors. Having owned Canon, Olympus and briefly those two Sonys, I comment based on my experience, not on reading spec sheets. Sorry if that disturbs some of you. I am not a "Canon fanboy". Just someone trying to give an honest opinion and keep things in perspective. The only Camera company that I have any sort of loyalty or emotional attachment to is Olympus, as the OM-1 was my first camera.


----------



## brad-man (Mar 19, 2018)

_And I thought everyone's first camera was a Kodak_


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 19, 2018)

brad-man said:


> _And I thought everyone's first camera was a Kodak_



Kodak instamatic with the flash cubes.....


----------



## bwud (Mar 19, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass *and they would all focus better*



I wouldn’t count on that, unless the V is substantially better than my IV, or unless the a7iii is substantially better than my a7Riii.

In some cases the canon lenses AF well adapted. In other cases they don’t AF at all. It very much depends on the lens, and on the conditions.

You’re using three different brands, none of whom, as far as I know, share IP. It’s never going to be seamless. I’ve done shoots using a Sony body, a metabones adapter, canon lenses, yongnuo triggers, canon speed lights, and elinchrom monolights. It’s a “s” show. I’ve since gone to mostly native lenses, and can use the proper trigger for my lights since the Riii finally has a flash sync port.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 19, 2018)

OP,
What are the cheap and best Sony lens one can keep a eye on. One wide angel lens, general purpose lens, some prime (30mm/35mm/50mm) lens for personal use. DPR review shows big bump in DR performance with some dual gain concept. When Sony release a crop camera with dual gain, it should be not that much far off from Canon FF right?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 19, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> brad-man said:
> 
> 
> > _And I thought everyone's first camera was a Kodak_
> ...



Argus TLR.


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2018)

bwud said:


> hmatthes said:
> 
> 
> > The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass *and they would all focus better*
> ...



I have here a Sony A7R3, the latest Metabones and Sigma adapters. I also have a shelf full of Canon lenses, and a couple of Sigmas.

Without any reservation or exception, I can tell you that *every single one I've tried would all focus better on the camera body they were designed for*. I mean, it's not even close.

The Sigma MC-11 is better than the Metabones, by the way. If for no other reason, _it doesn't crash_. The Metabones sometimes just refuses to work and requires a power cycle, especially on single shot (AF-S). Maybe it's just this unit; I have no idea. When was the last time a Canon lens randomly stopped autofocusing on a Canon body?

But....

1. No lens/adapter combination gives you the full range of autofocus options, like expanding focus point or locking subject tracking, or any of the cool, unique Sony features like autofocus in magnification mode.

2. All of the adapted combinations hunt to some degree. None of the are clean, instant focus compared to either TTL PDAF or DPAF in live view. It's not even close.

3. All of the adapted combinations have strange quirks. Like, in continuous autofocus and EyeAF, which works now, yay, the 24-70/4IS jitters like it's having an epileptic seizure, _even when the subject and camera aren't moving_.

4. There are some really fun quirky combinations. Like a Sigma MC-11 + Sigma 1.4x TC + 150-600 works... except once you pass a FL that gives you > f/8, autofocus just dies.

I have a hard time believing that any professional who earns money with their gear would ever use an adapted Canon lens on a Sony body. It's just doesn't work the way it should. That's not to say that they're not great for enthusiasts or hobbyists, who just want something that works, if not perfectly. The pictures are still beautiful, and you can still achieve focus.


----------



## Talys (Mar 19, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > brad-man said:
> ...



Wow!! That is not a common first camera 

Mine was a Nikon SLR of some kind that was a hand-me-down from my dad. I forget the model number now.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 19, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> It is a major error to assume that your specific needs are representative of the entire market, or any segment of it. (that includes you, AvTvM  ).



my decades-long experience tells me exactly otherwise. Almost every time i consider some product (any category) "good enough to buy" for me and my "exalted, out-of-the-ordinary, totally unique, not shared by any other human being-tastes" ... guess what, it turns out to become a 1055 mainstream, massive blockbuster seller. 

last few examples from canon? 7D, 5D III, 70-200/2.8 L IS II, EOS M at € 299 ... LOL

Sole reason why Sony is not stills imaging gear market leader yet is because i don't buy their stuff yet. Why? Lenses - too big, too fat, way too expensive. Or sub-par or non-existent [looking at APS-C E-mount]. 


Market segments and porducts that will sell well in the next few years until computational photography fully takes over:

* Canon EOS M system ... because 1. it is small enough and 2. it is cheap enough ... up to now at least ... just wait for those f/1.4 clunkers some of you have been crying for all the time. 

* Canon FF mirrorless system ... if 1. it is compact enough and 2. it is "affordable enough" [for normal income-earning amateurs that is]. Couple 1000 pro's don't really count in the big picture, even though stupid Canon is dedicating 99% of their efforts to produce Mk. III, IV, V of big white lenses well beyond 10k a piece. 

;D


----------



## bwud (Mar 19, 2018)

Talys said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > hmatthes said:
> ...



Agreed. Likewise, the native Sony lenses work better than adapted counterparts.

Beware magical thinking!



ritholtz said:


> When Sony release a crop camera with dual gain it should be not that much far off from Canon FF right?



Both the a6300 and a6500 use DR-Pix. “Not that much far off” is a fair assessment. Looks to be about a stop or so on average across the ISO range.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20IV,Nikon%20D850,Sony%20ILCE-6300


----------



## chik0240 (Mar 23, 2018)

As a 12 years canon customer I have no objection the A7 series got me tempted too.

