A Camera for 3 Specific Uses

[scotchtape]

10 minutes ago, Cary Knoop said:

The latest model supports internal 4K recording.

Yes but OP said he can afford A7s... A7s II is $1K more.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Fuji X-T2. The A6300/A6500 has so many compromises (RS, overheating, battery life) that the handling issues become distracting during shooting.

[bigfoot]

On 12/28/2016 at 8:11 AM, Kisaha said:

a7S is not a very good photo camera, for quite some reasons. I would never thought of using one for photos.

 

You have no idea what you are talking about....?  



a7s is a great camera. Raw files are amazing, pretty much any lens will be sharp with it. DR is great overall at low iso (13 stop) and really good at high iso (10 stop / 6400iso). 12mp is more than enough for anything out there ...more than that you are a pixel peeper or cropping the shit out of your photos...!  Low light is out of this world. 1080p60 s35 is amazing, 4k output too. 

1.1x / 1.2x / 1.3x / 1.4x / 1.5x crop without significant loss of quality

Slog2 can be tricky but isn't that hard to master and PPoff with 16-235 re map work good for colors straight off the bat. 

You can adapt any kind of lens on it. 

Wifi is fine and great for remote shooting.  

E-shutter for timelapse - buffer is quick enough with a good card to shoot 1 fps continous for smooth sunset / sunrise 

Peaking/ zebra and all that fun stuff 

2.8k aps-c is upscale to 4k on the hdmi out too... 

No overheating or what so ever on long recording ... i've done often 4h-6h of prores combine with the atomos shogun 

 

Autofocus, I have not a single idea... i've never cared. 

 

Don't hesitate to buy it... highly recommended. A great tool overall 

[Kisaha]

Obviously, I was referring to the PHOTO part of that camera, that I have never used it as a PHOTO camera, because there are much better PHOTO cameras out there. I didn't say anything about the VIDEO part. 

If you check the official Sony site, obviously (I know..) the S is marketed to video shooters, and the R to photo ones. Of,course it is not illegal to use whatever camera, for whatever use; just saying.

12 megapixels aren't that great for crop. It is a high iso specialized camera for me, good for some jobs, not my preference as an all around hybrid. Just my opinion of, course, obviously.

[bigfoot]

Of course, STILL a great PHOTO camera Kisaha

[bigfoot]

I could send plenty of landscape example shot over the last 2 years with it... but I don't feel the need to prove anything here, just saying... the PHOTO mode is awesome too (coming off a canon 7d, canon 6d, nikon d90, nikon d70s, fuji x-pro1 past user) 

[Stanley]

On 12/28/2016 at 1:37 AM, mercer said:

Since you're used to the GH2 with its limited functions (peaking, etc) and want to move to aps-c or full frame, then I would say in that price range, either the Nikon D500 for aps-c or the D750 for full frame. With the D500 you are getting excellent 1080p with the flat profile, plus a cropped 4K if you ever need it. Also the 1080p has an electronic 3-axis stabilization that is very interesting and gets decent reviews. The D750 is just an all around excellent full frame camera. There has been some great work shot with it and a lot of people will argue it may be the best full frame stills camera for... I don't know I don't really shoot stills but that's what I've read. 

If I wasn't to prepared to stay with MFT when I update my GH2 in the near future, I think I'd go down the Nikon path for 1080p Video, and Stills. Those cameras mentioned above have all received high praise, and of course there's Nikon glass as well.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

If you're fine with 1080p and the SLR form factor, the D750 is an excellent hybrid.

[webrunner5]

Well the OP has the same problem all us "Poor People" have. Well I guess even rich people have the same problem. No one camera does it all. I am now in the same boat. Sold a few cameras I had. Down to pretty much my G7 to scounge up money.

Thinking hard on a C100. And yes the Photos suck on it. 8mp. Yes no 4k, but I really don't need that, have a Panny G7 that does that. Crazy to sell it for what you can get for one. Every ones here has great ideas. Just not the perfect idea, and sad to say there isn't one. Best advice I can add. 

11 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

If you're fine with 1080p and the SLR form factor, the D750 is an excellent hybrid.

And it takes damn good stills, really good ones.

[mercer]

32 minutes ago, Stanley said:

If I wasn't to prepared to stay with MFT when I update my GH2 in the near future, I think I'd go down the Nikon path for 1080p Video, and Stills. Those cameras mentioned above have all received high praise, and of course there's Nikon glass as well.

I have the D5500 and I've been testing almost every brand of camera since I bought it because I thought... these other cams have such better specs, they must have better 1080p... but other than the BMPCC, I haven't found a 1080p image I like better than the humble 24mbps from my D5500.

5 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Well the OP has the same problem all us "Poor People" have. Well I guess even rich people have the same problem. No one camera does it all. I am now in the same boat.

