X-T2 user seeking Upgrade Advice

[Mark Romero 2]

3 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Thanks!  It sounds like the Sony A73 is the best single camera for my needs.  I will look at some video clips and read some reviews before going to try it myself.  I would love to look into the X-T3 but worried about lowlight.  Panasonic S1H seems excellent but AF sounds terrible?

Definitely research and to be honest, I would try renting one first and using it in a demanding situation. You might like it, you might hate it.

Otherwise, buy from somewhere that has a very liberal return policy.

If you search on youtube for "cinematic a7 III" be forewarned that you will find TONS of examples of people who produce HORRIBLE looking footage. 

Oh, one thing: The a7 III doesn't do 4K 60fps. It does 1080p 60fps with excellent AF. If you want 4K 60fps, you would have to go with X-T3, or S1 or S1H. But then, they shoot cropped 4K 60fps, so you are back to whether the smaller sensor image will cause more noise or not, and then there is Panasonic AF as well...

And just to be clear, despite being a Sony user myself, I almost always recommend a different brand of camera when someone asks me for a recommendation. For most people, an X-T3 would be great. Just your needs are pretty specific.

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Thanks!  It sounds like the Sony A73 is the best single camera for my needs.  I will look at some video clips and read some reviews before going to try it myself.  I would love to look into the X-T3 but worried about lowlight.  Panasonic S1H seems excellent but AF sounds terrible?

The XT3 isn't really different than the XT2 in low light overall. There are subtle improvements to it that makes it a big leap for me, someone who is obsessed with image quality. However if you are just looking at what gives you are cleaner noise free image they look the same. It focuses better in low light than the XT2 does though. 

[SRV1981]

Thanks! Sounds like XT3 won’t help with low light issues. The GH5s and Sh1 lack autofocus and sounds like the strongest views are a7 III for the win. 
 

any other considerations? Also any cameras coming out in the next few months worth waiting for or an a7 III used is the best low light bet for photo action and video 4K?

[IronFilm]

On 12/9/2019 at 12:15 PM, SRV1981 said:

1. Get the most out of my current x-t2.  The 50-140 2.8 seems like the best for indoor sports venues and I'll have to see how to balance SS and ISO.  If that doesn't cut it..

You could shoot in Aperture Priority, just shoot wiiiiide open! (the rest on auto) That will help keep shutter speed high and ISO low. If you feel that comfortable handles the conditions then you might want to carry on with Aperture Priority but with your lens stopped down by one stop, so that the lens performs better and you get more of the subject in focus. 

Or you might make a different tweak by for instance by capping Auto ISO at a certain max value which is the most you'd ever feel comfortable with (as you'd rather trade it off for more motion blur instead). 

Or perhaps you learn that say for instance 1/300th is the average "optimal" shutter speed for your type of shooting, that gives a nice balance between a sharp face but with some blur of the limps to help convey effectively the emotion of "speed", so you might just shoot everything in Shutter Priority instead! (perhaps tweaking it down to 1/200th or up to 1/400th if you know particular performers are slower or faster paced)

Anyway, you see the gist of what I'm saying, experiment with an auto mode then tweak the other settings to nudge the result into the outcome you want. 

[IronFilm]

On 12/9/2019 at 12:15 PM, SRV1981 said:

2. What system can be used for both photo/video handheld that can do well in lowlight, shoot moving subjects (track and field), and record video $5K and under?

It depends an awful lot of you want to lean your bias towards video (such a Fujifilm X-T3) or towards photo (such as a Nikon D500, which is the best in the world crop body for sports photography, and takes rather good 4K video as well but by no means "the best").

Plus it depends on how "extreme" you going with your lens choices, as that impacts the budget allocation as well. 

For instance the NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR is a truly FANTASTIC sporting/birding lens.  But it is not a NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED VR either, and that is no NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens either! (which just that one lens would blow your budget) 

Plus what if you want your lens strategy to be a mix of lenses, perhaps a NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR for the outdoors daylight stuff? Then a Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens for indoor sports shoots. Or heck, go for three lenses and throw in the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 as well! (you could potentially go crazy with all three lenses and a Nikon D500 body, and yet still stay within your $5K budget! If you go secondhand)

 

On 12/9/2019 at 12:15 PM, SRV1981 said:

3. What two systems would you go for to separate video/photo with the above needs?

Then you'd only have $2.5K budget for each system, for something that is already a very expensive niche (and could use up well beyond your $5K budget)

Spreading yourself thinly out over two systems seems like a very bad idea. 