But sony have always got some bugs and the reliability is more of a question to me as I used to take the expensive cameras to shoot auroras, or in mountains where weather might become harsh. I admit also that I am a die hard fan of OVF as I am too lazy to charge the battery every day or carry a dozen along for a trip. But that's just me myself.

But after thinking back how my 6 years old 5D mk III served my needs till today, I am just glad that canon helps me to not spend big money on pointless upgrading the camera lol


----------



## transpo1 (Mar 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> It may have changed the segment in your mind, but as yet there is no evidence it has changed the _market_ segment. Canon really only cares about the latter.



Correction- it HAS changed the *FF market segment.* And if it hadn’t, Canon would not bother developing and coming out with a FF mirrorless, which is what they will do in the next year.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It may have changed the segment in your mind, but as yet there is no evidence it has changed the _market_ segment. Canon really only cares about the latter.
> ...



Has it? Remember in early 2017 when Sony announced that they were #2 in FF ILC sales? In one country. For two months. While they were offering discounts. Remember early this year when Nikon announced they were #1 in FF ILC sales? For one month of 2017. Soon after they launched a new FF ILC. 

Who was #1 in FF ILC sales for the other 11 months of last year, and also for the full year in aggregate? Hint: the FF ILC market leader is the same company that leads the ILC market as a whole, and has for 14 years and counting. 

So, what has changed, exactly?

Incidentally, Canon isn't coming out with a FF MILC because they're losing market share. If anything, they're doing so to gain even more...just as they did in the APS-C MILC segment.


----------



## Talys (Mar 23, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > It may have changed the segment in your mind, but as yet there is no evidence it has changed the _market_ segment. Canon really only cares about the latter.
> ...



Do you really think that Canon decided to develop and release a FF mirrorless... on the basis of a camera that has just been announced?

That's crazy talk. 

Besides which, the A73 is hardly changes anything from the A7R3. It's just a little cheaper and lower resolution. I'm sure there are plenty of Canon folks that would love for Canon to slim down 6D/5D/5DS into just two, like Sony -- higher and lower resolution, otherwise very similar, and separated by about a thousand bucks.

Of course Canon wants to have a FF mirrorless. They want a camera to sell to everyone who wants a camera, and clearly, there are some people who want a FF mirrorless. But like everything else, they do it on the schedule that they want to do it on, which drives some people kind of nuts


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> Do you really think that Canon decided to develop and release a FF mirrorless... on the basis of a camera that has just been announced?
> 
> That's crazy talk.



I assumed transpo1 meant FF MILC in general. If he was actually suggesting that the A7III has changed the market or instigated Canon's FF MILC plans, that's beyond crazy, it's ridiculously asinine. But then, it's quite possible that's exactly what transpo1 was suggesting.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 23, 2018)

I’m pretty sure that Canon decided to market a FF mirrorless camera at least 5 years ago. I am equally sure that they have researched the marketplace and know what customers both want, and what they will accept. I am even more sure that they know what Sony and Nikon are working on...

With that said, any new release will not “change the segment”


----------



## transpo1 (Mar 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Nevertheless, Canon executives themselves have recently noted “increased competition” and admitted failures in not seeing the penetration of 4K and have thus corrected their strategy with products like the M50. And now they are developing a FF mirrorless, all of which indicates that the market segment is being redefined and will continue to be redefined by a future FF Canon and Nikon mirrorless. Sony has changed the market segment whether they are number one in FF sales or not, by leading the way with FF mirrorless. They are the ones who have paved the way for FF mirrorless and shown Canon and Nikon that there is money to be made here.


----------



## Talys (Mar 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think that Canon decided to develop and release a FF mirrorless... on the basis of a camera that has just been announced?
> ...



Since transpo1 is here, he should speak for himself, but given the topic of the thread, I read "it" to be A7iii, in:



transpo1 said:


> Correction- it HAS changed the *FF market segment.* And if it hadn’t, Canon would not bother developing and coming out with a FF mirrorless, which is what they will do in the next year.



I find both assertions pretty ridiculous - (a) that the A7iii is such a monumental product that it has forever changed the full frame market and that (b) had Sony not built the A7iii, that Canon would not bother developing and releasing a full frame mirrorless.

Crazy talk!!


----------



## scottkinfw (Mar 24, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> As a 30 year Canon EOS "fan boy", member of CPS, advocate for full frame -- The other guys have given us one helluva challenge: The A7-III (due April 10th)
> 
> Priced like a 6D-II, performs better than anything Canon sells (well, I've never shot 1Dx), they finally have me tempted.
> 
> ...



OK so I have to ask you,so what?
Not to be a snarky jerk, how does this change anything for you personally?
For me, it is interesting, but I wouldn't cash out of the Canon ecosystem. There will always be a new and improved, but there will not always be a reason to buy. 
So, why is a "FF Mirrorless Needed in 2018?" It would be good, but better if it was awesome, but then, it may not be a commercial success for Canon.
Scott


----------



## transpo1 (Mar 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Guys and gals, I’m not talking about the A7III. I’m talking about the fact that when I walk around NYC these days or go to an event like last year’s Tribeca Film Festival, I see more people walking around with Sony FF MILCs than anything else. Now, I’m sure Sony is dwarfed at sporting events by Canon and Nikon, but there is a buzz surrounding Sony FF MILC that is undeniable. And it was happening before the A7III. Now, it may be that Sony are currently the only game in town and when Canon / Nikon come out with their FF MILC, Sony will lose any market share they have. But to suggest that Sony has *not* paved the way for the FF MILC market is the only really ludicrous thought here.