Thinking hard on a C100. And yes the Photos suck on it. 8mp. Yes no 4k, but I really don't need that, have a Panny G7 that does that. Crazy to sell it for what you can get for one. Every ones here has great ideas. Just not the perfect idea, and sad to say there isn't one. Best advice I can add. 

You are not kidding... constant compromises. 

[webrunner5]

Yean truth be known Everyone ought to have a BMPCC, they really are that good. I guess we can't believe something that cheap can be what we really Need. Sad to say it probably is one of the top cine cameras we could ever afford. I had one, sold it, and still regret it. Probably never going to beat its output on my budget.

[Arikhan]

@bigfoot

Quote

Autofocus, I have not a single idea... i've never cared.

Stills shooting:

And that is the problem, depending WHAT you shoot. If you want to shoot moving subjects (eg in low light), you need a reliable autofocus. There is not all about IQ and high ISO, but also about focusing. And that's where the a7s II fails. When shooting moving subjects in low light, you simply mostly need a decent AF. And the a7s ii sometimes (in low light) needs 4-6 seconds to focus. For moving subjects, it's simply useless. Most people don't consider that for stills: you don't only need IQ and high ISO capabilities, but excellent AF (accuracy + speed) in low light too.

And that's where even a Canon 6D (with its center AF-point) is much more reliable than a a7s ii. The Nikon D750, D4/D4S and the new D5 are herein "focusing kings" in low light, sometimes the D500, though a DX and far away for from high ISO capabilities of newer FX cameras. In complete darkness, all mentionned cameras will surely fail without additional focusing help, but ALL of them have the better AF (even in normal light) than the a7s ii - crucial for photographing moving subjects in critical lighting situations.

One famous example: The Nikon D610 is an excellent camera, with a great DR and very good high ISO capabilities (quite similar to the famous D750). But...it doesn't focus properly in the dark, it "can't see" in the dark like other low light kings...
So, if you want to shoot stills and your subjects are static, you have the time to wait on getting proper AF or focus manually, as the focus peaking of the a7s ii (and other modern cameras) is very good. If your subjects move (impredictably) and you have to capture them, then go for a stills camera known for focusing quite fast and accurately in low light...

 

[noone]

2 hours ago, Arikhan said:

@bigfoot

Stills shooting:

And that is the problem, depending WHAT you shoot. If you want to shoot moving subjects (eg in low light), you need a reliable autofocus. There is not all about IQ and high ISO, but also about focusing. And that's where the a7s II fails. When shooting moving subjects in low light, you simply mostly need a decent AF. And the a7s ii sometimes (in low light) needs 4-6 seconds to focus. For moving subjects, it's simply useless. Most people don't consider that for stills: you don't only need IQ and high ISO capabilities, but excellent AF (accuracy + speed) in low light too.

And that's where even a Canon 6D (with its center AF-point) is much more reliable than a a7s ii. The Nikon D750, D4/D4S and the new D5 are herein "focusing kings" in low light, sometimes the D500, though a DX and far away for from high ISO capabilities of newer FX cameras. In complete darkness, all mentionned cameras will surely fail without additional focusing help, but ALL of them have the better AF (even in normal light) than the a7s ii - crucial for photographing moving subjects in critical lighting situations.

One famous example: The Nikon D610 is an excellent camera, with a great DR and very good high ISO capabilities (quite similar to the famous D750). But...it doesn't focus properly in the dark, it "can't see" in the dark like other low light kings...
So, if you want to shoot stills and your subjects are static, you have the time to wait on getting proper AF or focus manually, as the focus peaking of the a7s ii (and other modern cameras) is very good. If your subjects move (impredictably) and you have to capture them, then go for a stills camera known for focusing quite fast and accurately in low light...

 

Actually, the A7s (mine Is the first version) is very good for AF.      NOT AFC, but AFS is just fine and while it may well hunt in extremely low light, there is hardly any camera that will auto focus at the extremes the A7s can.        It is rated at EV -4 but is often stated as being more like EV -5.       My GX7 also has EV -4 AF but it can not keep up with the A7s given a similar lens.

Video AF somehow does work better for AFC than it does for stills (the FE kit lens works a treat for AF for something like a musician in a confined stage area as long as the movement isn't too rapid).      There would be better cameras for AF overall (and just about any for AFC is better) but the A7s is actually pretty good for single shot AF and in almost no light it can focus using the glow from an appliance LED.

Even using Canon lenses (which it is slow to AF with), it can AF in light lower than the same lens on just about all current Canons.

It has less DR at base ISO than any other FF Sony E mount but it is still more than all the Canons except the 1d x ii and the 5d iv (and is equal with the 80D).     It has more than a stop on the 80D by ISO 800, about a stop on the 1Dx ii and 5d iv by ISO 25600.

