MrSMW

Nothing short of total armageddon will change that. Your Leica Q3 vs my VW Golf GTi. Fight me.

I wish 2024 could be a ‘no spend’ year for me but it’s going to be a case of needing to purchase: One further body, or two further bodies with trade in, plus I need a new portable light as I lost my very expensive one at a wedding (ie left it somewhere and someone them stole it), plus need a new on board shotgun mic as I smashed mine to pieces, plus need a new Wireless Go as I also smashed one of the components of that in a ‘wedding based incident’.

In a nutshell. It’s a 28mm and 70mm f2 ‘prime’ lens at the flick of a wrist, mainly for indoor work. On that basis alone, for my specific needs, juggling stills and video all day long and having to carry and set up lighting and maybe mic up to 5 people at any one time, fast and portable is key. It’s a fat lump of a lens indeed at 1430g and really needs an integrated battery grip for balance and ergos and Canon also happen to have the lightest integrated grip body in the R3 at a tad over 1kg making a combined weight of just under 2.5kg. 2.5kg is no lightweight and I’d prefer lighter, but it does not exist at this level of capability all factors considered and is 300-350g lighter than the ‘equivalent’ unit I have been running all year, an S1H with battery grip with Leica 24-90mm f2.8-4 The R3 can also shoot internally 6k 50/60p raw and I’d very much like to explore extracting stills from 6 or 8k video as it opens up another creative and streamlining (volume of tools) option and 4k 50/60p is not good enough and 6k 25/30p no good if I want any decent slow mo. Then factor in f2 vs f2.8 and f4 and that is a HUGE difference in light gathering and creative DOF options. But not as wide, 24 vs 28 or as long 70 vs 90, but as someone who doesn’t like shooting wider than 28 (and if so, around 20mm is my preference) and longer, the second camera covers that option so not an issue. The bottom line is I am not a Canon fanboy and this combo of body and lens may not be for everyone and probably only a minority with the key compromises of weight and cost, but I could live with the former compromise if the latter one was not a deal-breaking factor. I have never owned nor may never own anything from the brand and if I ever do, it will not be any time soon as the cost is…well as mentioned above, circa 18k without trade in and I can’t justify that. It is also just one of 3 principle options either actually available or at least theoretically available. All of my options are best on my current best practice which also mentioned multiple times is based on my needs and my experience with no manual available on how to achieve what I need to achieve other than trial and error. The 3 principle options are: 1. The 2 camera/2 lens approach which is the most minimalist one, but would require the highest investment and the only brand that can best tick this box currently, is Canon. It only has one weakness in that it really needs a third lens as my pairing of 28-70 and 24-105 does not allow for anything longer than 105. Canon R3 with 28-70mm f2 Canon R3 with 24-105mm f2.8 2. The 3 camera/3 lens approach which is arguably better than the one above as with my choices it allows for lighter units and covers the requirement for the longer lens. And is MUCH cheaper. This is the set up I am debating: Nikon Zf with 40mm f2 Nikon Z6iii with 20-40mm f2.8 Nikon Z6iii with 70-180mm f2.8 3. The 4 camera/5 lens option which requires the most amount of kit as it separates video units from stills units, is the cheapest set up (as I own most of it already with just one body required) and the most familiar, at least on the video side and comprises: S1H + 70-200mm f4 video S5ii + 28-70mm f2.8 video Nikon Zf + 40mm f2 stills Nikon Z8 + 20-40mm and 70-180mm f2.8 It boils down in the end to: ‘needs’ + ‘wants’ + use case practicality + cost and on that basis, Option 01 has to remain an ‘ideal’ but because it really requires a third lens, a 20k impossibility. Options 2&3 are almost equally viable and the cost difference is negligible so comes down to which set up I’d prefer and Option 02 makes the most sense because of the cross compatibility, true hybrid nature of that set up. To conclude, specifically regarding these Canon lens ‘choices’, they simply did not exist until the last couple of years. Or weeks even on the case of the 24-105 f2.8 Things were quite a bit different in 2019 and none of us knew what was coming in 2020 or 2021 with Covid and then having an exhausting 150% volume year in 2022, made for a terrible time for changing system in so many ways, but these were the cards I (and others in their own unique ways) were dealt. 2023 has very much been a year of ‘settling down’ and fettling the system I had and has not in any way been a bad year, or system kit-wise, just not the best one for me going forward. I hate change. I like stability and I am not a gambler by nature, but more a strategic conservative player and the absolute bottom line in all of this for me is… Could I continue solely with L Mount in 2024? Of course, but with all the workarounds and niggles that I have with the system, mainly around lenses. Or I can choose to make some changes that will benefit me which is the path I have chosen. Of course better kit becomes available year on year and there will be further changes down the line, but as someone who has finally worked out the formula for what I specifically do, that learning curve and need to experiment has been massively flattened out to the point where I can for the first time, make much more informed decisions.

