Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: kevs on December 21, 2018, 08:42:05 pm
-
I'm six years with the Canon 5D2... Coming out of hibernation, next year I could go to the 4, or even the R/S or...
Any recommendations? I lean to the 4 as the others while having 20 MB more pixels, but Canon seemed to have left out the iso and other benefits correct?
I was thinking of waiting for the 5Dmark 5, but a BH reps said he is 80% that they will not make a mark 5.
And I could stay with the 2 for a long time more really, does not bother me, but it it dynamic ranger from over six years ago.
I shoot people photography.
-
I don’t think it makes that much sense to buy another DSLR in 2019.
I would wait until the release of a decent mirrorless R (probably mid to late 2019) or go straight to Sony if you share my doubts about the ability of Canon to come up with competitive bodies.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No interested in Sony, but what is wrong with the current Canon R and Mark 4? ( and R/S?)
-
No interested in Sony, but what is wrong with the current Canon R and Mark 4? ( and R/S?)
I’ll let Canon users answer you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No interested in Sony, but what is wrong with the current Canon R and Mark 4? ( and R/S?)
The R works very well for shooting people. The AF is fast, accurate (even wide open) and covers almost the whole frame. Adapted lenses work well too. I'm very happy with how my R performs.
-
as usual, a lot depends on what your priorities are
in general, i agree with Bernard, but whether to buy a ff mirrorless camera in 2019 will depend on what Canon, Nikon, and Sony do. I think buying a 1st generation mirrorless from Canon or Sony is not a good substitute for a 5D4 (which I have) - and I'm not sure that a 3rd generation Sony is either.
-
as usual, a lot depends on what your priorities are
in general, i agree with Bernard, but whether to buy a ff mirrorless camera in 2019 will depend on what Canon, Nikon, and Sony do. I think buying a 1st generation mirrorless from Canon or Sony is not a good substitute for a 5D4 (which I have) - and I'm not sure that a 3rd generation Sony is either.
You probably meant Canon or Nikon and I can mostly agree with that (although the Z7 is a damn good camera its AF isn't yet competitive with recent DSLRs), but to me the a7rIII is head and shoulder above the 5DmkIV in every single area, mostly obviously image quality and AF. In particular when shooting people where eye AF is a super killer feature.
The only case where a 5DmkIV would make sense is if you hate EVFs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The only case where a 5DmkIV would make sense is if you hate EVFs.
Which is exactly why I bought one last month.
A great camera that's a joy to use.
-
Bernard, thanks what is eye AF... I'm just guessing:
What on the nuisances of Mark 2 is I shoot people.
If this help everyone. I don't shoot much wildlife, nature etc, people, environmental portraits, some fashion, fine art...
For people, vertical, I have to manually set that top AF that hits the eye, very cumbersome and is does not work as well as the middle focus point. I was assuming or hoping by mark 4, with what 60 points, on a vertical headshot it would nail the persons eyes in focus, yeah or nay on that? I don't know...(but how do most Canon/ Nikon shooter focus for eyes, like I do, manually changing each time to top point?)
That said, I can't imaging switching over to Sony, I just ordered a new Sigma 12-24, not arrived yet, and have 4 lenses and backup Rebel. switch and spend a new 6 k? And then Canon in a few years matches whatever....
What else is wrong with DSLR? Iv'e seen articles that say the trade off between the two balances out. The extra body size if negligible, meaningless.
I've never used EVF. Do some people not like it?
I can't imagine images on the Sony would look better on a 27" imac or even a well printing 30 x40 in print. You really think most people would see a big difference?
-
I moved from 5d2 to sony a7r2. The files are significantly better, with much better noise performance in the shadows / dynamic range (super important if you lift them regularly). Makes shots possible that would not work on the Canon (without blending). Of course the 5D4 closes the gap significantly. Nikon is basically the same as sony. There's also the resolution bump.
Re portraits -- on the sony I tend to use eye autofocus. Basically you hit the AF button and the camera picks the 1 out of 400 focus points covering the closest eye. It works really well and is a game changer IMO. I believe EOS-R has this feature too.
-
I was actually thinking a minute ago, I could switch over to Sony easily, buy the a7 -- I only have 3 main Canon lenses and a back up body, but... then just read this now:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/nikon-vs-canon-vs-sony-full-frame.htm
And I trust this guy. Color and ergonomics of Canon is better, and Canon is just better... so that is kaput for now... I think maybe the Sony has taken over Canon/ Nikon is a bit inflated- overrated.
Do love the eye focus idea, but just it's 2 extra clicks to get that with SLR.. so it's not a game changer in the way that full frame digital was 13 years ago. ie. Nikon lagged behind with full frame, for what .. 6-7 years behind Canon? (when I started there was no auto focus at all!)
For Canon shooters: do you think there will be no Mark 5? I'm leaning to buying the 4 as Rhoss just did, but if I new a 5 was coming...maybe would wait for it..
-
The Canon R has a half baked eye AF in AF-S mode. It works is you shoot static portraits at f8.
The Sony has a fast and accurate AF-C eye AF that works at f1.4 consistently anywhere in the frame with native Sony mount lenses and with adapted Canon mount lenses. That works on subjects that move like many humans do. ;)
100% of my former Canon portrait shooting friends have switched to this solution.
As a total Nikon fanboy this has made me consider a switch or an addiction many times.
Sony colors are probably not as good as Canon/Nikon out of the box but my friends have not complained about this although they are super picky on colors and look... this is IMHO way over hyped.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Which is exactly why I bought one last month.
