MrSMW

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.

@newfoundmass I hope the time until April flies by for you. Bon courage mon ami. Otherwise ‘answers’… 1. Never tried but should not be too difficult? 2. Very weird. The original fits I believe but not quite flush? 3. Zero issues. 4. Impossible to say really… My go to’s are: 6k 25p or 4k 50p for short clips and 4k 25p for longer stuff. My M2 chip MacBook is less keen on the 6k, but to my eye, it does look better. Log or Flat profile. I’ve never shot externally and have the vanilla 5ii so long GOP for me. 5. Well said. Communities will always thrive if enough people actively participate.

Looks exactly like 'real life' but if anything, 'over-exaggerated real life' with brighter colours, typically deep DOF and everything in focus is clinically sharp to the point it looks a bit jagged. There is nothing necessarily bad about this and I have never said it is bad, just that I personally do not like this look because IMO, it looks SOOC and cheap and as if you have made no effort, ie, the camera did it all. At the same time, I don't want to spend huge amounts of time grading every individual second of footage to the nth degree so work to something I call the 90/50 rule which is if I can get 90% of the look I want with 'just' 50% of the effort, I am not going to spend another 50% of my time on getting that last 10% because that 50% extra effort I would be making would in fact be 200% of my effort (as my initial '50%' is actually already my 100%), so anything beyond that (initial 100% effort) is either not feasible (for any reason that suits me including being financially viable) or life's simply too short! So my capture could be from raw (never tried it but want to for certain things), from log or from an in camera profile such as Flat or Standard etc, but it is never solely going to be SOOC even with one of the profiles either at the capture stage, or in the edit.

@kye indeed. My own preferences regarding any scene is a wider establishing shot or picture that basically tells the viewer ‘where’. Then a tighter ‘mid’ shot that introduces ‘who’. Followed by tighter still ‘what’ imagery. I may end any chapter going wide again but as with all these things, rules can be broken. The above is really all the focal length stuff and next up is handheld, floaty, or locked off… For the wide stuff, always locked off. For candid, steady handheld. I detest the ‘handheld jittery’ look personally as is used in a lot of modern productions. Hate it. The camera/production should be invisible and not intrusive ‘found footage’ style. Personally. Couple stuff, especially walking, gimbal. Warpy backgrounds do my nut. Guilty, but back to using the gimbal 100% for this next year. And then we have all the stuff such as lighting and grading etc, the latter being very individual indeed. Personally, I prefer a more modern rendering rather than the softer and more granular older style, so prefer say full-frame over say 16mm, but again, just personal taste. I can’t abide the camcorder look though which is why in the past I have always used a lot of slow mo as it’s an easy fix (partially anyway) to removing that look. Going forward, I am backing off quite a bit from the slow mo approach and using capture techniques and grading instead to eliminate that ‘digital’ look. The one thing I can’t blame is the tools however as they are all ‘perfect’ for my needs so it’s just a case of what I can produce with them…

I’ve always been a longer lens shooter myself. For weddings, it used to be the ‘classic’ 24-70 plus 70-200 combo for zoom users and 35 + 85 or 24 + 50 for the prime users with the more photojournalist types opting for the 24 + 50 approach. I tried the 24 + 50 and hated it finding the 24 far too wide for well over 95% of my work and the 50 OK indoors, but far too short outdoors. The 35 + 85 was much more me and when I moved from Nikon DSLR and the twin zoom set up, it was to something around these focal lengths, especially by the time I got to the X Pro2 and then the XH1 with 35 and 90 equivalent lenses. Today, post-Covid and social distancing etc plus simple preference, I would put my two ideal focal lengths as 40 and 100 with outlier focal lengths of 28 and 150. 28mm is my preference for a medium-wide because I feel the 24 is just that bit too wide, but for those very few occasions when I do need something wider, 20mm is where it’s at for me. I have had various 20mm lenses recently and now switching to Nikon for stills (possibly hybrid at a later date), the imminent arrival of Tamron’s 20-40mm f2.8 ticks all my ‘wide’ bases of 20/28/40mm. Checking off 40mm and purely 40mm is the SE version of this lens that will be welded to my Zf pretty much all the time because there is no better option in terms of preferred focal length, size & weight and aperture (f2) for this candid unit. For the longer stuff, I am one of those odd people that likes the 60/65/70mm focal range. It could not be my longest focal length without major compromise, but I use and prefer this focal length over 50mm. In fact, 40-65mm for me is something of a dead zone. It’s rare I ever shoot in this focal range even with zooms as it is a kind of ‘nothing’ range to me, not being quite wide nor long enough. Too ‘normal’ I guess? For longer stuff, outdoors especially, I find the classic 85mm just a bit short in recent years and prefer 90 or 105mm and for my longer/longest lens, was going to invest in Nikon’s own macro 105mm f2.8 but in the end decided I really needed to cover off ‘100-200’ because I do have a need. On that basis, I opted for again, another adapted lens, the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 G2 model. Nikon’s own 70-180 is based on the previous gen Tamron lens and is over-priced and only a couple of hundred less than the Nikon ‘old Tamron’ and is hardly a compact or light lens, but much more so than a more trad 70-200mm being ‘just’ 855g. Pair that with a Z8 instead of a Z9 and it’s a MUCH more compact and ‘lightweight’ set up compared with a Z9 + 70-200 or my old D3s + 70-200 set ups. So 2 bodies + 3 lenses and I am done. The Zf rocks the 40 all day everywhere as my candid lower res ‘snap’ unit with the Z8 pulling more ‘considered’ wider + longer unit of 20-40 or 70-180 as required. This is for stills, potential hybrid but the same focal lengths apply for my video work which is essentially a mirrored extension of my stills photography. To that end 28-70 on one camera and 70-200 on the other and the only thing I cannot do with Lumix, is shoot wider than 28, but for 90% of my video work I am actually shooting 28/42/70/105 with the 42/105 being crop modes making a very versatile compact lens out of Sigmas 28-70mm. ’Cinematic’? Depends on the definition according to our own preferences I guess but for me, longer lenses and tighter compression are part of that equation.