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 24, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


One assertion I've made repeatedly (and I believe others have, also) is that Canon looks at trends and trajectories, not point-in-time. I think it's clear from both MFT and Sony improvements that there is a trajectory toward MILC being ready for pro use. At this point, the Sony FF offerings seem to have hit that transition for some people. What this Canon announcement really proves is that Canon has not been sitting on the MILC sidelines twiddling its thumbs, but carefully watching the tech and the market. They seem to be prepared to enter the market at the right time. We'll have to see how the new Sony performs, and how the Canon FF MILC compares. All I can say in summary is that competition is great for us consumers, and I hope that both the Sony and the Canon are great products.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Guys and gals, I’m not talking about the A7III. I’m talking about the fact that when I walk around NYC these days or go to an event like last year’s Tribeca Film Festival, I see more people walking around with Sony FF MILCs than anything else. Now, I’m sure Sony is dwarfed at sporting events by Canon and Nikon, but there is a buzz surrounding Sony FF MILC that is undeniable. And it was happening before the A7III. Now, it may be that Sony are currently the only game in town and when Canon / Nikon come out with their FF MILC, Sony will lose any market share they have. But to suggest that Sony has *not* paved the way for the FF MILC market is the only really ludicrous thought here.



Yes, Sony paved the way...in the sense that they couldn't compete with Canon/Nikon in the dSLR market and were forced to focus on a market where Canon/Nikon were not engaged. That seems more like desperation than innovation 

'Buzz' is only helpful if it drives sales, and based on market share that doesn't seem to be helping Sony significantly. There was a lot of buzz around the EOS M lineup, too...almost all of it strongly negative. Yet Canon went from no MILCs to #2 globally in the segment in just a few years. So much for the effect of 'buzz'.


----------



## Talys (Mar 24, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> gals, I’m not talking about the A7III. I’m talking about the fact that when I walk around NYC these days or go to an event like last year’s Tribeca Film Festival, I see more people walking around with Sony FF MILCs than anything else. Now, I’m sure Sony is dwarfed at sporting events by Canon and Nikon, but there is a buzz surrounding Sony FF MILC that is undeniable. And it was happening before the A7III. Now, it may be that Sony are currently the only game in town and when Canon / Nikon come out with their FF MILC, Sony will lose any market share they have. But to suggest that Sony has *not* paved the way for the FF MILC market is the only really ludicrous thought here.



The problem is, you're lumping full frame mirrorless buyers all together.

As I've said many times, the A7 is a great available-light tourist and travel camera, particularly if you pair cheap kit (light) lenses with a disproportionately priced body. In this case, it gives you the very best photos you can get out of crappy lenses, so you'll have the some of the highest dynamic range and highest resolution photos that nobody who isn't family cares about on flickr. 

These combinations are geared towards people who don't care about distortion or corner sharpness, and are just happy that the subject in the middle is less grainy with less light. They like that they don't have to flip up a camera flash and blow out all the detail. For example, when they take a portrait, they could care less about basics, like choosing perspective, crop that enhances the photo, placement of fingers, lean, direction of light versus pose, or taking out harsh shadows under the chin. They are not interested in _thinking_ before taking a photograph. They just want to press the shutter, and have the camera do its magic.

That's fine. They still buy cameras, so gear _should_ be marketed towards that segment. 

It's just not _my_ market segment -- I'm a hobbyist who sees amazing photography online and in magazines, and aspires to gain experience and learn techniques that allow me to take photographs that are memorable and that amaze. 

In this pursuit, it is a hindrance to have a camera that isn't ergonomically built for lenses that I'd typically choose to mount -- even in portraiture focal lengths, they're not small lenses, and just don't fit something like an A7 body very well. I expect that there are many professionals who use their cameras as tools day in and out who would feel the same way about ergonomics.


----------



## BillB (Mar 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I’m pretty sure that Canon decided to market a FF mirrorless camera at least 5 years ago. I am equally sure that they have researched the marketplace and know what customers both want, and what they will accept. I am even more sure that they know what Sony and Nikon are working on...
> 
> With that said, any new release will not “change the segment”



No, but it can change the internet buzz, which some people think amounts to the same thing, per the subject of this thread.


----------



## slclick (Mar 24, 2018)

Maybe , just maybe, the FF Canon MILC will be the next body I buy. (5D3 primary....money for 5D4? lol, money is for glass, dude)


----------



## bhf3737 (Mar 25, 2018)

bwud said:


> hmatthes said:
> 
> 
> > The latest Metabones Adapter (Mark-V) makes all of my Canon glass sing on a Sony. So for $2,500 I could have a far better sensor for my Canon glass *and they would all focus better*
> ...



The ability to adapt lenses and counting it as an advantage of the Sony system has been over exaggerated by bloggers and internet dwellers. Actually the ability to adapt third party lenses using third party products is an indication of poor design of product and services, on Sony's behalf, rather than an advantage. 
One of the pillars of the SOLID (i.e. de facto standard of good design of product and services) is Dependency Inversion Principle (DIP). In simple terms, when going for a walk with your dog, you should lead the dog not let the dog lead you. As for Sony, they have let the downstream businesses, like Metabones, take the lead in adapting lenses and Metabones' success/failure translates to success/failure of Sony's goods and services! This is extremely poor strategy and in long term, it will hurt Sony. Perhaps their board will start singing "Who let the dog out ..."!!
Based on evidences of product development strategy (e.g. weather sealing, reliability, etc.) and service development strategy (e.g. lens adaption and after-services via third party, etc.), I don't think that at the moment big players of the photography business are willing to bet on the Sony's products and services. Enthusiasts and those with extreme GAS may show different behavior, though.


