Best photo/video hybrid?

[webrunner5]

10 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

I don't particularly mind him but he definitely lost me from 7:42 with the "2 times better image quality than the X-H1" stuff to be honest.

 

 

He means that the Sensor is twice as big. And it is. FF versus APSC. Not twice as better image quality.

Since they have roughly the same MP on the sensor, other than low light ability, and DoF, I doubt you can see Any difference other than Color Science. Which I am sure the Fuji is probably better at than the Sony on average.

[BTM_Pix]

6 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

He means that the Sensor is twice as big. And it is. FF versus APSC. Not twice as better image quality.

Since they have roughly the same MP on the sensor, other than low light ability, and DoF, I doubt you can see Any difference other than Color Science.

He does refer to the sensor size and I thought it was a slip of the tongue at first when he said it "offers twice as good image quality overall" but he is quite happy to stand in front of that slide saying exactly the same thing all the way through it

If such a thing as the best photo/video hybrid exists though (more likely least worst) then the A7iii is shaping up to be a contender.

[webrunner5]

25 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

He does refer to the sensor size and I thought it was a slip of the tongue at first when he said it "offers twice as good image quality overall" but he is quite happy to stand in front of that slide saying exactly the same thing all the way through it

If such a thing as the best photo/video hybrid exists though (more likely least worst) then the A7iii is shaping up to be a contender.

Yeah Sony, other than 10 bit, pretty much has the video part as good as you can expect for the money.  The GH5 series is better maybe, overall video wise features wise, but not in low light DoF. Hard to beat a FF camera. Color Science, it has gotten a lot better, but still not Canon, Fuji territory. For the money the A7 mk III is pretty hard to beat overall.

Fortunately we are coming to a point where Sony, Panasonic has Forced all these other company's to up the game. Soon it will be hard to pick a real overall winner. It will really depend on that lenses you have.

I think what pisses me off the most is that Canon could come out with a FF Mirrorless that would basically be a C200 in a small form factor, and just take over the whole enthusiasts market overnight. Charge say 3800 bucks for it and be done.

Canon would sell a Hell of a lot more of them than they will EVER sell C200's. I see no reason why Sony can't do the same thing with a FS5. Why not. Heat wise they may have to make a slightly bigger body but who would argue with that for the features. Truth be known the Sony A7s mk III might be closer to one than we can imagine.

Heck look how close a GH5s is to a EVA1 if you put a Speedbooster on one. It Ain't that far off. And what isn't could damn near be put into the GH5s other than maybe ND filters right now.

[Arikhan]

18 hours ago, dbp said:

My bread and butter is video, but I've been slowly getting more photography gigs. 

I know ideally you'd have 2 cameras for reach, but that's such a massive investment.  Right now I have the GH4, so staying with m43 is preferable.

What in ya'lls opinion is the best photo/video hybrid, assuming most of work is still video? GH5 (not GH5s) seems like the no brainer.

dbp says he is in the m43 system (lenses, etc.). So, why do experienced people (owning a m43 camera they talk about) not give him some advice on this?

I doubt, someone here had already his hands on a A7 III. Why giving advice with NO CLUE about this camera and considering Sony's well known abysmal quality control and expensive lens line?

Why not trying to help him with a recommendation within the m43 universe, so he could save some money and time?

Why even speculating on Canon cameras to come in 1/2/3 years?

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, Arikhan said:

dbp says he is in the m43 system (lenses, etc.). So, why do experienced people (owning a m43 camera they talk about) not give him some advice on this?

I doubt, someone here had already his hands on a A7 III. Why giving advice with NO CLUE about this camera and considering Sony's well known abysmal quality control and expensive lens line?

Why not trying to help him with a recommendation within the m43 universe, so he could save some money and time?

Why even speculating on Canon cameras to come in 1/2/3 years?

You make a good point, but.. he is talking a 2000 dollar m4/3 camera. If you are willing to spend that much why not look at all the options. Unless you buy new lenses, it is pretty damn easy to sell them for what you paid for them used. I doubt many on here has a bunch of native lenses anyways.