Again, the A7s is an excellent stills camera, (which is why I got it) but it is a better video camera than I need.       I love that it can record both XAVCs and 720p MP4 at the same time so when I shoot a song, I have a full size video to play with and a smaller copy I can email to the band (as long as it isn't too long a song.)

 

[Arikhan]

@noone

My statement (only for stills) doesn't contradict yours at all. The a7s ii is a phantastic camera. But for some situations, it takes too long for its autofocus. Depending on what you shoot, too long to capture a momentary situation (not posing)...This is my personal impression, but there are many stills shooters who say, the AF speed is not fast enough for spontaneous shots. For still shooting, a very fast and accurate AF is decissive too - and that is not the major strength of the a7s ii...

About 4 weeks ago  I've hold it in my hands, it's the camera of a friend of mine. We've done a simple shootout in low light (not darkness) and low contrast. The Sony was always noticeable behind the D750 at AF speed (I still can remember our settings at that time for better comparison, it were 1/250s and ISO 6.400 with 50mm 1.8). It was about the same lighting conditions as in a restaurant or church with very decent lighting. In focus of the shootout was "AF speed in low light / low contrast with moving subjects". The a7s ii oftenly needed 2-3 times longer to focus on moving subject as the D750. We tweaked a little bit around (as described here), but still much slower in AF than the D750...

BTW: It's simple to prove, just do a shootout (stills) on moving objects in very decent light and low contrast, and you will see it within minutes. Even the Canon 6D (with its center point AF) was faster in focusing than the a7s ii...

[bigfoot]

Charlie said: not fast moving subject...

 

Even my a7s with metabones and canon 16-35mm f4 IS was fine in AF with the center point for those subjects. 

otherwise, nikon have great option also 

F-mount is quite adaptable too... just focusing backward, mehhh whatever. 

[noone]

6 hours ago, Arikhan said:

@noone

My statement (only for stills) doesn't contradict yours at all. The a7s ii is a phantastic camera. But for some situations, it takes too long for its autofocus. Depending on what you shoot, too long to capture a momentary situation (not posing)...This is my personal impression, but there are many stills shooters who say, the AF speed is not fast enough for spontaneous shots. For still shooting, a very fast and accurate AF is decissive too - and that is not the major strength of the a7s ii...

About 4 weeks ago  I've hold it in my hands, it's the camera of a friend of mine. We've done a simple shootout in low light (not darkness) and low contrast. The Sony was always noticeable behind the D750 at AF speed (I still can remember our settings at that time for better comparison, it were 1/250s and ISO 6.400 with 50mm 1.8). It was about the same lighting conditions as in a restaurant or church with very decent lighting. In focus of the shootout was "AF speed in low light / low contrast with moving subjects". The a7s ii oftenly needed 2-3 times longer to focus on moving subject as the D750. We tweaked a little bit around (as described here), but still much slower in AF than the D750...

BTW: It's simple to prove, just do a shootout (stills) on moving objects in very decent light and low contrast, and you will see it within minutes. Even the Canon 6D (with its center point AF) was faster in focusing than the a7s ii...

I have been using my A7s as a STILLS camera for two years now in all lighting conditions.        There has never been a situation where I wanted a different camera.       I don't consider ISO 6400 to be "low light" anymore.

The A7s is not a camera for shooting sports with machine gun AF  though I have used it for sports from time to time and especially for night time sports found it to be quite good (my longest decent lens is an old manual focus 300 2.8 that I have used across systems), I have had plenty of photos published in newspapers (including sports) using it over the years and would happily submit photos from the A7s using it.      Sure, I would get MORE shots using a D750 and the latest greatest AF 300 2.8 but I can not afford that and from my experience, in plenty of situations, I would be using a higher shutter speed with my MF lens and A7s than someone with the Nikon combination would.    

I would happily do a "shootout" but it would NOT just be for one thing where the A7s is not good, but would be just about anything.      I actually PREFER the AF of my A7s over the Canon 7D I used to have.      The Canon was a bit faster to focus and could focus on much faster moving things but was less accurate, much more limited in focus areas and gave up earlier.      

My AF needs are pretty similar to the OPs from the original post (maybe I use AF a bit more even for stills and video but not to the OP's level for video), partly why I suggest they at least TRY an A7s if possible.

Look, the D750 is a nice camera and for many it would be the choice of the two.     It is not for me as,

A) No EVF (I much prefer an EVF these days).

B) Larger than I would like

C) ISO limited (I often use ISOs - with and without auto focus) at ISOs higher than the D750 can go, that is not to say it is still a good camera at high ISOs but for my needs, the A7s is better).

D) In good light, with my fast lenses, I often need 1/8000, the D750 is limited to 1/4000.

E) I like using focus peaking with AF with my two native AF lenses.