 

On 12/9/2019 at 12:15 PM, SRV1981 said:

4. Handheld shooting mostly (IBIS preferable but maybe OIS lenses can be adequate?)

Ever shot (filming or photography) with a monopod? It makes a BIG difference! (this is why at the Oympics and all the other big sporting events, that many of the photographers are using monopods)

14 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

For video I'd go either to a X-T3 with it's beautiful IQ or A6600 for tracking autofocus - My only concern is lowlight even in video performance, for someone who won't be rigging my gear or using lighting for personal narrative, family events, sports, documentary type stuff I need more of a run/gun low light camera

You might get the DSLR with lens for around 1500$, and the Sony with the upcoming Tamron 70-180mm for around 2500$. Owning two different 70-200mm lenses might feel a bit strange though. I don't need two long lenses - just for photography; for video I think getting primes makes more sense due to getting better aperture (1.8, 2.0, etc.)

Wouldn't recommend doing run & gun video with S35 @ f1.8 

And how low low light do you really need?? Honestly think even a GH5 is just fine, people are beating themselves up over nothing, as "even a GH5" kills the bleeping heck out of many many past cameras that countless docos/sports/families/etc have been shot on! If you're struggling with low light with a GH5, the problem is 80% likely not to be the camera but it is YOU

[IronFilm]

13 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

A Nikon DSLR would beat out the Sony in photography but doesn't come even close for video. 

Have you seen the D750 vs BMPCC videos? (the OG BMPCC is a camera some folks might still argue hasn't even now yet been beaten by any other low budget alternative)

Nikon is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better for video than people give them credit for!

Nikon was first out of the gates with the Nikon D90 being the first ever HDSLR in the world, but then for years Nikon then badly lagged behind. Which is how Nikon acquired this meme of "Nikon is bad for video". 

But with the D800 then Nikon has woken up and started to offer their own decent alternative for filming with. Then with the D5200 (and subsequent successors) then Nikon really did give a fiercely competitive choice for the low budget filmmaker, and is what I went with back then as my main camera. Nikon then further cemented themselves (for those who were paying attention at least, and hadn't bought into the false narrative "Nikon is bad for video") with the D750/D500/D7500/D850, and finally now with the Nikon Z6 they've got a class leading "best mirrorless for filmmaking" (although this is of course highly subjective!).

[frontfocus]

13 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

any other considerations? 

Sony A9 has fallen in price dramatically. Focus is better as the one in the A7III and so is the viewfinder. But they crippled it by not giving it all the picture profiles. 

The most important thing to think of are lenses. To get any improvement in image quality you need at least f/2.8 lenses. There is the very good 70-200mm f/2.8 GM and the Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 that is said to be coming in early 2020. I'd probably wait for reviews before buying it

[SRV1981]

@IronFilm Thanks for your responses.  1/500 was to dark indoors with the XT2 and the ISO had to be at 6400 causing grain.  Many times I am run-and-gun situation handheld so being able to have clean ISO at 6400 and usable 12800 is extremely important then autofocus then IBIS/being able to do handheld.  I am curious about Z6 vs. A7 III.  Is there a general consensus?  From what I read that Z6 was excellent but couldn't compare with ISO performance of A7 III.

 

@frontfocus the A9 for video seems too handicapped compared to A7 III, seems A7 III is a better bet?

[thebrothersthre3]

5 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

@IronFilm Thanks for your responses.  1/500 was to dark indoors with the XT2 and the ISO had to be at 6400 causing grain.  Many times I am run-and-gun situation handheld so being able to have clean ISO at 6400 and usable 12800 is extremely important then autofocus then IBIS/being able to do handheld.  I am curious about Z6 vs. A7 III.  Is there a general consensus?  From what I read that Z6 was excellent but couldn't compare with ISO performance of A7 III.

 

@frontfocus the A9 for video seems too handicapped compared to A7 III, seems A7 III is a better bet?

The A9 has better auto focus, but no log profiles. Not having log is really not a big deal. 