A great camera that's a joy to use.
That was my position also till I used the Z7 EVF, and I come from the D5 and the H6D-100c that are arguably two of thevbest OVFs available anywhere, I have changed my mind on this now.
Granted, the R and Sony’s EVF don’t offer the same quality of experience.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That was my position also till I used the Z7 EVF,
I've not seen that one yet, but I still think OVFs are more direct and allow a greater connection with the subject. I understand why some people might think seeing the finished result on an EVF might be preferable, but that direct visual connection of an OVF is something I'll always value in photography.
Right now I can't see anything that would be better than the 5D iv for me. Enough of everything technical and great handling. In two months use the only niggle I have with it is the lock on the function control. I never had an issue on the 5dii with it being knocked, so the lock is a minor annoyance like the double button requirement on the 1 series cameras. Given time it'll become second nature to press it when swapping modes. It always takes a while before muscle memory is set on the new control layout, but from the mkII there's so little difference it'll only take one proper long shot for it all to fall into place.
-
I own a 5D4 and a Sony a7r3, and I love them both. If I had to drop one of them it would be the Sony. The Canon files aren't as big but I prefer the color (I use Capture 1 Pro). Both bodies have many pluses and minuses, but at the end of the day, for me it comes down to reliability. The Sony is a great piece of equipment, and I'm continually shifting between the two systems, but for what I do (wildlife) the 5D4 is my choice. If you are indoors most of the time, and eye AF is useful, I would go with the Sony.
-
I own a 5D4 and a Sony a7r3, and I love them both. If I had to drop one of them it would be the Sony. The Canon files aren't as big but I prefer the color (I use Capture 1 Pro). Both bodies have many pluses and minuses, but at the end of the day, for me it comes down to reliability. The Sony is a great piece of equipment, and I'm continually shifting between the two systems, but for what I do (wildlife) the 5D4 is my choice. If you are indoors most of the time, and eye AF is useful, I would go with the Sony.
Hi Charles,
What aspects of the Sony prevent you from using it full time if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
And Charles, interesting, today I'm talking to a friend who has owned both and sold his Sony, because he says as being a people shooter, like, me, he want to talk and chat with the client while he is shooting can't be bothered with the insane display/ control/ function issues that is Sony. That reason alone he went back to Canon (the new mirrorless R) for -- ease of use. I bought the rx100 for travel 3 years ago ($500), and it's nice, but very non intuitive to deal with.
He said BTW that he calls it face recognition, said also a game changer, as before he was losing 20% of shots to focus issues so that alone he like the mirrorless 4. I asked if it locks into the eyes (not nose or mouth). I have to research that more as that would be a lovely feature for a people photographer. (I have no idea if it's as good as the Sony currently, but it might).
I don't think there is anything that Canon wont eventually conquer and be tops with.
I've never used EVF, should have asked him about that.. with EVF one cannot playback images to the client as well? It's live and then gone?
-
I don't think there is anything that Canon wont eventually conquer and be tops with.
Man, you've been living on an isolated island for 10 years haven't you? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Man, you've be living on an isolated island for 10 years haven't you? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
The focus on pro Canon and Nikon 1D, Dx series is good enough for snapshot portraits. These cameras are made for superfast use at sports but also press conferences in mediocre light, priced accordingly, and they deliver.
I don't think mirrorless is there yet exactly, but it will be in another generation. I expect the next batch of Nikons will be perfect, Canons too, I don't know about Sony ergonomics though, they seem to have a habit of making puzzleboxes. .
Edmund
-
Man, you've be living on an isolated island for 10 years haven't you? ;)
and trusts Ken Rockwell........
-
I don't know about Sony ergonomics though, they seem to have a habit of making puzzleboxes.
Guy walks into camera store to buy his first camera. They are all puzzleboxes. Fortunately, they are already all set up. Menu structure isn't even on the radar as a buying consideration. It's about how it fits his hands and the patter of the salesman.
-
I own Canon 5DSr and Sony A7r2. I like both of them for different purposes. I shoot landscape and wildlife exclusively, don't do any people or architectural photography.
Sony - amazing dynamic range, got tired of lack of dynamic range with previous Canon cameras. If shooting landscape at any time other than the golden hour the Sony is my preference. Use only Canon lenses with metabones adapter.
Canon - I find it more intuitive to use when on a tripod using live view, great for golden hour. Strongly prefer for wildlife photography as I want to see the subject directly and don't care for EVF.
I prefer the Canon experience but often prefer the Sony results. Probably won't buy another Canon camera unless they improve the dynamic range to match the Sony.
-
And Charles, interesting, today I'm talking to a friend who has owned both and sold his Sony, because he says as being a people shooter, like, me, he want to talk and chat with the client while he is shooting can't be bothered with the insane display/ control/ function issues that is Sony. That reason alone he went back to Canon (the new mirrorless R) for -- ease of use. I bought the rx100 for travel 3 years ago ($500), and it's nice, but very non intuitive to deal with.
Sounds like a pile of crap to me. Using eye AF tracking, you can engage much more with the client as the camera ensures focus is on the eyes so you don't have to worry about focusing. I've shot both Canon DSLR and Sony mirrorless and to say the DSLR allows you more time to engage with the client just tells me the guy did not know how to use the Sony ( or was just biased and went back to his bias ).