I see no reason if you have a GH4 to even buy a GH5. What Really are you gaining other than IBIS. 10 bit. Hell we have been using 8bit for I bet as long as most of you on here have even lived!  It has seemed to have worked hasn't it.  HDR, hell  like others have said,  I don't know Anyone that even has a 4k TV let alone one that does HDR, I don't have one. So why bother going in debt for something 99.9% of the people can't even see..

So OK my advice, Don't buy a damn thing. Learn how to shoot. Buy better lighting, better audio, better tripod and fluid head. Probably the best gain. And if you are making Video mostly your income you really Need a Cine camera. Even if it is a Canon C100. By the time you rig a DSLR or a Mirrorless it is well, pretty stupid looking, and it still sucks controls wise. If you want to play with the big boys you have to have big boy toys. If not they will probably always win.

[Jim Giberti]

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah Sony, other than 10 bit, pretty much has the video part as good as you can expect for the money

Other than color science.

That's an opinion  that I've gained after trying to incorporate Sony cameras into our workflow three times in recent years.

Great cameras. Lousy color especially skin tones and S-log is very challenging compared to other log iterations.

Compared to most any modern Canon and all of our Blackmagic cameras, Sony cameras, from the FS5 to the A7 models etc just take too much work to get great color and even then it doesn't compare.

 

[dbp]

24 minutes ago, Jim Giberti said:

Other than color science.

That's an opinion  that I've gained after trying to incorporate Sony cameras into our workflow three times in recent years.

Great cameras. Lousy color especially skin tones and S-log is very challenging compared to other log iterations.

Compared to most any modern Canon and all of our Blackmagic cameras, Sony cameras, from the FS5 to the A7 models etc just take too much work to get great color and even then it doesn't compare.

 

This has been my number one fear of Sony cameras. Admittedly, it's more based on what I've heard than what I've personally experienced. Edited one wedding where the second shooter had an A7S, that's the extent of me working with the footage. It was a bit lacklustre, color wise.

Honestly, I've never been terribly impressed with Panasonic's color either, so to take a step even further back in that category is not enticing.

[Mokara]

23 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think I would have to go with the Sony A7 mk III since they are the same money. But good lenses for it are more expensive. A7s mk II is same money also.

I am done with m4/3 stuff. And the AF on the GH5 is well, it blows. 10 bit is nice buy how often does it really matter. The A7 mk III is using the A9 AF so that is a Good thing. You have the s35 crop mode, clear zoom, better eye control, on and on. It is a damn nice camera. But so is the GH5 on the most part. Tough choice.

The lens issue is about to go away since most of the major third party lens manufacturers seem to be getting on the E mount bandwagon now.

Right now the A7III is probably the premier hybrid choice for the prosumer user.

[Trek of Joy]

3 hours ago, Mokara said:

The lens issue is about to go away since most of the major third party lens manufacturers seem to be getting on the E mount bandwagon now.

Right now the A7III is probably the premier hybrid choice for the prosumer user.

This is true, but most of the announcements are fast primes. Moving from most m43 lenses to something like the SigArt 1.4's is a significant jump in size/weight. And they still won't be cheap. But for now the E-mount has a lot of momentum with the recent announcements from various 3rd party companies.

To throw in my opinion of the OP's original question, IMO the best hybrid is the a7r3. Stills are unmatched by anything below the d850 and the video is still really good. Though if you're used to shooting with a GH4, might want to rent a Sony first or get something like a used a7r2 (around $1500 now) to see if it fits your workflow. Shooting with a Sony can be a headache at times. But it all depends on what you're shooting, if its lowlight events, I'd go for something with better stills ISO performance than m43.

Chris

[Robert Collins]

18 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

This is true, but most of the announcements are fast primes. Moving from most m43 lenses to something like the SigArt 1.4's is a significant jump in size/weight. And they still won't be cheap. But for now the E-mount has a lot of momentum with the recent announcements from various 3rd party companies.

Yes, that is true. But part of the attraction of FF is that you dont have to use 'really fast lenses' to get good low light performance or limited DOF. Lenses such as the Sony FE 28 f2, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, the Rockinon 35 2.8 or 14 2.8 are not particular large or expensive (US$200-US$700 ea). The same could just about be said of the F4 zooms.

