EOSHD's best and worst cameras of 2018

[zerocool22]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

3 years ago ML was the bee's knees. Now, you can get a raw capable camera for 1300$, speedboost it to reach 1.3X crop factor for less than 2000$, and a camera made for that purpose, not an after thought while you still can officially service it after recording raw.

Times, they are a - changin'...

 

Sure but the image will not be the same, the 5d raw image is far better then anything else In the same price bracket. Even the 5d iii raw blows most cameras today out of the water. Sure it will not be the tool you use on a daily basis, but def will be my goto tool for creative projects as the canon colour science rocks.

[Django]

Also by the time you add a decent speed booster, follow focus, gimbal, evf & batteries.. you are way way over $2K for essentially a pimped out M4/3 video only camera. not trying to slam the P4K (any form of raw is a blessing) but in the end it may not be as cheap and easy a route as some may think..

 

[thebrothersthre3]

13 minutes ago, Django said:

Also by the time you add a decent speed booster, follow focus, gimbal, evf & batteries.. you are way way over $2K for essentially a pimped out M4/3 video only camera. not trying to slam the P4K (any form of raw is a blessing) but in the end it may not be as cheap and easy a route as some may think..

 

I am not sure if a speedbooster is a must have. Also a follow focus and gimbal would be something you'd need for any camera. Yeah you probably don't need a follow focus with some cameras like select Canon, Sony and the XT3, but even then in certain light conditions auto focus isn't usable. 

You could argue IBIS has changed things but I've never really seen a good IBIS system that can do moving shots well, maybe dual IS on the GH5, though it still can't replace a gimbal for fast moving. 

[Django]

well the Canon, A73 & XT3 are indeed the cameras it is being pitted against in this roundout and arguably their internal AF would perform better than with the above convoluted solution (operator even states he wished he had an added monitor to pull focus so add that to the list). EOS R & GH5s flip out screens come in particularly handy for gimbal work.

IBIS certainly has its limits, lens IS, EIS or a gimbal are certainly valid if not better options.

All i was trying to say is that P4K (and BM cameras in general) need a lot of extras for solo work and that all adds up to the budget. Less so with current hybrids.

[MurtlandPhoto]

IBIS is great until you get lens flares dancing around a seemingly stable shot. I'm happy to own several cameras with it and a few without it.

[Video Hummus]

Fuji did a spectacular job this year, except for the puzzling X-H1 release. Panasonic continues to be racked over the coals for giving, imho, the best ergo, codec, features, in a camera. It’s a workhorse but people are still complaining about its very useable (as of Oct) autofocus. Canon shit the bed, plain and simple. Nikon did OK. Sony A7iii weak sauce all almost everything but price. 

[Snowbro]

10 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

I will blow everything below 10k

Not into rich guys?

[kye]

10 hours ago, Django said:

Finally when the Vari ND adapter will become available.. well that could just be a game changer.

I agree, and have said so previously.  It's already available (the Sony FS5, FS7ii, etc) but will be great when it trickles down the product lines into our hands.

Being able to set shutter angle and aperture (which are creative controls) and then control exposure with ND and ISO (which are exposure controls and not creative controls) will be a huge step forward.  Also, setting auto-ND and auto-ISO will allow those of us who shoot in faster run-n-gun situations to keep away from very short shutter speeds.

This is the kind of feature that will be significant enough for people to change systems.

8 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I am not sure if a speedbooster is a must have. 

It's not.  There are many native m43 lenses available.

However, I think that adapting lenses with a SB is a valid and popular choice for economic reasons:

• FF lenses are often cheaper than their native counterparts (when you remember to convert the aperture!), and APSC/FF offers fast zooms that aren't available natively either
• People often already own lenses, so there's a convenience factor
• There is also the question about how much value your investment in lenses will retain over time, as at the moment it seems like everyone is going FF and it remains to be seen if this is a fad or if m43 will die, or if it will survive but get left behind as a lesser format

Of course, adapting a $100 nifty-fifty by buying a $650 speed booster is a false-economy so you'd have to have quite a few cheaper FF lenses to recover the cost of the speed booster.

There is also the option to adapt vintage lenses to get a desirable aesthetic to potentially offset the "lack of soul" that some people perceive in todays nearly-perfect lenses.  This is art, after all.

[thebrothersthre3]

16 minutes ago, kye said:

Of course, adapting a $100 nifty-fifty by buying a $650 speed booster is a false-economy so you'd have to have quite a few cheaper FF lenses to recover the cost of the speed booster.

There is also the option to adapt vintage lenses to get a desirable aesthetic to potentially offset the "lack of soul" that some people perceive in todays nearly-perfect lenses.  This is art, after all.

You can always just use a $20 adapter. 

5 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Fuji did a spectacular job this year, except for the puzzling X-H1 release. Panasonic continues to be racked over the coals for giving, imho, the best ergo, codec, features, in a camera. It’s a workhorse but people are still complaining about its very useable (as of Oct) autofocus. Canon shit the bed, plain and simple. Nikon did OK. Sony A7iii weak sauce all almost everything but price. 