Need and want/would like, are two different things. There is nothing ‘weird’ about it at all. I switched from Fuji to L Mount 2 full seasons ago and have not fully got on with it. Lately, I worked out it was because for my needs, I couldn’t get the right combo of lenses per number of bodies factoring actual use case. Canon make them in RF Mount. I can’t justify or afford moving in that direction. Nothing weird about any of that.

I don’t have a problem with the bodies available in L Mount, but the lenses. I could even have lived with the S5ii for stills had there been the lenses. I have realised in the last few months that my wrestling match with my kit over the last couple of years has been lens and not body based. No fan of the S5ii shutter button feel or sound, but had there been the equivalent of anything like; Canon’s 28-70 f2, the new 24-105 f2.8, Tamron’s 35-150 f2-2.8 or 70-180 f2.8, it would very much be happy days for me. When I learned of the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and that it was going to be light and relatively compact, I was pretty disappointed to find out that whilst optically, folks say it’s better than the Lumix equivalent, it’s barely shorter and still 1.35kg. But hey, MrSMW, have you not said repeatedly and above that you are a big fan of 2x 1kg+ lenses from Canon? Yes I have and stand by that because of the focal lengths which to me would be useable all day long 100% of the time. 70-200 is not especially a range I need. Up to 100 or thereabouts is and then something around 150, but longer, not really, so something like a 150 or 180 prime could work…but something like the Tamron 70-180 makes more sense being just as fast as any typical prime of this length (anything even available in L Mount I don’t know without looking?), is well under 1kg and relatively compact for such a focal range. Bodies, I would have liked to have seen an S2H and an S2R but I’d still have the lens issues.

I tried but as a resident of France, the only day it was on in original English language, I was in Ireland. And no way am I ever watching anything in dubbed French!

I think a case can also be made for the argument, ‘Just Because’. I’ve done it throughout my career. And life. Sometimes…most of the time, I do things the way they need to be done, but sometimes I don’t. I’ve shot an entire 4 days of Motorsport for a top team with Fuji X Pro2’s with a bag of primes, nothing longer than ‘85’mm. The pro photographers at the event didn’t bat an eye wit their massive long lenses as they had no idea what I was doing which was in fact doing something the polar opposite of what they were all trying to do. Because I could. This whole Creator/FX3 thing is a ‘Just Because’. And what a boring world it would be otherwise…

It's a bit of a 'first world problem' but a bit of a PITA when you are juggling multiple bodies and lenses. I've reached that point where though I am a prime man at heart, fast zooms make more sense (and a principle reason why I have struggled a bit with L Mount for hybrid work) but opposing direction zooms definitely slow you down as do the layout and ergos of different bodies. The latter is the specific reason I hoped to go to 3x S5ii bodies, - so it was one less thing and I am not sure now whether I will ever get to having all the same bodies, but if I can at least get the zooms rotating in the same direction, it will be something!

I don’t know and have never considered it… I always move the record video function to the main shutter button and use the video record button as an fn. I assume you have the red box on record set up? But apart from that, I have hit record before in a fast paced situation only to discover I didn’t…or double-tapped…or am actually stopping the recording but have a minute or so of blurry footage of the ground 🤪 The S1H plus the S5ii are a super good combo for video which is why I have a bit of a dilemma when it comes to shooting hybrid in 2024 and going forward.

It’s not all about the lenses, but they are the primary driver for me these days for sure.