-
Hog, what the guy meant was nothing about eye detection. He actually says his new Canon R mirrorless is a game changer for focusing. He mentioned face detection. I'm not sure its as good as eye detection Sony, but he is happy with it. What he was saying is Sony (and he sold his), has difficulty in dealing with displays, -- so hard to deal with, it distracts from talking to the clients during the shoot. He probably has to interrupt a bit to figure out how to change things.
I've only own the tiny travel Sony rx100 and the images are great, but the little thing drives me nuts compared to Canon- figuring things out.
Just got off the phone with a BH rep who changed from Canon to Sony as has no issues. He says go to Sony, but depends on the person. Me, my friend, many others get Sonys and they are as...Edmond just said puzzleboxes. very very non intuitive difficult to deal with.. just us.
Clearly, Sony is killing right now on all points; eye focue, bigger resolution. I wish Canon had a 5Dmark 5 or or maybe mirrorless R 2 coming out next week that unified all these things... so still not sure what I'm going to to. Oh, forgot, I just bought, but has not arrived yet Sigma 12-24 for Canon (I could still return it wanted to)... which ranks as good as the overpriced Canon 11-24.. while Sony has that lens at the less expensive "Sigma) rate ... So yeah, was tempted to go to Sony, still in my head. But just for ease of use ( and a few things Rockwell pointed out, color etc), think will stay with Canon.
Just don't know what to do today. Stay with Mark II and see what happens for awhile. Get pricey Mark 4, or the new mirrorless R now and enjoy benefits now of better dynamic range, pixels etc but then have to see in a year or two these bodies annihilated by next versions...
And then many say (even Rockwell) that DLRS is over, while the BH rep just talked to says he would think Mark series and DLRS will continue as such huge existing market..
So still undecided what to do but leaning towards staying with Canon for ease of use, color.... ergonomics etc. Just wish that had the body that matched Sonys on all fronts.
I'm sure Canon and Nikon with match Sony eventually... but it does not make a Canon users decision easy today..
John H. I'm not dedicated landscaper/ nauture shooter, but this guy is
https://www.richardbernabe.com/canon-5d-mark-iv-camera-review/
And he says the Mark 4 solved all his Canon dynamic range issues, so I think DR is not a variable anymore...
-
What he was saying is Sony (and he sold his), has difficulty in dealing with displays, -- so hard to deal with, it distracts from talking to the clients during the shoot. He probably has to interrupt a bit to figure out how to change things.
I'm not even sure what he is talking about. Dealing with displays? If he is distracted by the technology, then he needs to become more familiar with his camera.
-
I'm not even sure what he is talking about. Dealing with displays?
Difficulties with tethering ??
-
Sorry guys, CONTROLS AND MENUS (which include), top menu.
This is the limitation of talking through computers and forums.
-
Sorry guys, CONTROLS AND MENUS (which include), top menu.
Not sure why he is mucking about in the menus during a session.
-
Guy walks into camera store to buy his first camera. They are all puzzleboxes.
Correct, but, for most people their first camera is not a 5D series or equivalent. They start with a rebel or equivalent and it takes 12 months to figure out what it doesn't do and why they need a 5D. Then they should be intuitive.
I went from a 5d2 to a 5Ds and picked it up and started using it straight away. The buttons may have moved, but they still have buttons or dials for the important things which I can find without taking my eye off the viewfinder. That to me is the most important criteria on a people shoot. I just sold the 5D2 and it was working fine. The OP's is probably working fine after 10 years also. These are things to consider. If you invest in a camera then you invest in a system that has to work for maybe a decade.
-
Well said Bob! I'm 6 years on Mark 2.
Good point, what you just said confirms what my buddy who returned his Sony for the Canon R said. Indeed, it's not talked about enough, but the controls and menus really are as important as anything else, at least for people photography. Rockwell has a whole section on it to his credit.
How is the 5ds? That would be my first choice being it's the killer for pixels, except Canon according to many, left so much else out-- meager iso etc. Intentional by Canon-- baffling? The BH rep today said he would favor the Mark 4.
-
press conferences in mediocre light
current generation of dSLMs has no issues with such environment because light is enough for their PDAF to operate and subjects are not moving like players on the fields... it is another story that photog's employer prefers C & N for example for their professional services, etc
-
I'm six years with the Canon 5D2... Coming out of hibernation, next year I could go to the 4, or even the R/S or...
Any recommendations? I lean to the 4 as the others while having 20 MB more pixels, but Canon seemed to have left out the iso and other benefits correct?
Canon did reduce banding in deep shadows a lot.. so 5D4 is a lot better than 5D2... engineering DR graphs do not say about this because they can't account for banding... there is no urgency for you to jump - get 5D4 and just wait when Canon delivers a better body then their first R
-
DP you would spend $2800.00 on the D4 now and then in a year or two (probably a year no?) go mirrorless with R 2?
I guess there are a lot of people who drop 3k, every 2 years or so...
(spoiled by film years where bought a body and were good for 10 years, of course expense of film, but still darn...)
-
How is the 5ds? That would be my first choice being it's the killer for pixels, except Canon according to many, left so much else out-- meager iso etc. Intentional by Canon-- baffling? The BH rep today said he would favor the Mark 4.
If you need 50MP then buy an X1D, which is what I did. The 5Ds is fine in good light but I think 50MP is beyond the sweet spot for 35mm and most people seldom need 50MP for people anyway.
-
Thanks Bob, what mean, "50MP is beyond the sweet spot for 35mm"..... does not print like a true 50mb that a medium format Phase One might?