The other good thing about the A7III is lenses. When compared with the competition Nikon and Canon created new mounts, while anyone getting the Sony has a lot more lenses available for that mount, especially if you previously owned a Sony. You can even use APSC lenses. 

[kye]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

You can always just use a $20 adapter. 

True, but only for longer focal lengths.  

If you're looking for a lens in the 100mm+ equivalent range then 50mm f1.8 lenses are great and cheap, and longer and slightly slower lenses are (almost literally) a dime a dozen.
If you're looking for lenses in the range of, say, 50-100mm equivalent then you can get things like 28mm or 35mm FF lenses, but they're either cheap and slow or expensive and fast.
If you're looking for lenses around 35mm equivalent then there are lots of 18mm APSC lenses around but you have the same cheap and slow or expensive and fast problem.
And if you're looking for lenses under 35mm equivalent then you're basically screwed with a 2X crop on adapted lenses as 8mm or 14mm lenses are more expensive, and if you want 8mm and non-fisheye then it's time to sell a kidney!

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, kye said:

True, but only for longer focal lengths.  

If you're looking for a lens in the 100mm+ equivalent range then 50mm f1.8 lenses are great and cheap, and longer and slightly slower lenses are (almost literally) a dime a dozen.
If you're looking for lenses in the range of, say, 50-100mm equivalent then you can get things like 28mm or 35mm FF lenses, but they're either cheap and slow or expensive and fast.
If you're looking for lenses around 35mm equivalent then there are lots of 18mm APSC lenses around but you have the same cheap and slow or expensive and fast problem.
And if you're looking for lenses under 35mm equivalent then you're basically screwed with a 2X crop on adapted lenses as 8mm or 14mm lenses are more expensive, and if you want 8mm and non-fisheye then it's time to sell a kidney!

Yeah M43 cameras aren't the greatest idea if you need a wide lens. The Rokinon 14mm 2.8 is a good option, though not the greatest of quality. 

I've found the Olympus 17mm 1.8 is a great affordable option. Pretty cheap second hand. I always used the Chinese focal reducers with good results. 

[wolf33d]

On 1/3/2019 at 9:41 AM, Django said:

Well, there is always something better coming around the corner, I try and not obsess much over that or else you're just chasing the dream. As a working pro my only concern is what tool fits my needs now. I'm invested in a system, and i don't intend on switching everytime the competition drops a newer, better body. When Canon drops that pro body you're talking about well I'll upgrade to it, simple as that. 

Limitations, i try and work around them, every camera has its strengths & weaknesses. IBIS is neat, however, we got along fine before it and no cine cam even uses it to this day. I'd hardly call it a deal breaker even if its a nice convenience. Canon's smart EIS (using gyroscope & 2 way lens IS com data) is a workable alternative & might even prove to be better in some cases.

For stills,  i look at the system as a whole: lenses, color science, ergonomics, AF, flash options etc.. that is what is going to get me the picture I want, not a sensor/chart comparison. Yeah Sony sensors are the best, but I still prefer what Fuji & Nikon do with them.. YMMV.

 

It's different here. The competition has been better for years for video as far as DSLR/mirrorless are concerned. The EOS R sucks for video compared to 2y old competitors that's a fact. 
You are happy with it good for you but it is still a fact. 

And saying that big pro cameras dont have IBIS as an argument for the EOS R to not have it... lol. Big cameras need less IBIS because of their weight and the way we use them (on big rigs). EOS R and competitors are small run and gun, IBIS makes MUCH more sense there. 

For stills you are right, and the EOS-R still performance is not that bad. There is better with Nikon and better with Sony but it's not that much of a difference as it is with video. 

On 1/3/2019 at 9:08 AM, Kisaha said:

I seriously doubt the "soon" part of your statement.

Lol. I seriously doubt myself. 

[Mako Sports]

1 hour ago, wolf33d said:

It's different here. The competition has been better for years for video as far as DSLR/mirrorless are concerned. The EOS R sucks for video compared to 2y old competitors that's a fact. 
You are happy with it good for you but it is still a fact. 

And saying that big pro cameras dont have IBIS as an argument for the EOS R to not have it... lol. Big cameras need less IBIS because of their weight and the way we use them (on big rigs). EOS R and competitors are small run and gun, IBIS makes MUCH more sense there. 

I agree 1000x, I guess I'm fortunate to not be heavily invested in EF glass or like Canons color science at all. 

If people continue to throw a blind eye at Canons wrong doings they will continue to make gimped products like the 6dmkii, Eos R, and 5Dmk4

[graphicnatured]

On 1/3/2019 at 10:05 PM, thebrothersthre3 said:

Yeah M43 cameras aren't the greatest idea if you need a wide lens. The Rokinon 14mm 2.8 is a good option, though not the greatest of quality. 

I've found the Olympus 17mm 1.8 is a great affordable option. Pretty cheap second hand. I always used the Chinese focal reducers with good results. 

Tokina 11-16 is a nice option. Get the OG one and save. Standard 77mm filter thread. With Viltrox vignettes only at widest on P4k.