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

bhf3737 said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > hmatthes said:
> ...



Anyone who claims that adapted lenses "sing" or "focus better" or, really, anything other than "autofocus like a pile of dog manure" just watches too many youtubes and has never actually tried to use an adapted canon lens on a Sony body.

I mean, if you don't need autofocus _at all_, like macro or a landscape, it's great. Yes, Canon makes good lenses, and when you bring light to the sensor, Sony does a good job of recording that light, real stunner there. But if you need reliable autofocus -- like a corporate head shot, portraiture, animal shots, or, God forbid, anything with action -- get ready to embarraass yourself mightily.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> As a 30 year Canon EOS "fan boy", member of CPS, advocate for full frame -- The other guys have given us one helluva challenge: The A7-III (due April 10th)
> 
> Priced like a 6D-II, performs better than anything Canon sells (well, I've never shot 1Dx), they finally have me tempted.
> 
> ...



This nonsense is being systematically dismantled, so let's add the ridiculous comment about the Leica Q. Its 24 Mpx sensor has similar if not worse DR overall than that of the 6DII, worse than the 50 Mpx 5DSR and far worse than that of the 30 Mpx 5DIV http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm. As for its resolution, that is restricted to its fixed 28mm lens, and it is streets behind that of the 5DSR with a good lens. As for AF, for action and flying birds there are only two real players, Canon and Nikon, with the A9 on the sidelines. Talys has found how the A7RIII with the FE 100-400mm is woefully inadequate for birds in flight.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> bhf3737 said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...



I think that sounds a bit harsh really - I'm not sure I'd put adapted glass up against something like the 5dmk4, as I haven't used one, but I'd rate the mc-11 and 70-200 f4 above the original 6d for tracking, and for many uses, similar to the 5dmk3. I haven't done a huge amount of birds in flight overall, but I've been happy with the adapted lenses so far here.

There are obvious advantages for using canon bodies with canon lenses, but personally I've been happier overall with the af from the sony, than with my old 6d, using the same lens.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2018)

A 70-200mm f/4 on a 6D is an unusual, to say the least, benchmark for comparing BIF proficiency.


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I think that sounds a bit harsh really - I'm not sure I'd put adapted glass up against something like the 5dmk4, as I haven't used one, but I'd rate the mc-11 and 70-200 f4 above the original 6d for tracking, and for many uses, similar to the 5dmk3. I haven't done a huge amount of birds in flight overall, but I've been happy with the adapted lenses so far here.
> 
> There are obvious advantages for using canon bodies with canon lenses, but personally I've been happier overall with the af from the sony, than with my old 6d, using the same lens.



It's not harsh at all.

Take a look at the photo below. It's of some kitchen cabinets using available filtered light at 1/60 f/2.8 using a 100L adapted on a Sigma MC11. I happen to have it mounted because I'm testing macro with it.

The 100L autofocuses the scene above on the Sony A7R3 just fine in landscape mode, although in continuous AF mode with the camera on a tripod, IS off and using a remote shutter, it will continuously microhunt (click-click-click-click click-click).

But rotate the camera to portrait mode _and it won't focus_. Ever! Point it at the kitchen hood to the left or the refrigerator, and it will focus fine. AF mode = Center.

Now, I don't have a kitchen cabinet fetish. It's just that often enough, ANY of the adapted lenses that I've tried -- nearly a dozen, I think -- just don't work reliably. It's ok for very occasional use or where it doesn't matter if you can't autofocus, but it's unusable if getting the shot is important. If you owned a native lens that behaved like an adapted Canon, you would take it back and say it's defective.

Now, I did notice that you said it was better at _tracking_ birds in flight with adapted lenses. This is not true, because the A7R3 is cannot track birds with adapted lenses. As in, that autofocus mode is greyed out. For manually tracking the bird (following its flight path and using center or spot AF), which works better anyhow, the autofocus on a T2i is better, never mind a 6D1 or 5D3. The only thing the A7R3 can track with adapted lenses (as in have autofocus follow the subject as it moves) is a human's eye, by holding down a button programmed to eye AF. This actually works remarkably well.

Don't believe me? Open up this photo of 6 people on your adapted lens A7R3:

https://www.timeinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PEOPLE_HTS300_credit.jpg

Set it to Wide, and turn on face priority, and you'll notice there's never a green box around a person/face. But hit Eye AF, and it will identify the closest eye, and move side to side with your finger on the Eye AF button, and the green box will follow the eye. But there is no such equivalent feature for anything else, like birds.

Birds in flight with adapted lenses is a cruel joke. I don't know how you can say that an adapted 70-200/4 works, as the only available AF modes are Wide, Center, and Spot, none of them have subject tracking, and all of them adjust autofocus in continuous mode slower than the camera's FPS by a long shot.

I'm also not exactly sure how the AF works on adapted lenses. It is some type of PDAF, and there *IS* AFMA (strange, right?), but only on adapted Sony lenses. Since the autofocus is mostly poo anyway, it hasn't mattered enough to me to pixel peep to that degree.