For fine art --even people in the shots -- you cannot have enough if you want to print 70 inches on one side. But yeah, for headshots, 20 is great, so depends.
-
Hi Charles,
What aspects of the Sony prevent you from using it full time if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
I mainly photograph wildlife, and I have the native 100-400 for each. It's been my experience that the AF is quicker and more accurate with the Canon combo than the Sony combo. The Sony hunts much more than the Canon which means missed shots. I like the way I can customize the Sony so I can make adjustments quickly; 10 fps; silent shooting, and I like the bigger files, but all of this means nothing if I miss the shot.
-
...I think 50MP is beyond the sweet spot for 35mm and most people seldom need 50MP for people anyway.
Even if true, which is not at all certain, some photographers make images of things other than people.
-
After years of running through airports carrying my backpack, I was ready to change up my kit. A few months ago I made the move and wasn’t going to buy the first generation Canon R. I had a 1Dx, 1DsIII and five L’s so I bought two 5DIV’s and couldn’t be happier. Rumor has it Canon will release a Pro version of the R and more R lenses in 2019 but I wasn’t going to wait on vapor ware as Apple users call it. I don’t care if a 5DV comes or not, I have clients that aren’t interested in rumors. If you don’t mind taking a loss selling your gear, rent a Sony or whatever and make the switch if it works for you.
-
Yes Faberr I agree, that more pixels better, and I say even for people photographers (especially those who do fine art people photography). We all want the option of being able to blow up huge prints at best resolution. Whether or not the 50 mb Canons don't make a large file as good as 50 Hassys, I have not done A/B test on that.. but who wants to spend 3x as much to find out? The Hassys cost 3x more. Is it 3x better?
I wish Canon had a camera out now that combined the 45-50mb, best focusing, best iso... oh well maybe later.
Good post TC.. I may still may get Mark4.. I do mind talking a loss. I like to get a camera body and have it last for 5 years plus. But that's a valid point, live for today. The 4 gets great reviews. Just wish 5 was out! oh well. Still deciding...
-
DP you would spend $2800.00 on the D4 now and then in a year or two (probably a year no?) go mirrorless with R 2?
'd you buy R1 now and then the same way go to R2 - because R1 is not yet a proper body, stupid control bar alone ? and then you can always buy a grey market 5DIV for $600-800 less.
-
If you need 50MP then buy an X1D
why buy H when there is Fuji MF dSLMs ?
-
thanks DP, yeah leaning toward the 4 or waiting. My buddy, bought the R and loves it, but I like most, don't want intro versions.
I just posted about grey market coincidentally (more for a lens), and everyone says stay away like plague:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=127941.0
-
I mainly photograph wildlife, and I have the native 100-400 for each. It's been my experience that the AF is quicker and more accurate with the Canon combo than the Sony combo. The Sony hunts much more than the Canon which means missed shots. I like the way I can customize the Sony so I can make adjustments quickly; 10 fps; silent shooting, and I like the bigger files, but all of this means nothing if I miss the shot.
I see, thanks.
I realize that I am glad to have the best of both worlds in a single camera with the D850. ;)
Add a 500mm f5.6 PF and you’ll be close to perfection for wild life.
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1573142
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I see, thanks.
I realize that I am glad to have the best of both worlds in a single camera with the D850. ;)
Add a 500mm f5.6 PF and you’ll be close to perfection for wild life.
Cheers,
Bernard
I hear that's great body for BIF. Unfortunately I'm pretty locked into the Canon line. If things aren't moving too quickly I like to use my Canon 600V2 with either a 1.4 or 2.0 TC with a Sigma adapter on the a7R3. The results can be quite impressive.
-
Bernard, 850 does seem to hit all points. Odd that Canon would not put a 40-50 sensor in the mark 4, no?.
Why need for Sony then? oh.. mirrorless.
Still I would just have Nikon... two systems, bit much to maintain.
I was Nikon 10 years, but they, for some reason, took 6 years to get full frame... (now back roaring-- after losing 90% of photographers who were with them)
Still think Canon/Nikon have best controls/ menus, as they go so far back with photographers.
-
Bernard, 850 does seem to hit all points. Odd that Canon would not put a 40-50 sensor in the mark 4, no?.
Why need for Sony then? oh.. mirrorless.
Still I would just have Nikon... two systems, bit much to maintain.
I was Nikon 10 years, but they, for some reason, took 6 years to get full frame... (now back roaring-- after losing 90% of photographers who were with them)
Nikon has been back roaring since the D3 in 2008 and has never looked back. ;) it’s been 10 years of image quality and AF leadership.
Canon has demonstrated time and again that they don’t have the sensor technology. The 5DIV is the first decent sensor but it is still about 3-4 years behind Sony/Nikon tech. Less DR with 2/3rd the resolution. Probably good enough if you are a good enough kind of person for your camera Equipment.
Yes, shooting skills are more important. ;)
The Sony a7rIII is a great camera that shows the promise of mirrorless with competitive AF but still isn’t at D850 level for tracking/moving subjects. The D5 is still another level up and its consistency with the right lens sometimes approaches black magic. The D6 will end the line and is rumored to be released in the coming months btw.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, where did Nikon go for the years of full frame? I had to sell all my Nikon lenses (only time switched systems),
and now I'm stuck with Canon! (but going to stay Canon...)
What was the deal with Nikon then? What was that 5-6 years no full frame? (A Canon rep said is was because Canon had lots more money from printers, copiers to invest forsee the digital revolution coming).. still 5-6 years was it? Bit long/ crazy no?