35-150 = 1165g 70-180 = 855g 20-40 = 365g The 20-40 is obviously a lot smaller, but not so much difference in size between the 35-150 and 70-180 at 158mm x 89mm and 156mm x 83mm. It's the flexibility of the combo that wins it for me because with having a second body (Zf), I can cover another focal length if needs be at the same time, ie, without any kind of lens swap. There is a benefit to the 35-150 though in that it's available native Z Mount and the other 2 are not. At least not yet...

For a while it was my favourite lens and as a ‘one & done’ or for perhaps a single body user, it can’t be beaten other than by perhaps Canon’s new 24-105mm f2.8…providing you are in the RF Mount system and can live with a max focal length of 105mm. And it was going to be my ‘one & done’ on a single Z9 for mainly stills and some hybrid, mainly for the 8k raw. But in the end I decided a pairing of ‘adapted’ Tamron 20-40 and 70-180, gave me far greater range and use ability with a Z8 making for a much more compact, lightweight (in comparison) and discreet package. Pretty much the same cost for the 2 lenses vs one new 35-150 as I snagged a used 20-40 at an excellent price. So I know have…or will shortly have, ‘a’ 20-180mm f2.8. Kinda…

This for 23 years. Since I moved to a payment up front system (for me it’s 1/3rd at the time of booking, 1/3rd 6 months to job date and final 1/3rd 1 month prior), I have never had a single issue with payment. But payment of course is not the whole story and booking the ‘right’ kind of clients is the rest of it. OK easier said than done in some industries and some financial situations but as Kye says, having a contract with T&C’s is key when it comes to any dispute. Not opinion or any other factor, but what does the contract state that in my case reads, “We the undersigned have read, understood and agree to be bound by the T&C’s of this contract”. The T&C’s are essentially 10 points on a single side of A4 for clarity. In business, some folks will try and test you from time to time and it feels personal and there is always that concern in your mind about how far someone might take something and whether your case will stand up. But if it’s clear and it’s factual and you remain calm and professional, they always go away empty handed. I have been tested I think 7 times now out of 800+ clients and despite the threats and blustering from some, not a single one took it beyond that when I said very politely, “no”. Sadly it is just part of running any business and you have to make sure you have covered your own back. Fortunately…at least on my case, awful people are a rarity.

Same for wedding clients and probably ALL clients everywhere, every thing. Despite doing all the filtering prior to them booking and then educating from the point of booking to their event, about 1 in 20 slip the net. And then it's always a case of a long list of impossible questions to answer after the fact. "No, you are right, it doesn't look anything like your sisters wedding. I've never met your sister, wasn't at her wedding, and certainly didn't shoot it". "Yes, in different light, your bridesmaids dresses will look a slightly different colour to Pantone 317884. In the results I have provided to you, those are not dresses. That is not sky. Those are not trees, or people, or anything put millions of different coloured pixels. And then do not get me started on your monitor/device screen calibration, because unlike you, I actually have a life". Yawn... Given the choice...and I try to ensure this situation, I'd rather take a lower paying client who gets it over a higher paying one that does not. Every time. Unless they are paying CONSIDERABLY more.

6k raw vs 8k raw, me also which is (part of) why I prefer the R3.