Forget about a bird -- just have a friend or a dog run at you and fire off at 8 or 10 FPS. Half those shots or more will be OOF.

The situations where I have found that adapted lenses work quite well are wide angle lenses, like a 16-35 where the subject is in the distance (near the lens' infinity), like landscapes, and situations where I'm going to manual focus anyhow.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > I think that sounds a bit harsh really - I'm not sure I'd put adapted glass up against something like the 5dmk4, as I haven't used one, but I'd rate the mc-11 and 70-200 f4 above the original 6d for tracking, and for many uses, similar to the 5dmk3. I haven't done a huge amount of birds in flight overall, but I've been happy with the adapted lenses so far here.
> ...



Haven't tried the camera in portrait orientation, so can't say anything about that, although that seems really strange - any idea why that might occur?

For tracking, it seems to work fine for me in the low fps setting at least (haven't tried mid) , so yes, the fps is far lower, but it seems to track fairly well there, better hit rate than I tend to get on the 6d so far. I usually just have it set to wide and it'll track the bird across the frame after initial lock. Not sure if that's how your supposed to do it, but it's worked so far.

On the other hand, I would not be recommending using adapted lenses in a professional setting, I'm not convinced that it'd cover all the necessary situations that well; the 40mm stm hunts in low light without enough contrast for example.

But my only point was that the af doesn't seem to be entirely useless overall, at least in the use I'd had do far. I'd still use Canon bodies with Canon lenses for a paid shoot


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> It's not harsh at all.



Thanks for all that testing, which is very time consuming, Phil - you have demolished a set of myths. It will save a lot of time for a lot of us and stop us from making mistakes.


----------



## Talys (Mar 25, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > It's not harsh at all.
> ...



Thanks, and it's been my pleasure. I've always been curious myself and I'm glad to share the results. 

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with someone today wanting to buy a Sony mirrorless to complement their Canon system; just do it with a proper set of expectations, and a good understanding of some of the weaknesses and limitations.



Isaacheus said:


> Haven't tried the camera in portrait orientation, so can't say anything about that, although that seems really strange - any idea why that might occur?
> 
> For tracking, it seems to work fine for me in the low fps setting at least (haven't tried mid) , so yes, the fps is far lower, but it seems to track fairly well there, better hit rate than I tend to get on the 6d so far. I usually just have it set to wide and it'll track the bird across the frame after initial lock. Not sure if that's how your supposed to do it, but it's worked so far.
> 
> ...



Oh, I'm with you -- the AF isn't entirely useless at all; I'd go so far to say that it's quite good for an adapted lens. It's a really cool novelty, but a terrible professional tool.

On re-reading what I posted, I was slightly inaccurate. Face tracking worked on many of my adapted lenses (so you can set it to wide, and it will pick up and follow a human face if it's not moving very fast), and Eye AF works quite well as long as you're holding the button. But subject tracking on anything else (like a bird, or a car) doesn't work at all, because those autofocus modes are disabled.

Of all the adapted lenses that I tried, my favorite, I think, was 24-70/4 IS in autofocus single mode. It behaves basically the way it should, and works most of the time; once in a while, it will still hunt back and forth on what should be something really easy to autofocus on, though. And I mean, what it boils down to is that it's just not worth the aggravation, if you really like Sony. Just sell your Canon L glass and buy Sony if that's the route you want to go; having a bag of Canon lenses and a couple of Sony bodies is not a winning combination.


----------



## Isaacheus (Mar 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



I think I get you now - I'll have to go back and check what af modes I had set then, I may have just been getting lucky with it hitting the subject I wanted at the time? I know it definitely doesn't track at all on adapted Canon lenses at the higher fps.

And I fully agree, get the native lenses if you need it to work each and every time, it's good for a lot, but there are compromises too. I'm happy all in all as it means I get to use both bodies without doubling up on a number of lenses, and with what I do, I don't really fret if I miss on occasion - at a wedding or the like is completely different 

For those wanting video focus on adapted lenses, I haven't found any canons that work at all


----------



## bwud (Mar 26, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Haven't tried the camera in portrait orientation, so can't say anything about that, although that seems really strange - any idea why that might occur?



I expect a more accurate statement isn’t that it won’t focus, it’s that the PDAF system won’t find anything in that scene because all the sensors are horizontal lines. The CDAF system would work fine.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I’m pretty sure that Canon decided to market a FF mirrorless camera at least 5 years ago.



I'm pretty sure, 5 years ago all Canon was thinking of was "how can we keep the lid on mirrorless and keep selling many more generations of marginally iterated "NEW" mirrorslappers to our dumbass users ... " 

Had they really thought seriously about mirrorless FF system, they would have made the EF-M mount a few millimeters bigger in its 2 crucial dimensions: throat width and flange focal distance. And would now be able to move without any issues nicely and smoothly to EF-M and EF-X lenses, sharing the same mount in exactly the same way EF-S and EF did in the mirorrslapping past.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I’m pretty sure that Canon decided to market a FF mirrorless camera at least 5 years ago.
> ...



Have you applied for a job with the Canon future design team? I am sure they could find a suitable opening for you.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



thanks for your kind assessment ;D ... but no ... think I have more influence on things as customer ... especially as a refusing-to-buy-inadequate-cr*p customer


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> but no ... think I have more influence on things as customer ... especially as a refusing-to-buy-inadequate-cr*p customer



I agree. You have at least fifty times more influence that way...maybe even five-hundred times more influence! 

