X-T2 user seeking Upgrade Advice

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

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.

 

I understand the D4 against an X-T2, however the A73 is a different beast. I imagine the AF might be a bit better but besides that how do you think the D4 would come out ahead?

[SRV1981]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I understand the D4 against an X-T2, however the A73 is a different beast. I imagine the AF might be a bit better but besides that how do you think the D4 would come out ahead?

I too am curious about this.  Please also see this from my standpoint as an enthusiast not being kid for work. I’m taking photos for the team I coach -

it’s frustrating that the XT2 cannot get quality images to share with them. It’s a nice thing to be able to do.  Video is fine in the XT2 but I can’t warrant keeping it and getting another camera. I’d rather move to full frame images anyway I think they look better personally. 
 

so I’m looking at the z6 and a7 iii

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I imagine the AF might be a bit better but besides that 

For the job we are talking about, thats a pretty big issue though 

But apart from that, off the top of my head....

Marginally faster fps, four times the buffer size, five times the battery capacity, no battery drain just to have the camera on and available, better weather sealing, top plate display, illuminated buttons, on board ftp over ethernet and wireless, access to a much broader and cheaper selection of long primes (particularly used), flash sync port, support services at events....

For day to day stuff those might not be significant but for the specific task of shooting sport stills on a professional basis - which is the perspective that I was making the suggestion from - then they are vital differences.

The reasons that the X-T2 couldn't cut it for doing the job to the same standard as the D4 were not really to do with the image quality (save the waxy skin at high ISO) and those same reasons would apply to the A7iii and, for what its worth, to the Z6.

[thebrothersthre3]

48 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

For the job we are talking about, thats a pretty big issue though 

But apart from that, off the top of my head....

Marginally faster fps, four times the buffer size, five times the battery capacity, no battery drain just to have the camera on and available, better weather sealing, top plate display, illuminated buttons, on board ftp over ethernet and wireless, access to a much broader and cheaper selection of long primes (particularly used), flash sync port, support services at events....

For day to day stuff those might not be significant but for the specific task of shooting sport stills on a professional basis - which is the perspective that I was making the suggestion from - then they are vital differences.

The reasons that the X-T2 couldn't cut it for doing the job to the same standard as the D4 were not really to do with the image quality (save the waxy skin at high ISO) and those same reasons would apply to the A7iii and, for what its worth, to the Z6.

Yeah that makes sense, why not have the best tool for the job. I think as an amateur he'd probably be happy with the A73 though. For something like sports I'd probably rather have something with more of a reach that S35 gives.

[SRV1981]

7 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Yeah that makes sense, why not have the best tool for the job. I think as an amateur he'd probably be happy with the A73 though. For something like sports I'd probably rather have something with more of a reach that S35 gives.

Is there any easy way to improve color SOOC in the A7 iii?

Or easily adjust in post? Again I’m an enthusiast/amateur and bought the XT2 for the color/image. 

[thebrothersthre3]

Just now, SRV1981 said:

Is there any easy way to improve color SOOC in the A7 iii?

Or easily adjust in post? Again I’m an enthusiast/amateur and bought the XT2 for the color/image. 

Shooting in HLG kind of gets around the Sony color science. 
https://www.eoshd.com/2018/01/sony-a7r-iii-review-the-bbc-fixed-sonys-colour/

Andrew Reid who owns this site also makes Canon color LUTs for Sony, (EOSHD pro color) can be found on the top of the page.

Also Sony color science had definitely improved. The A7S2 color was pretty nasty IMHO, but its better on the A73 at least the standard profiles.

 

[IronFilm]

13 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

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. 

Sound like then you should buy a Nikon Z6

As your only concern about it is a fake worry, its high ISO performance is top class. 

 

13 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

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.)

Don't prematurely discard and overlook MFT/APS-C!

After all, the Panasonic GH5S gives us one of the best (if not the best) lowlight cameras there is!

As for the DoF "look", do you have a problem with "the look" in nearly every Oscar winning film ever? (as they're usually always shot with S35 / APS-C!)

[IronFilm]

12 hours 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.

You'd still recommend the Nikon D3S over anything else at that price point??? 

The Nikon D500 is pretty much around that price point (only a hundred bucks difference), and it is a radically more modern camera (and won't have the extremely high shutter count an old cheap D3S would surely have). 
 

 

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

For something like sports I'd probably rather have something with more of a reach that S35 gives.

Yet another reason to choose a Nikon D500 over a D3S

Plus the D3S has such terrible video I wouldn't use it unless I had a gun put to my head. 

While the Nikon D500 I would very happily use its video for non-paying / amateur / personal / low key indie stuff etc. 

(of course if you're getting full time paid work then it would be the easiest thing in the world to justify a Nikon Z6, or heck even an UMP G2 purchase)

[noone]

The Sony gives you both FF and APSC and in addition to having high ISO that rates at number three on DXO for high ISO (take that with a grain of salt) behind two very expensive medium format cameras.       You can also use fast primes as zooms easily too for video (and Jpeg stills).

 

Seriously though there are for and against with everything and I would suggest you rent the major contenders and see for yourself which you prefer.

[BTM_Pix]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

You'd still recommend the Nikon D3S over anything else at that price point??? 