And 90% of Pros were on Nikon, most went to Canon.
I would have fully preferred to have stayed with Nikon. Too late now..
-
Your loss my friend. ;)
Buy if Canon’s cameras are not limiting your photography there is nothing to worry about really.
Now, you seems to be willing to replace your 5DmkII by something better, I assume it means you are finding some possible areas of improvement?
The question simply is whether you are convinced that Canon is the best provider of equipment for you in the coming years. If you are then why look elsewhere indeed.
Factually, they have been being Nikon in the DSLR segment for 10 years and Sony is overtaking them quickly with their great mirrorless offering. What are the odds this trend changes moving forward is the relevant question.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I saw the eye focus of the Canon R in a store today. Very impressive. The Mark 4 focus points are easier to move around than the mark 2, but wow the R kills it on that point. It's probably same as Sony eye with different name.
Almost leaning to the Canon R, but then just read this: So maybe I'll wait the 6-12 months... not sure... it will probably be a bit more than the $2300 of the R! Thanks all, appreciate info getting here
https://www.canonrumors.co/canon-eos-5ds-r-will-be-replaced-by-75-mp-canon-eos-r-body/
-
Thanks Bob, what mean, "50MP is beyond the sweet spot for 35mm"..... does not print like a true 50mb that a medium format Phase One might?
For fine art --even people in the shots -- you cannot have enough if you want to print 70 inches on one side. But yeah, for headshots, 20 is great, so depends.
I mean that my experience at least was that high MP 35mm cameras introduce a whole new range of issues. The pixels are so close together that any movement or lens limitation is magnified. In that regard a DSLR is like a steam engine with a mirror flapping up and down and a shutter moving right next to the sensor plane. That seems to be the experience of a lot of people with 50MP 35mm cameras. Bolt them to a building.
I agree that you often need more MP which is why I bought the 5Ds, but as I said, if you need more MP then buy the X1D. (It wasn't out at the time I bought the 5Ds.) No moving parts in the camera and leaf shutter for virtually no movement there. My experience with an old H3D was similar. More MP than about 20MP requires a bigger sensor.
-
If the is the case, I don’t know how I managed to shoot thousands of images last month, many of them on a moving sailing boat, without seing any camera induced blur using a D850, 24-70mm f2.8 E VR, 70-200 f2,8 E? That was without using any form of electrical shutter btw.
The answer is simple: not all shutter/mirror mechanisms are built equal and you need a sufficiently high shutter speed. I believe that VR (be it in lenses or in body) also helps to a certain extend.
So, although I agree that leaf shutters are great for low vibration (I have owned an H6D-100c for 2 years) it is absolutely not true that high res DSLRs can’t be shot handheld with very sharp results, even with ultra-sharp lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Thanks Bernard, for confirmation, as I have no plans to spend 10k plus new lenses for a new Hassy Body.
(if I was super rich I'd get the Phase One IQ)
Your 45 mb Nikon 850s I'm sure are doing just fine handheld... at 125 sec shutter, my guess.
Of course Bob could be right, but but I would doubt Canon/ Nikon would make equipment rated at high pixels if it was no Kosher.
-
Thanks Bernard, for confirmation, as I have no plans to spend 10k plus new lenses for a new Hassy Body.
(if I was super rich I'd get the Phase One IQ)
Your 45 mb Nikon 850s I'm sure are doing just fine handheld... at 125 sec shutter, my guess.
Of course Bob could be right, but but I would doubt Canon/ Nikon would make equipment rated at high pixels if it was no Kosher.
My rule of thumb is at least twice the inverse of the focal length.
But again, not all shutters/mirrorboxes are designed equally well.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
"My rule of thumb is at least twice the inverse of the focal length."
Thanks what does mean? Focal length has an impact on pixel size shoot? Lost there.
-
"My rule of thumb is at least twice the inverse of the focal length."
Thanks what does mean? Focal length has an impact on pixel size shoot? Lost there.
A given amount of hand shake/shutter shake will cause the projection on the sensor of an ideally point element to spread over a larger area during the time of exposure.
The longer the focal length the wider the area, which is why we use faster shutter speeds for longer focal length.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As I said in the original post, the 5Ds is great in good light, which means fast shutter speeds. Low light though means low shutter speeds and higher ISO and I doubt any high MP 35mm camera will produce images to make good big (like 70") prints. Electronic shutters are no use for moving subjects either.
In terms of price, if people are talking $10,000 and mean USD then they appear to be way out.
I bought my X1D as a demo for $7600 AUD or about $5000USD. That is less than a top end Canon or Nikon. So if you have the need spend the money. In photography buy cheap, buy thrice.
-
The pixels are so close together that any movement or lens limitation is magnified. In that regard a DSLR is like a steam engine with a mirror flapping up and down and a shutter moving right next to the sensor plane. That seems to be the experience of a lot of people with 50MP 35mm cameras. Bolt them to a building.
I found that shooting with electronic first shutter curtain (also possible on DSLR in live view), I can get away with ridiculously unstable support situations and end up with extremely sharp images as long as it's not windy. Although I'm willing to carry a heavy tripod (gitzo 3series systemic with bh-55) I often get into less than optimal support situations for various reasons (need a lighter tripod for a hike, need to raise the center column all the way, ground is spongy etc) in these cases EFSC is a godsend.