Just keep in mind that anything times zero still equals zero.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Mar 26, 2018)

AlanF said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Actually I thought AVTVM was already Canon's head of marketing and he is certainly very good at his job. Every time he makes an inaccurate or derogatory remark about a Canon product I go out and buy it.


----------



## AvTvM (Mar 26, 2018)

Ian_of_glos said:


> Actually I thought AVTVM was already Canon's head of marketing and he is certainly very good at his job. Every time he makes an inaccurate or derogatory remark about a Canon product I go out and buy it.



AHA! ... now where's my commission, stupid Canon? ;D


----------



## Hflm (Mar 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> bhf3737 said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...


Disagree. I have a Metabones V, too. Works very stable (and is better than the MC-11 unless for video AF), gives me tracking at 10fps with the A9 and 3fps with the A7riii and A7iii. Provides eye AF + other native modes and AFC works really well. _No_ AFMA is needed, so you won't get back-/front focus issues. Is the the 35/1.4 focussing more fluently than the Canon 35/1.4ii? A bit, but not so different than you make it. I own and tested The Sigma 24, 50, 85, 135 (ony tested it, decided for the Batis) Art lenses (all work fine), Canon 100L, 70-200/2.8ii, 35/1.4ii, 24-70/2.8ii, TS24ii and TS45 (no AF but both stabilised and with focus peaking or in VF magnification). All work excellently and you won't have problems doing a corporate head shot at all.
The adaption is not perfect for sports, although it works great with the A9 if 10fps is sufficient for you.


----------



## KirkD (Mar 26, 2018)

Canon reminds me of Blackberry. They once dominated the world market. As a result, they got complacent and looked at new technology (like Apple's iPhone) with disdain. Apple developed with a fevered vengeance and within two years, Blackberry lost such a huge market share that they never recovered. I see exactly the same thing happening here with Canon. They really need to wake up, smell the coffee, and pour massive cash into R&D in an effort to catch up and pass Sony. All of my personal acquaintances who use Canon are seriously thinking of switching to Sony or are in the process of doing it after the announcement of the Sony A7III. If Canon does not do something awesome within the next 6-8 months or so, I predict a massive drop in market share by Q2 2019.


----------



## Hflm (Mar 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > gals, I’m not talking about the A7III. I’m talking about the fact that when I walk around NYC these days or go to an event like last year’s Tribeca Film Festival, I see more people walking around with Sony FF MILCs than anything else. Now, I’m sure Sony is dwarfed at sporting events by Canon and Nikon, but there is a buzz surrounding Sony FF MILC that is undeniable. And it was happening before the A7III. Now, it may be that Sony are currently the only game in town and when Canon / Nikon come out with their FF MILC, Sony will lose any market share they have. But to suggest that Sony has *not* paved the way for the FF MILC market is the only really ludicrous thought here.
> ...


Disagree again, as do many other I know.
My wife and I use pro dslrs and Sonys at weddings for a few years now and Sony gives you the possibility to change the ergonomics drastically. The argument that you don't get the right ergonomics is subjective and often moot, as you don't need to use it without extensions. If we add e.g. the battery grip the camera feels perfect balanced and we have no problems for 12h weddings at all. All the f1.4 lenses or f2.8 zooms can be handled without issues. Usually people that complain never used and tried that for longer stretches of time. If it is still not to your personal preference, fine, but don't generalise as if the ergonomics is a hindrance in general.
For other sessions I add the RRS base plate which I find a perfect fit or the extra grip extension. 

Meanwhile, DXO's measurements are up for the A7iii
Best low light score. Compared to our 5div it has a better S/N ratio over all isos, a stop more DR at base iso and 2/3 of a stop at higher isos. Quite an achievement.
https://www.dxomark.com/sony-a7-iii-low-light-performer/


----------



## scyrene (Mar 26, 2018)

KirkD said:


> Canon reminds me of Blackberry. They once dominated the world market. As a result, they got complacent and looked at new technology (like Apple's iPhone) with disdain. Apple developed with a fevered vengeance and within two years, Blackberry lost such a huge market share that they never recovered. I see exactly the same thing happening here with Canon. They really need to wake up, smell the coffee, and pour massive cash into R&D in an effort to catch up and pass Sony. All of my personal acquaintances who use Canon are seriously thinking of switching to Sony or are in the process of doing it after the announcement of the Sony A7III. If Canon does not do something awesome within the next 6-8 months or so, I predict a massive drop in market share by Q2 2019.



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 (Mar 26, 2018)

Hflm said:


> Meanwhile, DXO's measurements are up for the A7iii
> Best low light score. Compared to our 5div it has a better S/N ratio over all isos, a stop more DR at base iso and 2/3 of a stop at higher isos. Quite an achievement.



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:
> 
> 
> > Canon reminds me of Blackberry. They once dominated the world market. As a result, they got complacent and looked at new technology (like Apple's iPhone) with disdain...
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2018)

KirkD said:


> Canon reminds me of Blackberry. They once dominated the world market. As a result, they got complacent and looked at new technology (like Apple's iPhone) with disdain. Apple developed with a fevered vengeance and within two years, Blackberry lost such a huge market share that they never recovered. I see exactly the same thing happening here with Canon. They really need to wake up, smell the coffee, and pour massive cash into R&D in an effort to catch up and pass Sony. All of my personal acquaintances who use Canon are seriously thinking of switching to Sony or are in the process of doing it after the announcement of the Sony A7III. If Canon does not do something awesome within the next 6-8 months or so, I predict a massive drop in market share by Q2 2019.