I read the same thing recently which summed up the choices made perfectly. It was essentially a reverse engineering process of finding/choosing the right tool for the job, knowing exactly what the job was in the first place. Rather than a case of, “we use these tools because we always use these tools and the job needs to fit around us using these tools and…” Break the mould.

The 70-200 f4 though counters with not being as big or heavy as the f2.8, but keeps the internal non-extending zoom and constant aperture, but is slightly bigger and heavier than the 70-300. If you don’t need that extra 100mm. F4 with modern high ISO capable cameras make it for me the sweet spot for L Mount and I really rate this lens. Used prices are quite decent and I paid around 1000 euros for mine from MPB. Along with the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8, these have been my two workhorse lenses all year…and will remain so if I do not go to Nikon for video as well as stills. And if that happens, two even better lenses; Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 and 70-180mm f2.8 G2…which will at least change focal distance in the same direction! Lumix is the opposite of Sigma 🤪 Which is another one of those annoying little things that all add up when you have mere critical seconds…

Maybe but not really… 5 years, Nikon film cameras, 2 in 5 years, followed by Nikon D2x I think it was until the D3 came out. Stuck with those until the S model came out as it was quantifiably better. But then, around 2011/2012, getting a little fed up with lugging around 2 huge/heavy units when paired with the 24-70 and 70-200, - something like 2.5 and 3kg each (?) so when the Fuji X Pro-1 came out, jumped to that small, lightweight, prime based system. But then, every couple of years, Fuji did keep moving their game forward and I was also moving into video so needed more specific gear than my stills-orientated set up. XT3 was my pinnacle of Fuji and was great for stills but less so for video with no IBIS and limited stabilised lenses so during the Covid era, took a leap of faith into L Mount and full-frame with the S5. Wrestled with it ever since, (S5 AF wasn’t good enough for my needs, S1R great for stills but didn’t have the video spec, S1H has been great but iffy AF and S5ii great for video, but don’t like it for stills) never managing to find the right balance of; types of bodies, number of bodies, types and number of lenses…for my very specific niche in the market which is offering a 100% stills service at the same time as a 100% video one. As a one man band. There are of course many ways a thing can be done, but some are better than others and there is no such thing as a ‘right’ way, only the way that works best for us as individuals. Plus no manual or training so I have very much had to teach myself through trial and error and that has meant trying stuff/kit/combos that have not worked or not worked as well as I hoped. We are now at that point however where the tools exist. For me there is no more, “if only my cameras could shoot at 1600 iso”, then 3200, then 6400, or “I wish I had IBIS”, or 4K 50p internally or… spec-wise, I am more than done and I don’t know but I could make maybe 10+ different cameras work these days? For me, it’s no longer chasing anything I NEED, simply what I WANT and what I want, is quite simple and that is… A more compact set up that covers all my needs without compromise (at least anything significant) and is more enjoyable to use. To that end, Canon have the best option for me, a bit heavier than I’d like, but I could live with that, but without trade in, it’s an 18k investment and I don’t have it and even if I did, that would be a BIG commitment. So musing/fantasy aside, I have to scrap that non-starter! Sticking with what I had was not an option. Too big, too heavy, great for video, less so for stills, not enjoyable to use. Back to Nikon for stills with adapted Tamron lenses and it ticks every single box. My only debate is whether I continue with L Mount for video, which is great and I love it, but am I not better off trading 2 bodies and 2 lenses for 1 body and 1 lens to have everything in the same system, ie 100% Nikon? I think probably yes but not if that 3rd body was a Z9 because that would be overkill. Z8 maybe… Z6ii no because it’s not as good as my Panny S5ii never mind my S1H so any change has to be at least sideways, if not forwards…and I suspect the Z6iii will be better than the S5ii…and if it is, I will almost certainly go that route, but not because it’s simply better as a camera, but because it makes more overall sense as part of a total system. And part of me hopes it isn’t so I can stick with L Mount for video as I am not exactly trying to flip for the sake of something that might be better, ie, grass greener elsewhere, but only if it actually is!