-
Bob, thanks, good info. Well, 5k is a deal when consider Phase Q which are gold standard are what 40k? And fine art shooters buy them.
For most 5k is a lot, then have to get lenses, but I'll hold onto this info. What you are saying (new to me) is that even though Nikon, Canon are advertising large MP (45, 50 etc) because of the 35 mm shutters, super large prints wont look as good as equivalent prints made from a medium format leaf camera?
( I would have thought it's because of the bigger sensor, never knew about shutter variable)
SBay, thanks too.... this is new info for me as well, . assuming you have a 35mm mirrorless?... Is what you are saying tied to image stabilization? I'm debating of getting the Canon R in Janurary, or.. waiting for a newer version, as I think the Canon R, being the first does version, not have camera stabilization if my research is correct. Of course, no camera I've ever owned has had that I think.
-
... What you are saying (new to me) is that even though Nikon, Canon are advertising large MP (45, 50 etc) because of the 35 mm shutters, super large prints wont look as good as equivalent prints made from a medium format leaf camera?
( I would have thought it's because of the bigger sensor, never knew about shutter variable)
The sensor size trumps anything else. For any given size print you need to magnify less for a larger sensor. To make a 360mm x 240mm print from a 36x24mm sensor you need to magnify 10 times in each direction or make each imperfection 100 times bigger. Noise and vibration are also more apparent. Larger sensors are better for larger prints.
The leaf shutters reduce vibration because they are internal to the lens and travel a short distance, where the light rays cross. A focal plane shutter travels the entire size of the sensor during the exposure. A small difference perhaps but massive if you use flash.
Consumer electronics makers make things that people want. People want bigger numbers and more widgets.
-
\SBay, thanks too.... this is new info for me as well, . assuming you have a 35mm mirrorless?... Is what you are saying tied to image stabilization? I'm debating of getting the Canon R in Janurary, or.. waiting for a newer version, as I think the Canon R, being the first does version, not have camera stabilization if my research is correct. Of course, no camera I've ever owned has had that I think.
No it's not related to image stabilization other than it's another technique to help sharpness. See following link for a better explanation
https://photographylife.com/what-is-electronic-front-curtain-shutter
-
My 2-cents. EVF sucks in so many ways. I truly don't understand the fascination with mirrorless from a pro standpoint. I have shot professionally for over 40-years. I am far from a technophobe. I embrace technology where it helps me. Avoid it where it makes life more difficult. I have shot with a Sony (very limited). Shot with the Canon EOS R for a week. The annoyances are far greater than the helpfulness. I'm sad that Canon is jumping on the bandwagon so. In my circle of pro photographers (mostly fashion like me and a couple of sports and one "all purpose"), only one loves mirrorless (the "all-purpose" guy). There is nothing wrong with the 5D4 and much that is "right". It depends on what you shoot. If you shoot quickly and want a camera that doesn't get in the way, get a DSLR. If you shoot slowly, methodically (i.e. - landscapes, portraits), you can go with mirrorless (in your case the R since you already have Canon glass). While Bernard crapped on you for saying that Canon will eventually conquer the mirrorless world, you are actually correct. You only have to look at the inroads in sales to see that is already happening in mirrorless. Sony cameras are crap IMHO for ergonomics and menuing. They may be great for sensors, but that's only half the game. (I have yet to encounter a shooting situation where I moaned, "Oh I wish I had the DR of a Sony".)
Kev, in the end, buy the gear you think makes the most sense for you, what you own, and what you shoot.
-
While DR is clearly superior, what the OP would find to be a breakthrough with Sony for his shooting is eye AF.
Even with adapted EOS mount lenses this will work beautifully.
Yes, Sony menus are not the best but you are making a major issue out of something that at worse a very minor annoyance.
As far as ergonomics goes it’s hard to find worse than the R body. Very un Canon like for that matter.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As far as ergonomics goes it’s hard to find worse than the R body. Very un Canon like for that matter.
Hence why I feel the 5D4 might be the better choice. As for the eye AF, the EOS R has that as well. The menu is a real issue in my mind. Even my friend, the Sony user, said he hates the menus compared to his old Canons and said if he shot what he used to shoot, he would never have gotten rid of his Canons. The little annoyances are usually the deal breakers in the end. I think Canon was stupid to get rid of the controls that have been a part of their pro cameras since the EOS 1, or the "newer" joy stick. For me, anything that slows down my work and make me hunt for the correct setting or menu item is counter productive. I know you love your Sonys. That's great. I wouldn't own one to save my life. Interestingly, I would have switched (and even considered it briefly a while back) to a Sony a99II, but in the end still hated the EVF concept.
-
I mostly use Nikon (D850, D5 and Z7) and Hasselblad.
I was strongly against EVFs too until I tried the Z7 (the a7rIII is not quite as good I agree).
The only Sony I currently own is an RX100 mkV, I have zero reason to recommend Sony but the satisfaction of the needs expressed by the OP.
The Canon R implementation of eye AF isn’t at the level of Sony at all. It is a marketing check mark vs a pro level feature used successfully by tens of thousands of working photographers.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Good post Nemo.
Actually, I think I've decided that I will wait for the next version of the R, and get that. What I saw in the store, the way it could so easily focus on the eye, bam, was amazing- the mark 4 did not come close.
That said: if a Mark 5 comes out before the next updated mirrorless and can do that too, I would get that. But I "think", only the mirrorless has the ability to do eye focus that like, (am I wrong anybody?). And of course it's not 100% DSLRS will be continued — though many think they will continue so who knows.