YAPODFC : : :

I predict you'll look even more foolish in 2Q2019.


----------



## Hflm (Mar 26, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile, DXO's measurements are up for the A7iii
> ...


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.

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


----------



## Talys (Mar 26, 2018)

Hflm said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.



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.


----------



## Hflm (Mar 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## reef58 (Mar 26, 2018)

Hflm said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Hflm said:
> ...



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.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 26, 2018)

Hflm 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.



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Hflm 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 26, 2018)

KirkD said:


> They really need to wake up, smell the coffee, and pour massive cash into R&D in an effort to catch up and pass Sony.


Funny how you talk about "pouring" in the same breath as Sony. Care to talk about heating too?
Also, you assume Sony is ahead. 


KirkD said:


> All of my personal acquaintances who use Canon are seriously thinking of switching to Sony or are in the process of doing it after the announcement of the Sony A7III.



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. 



KirkD said:


> If Canon does not do something awesome within the next 6-8 months or so, I predict a massive drop in market share by Q2 2019.


Warren Buffett lives!!!
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.


----------



## steen-ag (Mar 26, 2018)

Good Beirut


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

Hflm said:


> 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.



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:


> 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.



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:


> Regarding focussing: setting effect off, all our Sony lenses open up the aperture and I can focus as fast as in good light ...



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:


> 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.



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> Hflm said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding focussing: setting effect off, all our Sony lenses open up the aperture and I can focus as fast as in good light ...
> ...



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).


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Hflm said:
> ...



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.


----------



## KirkD (Mar 27, 2018)

CanonFanBoy 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.



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.


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2018)

Wait, if it's a 'segment' and Canon doesn't have a SKU, that means they aren't behind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2018)

KirkD said:


> 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.



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:


> 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.



So, a FF MILC is going to affect overall ILC market share? Sure. Right. Whatever. 




KirkD said:


> 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.



Don't wait around. Switch now to avoid later disappointment. The grass is greener, trust me. You can also relocate to here.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



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.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> KirkD said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > KirkD 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).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yep. I hope canon is not a company which can’t or refuses to learn.

Regarding patents, the first I could find which relates to DPAF was filed in 2004, despite the technology being introduced in 2003, and the sensor fab in the EOS C100 (2012) being compatible.

This might demonstrate canon’s willingness to develop or even produce something without a hat-tipping patent. It could likewise demonstrate my inability to search for patents.


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> 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.



Ahhhh, I see. I more or less gave up trying to figure it out, since it isn't my camera anyways; it _feels_ random, and just doesn't work the way I expect it to. 

It also feels frustrating to me -- not to mention bizarre. At the end of the day, I just want to point my camera and be able to autofocus consistently, even when it's dim.


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > KirkD said:
> ...



My Olympus lens + body IS combo was not nearly effective as my FF Canon lens only. Just another reason I ditched it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Regarding patents, the first I could find which relates to DPAF was filed in 2004, despite the technology being introduced in 2003, and the sensor fab in the EOS C100 (2012) being compatible.
> 
> This might demonstrate canon’s willingness to develop or even produce something without a hat-tipping patent. It could likewise demonstrate my inability to search for patents.



The difference being that DPAF was a novel technology, meaning a logical reason for avoiding a hat-tipping patent. That's not the case with IBIS, where Canon would need to demonstrate a patentable difference from current implementations to avoid infringing on others' patents. 

More broadly speaking, Canon certainly might implement IBIS, I just doubt it'll be anytime soon.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 27, 2018)

When it comes to innovation, what about that Canon patent for the DSLR with the viewfinder that has both optical and LCD capability? Did they leave it in the closet or maybe, just maybe, it will be the "little surprise" we have forgotten about. After Buying the little M5 and using it for an "everyday" camera, I find the LCD viewfinder a real pleasure and asset for exposure settings.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding patents, the first I could find which relates to DPAF was filed in 2004, despite the technology being introduced in 2003, and the sensor fab in the EOS C100 (2012) being compatible.
> ...




Yes, of course. They could however, without anyone outside knowing, develop and ready for production something using an in body stabilization system for which they have a license, or for which they have an improvement patent ready to file.

Will they soon? Yah probably not.


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2018)

By the way, one area that Sony has not "innovated" at all: remote PC shooting.

If remote PC shooting (tethering wired and wirelessly) is at all important to you....

1. You can't do it over WiFi. I don't mean it works poorly; remote tethering over WiFi doesn't exist, despite the camera having WiFi.

2. When you tether using a cable, the application is half-baked. The options compared to Canon are tiny, and if you have a high resolution laptop (like a Surface), all the icons and text are so small that you can't make them out.

3. On the bright side, USB-C is very fast, though RAW files are still slow to transfer (but JPEGs are very fast). Also, it is possible to purchase a magsafe USB C adapter, so there's that.

If you want to preview your stuff wirelessly, you're looking at an Android tablet or smartphone. I haven't verified it, as I am not an iPad/iPhone guy, but my friend cannot get his A7Riii to connect to Sony PlayMemories or whatever it's called on his iPhone.

But...

4. It works on my Galaxy S8... but disconnects once in a while for no apparent reason, forcing me to quit and restart the app. Overall, the remote shooting experience is pretty crappy compared to the Canon app.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Apr 7, 2018)

I was a Canon fanboy for a few years and I do still really like my 6D. Like yourself, I am hoping the A7III shakes things up a bit. I have hit the point in my career where Canon don't do a suitable camera for my needs anymore. My work is now 50/50 photo/video and Canon still don't have an appropriate hybrid camera.