However I'd save money and get an A73, maybe even a used one. Put more money towards fast glass. 

[IronFilm]

15 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

@IronFilm Thanks for your responses.  1/500 was to dark indoors with the XT2 and the ISO had to be at 6400 causing grain. 

What was your F-stop though? Couldn't you use say 1/300th? Do you have a handful of pics you can share?

15 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

From what I read that Z6 was excellent but couldn't compare with ISO performance of A7 III.

Nahhhh, look at the measurement results:

 

 

Basically identical until you get to over fifty thousand ISO
 

[thebrothersthre3]

The Z6 probably beats the A73 for video low light as it has less heavy noise reduction, aka no ghosting at higher ISOs. 

[frontfocus]

the Z6 might be a nice choice for video, but for stills it wouldn't be my first pick. It would rank pretty low down. Sony and Fuji are better with AF-C and the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 isn't on the market yet either. Furthermore, as nice as the Z viewfinder is in general, it's not good for tracking motion. Combine that with the pita XQD, it would be a no go for me. 

[IronFilm]

7 minutes ago, frontfocus said:

the Z6 might be a nice choice for video, but for stills it wouldn't be my first pick.

However the Z6 (along with the EOS R, although that is a far inferior choice for video) do have access to the greatest range of "native adapted" lenses! Which for many people would put a Z6 right at the top of the pile as first pick for photography. 

 

[SRV1981]

Interesting but having to add an adapter doesn't seem superior to the A7III system?  I'd call what i'm trying to do hybrid.  My photos will be 50/50 moving vs. static.  The video will be in all sorts of lighting condition (run and gun) but I believe there will be a good amount of low light and need for clean high ISO - higher clean the better.  The biggest concern i have with the A7III is color/image quality and my biggest concern with the Z6 is ISO performance in low light.  I'm stuck between these two as I don't think the m43 or APSC size meets my goal for "look" (DOF, ISO performance, etc.)

 

It seems like the Z6 and A7III are the best options from what i've read/seen and you've all told me here.  That being said - any good ways to discern what would be best for me?

[thebrothersthre3]

28 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Interesting but having to add an adapter doesn't seem superior to the A7III system?  I'd call what i'm trying to do hybrid.  My photos will be 50/50 moving vs. static.  The video will be in all sorts of lighting condition (run and gun) but I believe there will be a good amount of low light and need for clean high ISO - higher clean the better.  The biggest concern i have with the A7III is color/image quality and my biggest concern with the Z6 is ISO performance in low light.  I'm stuck between these two as I don't think the m43 or APSC size meets my goal for "look" (DOF, ISO performance, etc.)

 

It seems like the Z6 and A7III are the best options from what i've read/seen and you've all told me here.  That being said - any good ways to discern what would be best for me?

Rent both.

The Z6 and A73 have the same sensor for the most part and will perform very similar in low light. They just have different processing though I'd say the Nikon easily wins in that department.

If you want the best auto focus on the market though the Sony is the winner easily, even more so if you get the A9.

[BTM_Pix]

My perspective as a professional sports photographer is if you are going to be shooting stills in that environment a lot then you should have a dedicated camera that is made for the job so I'd be looking at a used Nikon D4 and Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 which you should be able to pick up for around £1500-1600.

If you want to cut the budget a bit then substitue in a D3s instead of the D4 or up it to a D4s if you have a bit more budget.

I trialled shooting with the X-T2 system as an alternative/supplement to Nikon about 3 years ago and whilst it made decent images it just wasn't up to the job at the same level and the experiment didn't last long.

For video, you don't need a particularly low light monster as you won't need the same shutter speed so your 1000th/f2.8/ISO6400 even if you want to shoot 50p and have 180 degree shutter is only ISO640. Incidentally, the reported exposure from the X-T2 exposure will be innacurate as shooting one alongside a D4 in fixed lit stadiums, the X-T2 would be at ISO6400 and the D4 would be at ISO5000.

The Nikon Z6 would be the obvious choice for the video to keep in the same brand as the tests I've seen with the FTZ adapter and the 70-200mm f2.8 show it performing well.

Again, if you go for used then you should be able to pick up both cameras and the lens for around £3K.