The Nikon D500 is pretty much around that price point (only a hundred bucks difference), and it is a radically more modern camera (and won't have the extremely high shutter count an old cheap D3S would surely have). 
 

 

Well, I've got a D500 as well and use it for work alongside a D4, D4s and a D3s.

It is the best APS-C sports camera around and if the conversation hadn't have been about full frame options then I'd have no issue recommending it.

Having said that, between the two though there are still areas where the D3s is better for the specific job, notably lower noise at high ISO, slighter faster FPS and significantly longer battery life.

The jpegs out of the camera (and its always about the jpegs rather than the RAW for live editorial) at the higher working ISOs are cleaner coming off my D3s than my D500.

With regard to shutter count on used versions of both, its a bit of a swings and roundabouts job. The older D3s will likely have a higher shutter count but is also likely, like mine, not to be on its first one. Allied to the fact that the rated shutter life expectancy of the D3s is 300K versus 200K on the D500 then its likely that you might actually end up with a longer lifespan with a D3s.

Certainly if you bought my D3s and D500 off me then you'd be feeling the pain of replacing the shutter on the latter first despite the difference in years and use between them!

[SRV1981]

Should I just be waiting for the A7R IV to release?

[thebrothersthre3]

35 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Should I just be waiting for the A7R IV to release?

If you don't need a camera yes

[SRV1981]

What system do you find worth entering is best?  It seems like Sony and Nikon may be the best for hybrid sports photo, regular photo/video.  Of the two, which system would potentially be a better long term investment?

[noone]

Long term?     NONE of them are an investment!        Give it a couple of years (ok maybe 10 or so) and a little device that includes a phone will do it all.

To me, it would depend on what lenses a system has or can use and it is getting to the point that they all can (or close to it).

You need to try a few yourself.

[thebrothersthre3]

Find some local photography or video groups. With some social skills you can probably convince someone to let you play with their camera.

[SRV1981]

36 minutes ago, noone said:

Long term?     NONE of them are an investment!        Give it a couple of years (ok maybe 10 or so) and a little device that includes a phone will do it all.

To me, it would depend on what lenses a system has or can use and it is getting to the point that they all can (or close to it).

You need to try a few yourself.

By investment I meant Sony or Nikon  I think there are metrics to decide which is a better investment so that if I go A7III or Z6 it'll give me an idea of what company may support with firmware, lenses, newer bodies etc. to help me as a hybrid shooter.  Maybe I did a poor job asking the question.

27 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Find some local photography or video groups. With some social skills you can probably convince someone to let you play with their camera.

Thanks! What's a good way to do that?  I am in NYC - reddit? here? 

[thebrothersthre3]

36 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

By investment I meant Sony or Nikon  I think there are metrics to decide which is a better investment so that if I go A7III or Z6 it'll give me an idea of what company may support with firmware, lenses, newer bodies etc. to help me as a hybrid shooter.  Maybe I did a poor job asking the question.

Thanks! What's a good way to do that?  I am in NYC - reddit? here? 

I'd check out facebook, probably reddit too though facebook is easier as people's identity is more public on there

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

It is the best APS-C sports camera around and if the conversation hadn't have been about full frame options then I'd have no issue recommending it.

Yeah, the best argument against the Nikon D500 might be "it is not full frame"

But APS-C can be a BENEFIT for this type of shooting when it means cheaper/faster/lighter lenses to pair with it. 

Definitely want a D500 myself (although my next stills camera purchase has to be a vlogging upgrade, got a few G85 cameras in my watchlist currently, unless I suddenly get rich then I'll get a G9 instead. Then after that I can think about a stills camera upgrade, likely will either be on the cheap getting a D7100 or splurging for a D750. Convinced/advised my little brother to buy a Nikon D7500 earlier this year, although it is kinda criminal how he doesn't make proper full usage of it to the max)

 

11 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Having said that, between the two though there are still areas where the D3s is better for the specific job, notably lower noise at high ISO, slighter faster FPS and significantly longer battery life.

From my reading into researching buying one the impression I got was:

1) D3S has a slight edge at High ISO, but the D500 files hold up better with better colors at high ISO (I'd happily trade off a bit of High ISO noise performance if it means the image looks better, as some colors go nasty when the High ISO goes really high with a few cameras. As High ISO shouldn't be purely only about noise performance), and the D500 raw files can be pushed further than the D3S ones even at High ISO

2) D500 is 10fps vs D3S 9fps, so the D500 has the edge there?

3) battery life of a D500 with grip is INSANE, so I don't really mind which one has the edge here. 
 

[IronFilm]

11 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

With regard to shutter count on used versions of both, its a bit of a swings and roundabouts job. The older D3s will likely have a higher shutter count but is also likely, like mine, not to be on its first one. Allied to the fact that the rated shutter life expectancy of the D3s is 300K versus 200K on the D500 then its likely that you might actually end up with a longer lifespan with a D3s.

Fair point, D3s has a 50% longer shutter life, but there is also everything else about a heavily worn body over the years than just the shutter life. A cheap D3s has gone through the wars, while cheap D500 might just be a hobbyist who is bored and moving over to mirrorless now. 
 

5 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Should I just be waiting for the A7R IV to release?

Would cost an arm and a leg. 

Then after that....  why not just wait for the A7R V?

Then after that, wait for the A7R VI instead?

 And then...