X-T2 user seeking Upgrade Advice

[BTM_Pix]

17 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

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)

 

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. 
 

As I said, the RAW stuff is moot when shooting live editorial because the entire pipeline is jpeg. 

No one has the time to ingest RAW files over wifi to camera and then process them.

For me, using these cameras side by side in real working conditions, the D3s produces better images out of the camera when shooting night matches where even in top tier stadiums you are struggling for light.

Full frame has advantages at the other end of the range as not everything is shot with telephotos. A lot of shots need wides so having the 14-24mm actually being 14mm is important as well. Shooting stadium shots, wide vistas at the Tour de France and a whole raft of other GV stuff is pretty ugly with a crop sensor as you have to use 8mm lenses which get pretty curvy to say the least.

The fps is faster in DX mode on the D3s hence I used that when comparing like for like with the D500.

I don't think this is an either or situation anyway. As I said I have both and have used them both side by side in all manner of conditions and environments for the last 3 1/2 years so they both have their place.

Incidentally, I had a small play with the the Nikon Z50 earlier tonight. I have to confess I haven't paid much attention to it and presumed it was the D500 sensor but myself and @Andrew Reid were pleasantly surprised see it doesn't have the same daft crop when we put it in 4K in the shop.

That camera is going to be a decent bargain on the used market in six months time.

[SRV1981]

Seems to be update to z6 firmware for autofocus. Does anyone have experience with that update?

 

would a d750 for sports photo and z6 for video and portrait make sense vs an a7iii

the more I see and read the more I see how frustrating color can be on Sony. Again I’m a novice enthusiast. 

[omega1978]

That is a shot from yesterday with A6400 18-135 1/320 F5.6 Iso 2500

The tracking AF is very good, the Iso performance not so, sometimes i was at 4000-5000 Iso

A 70-200 2.8 can make the difference in such a scenario...

[IronFilm]

13 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

 

Incidentally, I had a small play with the the Nikon Z50 earlier tonight. I have to confess I haven't paid much attention to it and presumed it was the D500 sensor but myself and @Andrew Reid were pleasantly surprised see it doesn't have the same daft crop when we put it in 4K in the shop.

That camera is going to be a decent bargain on the used market in six months time.

Yeah perhaps the Z50 should be the one I should keep an eye on as my "next Nikon"
Does it have 10bit external output as well? If only it had IBIS that would seal the deal! Sadly it doesn't. 

8 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

 

would a d750 for sports photo and z6 for video and portrait make sense vs an a7iii

the more I see and read the more I see how frustrating color can be on Sony. Again I’m a novice enthusiast. 

For a novice enthusiast you can ignore this whole splitting of hairs of raw D500 vs jpeg D3s etc etc etc

A Nikon D500 is purpose built and targeted at exactly your kind of market!! The novice enthusiast through the serious semi pro amateur sports/birding photographer. 

[BTM_Pix]

I'm not sure if it has 10 bit out though I suspect not or they would have been shouting it from the rooftops.

The kit lens it had on (which has VR to somewhat mitigate the lack of IBIS) is a bit slow in terms of light gathering but the AF even in a shitty lit camera shop was anything but slow and it being collapsible makes the basic kit very compact.

On the other hand, the current downward trajectory of the Z6 price (aided and abetted by the increasingly unicorn resembling ProResRAW option) will likely see used ones hitting the £1K mark in the next few months so it might well be worth hanging on if you're in no rush.

31 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

A Nikon D500 is purpose built and targeted at exactly your kind of market!! The novice enthusiast through the serious semi pro amateur sports/birding photographer. 

The D500 is considered by Nikon Professional Services as a fully fledged pro camera and actually carries more qualifying profile points now than the D3s, so thats another win in the hair splitting wars for it   

[IronFilm]

53 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

The D500 is considered by Nikon Professional Services as a fully fledged pro camera and actually carries more qualifying profile points now than the D3s, so thats another win in the hair splitting wars for it   

 

haha, I'm glad to see you're fighting on both sides of the fence in the Epic Hair Splitting Great War of 2019

[SRV1981]

Are there tutorials or ways in which one could get nikon/fuji/canon level quality color from a Sony A7 III in camera and/or with minimal post-work?  I'd like to get as good of a color SOOC as possible and have seen excellent color on Sony videos but there seems to be a ton of post-processing, which isn't something I'm looking to do.  If not, i'll have to suffer through a Z6 and figure out how to get good action shots done in indoor low lighting.

[Simon Young]

Just put the a7iii in full cinema mode and it will look awesome straight out of camera. It’s hidden in the menus.

[thebrothersthre3]

On 12/11/2019 at 7:00 PM, thebrothersthre3 said:

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.

 

?

[Mark Romero 2]

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Are there tutorials or ways in which one could get nikon/fuji/canon level quality color from a Sony A7 III in camera and/or with minimal post-work?  I'd like to get as good of a color SOOC as possible and have seen excellent color on Sony videos but there seems to be a ton of post-processing, which isn't something I'm looking to do.  If not, i'll have to suffer through a Z6 and figure out how to get good action shots done in indoor low lighting.

I don't own an a7 III but I can tell you with my other Sony cameras that getting white balance correct in camera while shooting is about 95% of the battle.

There are all sorts of free picture profiles on the web, and of course, there is EOSHD Pro Color 4.

https://www.eoshd.com/eoshd-pro-color-hdr-v4-a7-iii-a7r-iii/

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

If not, i'll have to suffer through a Z6 and figure out how to get good action shots done in indoor low lighting.

You seem to be mistakenly thinking the Z6 is "bad in lowlight" when it is not. 

[SRV1981]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

You seem to be mistakenly thinking the Z6 is "bad in lowlight" when it is not. 

With regards to autofocus - Z6 is consistently said to be poor at capturing fast moving subjects in poorly lit environments for photos.  That is what I am referring to.  Thanks - I was not clear.