F) I like using Canon lenses as I can use them (with AF and full electronic control) on both my A7s and GX7), couldn't do that with a D750.   

G)  My favourite lens is a manual focus wide angle tilt shift lens that I use for lots of things but including walk around at night and for live band stills and video.      Couldn't do that with Nikon anything currently (though the new 19mm PC lens looks promising, they just need a FF Nikon mirrorless now).

 

There are other reasons

Anyway, while the D750 is a great camera, I will stick to my A7s for stills and video, again in all lighting ("lousy" AF and all!).        It is very early now so I am going for a morning walk with just my A7s and 28-70 FE kit lens.       AF will be just fine with auto ISO set to ISO 102400, then later tonight (New Years Eve), I will go shoot a band (or two) and including lots of people in pub lighting and using AF as well as MF and I bet it works just fine.

[noone]

Ok, I just got home from my early morning walk.

Left before dawn with just my A7s and 28-70 FE kit lens.       I ONLY used AF and aperture priority set to 5.6 with the camera on auto ISO set to 102400.     I used flexible spot AF set to small.

I came home with 56 shots on the camera and deleted another 2 (out of habit).      I didn't shoot anything special, just aimed at things near and far and regardless of the light which varied greatly, walking down the main street and side streets and into back alleys.     Some into shop windows, pretty much anything.

I would say AF failed for one shot (one of the deleted) and it hunted for five.        The failed shot and two of the shots where it hunted were very similar (down a back alley, shooting to the other end at distance street lights and were at ISO 80,000.      One of the shots that hunted was down to me forgetting to recentre the flexible spot so the camera was not focusing where I was trying to shoot.

ISO used (of the 56 I came back with)

1600 1 shot

2000 1 shot

2500 4 shots

3200 1 shot

8000 2 shots

10,000 3 shots

12,800 6 shots

16,000 2 shots

20,000 4 shots

25,600 4 shots

32,000 2 shots

40,000 4 shots

51,200 3 shots

64,000 2 shots

80,000 5 shots

102,400 12 shots.

That's my point, I just don't worry about the ISO and AF (or MF) works just fine for me.

If you need fast tracking AF (or any tracking AF in stills), then it is the wrong camera.      Actually, I think it could keep up with a slow bridal procession in a church but not what I want to do.

 

 

[Arikhan]

@noone2

Quote

 

20,000 4 shots

25,600 4 shots

32,000 2 shots

40,000 4 shots

51,200 3 shots

64,000 2 shots

80,000 5 shots

102,400 12 shots.

That's my point, I just don't worry about the ISO and AF (or MF) works just fine for me.

 

I think, most professional photographers worldwide will now throw away their Nikons and Canons and start a insane run on the a7s ii after holidays...Time for Canonikon to immediately stop R&D plus camera production and sales - nobody needs in fact their inferior devices. The end of established camera manufacturers is not far off... ;-)

[noone]

58 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@noone2

I think, most professional photographers worldwide will now throw away their Nikons and Canons and start a insane run on the a7s ii after holidays...Time for Canonikon to immediately stop R&D plus camera production and sales - nobody needs in fact their inferior devices. The end of established camera manufacturers is not far off... ;-)

Hmm,

I don't remember saying Nikon or Canon are inferior?     I seem to remember saying the D750 is a good camera?     It is just not for ME as for ME, my A7s does what I want.

I still have a Nikon DSLR, I still have a Canon FILM SLR and have owned and used Canon DSLRs.      I have more Canon lenses than anything (sold most of my Nikon lenses).

You on the other hand, seem to like to put down the A7s.

Any time you want to come here for that "shootout", I will be happy to oblige but I get to pick half the  challenges!

Oh and I wonder why Nikon did put ISO 1,640,000 in the D500 and 3,280,000 in the D5?     I find 102,400 is ok and usable with the A7s but would rather it was limited to 80.000.

 

Everyone has different needs,

Edit.    I mostly really do have auto ISO set to either 102400 or 51200 but in this case, I thought I must have been wrong for the last two years of using it as someone on the innernet said the AF doesn't work.      I was simply putting your "theory" to the test and what can I say, my actual experience differed from your post!

Sure there are lots of A7s users who would like faster/more reliable AF, that would be nice but is the camera a decent low light (and good light) stills and video camera?   Is  the AF ok?     Is for me.

 

[dantheman]

1 hour ago, Arikhan said:

I think, most professional photographers worldwide will now throw away their Nikons and Canons and start a insane run on the a7s ii after holidays...

For what it's worth, all high end wedding photographers I have worked with the past years have either Nikon or Canon, I have yet to see one that is using Sony, the past year it has been mainly canon 5DIII or 1Dx and in the Nikon camp the D750 seems to be very popular.  Also, none of them care about super high iso's, they all use a flash.