Nemo: please be specific on EVF and why it sucks ( I've never owned a mirrorless so don't know EVF yet). And be specific on the other "annoyances". I'm still open to suggestion. I agree on Menu and ergonomics -- amazing how that is not discussed that much. If it were not for that, I'd be more inclined to go to Sony..
Bernard, (now reading your post) -- you are spot on with the eye focus, amazing, I saw in live in a store, but the Canon R has it! (branded differently). Menus -- yes I agree with Nemo, and my Canon buddy in NYC who sold his Sony and went back to Canon. If you shoot Nikon/ Canon for 25 years like he, and I do... very hard to go with Sony.
Nemo...."slows down my work"... puts it best.
Bernard, "The Canon R implementation of eye AF isn’t at the level of Sony at all"
Wow.. I've never tested Sony, only tested the Canon R in a store a week ago, and it's eye focus seemed real nice. Why is Sonys even better? Actually, I don't really want to know as I'm going to go with Sony, but you can tell us anyway. Hopefully whatever it is, Canon will match it on next update. Do you think there will be a future Canon Mark 5, and can it have eye focus like the R, or that is just a mirrorless technical feat?
-
The Sony is superior because it work in AF-C mode, meaning on moving subjects and all human subjects are actually moving relative to the camera when you use apertures such as f1.4, which is when you really need eye AF.
The D850 and D5 have a resonnably good eye AF implementation, not at Sony level though, so it can be done to some extend on DSLRs too.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I will post here since this is quite an active thread at the moment and I think the following might be relevant and of interest.
I have a brand new Z6 with me. Had it a few days. I friend who is in hospital at the moment bought it so it was delivered to me and he asked me to inbox it and set it up for him ready to use when he gets home next week.
I have used Nikon cameras over the years and currently have a Nikon 1. I have owned about 8 different Canon digital cameras. I currently use Sony and have a A6300, A6500 and A7r II. I am quite brand agnostic but in the interests of honesty I really like my Sony cameras.
The Z6 EVF is fantastic. Really out of this world. I don’t have a problem with the Sony EVF and i find it perfectly usable but it’s not nearly as good as the A6.
I will swim upstream here and say I now like the Sony menu system and set up. After two years I am used to it and it makes sense. I have never figured out Nikons menus. I thought the Nikon 1 was just awful and perhaps other Nikons are better but this A6 is a pain. Goes to show it’s what you are used to I suppose.
As a low profile street camera used in high risk situations the Sony APSC are far more useful than the Z6 or the Sony A7. That’s obvious.
The much raved about ergonomics of the Nikon surprises me a little. It’s very similar to the A7 but quite frankly not as good. Why put a lcd screen on the top of the camera? I can get all that info in the viewfinder and turn it off at the press of a button if I want it gone. The hand grip is too deep on the Nikon. I can’t use the buttons next to the lens and it’s an odd place to put buttons in my opinion. I’m an average size guy of 182cm with slightly broader hands and thicker fingers than normal. I can’t get into that little space. The button on the top for ISO is handy but I would rather use that button for something else, can it be reprogrammed?
Anyway it s a lovely camera. If you are a Nikon user then jump at it. It’s not groundbreaking or revolutionary. It’s a nice camera with a great EVF. I’m not even going to look at a file. I know it will be great. Just like the Sony. All the files from these modern cameras are good enough for me.
-
Nemo: please be specific on EVF and why it sucks ( I've never owned a mirrorless so don't know EVF yet). And be specific on the other "annoyances". I'm still open to suggestion. I agree on Menu and ergonomics -- amazing how that is not discussed that much. If it were not for that, I'd be more inclined to go to Sony..
The reason I say "EVF sucks" is because, regardless of brand that I've seen, there is perceptible lag when panning -- a sort of studder. This is because no one has yet develop a refresh rate that can reproduce the "smooth pan" of the Mark I eyeball. I find it distracting when shooting any kind of movement. If I only shot landscape of still-life, it wouldn't matter. But, 90% of my paying work is shooting on-figure models. Since I was a sports shooter initially 40-years ago, I tend to like to shoot my models walking, running, leaping. Even f they aren't doing the aforementioned, there is still some movement. Then there is the wretched shutter lag when you shoot. Sony has partially solved this, but not in a way I feel is beneficial. Sony touts 20 frames per second for their a9 without the EVF blackout/studder/freeze. It's basically shooting in "movie mode" (you figure true video/movie mode is 24fps). The problem, with that is like/want the 55ms blackout of a typical DSLR. It's just long enough for my brain to confirm I captured the shot I wanted. I will shoot a lot of leaping in the studio. I know based on experience and the confirmation of the split second blackout whether I capture "the moment". At this point in time, EVF can only freeze the image for a moment or not at all (a al a9 and the newer a7).
I have no issue with EVF as a casual shooter. I would have no issue taking the EOS R, for instance, with me for a week shooting landscapes and the occasional portrait in Ireland for a week. But for day in, day out money making work, EVF/mirrorless would drive me bonkers. Just my perspective. I know many (obviously) seem to be enamored with it, but al least most pros I know are not (again within my small circle).
-
Nemo, good post, thanks. I have have never shot EVF yet, not even once, but when I test the Canon R mirrorless in store, I was looking through the top viewfinder, just like I do with my Mark 2.. Am I missing something here? I was not looking at the live larger display below (that's the EVF no?).