Yes, FAR too slow. The 70-200 f4 is borderline as it is, plus zero requirement for anything longer than 200mm and 150 would be enough for my needs and that is why I have the 70-200 f4 which is under 1kg, not much heavier than that 70-300 but nowhere near the size & weight of the f2.8’s I’m not looking for anything else in L Mount as I have all I need and it’s simply a question of whether I carry on with L Mount at all for my video needs. That’s the only fence I am currently on and I’m just sitting on it right now waiting on news on the Nikon Z6iii as that is now the pivot point.

I doubt if there is any combo I have not considered! Maybe some are reading too much into this, but I am more than happy with the direction things are taking. I like L Mount for video but not for stills. The lenses Canon offer do not offer anything over what anyone else offers other than the hugely expensive and heavy 28-70 f2 and the new 24-105 f2.8 ie, the only lenses from Canon that interest me are these RF lenses and these of course are not L or Z Mount compatible. These are examples of >1kg lenses I WOULD give a pass to because with a pair of R3’s would give me everything I need in a 2 body, 2 lens combo. Arguably, Nikon could with a Z8 plus the Tamron 20-40 and an R9 with the Tamron 35-150, but the latter is back up to being a 2.7kg combo which is too much. L Mount… For the video side, great, but until something comes along to replace the S1R, the bodies don’t exist and nor do the lenses. OK, at the wider end they do, but it’s the longer end where it does not and it’s actually a case of needing MORE lenses and needing more swaps to make it work as the last 2 years have proved to me. And whilst I have not tried every combo, I have most viable options and there have been too many compromises. As always, for me and my specific needs.

Yes, had it for over a year, too slow in low light. Otherwise, yes, had and still have one of those lenses, the 28-70 which is my workhorse, the 105 not quite long enough, the 135 OK but a very limited lens compared with say a 70-180 or 70-200 or even Tamron's 35-150...which was going to be my 'lens to build a system around', except I decided it was too big and too heavy and actually more limiting than having the 20-40 and 70-180 I opted for. 40-70 is kind of a dead focal area for me, so no loss for me not being able to cover it. But it's all moot anyway as I dislike the S5ii as a stills camera, never bought the 3rd unit, already sold the second unit and MUCH prefer the Nikon Zf for stills. I know I will prefer the Z6iii and/or Z8 also for stills having had a play with a Z6ii. Comparing the Z6ii with the S5ii as direct rivals, the Z6ii felt better in the hand and I prefer the Nikon files, but the S5ii is the better pure video unit and probably the better hybrid. In fact I'll say the Lumix is the better hybrid. I think the Z6iii will still be better for stills, perhaps even better and at least equal for video and probably the better hybrid. Total guestimation but pretty sure. And the Z8 is just of course better, in the hand, at least for stills, possibly video... Whatever L Mount did or can offer now doesn't matter to me anymore as the decision has already been made to go Nikon (at least fro stills, possibly for hybrid, maybe even full video also...) gear has been sold, gear has been purchased albeit I am still as things stand, 50% in the L Mount camp having; an S1H, S5ii, 28-70 and 70-200. It's just a question of where I commit to next, but it will not not be back to L Mount (for stills), mainly due to the lenses available. Not having something equivalent to the Tamron 35-150 or 70-180 is a massive issue to me and has been the core of my issues for the last 2 years. I could even live with the S5ii for stills had the lenses been available. And a battery grip that actually fits properly...

I should add, I did try this 3 camera/4 lens set up based around 3x S5ii's but could not get it to work... Sigma 16-28mm f2.8 on one was great. Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 on another was also great. Lumix 70-200mm f4 on the third, not so great. Unwieldy without a battery grip and the battery grip was/is designed for the S5 not the S5ii ands doesn't quite fit right. So I swapped the 3rd S5ii for my S1H which has a battery grip but then it's one massive unit with less than stellar AF. So I tried the Leica 24-90mm f2.8-4 as a kind of longer 28-70, but it wasn't much longer as it was never going to be and again, just a whopping amount of size and weight. I was kind of hoping the new Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 might be the answer and be a compact, lightweight answer to Tamron's 900g 70-180, but nope, it's 1.35kg and do I really need anything as long as 200mm ands the answer is not really and 150 is about as long as I need. Plus I hated the S5ii for stills and that was the overall killer for me. The flip out side screen I learned to tolerate, but the cheap sounding and feeling shutter button not. The newly acquired Zf has a flip out screen and I think that was an error on Nikon's part, but the rest makes up for it. The best camera platform in existence IMO, for my needs, is the Canon R3, but hey, life is a compromise isn't it?! But as I said, ALL of these options work for me, - it's simply a question of which works best and I don't want to go into another year, juggling kit and trying to find solutions to situations when I can start as I mean to go on with zero mid-season changes. If there's no Z6iii available before March and assuming it is 'right' for my needs anyway, then I'll either stick with my current combined L Mount/Nikon mix for a year, or flip the L Mount for a single Sony.