[User]

9 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

So why bother going in debt for something 99.9% of the people can't even see..

If I just walked into this discussion, I'd think you are talking to the evangelicals. And not just debt, bankruptcy. 

[Trek of Joy]

14 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Yes, that is true. But part of the attraction of FF is that you dont have to use 'really fast lenses' to get good low light performance or limited DOF. Lenses such as the Sony FE 28 f2, 50 1.8, 85 1.8, the Rockinon 35 2.8 or 14 2.8 are not particular large or expensive (US$200-US$700 ea). The same could just about be said of the F4 zooms.

That's true to an extent, the smaller lenses aren't as good optically as say the Fuji 23/1.4 or 56/1.2 - which offset the light gathering advantage of the larger sensor. The Rokinon AF lenses aren't great lenses, certainly not something I'd use for paid work. The 28 has other issues as well, lots of CA being one in addition to being not very sharp wide open. Its cheaply made as well. I own the FE 28 and 85 (one of Sony's best lenses), along with the 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f/4's. The 50/1.8 is a loud focusing piece of plastic junk with awful bokeh. The 24-70 is only so-so - the Fuji 16-55 is so much better and sucks in more light. And its weather sealed - something Sony doesn't seem to know is possible. The new 24-105 is better, larger and more expensive than the others - I haven't been able to test it against the Fuji 16-55 yet. I'll be dumping my Zony 24-70 soon. The 16-35/4 OTOH is a stellar lens, a fantastic UWA - its my favorite E-mount lens. The 70-200 is good, but its not 200mm on the long end and Fuji's 50-140 is better in every way, its sharper, it focuses faster and its OS is better than the 70-200+IBIS. I buy everything used, so new price comparisons are meaningless to me.

There are tradeoffs in every system. I'm currently stuck between two because I can't settle on which one has the fewest warts I can live with. Sony dumping the play memories apps and not bothering with things like focus stacking or an intervalometer on the new bodies aren't doing themselves any favors for me. Plus the stop down focusing issue with many lenses is annoying if you shoot a lot of stills. And they still can't figure out lossless compression, so you're stuck with heavily compressed raws or enormous uncompressed files. Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Olympus and others can figure out uncompressed raws, but Sony ignores that and other usability issues with its bodies. Again, part of the tradeoffs. 

Cheers

[User]

The only Sony native lenses that I liked were the Loxia. Almost enough to win me over to one of their bodies. Almost.

[webrunner5]

Wow if anyone on here has an eye toward Photojournalism this live Camera Store broadcast is the cats ass. Spoiler alert: She uses a Canon 5D mk III. She is scary good with it,  she even shot the latest Olympics with it, and this video puts the reality , you Really don't Need the latest and greatest to make Photo, Video stuff happen. It is a very Looooong video though. Probably an hour or more. Well worth watching I don't care what you do. This woman is a Pro and gives some damn good tips. Watch it, all of it, it is that good. There is something in this video that everyone on here can gain knowledge about. She knows her stuff.

 

[Mark Romero 2]

Since no one seems to have mentioned the G9 yet...

 

On 3/12/2018 at 8:50 PM, dbp said:

Just got the Yongnuo 560 IV. Gonna get another and the TX to do remote off camera flash soon. It's amazing for the very low price.

In fact, that's one fun thing about photography. You get WAY more powerful lighting sources for a fraction of the price and size. 

Are you in the US???

If so, and if it were possible, I would return the yongnuo flash guns and instead buy Godox flash guns through Adorama, which are listed under their flashpoint brand name.

Firstly, i have used (and abused) both yongnuo and Godox / Flashpoint flashguns, and the Godox / Flashpoint brand is FAR MORE durable and dependable than the yongnuo brands.

Secondly, if you buy godox flashguns through adorama (under the flashpoint brand name), you get a one-year warranty. If you buy yongnuo flash guns, you generally only get 30-days. 