The A7III has shown for $2000 you can get excellent photos with 14.7 stops of DR and excellent full frame and super35 4K video with log profiles and great codecs. That's the perfect hybrid camera for $2000.

The A7III is a much better hybrid camera than say the 5DIV which is over $1300 more expensive. Paying that $1300 also loses you video functionality, FPS, dynamic range, IBIS and more.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> The A7III has shown for $2000 you can get excellent photos with 14.7 stops of DR



When you successfully capture the full DR of a scene with a 14.7 EV range, do let us know. :

Meanwhile, drink some more of DxO's Koolaide, I hear it's tasty.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Apr 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > The A7III has shown for $2000 you can get excellent photos with 14.7 stops of DR
> ...



Well as you are indicating, 14.7 still isn't perfect but at least its closer right? And DxO does some great measurements. They are inline with lots of others. The only thing you need to do with DxO is to ignore the overall score.

DR was also only one thing I mentioned. I'd take the 5DIV DR if it also was a more reasonable price and had video features inline with the A7III and A7RIII. DR is much less of a concern for me than it used to be. Ignoring the overall abysmal 6DII, Canon have greatly improved there.

What Canon still don't do is offer competitive video features and that's something that I need for my work.


----------



## Talys (Apr 7, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> The only thing you need to do with DxO is to ignore the overall score scores.



There, fixed it for you.

The problem with DxO is that most of the scoring is missing the most important elements of why to choose a piece of equipment. It's like choosing between 3 Harvard law graduates that graduated in the top percentile and choosing them based on the grade they received in Civil Procedure.

In the enthusiast and entry-level professional range, the reason to choose any of the current full frame cameras is which system you're more comfortable with to compose great photographs. If you can't take amazing photographs with a 6D2, it's not because it's an abysmal camera. _It's you_.

The reason that anyone has lackluster photographs isn't dynamic range, the resolving power of lenses under a microscope, megapixels, chromatic aberration or nearly-undetectable distortion. When they take a 40 megapixel shot of a poster and you magnify it to the top few pixels on the top corner and go, "hey, there's less noise here", it's a fun academic experiment, but it adds zero value to the quality of actual photographs, because that's not what makes photographs fantastic or not.

If you're a professional or a really specialized hobbyist, the reason you might exclude a current full frame camera system for a specific job is if it is missing some tool that's required, like a big telephoto, a tilt-shift, macro lights, or whatever.


----------



## dak723 (Apr 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing you need to do with DxO is to ignore the overall score scores.
> ...




Heresy! Heresy! Heresy! DR is King! Noise is Evil! Thee shall be banished, banished! BANISHED!!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The Fat Fish said:
> ...



It seems you missed the point. You don't have 14.7 stops of DR, you have 13.8 stops. Sure, if you downsample to an 8 MP image, the resulting _file_ has 14.7 stops (theoretically). But anything outside of 13.8 was clipped at capture, and downsampling won't create data from nothing. 

As for the video features, not something I need, but if the a7III delivers for you, great!


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > The only thing you need to do with DxO is to ignore the overall score scores.
> ...


Wrong question: the question is whether you can take "amazing" photos of the thing you want to take amazing photos of.

I'm generally on your side of this debate, but even as an amateur bird photographer I run into DR issues regularly...at least in summer. Getting a properly exposed photo in full light of wood duck, cormorant, raven, and others has been a fail for me. Granted, I currently use a 70D, which is nowhere near Canon's best sensor. Nevertheless, more DR is better, all things being equal. The difficulty is that all things are not equal, and we must choose a system that meets all of our needs (including budget).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The Fat Fish said:
> ...



I certainly agree but in principle, more is better. Say you want a 500/4L IS II for bird photography, and you have $3500. Then say I give you another $200. More is better, but how much help was that really? DR can be like that.


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...


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.


----------



## Talys (Apr 7, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The Fat Fish said:
> ...



By the way, I love wood ducks. I think they are so cool 

If you ever have a chance to, borrow or rent a D850 or A7R3. I've tried both, and neither produces photos that are remotely close to being in the "amazing" category if poorly exposed. The ability to push shadows gives a little more color, for sure, but the problem is, the lack of light hitting the subject from a favorable angle basically gives you bland, lifeless color. 

The other issue is that we're usually talking about shots taken without enough light. In this case, you can push shadows or you can get rid of high ISO graininess, but you can't do both without it looking like a watercolor painting. So practically, if you're lifting a dark area in a photo that is generally poorly exposed, you end up with a grainy photo with some color, or a something devoid of detail.

In nearly 100% of the cases, you won't get any details of the bird's eyes, and that's really important if you want a great photo, in my opinion. 

And since this is a photography site, here's a wood duck from a 6DII!


----------



## Talys (Apr 7, 2018)

Orangutan said:


> 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.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Apr 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



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.


----------



## Talys (Apr 7, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> 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.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Apr 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Apr 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 7, 2018)

Talys said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Orangutan (Apr 7, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## dak723 (Apr 8, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > The Fat Fish said:
> ...



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 (Apr 8, 2018)

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 (Apr 8, 2018)

KeithBreazeal said:


> 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 (Apr 8, 2018)

dak723 said:


> 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 (Apr 8, 2018)

Talys said:


> 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.


----------