Brevity, for clarity, as follows: 😜 Was/am very happy with L Mount for video but less so for stills and as stills are 50% of my work, I needed a solution after several years of trying to wrestle a solution within L Mount...but failed, hence going back to Nikon. My work is near 100% hybrid and I can either partition off stills and video into separate units as I am doing with Nikon and Lumix, ie, there is zero crossover/compatibility other than in an emergency, or have all units designated 'hybrid'. So Lumix for the video capture and Nikon for stills but together on a single job, the overall result is 'hybrid', ie, full video coverage and full stills coverage. It would make more sense though to have cross compatibility with lenses. Other than a single cheap 40mm f2 that came with the Zf, I have/am going over to Tamron for lenses as they are the manufacturer of the closest to my ideal when it comes to focal ranges, size, weight, cost etc. As mentioned before, cost no object, I'd go Canon...but that is another story entirely and an 18k one I cannot justify, never mind afford, so can forget that! Now if I was to trade the pair of Lumix cameras with their pair of L Mount lenses, and for a single Sony, because all of my kit would now be cross compatible, whilst that single Sony body (in whatever flavour) could be my sole dedicated video unit, the pair of Nikon's that were designated as 'Stills Only', could be used in a hybrid manner to fill in some of the holes not covered by the single dedicated Sony unit. But then, the more logical conclusion is why even bother with any Sony unit when a third Nikon would provide the same solution but actually probably better as it would have matching (or much closer) results. The total collection of kit would then be as follows; 3 bodies, 4 lenses with those lenses being; 20-40, 40, 28-75, 70-180. If the next gen Nikon Z6iii gets launched any time soon/before March 2024, it makes the most sense because then the: 40mm f2 lives on the Zf as my candid hybrid unit which is around 50% say of my work, so low-key, small, light, discrete etc. One Z6iii has the 20-40 welded to it for hybrid. The second Z6iii has the 28-75 indoors and flips to the 70-180 out, all also hybrid. It would then probably be the most capable and compact full-frame set up for my needs. Or that second Z6iii, I go with the Z8 which is arguably a little more 'pro' and would allow me to try out 8k raw, assuming the Z6iii will not have that capability. Or as I was mooting, the FX3 or FX30, but I guess neither make as much sense as a third Nikon... Plus I'd be giving up L Mount totally and the S1H plus S5ii combo just works...so it comes down to the question of: 4 cameras + 5 lenses that are not totally compatible vs 3 cameras + 4 lenses that are compatible and the cost is equal. With my current direction back towards, smaller, lighter, faster, with no lenses above 1kg, the latter option makes more sense and has more appeal...but I would be VERY sad to have to give up L Mount. Not much brevity after all 🤪