-
My comments were about the eye-level finder, not the rear LCD screen. If you try panning quickly, you will see the micro-TV can't keep up, especially when you are shooting at the same time. When I used my friend's Sony a7 R II (I think it was the 2, not the 3), it was just as bad. I spoke with Canon CPS about that about a week ago. They said at the moment for them it is part of the design/function. you essentially can see the same effect when you use a DSLR's rear screen and try to do the same. The refresh rates have obviously improved over the years and for Canon it's a matter of working out the kinks on a lower level model before committing to a true pro camera (something Canon has always done in the 38 years I've used Canon).
-
Thanks Nemo, did not know EVF is both eye and back.... I'm getting either the next version of mark 5 (if they put eye focus or whatever Canon terms it) or next version of the mirrorless of which I love the eye focues. Bernard says it's not as good as Sony's, but in the store, it just blew away the Mark 4's focus.
I never pan quickly and I shoot people. The most I do (is the same?), is sometimes put the Mark 2 on servo and walk in front or behind a model. Or a model may be jumping around. But not me panning quickly. But maybe that is what you meant?
-
AI Servo is different from panning (though one often does still use AI Servo for pan shots). Panning with say a runner or soccer player stresses the refresh rate of the micro TV (EVF).
One other note about EVF from my experience is that judging the screen for color and contrast and exposure can be way off. This is because of the EVF exposure simulation. However, I have noticed that the color balance is frequently off in the viewfinder (Sony and Canon) under certain lighting, even if I have programmed in a custom white balance. I don't know. Some people really love mirrorless. I find little to like. I will have to force myself to use it whether I like it or not since everyone, for better or worse, seems to be jumping on that bandwagon. To me, an EVF is like looking at someone through a TV screen rather than in person (traditional view finder).
-
Nemo, one sales rep at BH said he thinks 80% according to a Canon rep that DSLRs wont be continued. But other BH and Samys sales people think Canon DLSR lines will absolutely continue.
You don't agree too much with Rockwell here:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/mirrorless-vs-dslr.htm
Would be great to see a bIg counter article then defending DLSR.
-
During Photo Expo I spoke with a CPS guy at Canon. He was very much in my camp -- not a mirrorless lover. He said he thought Canon would have DSLRs for maybe 10 more years but that they were headed that way. The one thing that IS sweet about the R... the new lenses. Holy crap. I wish the new 50 had been an EF. And the new 24-70. But rumor has it that Canon won't intro any major new EF lenses in 2019. Maybe a new 1Dx. You figure cameras and lenses have long incubation periods, so much of all this has been in the pipeline for at least 2-3 years -- EOS R and RF lenses included.
-
And the new 24-70.
It's a 28-70...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, I stand corrected. I'm used to 24-70 (of which I've owned 3) and am used to typing that.
-
Wildlife photographers are looking for the same camera characteristics as pro sports photographers. Ergonomics may be particularly important. People who don't shoot action photography in all weather can put up with lousy menus, the lag in electronic viewfinders of old, awkward ergonomics, etc. There's a camera out there to suit any need. Pick the one that suits you.
-
THANKS Nemo. What is good about mirrorless lenses?
Are they sharper than the EF Ls?
And if so then wont those catch up?
-
There are some changes in how easy it is to design lenses because the elimination of the mirror allows wide, shallow lens mounts. Manufacturers are taking advantage of this in different ways. Nikon's Z lenses aren't especially fast, but they are remarkably sharp for how compact they are. Canon has used the same advantage to design an f2.0 zoom (never before seen on full-frame). Sony has a bunch of sharp, fast G-master lenses.
The very best EVFs have gotten really good - due to a combination of high-resolution panels and viewfinder optics. The best I've used so far is the Nikon Z EVF, followed closely by the Fuji X-H1. Nikon claims that they have not only used the best panel they could find, but have also messed with the optics between panel and eye (and I believe them - everyone buys the same panels, but designs their own optics).
I also wouldn't say that 50 MP is out of the sweet spot for full frame, at least the 40+ MP Sony made sensors are excellent.The best of all is probably the D850/Z7 sensor, followed closely by the A7rII/III - the difference is that the Nikon version has a true ISO 64 with extended dynamic range. The 50 MP Canon sensor is old, and it wasn't a great performer (especially in dynamic range) when it came out.
How much farther they can push it is an open question. I suspect the forthcoming ~60 MP Sony sensor will be excellent - it uses technology that we're already seeing in other sizes, and they're performing well. Will 80 MP work, or will we start losing things other than resolution? The present 20 MP Micro 4/3 sensor, which would be 80 MP if it were full-frame, doesn't perform as well as less dense sensors - but it's not using Sony's latest sensor designs, either.
-
Canon has used the same advantage to design an f2.0 zoom (never before seen on full-frame).
please, first of all Sigma made F2.0 zooms for FF way before Canon (and for dSLR on top of that, for example https://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/24-35mm-f2-dg-hsm-a ) and then "never before seen" is like "uncatchable Joe" - just because nobody bothered till somebody did (Sigma) ... while Canon's new mount might make it easier, it is absolutely not necessary to make F2.0 zooms and Sigma proves that
-
I hadn't realized one of the Sigma superfast zooms was FF (although a 24-35 has very little zoom range - it's not quite a 1.5x zoom) - I knew they had a few f1.8 and f2 zooms for APS-C (and Olympus has long been almost-publicly considering the idea for Micro 4/3). A 2.5x zoom like Canon built is significantly harder than an almost 1.5x zoom...
Dan