 

[Kisaha]

3 hours ago, graphicnatured said:

Tokina 11-16 is a nice option. Get the OG one and save. Standard 77mm filter thread. With Viltrox vignettes only at widest on P4k.

 

Great suggestion. What about the 11-20 or the 12-24 4f? Do you have any experience with these?

@thebrothersthre3 17mm (34mm) and 14mm (28mm) on m43 isn't exactly wide!

[Django]

20 hours ago, wolf33d said:

It's different here. The competition has been better for years for video as far as DSLR/mirrorless are concerned. The EOS R sucks for video compared to 2y old competitors that's a fact. 
You are happy with it good for you but it is still a fact. 

 

Canon 1DX2 is still the only FF camera that can do 4k60p in early 2019. Fact.

Dual Pixel AF is still the most reliable AF for video. Fact.

Sony has been maxing out 8-bit 100mb codecs for some years. that's another fact.

Quote

And saying that big pro cameras dont have IBIS as an argument for the EOS R to not have it... lol. Big cameras need less IBIS because of their weight and the way we use them (on big rigs). EOS R and competitors are small run and gun, IBIS makes MUCH more sense there. 

1

XT3 doesn't have IBIS. It's the smallest camera of the pack. Still got number 1 position in the ranking. Fact. 

 

[thebrothersthre3]

12 minutes ago, Django said:

Canon 1DX2 is still the only FF camera that can do 4k60p in early 2019. Fact.

Dual Pixel AF is still the most reliable AF for video. Fact.

Sony has been maxing out 8-bit 100mb codecs for some years. that's another fact.

XT3 doesn't have IBIS. It's the smallest camera of the pack. Still got number 1 position in the ranking. Fact. 

 

Yeah but the XT3 was innovative that is why it got a high ranking. Plus we know Fuji is putting out a body with IBIS within a year or so, will Canon do the same? 

I just looked at a thread from 2016 where a guy was saying that the 1DX2 is the best on the market, but in a couple years it probably no longer will be relevant. 3 years later and its still one of the best choices on the market. 

 

 

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

Great suggestion. What about the 11-20 or the 12-24 4f? Do you have any experience with these?

@thebrothersthre3 17mm (34mm) and 14mm (28mm) on m43 isn't exactly wide!

I wasn't saying they were wide, I was saying there are affordable options. 

[galenb]

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.

Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.

But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:

With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ;-)

But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.

I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, galenb said:

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.

Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.

But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:

With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ?

But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.

I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

Yeah its just a great camera at a low cost, though they just weren't pushing boundaries with it. The new Nikon offerings make it less special, but it still leading in terms of Photo AF.
 

The XT3 is more of a specialty camera, though it can work as an all in 1 as well. 4 60p 200mbos H265, is something to behold in a $1500 camera.

[webrunner5]

 

1 hour ago, galenb said:

I just wanted to quickly pop in here after reading the article. It's not that I disagree with Andrew's words on the A7III, or that it's ranked in the number 2 spot but that you had nothing positive to say about it. Again, it's not that anything you said was necessarily wrong. But how about giving it credit for shaking things up. For being the new de facto for "Entry level" full frame. For not holding back where other camera manufacturers would have.

Yes, the Fuji has some of the best video quality but I'd say it's only just 'Slightly' better than the A7III. I have a feeling that a lot of the time you won't notice the difference. It's got the Sony beat with color straight out of the camera but most of us do a little grading anyway so I'm not sure I could fault them for that.

But I get it, Fuji deserves the #1 spot and Sony deserves the #2 spot. I agree with that. It's just that it would have been nice if you had mentioned some of it's stronger points:

With the A7III, Sony brought highend features like IBIS, 10 FPS, dual card slots, amazing low light performance, amazing auto focus, beautifully detailed 4K video, improved color science, and far better battery life ("Amazing" I should say) to a platform that many people where on the fence about. And I think they also forced Nikon and Cannon to show their hands. Maybe even before they were ready. The A7III showed the camera world that Sony were serious about about being #1. Even if they only made #2. ?

But yes, you're right,  it's a boring looking, utilitarian, working photographer's camera. It's menu's are crap and the screens are average at best and don't flip out and around. But your argument that it doesn't inspire artistic photography... again, I'm not sure I can really fault them for that. Sony has a very subtle, clean, and flare-less design language.  And just like the car industry, some people appreciate flare like BMW while others like the subtlety of Audi.

I have to say, I do feel inspired by my A7III. It's perfect for me because I do a little of everything. Portrait, landscape, still life, street, plus tons of video. it's small size paired with the right lens, makes the A7III great at all of it. To me, Sony hit a sweet spot with this one. Just enough high end features where it matters and skimping on the features that aren't as good as the competition but are ultimately "good enough" to keep the price down. This is the first camera to tick off all the little camera features that I wanted and it did it in a $2000 body. That works for me. Take my money!   

Yeah I agree. If I had the money I would still buy the a7 III over the other new cameras that have come out. Sure 10 bit is nice, but having a well rounded camera that woks, with a lot of good used lenses out now, and 3rd party support, and upward mobility is what sells it for me.