Thirdly, if you ever want to use your flash guns in conjunction with bigger strobes, the Godox / flashpoint system has several flavors of bigger strobe lights that are compatible with the same radio transmitter system as their smaller flash guns. I don't believe at this time that yongnuo has larger strobes (i haven't checked in a while), so if you wanted to use yongnuo flash guns in conjunction with larger strobes, you would need to use two different radio systems, which can be a hassle (and a half) to work together.

And finally, you can buy the Godox / Flashpoint flash guns with a lithium battery that lasts MUCH longer than AA NiMH batteries. They are so much more convenient that dealing with a bunch of Double A batteries.

Yes, the godox / flashpoint flash guns are more expensive than yongnuo, but I really recommend that they are worth the difference.

[Matthew Hartman]

On 3/12/2018 at 12:11 PM, dbp said:

My bread and butter is video, but I've been slowly getting more photography gigs. 

I know ideally you'd have 2 cameras for reach, but that's such a massive investment.  Right now I have the GH4, so staying with m43 is preferable.

What in ya'lls opinion is the best photo/video hybrid, assuming most of work is still video? GH5 (not GH5s) seems like the no brainer.

IF you have to stay m43, then your choices are obviously limited. That being said, GH anything is not renowned for it's stills. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it hasn't been turning a lot of heads to say the least. 

In my opinion there's only 3 choices when you want equally good video and stills in one camera body. 

Sony A "pick your poison"

Samsung NX1

Fuji H-X1 (as controversial as it's been here)

Interestingly enough all have 8bit output.

[dbp]

2 hours ago, Matthew Hartman said:

IF you have to stay m43, then your choices are obviously limited. That being said, GH anything is not renowned for it's stills. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it hasn't been turning a lot of heads to say the least. 

In my opinion there's only 3 choices when you want equally good video and stills in one camera body. 

Sony A "pick your poison"

Samsung NX1

Fuji H-X1 (as controversial as it's been here)

Interestingly enough all have 8bit output.

You're probably right. My possibly controversial opinion is that it's better to go for higher stills IQ and mediocre video, rather than the other way around. Even if you are doing video primarily.

 

[Lux Shots]

On 3/13/2018 at 10:27 AM, webrunner5 said:

...I see no reason if you have a GH4 to even buy a GH5. What Really are you gaining other than IBIS. 10 bit. Hell we have been using 8bit for I bet as long as most of you on here have even lived!  It has seemed to have worked hasn't it.  HDR, hell  like others have said,  I don't know Anyone that even has a 4k TV let alone one that does HDR, I don't have one....

You must have never shot with the guy or GH5 to say something that simple minded.

IBIS in the GH5 was a game changer! And 10-bit internal recording brought pro level capture to the masses. Maybe if your just recording for YouTube, you may not appreciate the quality gained, but you'd have to move up to the Sony FS7 in order to get 10-bit 4K.

So let's please stop with the no one has HDR 4K sets argument. I've had one for over two years. Maybe your circle doesn't have one, but you always should capture footage in the highest quality your budget can accommodate, and the GH5 has that in spades.

 

Additionally, the OP states interest in photography, but he didn't state what kind. I shot portraits and weddings for years using APS-C gear without complaint. And if he decides to shoot sports, there isn't a full frame camera made that will meet the requirements of that genre. That's where 14 fps and the extra reach of the APS-C Nikon D5 best full frame every time.

And guess what? The 6K photo mode best the Nikon D5 in reach and frame rate! Then there is the GH5's focus stacking feature, post focus feature, time lapse feature, direct to web image transfer with the Panasonic Image app. Hey, you know what? It sounds like the GH5 is a fantastic hybrid camera after all!

Do I own one? Nope. But I have no problem recommending one for the OP over anything else.

[jonpais]

i

[jonpais]

8 hours ago, dbp said:

You're probably right. My possibly controversial opinion is that it's better to go for higher stills IQ and mediocre video, rather than the other way around. Even if you are doing video primarily.

 

I wasn't aware that any of the above mentioned cameras were even capable of shooting mediocre video, and I fail to understand why one would choose a camera that did if they were primarily interested in shooting video.