Size & weight of overall kit as a one man band hybrid shooter. As things stand, going into ‘24, I have a 4 camera, 5 lens set up split: 2 bodies, 2 lenses, L Mount ‘video’ plus 2 bodies, 3 lenses, Nikon ‘stills’ Many reasons including; preferring Nikon for stills over anything Lumix currently offer, but preferring what Lumix offers for video, plus cost as I’m mainly already invested in L Mount (although sold 1 body and 4 lenses very recently). I would rather have 3 bodies and 4 lenses however and 4 interchangeable lenses at that, but nothing is cross compatible between Nikon and L Mount. Switching to Sony or Nikon for video would give me that cross compatibility plus less kit to lug around and use. Switching to Sony for video only really gains me the ability to cross swap lenses but a full switch to Nikon perhaps makes more sense as I could use all 3 cameras as hybrid rather than designated as video or stills. Better low light FX3 vs better rear screen of the FX30 plus more reach with the same lens FX30. I’d go with the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 because it’s compact and an excellent lens and on an FX30, would give me more like a 40-110mm lens. But, yes, I do sometimes have a requirement for something longer… Which I don’t need and am covered for all my needs with the 70-180…except it’s on a stills designated body… So, flipping my 2 remaining L Mount bodies and 2 lenses for a 3rd single Nikon and a third Tamron lens, 28-75 would make most sense having the 20-40 and 70-180. But what? I have a Zf and it’s perfect for my needs, (candid stills) and is supposed to have very nice video (not tried it yet for that) but is it suited to being an all day, principal video unit? I think not. My intended second unit is a Z8 even though I prefer the Z9. It’s just more compact and costs considerably less. Could I afford/justify another Z8? Nope. So the only other option is a used Z6ii, but is that in any way better than an S5ii? I don’t think so… Which leaves something that does not exist yet but most likely will pretty soon, the Nikon Z6iii. And that is the final piece of the puzzle I am waiting on and will determine whether: A. Stick with the Lumix/Nikon mix for ‘24 B. Go fully Nikon but perhaps the Zf plus a pair of Z6ii’s C. Zf, Z8, Z6iii D. Pair of Nikon’s plus a single Sony I would and will be happy with any of these options which is why I am heading in this direction, but I think B mostly likely, then C, then A and least likely D…though that option still makes huge sense. As always it is a juggling act but all the options are great now, so it’s a case of which suits me best.

I think the answer is no also. Probably only a handful of people in the world, geeks such as ourselves know, and even less, care. There is a certain kudos to owning/using an FX3 just as there was with the S1H being the first Netflix approved mirrorless camera, but we’d be delusional if we thought by just owning these things, our work would look Exactly The Same. I doubt if anyone else gives a shit and it seems more a case of because they could. So did. Goes off to look at prices of used FX3’s just in case…

I suspect that is it and it makes a lot of sense why you might be asked what tools you might bring to the party for a filming gig whereas nobody asks, or just assumes (that you have suitable tools) for photo work. At least I have never been asked in 23 years.

I think I’d be as happy with an FX3 and an FX30 instead of the S1H and S5ii that I have for video work. I prefer the look of the Sony bodies for sure as they look less ‘DSLR’ and are more compact and externally identical. They miss out on a few bits and bobs but counter with the ability to use Tamron lenses which as someone who has just shifted to Nikon for stills and 2 out of my 3 lenses are adapted Tamron, it would give me more crossover ability. After the 2024 season I will decide. Option A. Keep as is, ie, pair of Lumix for video plus pair of Nikon for stills. Option B. Swap the pair of Lumix for a single Sony. Probably FX3 so I can pretend I am in Thailand and capturing laser guns etc. Option C. Swap the L Mount gear for at least one more Nikon and make all 3 hybrid. Then again, may trade the 2 remaining Lumix cameras and 2 lenses I still have for a single FX3 and another Tamron lens… The financials stack up on this option and it does mean less kit which is a good thing…

Probably/most certainly but then anyone shooting high fashion etc is already shooting medium format and anyone shooting sports, is already shooting Z9/R3, has all the hugely expensive long lenses because you NEED this kit. With video/filmmaking I guess it’s partly necessity and a bit of sobbery? “Oh, you don’t own 3 Buranos? We could not possibly consider you”. Photo I reckon it’s just expected but video sounds like they ask? It doesn’t affect me so not an issue but interesting…

In photography at least, for sure and no one ever asks you what camera you use. Until recently (last couple of years on this forum) I did not realise what a big thing it seems to be in the video/filmmaking world where you can be hired or not based in the tools you have. My rule of thumb is which is the least pain in the arse and also gives me the greater joy to use. I’ve never used nor probably never will use a RED so would choose the C70 just on sheer use ability. But what do I know…

Ditto. The source as with any/all info is key, not just ‘some YouTube channel’ of which there are several million. And especially if it’s someone sat at their desk with purple backlighting, baseball cap on backwards, doesn’t have, never has had, nor never will have, said piece of kit, yet has an ‘informed’ opinion. I prefer the freelancers over the brand ambassadors also, for obvious reasons.