For that you will be getting a genuine professional sports stills camera that will take the shooting conditions you describe in its stride, a very capable 4K video camera with IBIS and a ProResRAW option (any year now) and a fast, stabilised high quality optic.

 

[BTM_Pix]

17 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

If you want the best auto focus on the market though the Sony is the winner easily, even more so if you get the A9.

The problem with the A9 for is that the mechanical shutter is capped to 5fps which means that you have to use the electronic shutter and run the very real risk of banding from LED boards in most pro sports arenas and stadiums.

That was one of the factors that seriously hindered the A9 being accepted by its target audience although I did a couple of Champions League matches last week and saw the first two I've ever seen being used pitchside.

Whether that was due to Sony's sponsorship arrangements with UEFA meaning they were being trialled or whether the tide has turned for them remains to be seen.

 

[Simon Young]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Interesting but having to add an adapter doesn't seem superior to the A7III system?  I'd call what i'm trying to do hybrid.  My photos will be 50/50 moving vs. static.  The video will be in all sorts of lighting condition (run and gun) but I believe there will be a good amount of low light and need for clean high ISO - higher clean the better.  The biggest concern i have with the A7III is color/image quality and my biggest concern with the Z6 is ISO performance in low light.  I'm stuck between these two as I don't think the m43 or APSC size meets my goal for "look" (DOF, ISO performance, etc.)

 

It seems like the Z6 and A7III are the best options from what i've read/seen and you've all told me here.  That being said - any good ways to discern what would be best for me?

Are you trolling? Because you are asking for a camera that hardly exists. You want clean ISO at 12800 for stills and video and with great continuous autofocus. The only camera that would suit you is the A9 or A9ii, but then the colors are wonky and you won’t get the picture profiles. The Z6 is great in low light with regards to both video and still (I own one) but it’s far from good enough to continually track focus in low light scenarios with erratic subjects.

[SRV1981]

58 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

My perspective as a professional sports photographer is if you are going to be shooting stills in that environment a lot then you should have a dedicated camera that is made for the job so I'd be looking at a used Nikon D4 and Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 which you should be able to pick up for around £1500-1600.

If you want to cut the budget a bit then substitue in a D3s instead of the D4 or up it to a D4s if you have a bit more budget.

I trialled shooting with the X-T2 system as an alternative/supplement to Nikon about 3 years ago and whilst it made decent images it just wasn't up to the job at the same level and the experiment didn't last long.

For video, you don't need a particularly low light monster as you won't need the same shutter speed so your 1000th/f2.8/ISO6400 even if you want to shoot 50p and have 180 degree shutter is only ISO640. Incidentally, the reported exposure from the X-T2 exposure will be innacurate as shooting one alongside a D4 in fixed lit stadiums, the X-T2 would be at ISO6400 and the D4 would be at ISO5000.

The Nikon Z6 would be the obvious choice for the video to keep in the same brand as the tests I've seen with the FTZ adapter and the 70-200mm f2.8 show it performing well.

Again, if you go for used then you should be able to pick up both cameras and the lens for around £3K.

For that you will be getting a genuine professional sports stills camera that will take the shooting conditions you describe in its stride, a very capable 4K video camera with IBIS and a ProResRAW option (any year now) and a fast, stabilised high quality optic.

 

Thanks for the perspective! I am certainly going to look into this combo.  It reassured me about getting clean and sharp images on the D4 in low lit conditions while getting excellent color and highlight rolloff on the z6.  This could be a better combo than a single A7 III.  I need to think through it a bit.  Would you mind saying why this combo is better than the single A7 III for low light photo/video?

[BTM_Pix]

16 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

 Would you mind saying why this combo is better than the single A7 III for low light photo/video?

I'm almost certainly the wrong person to ask because neither of the mirrorless cameras in that comparison or anywhere else in the thread will reliably turn in the same level of performance that I'd personally need for actual work that a D4 would provide so they wouldn't be under consideration.

It would just be the X-T2 fiasco all over again.

Whether you can squeeze enough out of one camera to do both tasks is debatable when one of those tasks is as specific as sports photograhy.

Its a bit like a farmer having a 4x4 truck to get around his land and take the produce to market etc. Conceivably he could rig something up to it so he could plough the fields with it as well but the reality is he's going to need a tractor to do the job properly.