Hybrid Shooters - 1 body for both photo/video or 2 bodies?

[SRV1981]

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Heck, if had to shoot a friend's sports event tomorrow for free/fun (not that any of that is happening right now... in lockdowns)

I coach HS Varsity Track and have been coaching for year with modifications - we are outdoors mostly and I don't need to have a mortgage riding for me to expect good AF.  I am open to evidence/videos showing that the Panasonic Full-Frame cameras have good enough AF for sports - I have no allegiance to a brand but I do to AF and image/color.  So I am open and look forward to any references for Panasonic before I go out and purchase a camera/lens combo over the next week.  Thanks in advance!

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

But I don't think photography image quality or even stills AF should be ranked in the top three concerns for most casual snappers.

This doesn't make sense to me at all but I am open to hearing you unpack this statement.  Anyone looking to purchase a camera system should want a system that allows them to capture the images they want.  I am not spending $5-10k on a body but in a "prosumer" market I think it is a fair ask and based on sales, videos on YouTube, article write-ups I seem to be in the majority on this but again i am open to seeing a different angle if you can articulate it more deeply for me.  Again, thanks!

I think you're focusing solely on photos and I need access to both for my goals (video/photo) and AF is important in both domains.

4 hours ago, Django said:

For video/cine its indeed a different story. codecs, resolution, AF, exposure aids, media storage etc have been constantly evolving in the last ten years.

Things like eye-track AF can be life savers in solo run & gun situations. Having such a reliable AF means I can focus on other things (no pun intended) during a shoot.

i feel like this encapsulates my perspective as a "prosumer"/"hobbyist"

[IronFilm]

18 hours ago, Django said:

5DS/R is still a studio workhorse. Few FF cameras still surpass its 50.6 MP resolution including R5.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-5DS

That's what I mean, all those cameras I mentioned earlier clearly exceed the Canon 5DS at a technological level (and 46 vs 50 megapixels is really trivial difference).

And someone looking just at those specs might think Scott Choucino is stupid to pick a 5DS today in 2021 (or even back when he brought it in... 2019?), because clearly the others are "better". But nope, it is all about those other factors which matter more to Scott than just pure technical performance. (such as the fact Canon has got the best selection of tilt shift lenses! Although, Nikon helped close that gap by just a little bit more when they released their Nikon PC NIKKOR 19mm f/4E ED Tilt-Shift Lens in late 2016. Bringing their total to four: 19,24, 45, 85)

[IronFilm]

 

14 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

This doesn't make sense to me at all but I am open to hearing you unpack this statement. 

My point is that in the photography world we hit "good enough" a long time ago (and diminishing returns has kicked in hard since then). The ancient Nikon D700 I referred to earlier is plenty great enough for sports photography! (what matters more, is the right lenses, knowing the sport, practice, timing, and dialing in your settings)

But reviewers / YouTubers / bloggers / commentators will focus in (or even just make up stuff they create... there is definitely a few YouTubers like that who drum up fake drama) on little small minutia (be it good or bad) to create hype / clickbait and thus views and discussions. 

[MrSMW]

15 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

think you're focusing solely on photos and I need access to both for my goals (video/photo) and AF is important in both domains.

Panasonic/L Mount, in my opinion as a pro user is as follows:

Stills photography. Zero issues. Very quick. There are others that are quicker but for 99% of people 99% of the time, it’s quick enough. If that is not the case for ‘you’, then there is either a fault with the camera or lens or with you.

General video; tracking people moving side to side, near zero issues.

Tracking AF towards or away from. THIS is where it falls down. Not all the time, but enough of the time to not be able to trust it fully. In order to get the best result, you ideally need a native lens and tweaked AF settings, but even then…

However, if I was not a pro, I probably would not go any further than APSC Fuji, Sony or Canon. And possibly even not beyond a high end compact. Or even one of the latest phones…

[Django]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Canon/EOS-5DS

That's what I mean, all those cameras I mentioned earlier clearly exceed the Canon 5DS at a technological level (and 46 vs 50 megapixels is really trivial difference).

And someone looking just at those specs might think Scott Choucino is stupid to pick a 5DS today in 2021 (or even back when he brought it in... 2019?), because clearly the others are "better". But nope, it is all about those other factors which matter more to Scott than just pure technical performance.

My point exactly. Those DXO charts don't give you the full picture. Maybe Schott likes an optical viewfinder, DSLR ergonomics, no AA filter etc? Maybe he doesn't like to use adapted EF lenses on a RF mirrorless (I can tell you first-handed the performance isn't the same). Like I said some people even still shoot film. DXO charts are irrelevant when it comes to subjective preferences! In any case the 5DS at 50.6MP is hardly a camera to shrug at even by 2021 standards.

 

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

However, if I was not a pro, I probably would not go any further than APSC Fuji, Sony or Canon. And possibly even not beyond a high end compact. Or even one of the latest phones…

Can't say I agree with this. We were all amateurs/hobbyist before becoming pros (not to mention none of us are pros 24/7). Thank god I didn't limit myself to compact p&s or smartphones. 

Nothing wrong with hobbyist/amateurs going FF. An R6 or A7IV is mid-tier prosumer gear anyways. Just saying.

[SRV1981]

5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Tracking AF towards or away from. THIS is where it falls down.

This is what is needed, however, in sports video/photography for track/field.  Hence, why i felt those bodies were non-starters.

 

5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

However, if I was not a pro, I probably would not go any further than APSC Fuji, Sony or Canon. And possibly even not beyond a high end compact. Or even one of the latest phones…

Can't personally agree - I've seen parents with FF cameras at our sporting events to take photos/video of their children.  Pro is irrelevant, the content and needs are - fast moving subjects and low light indoor track = need for fast lenses, high ISO performance, and good to great AF in those particular situations

 

3 hours ago, Django said:

Nothing wrong with hobbyist/amateurs going FF. An R6 or A7IV is mid-tier prosumer gear anyways. Just saying.

100% agree - i liked some of the reviews of the a7IV but enjoy the colors better on the R6 so thats my route for now.  If there was a good and affordable low light video with excellent AF that had colors I liked then I'd do that and get a used older body with good AF for photo...sounds like the R6 will cover both needs for me.

Thanks all!

[MrSMW]

When I say “if I wasn’t a pro”, I really do mean me personally as in everything & anything I do that is not paid, I never use my ‘work cameras’ but instead, much prefer to use smaller & lighter stuff.

Sony ZV1 is my current ‘personal’ camera and even that doesn’t get much use next to the iPhone 8 and that is far from cutting edge these days.

I think next year I am going to trade both and combine for the first time properly, phone, stills, video, all in one single unit.

But as above, this is not me ‘advising’ anyone else, just stating personal use/opinion and that’s not going to be for everyone for sure 🙂

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Can't personally agree - I've seen parents with FF cameras at our sporting events to take photos/video of their children.  Pro is irrelevant, the content and needs are - fast moving subjects and low light indoor track = need for fast lenses, high ISO performance, and good to great AF in those particular situations

And I bet 90%+ of those parents with a FF body would be better off with a well tuned Nikon D500 (which is an APS-C body) paired with the right lens. 

[SRV1981]

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

And I bet 90%+ of those parents with a FF body would be better off with a well tuned Nikon D500 (which is an APS-C body) paired with the right lens. 

Of course ... for photography, but it seems one of us is missing a direct or implied part of this conversation:  photo AND video.  Are you saying I should be happy making docs, sport shoots, etc. with a D500?  If not, then I fail to see what you're arguing?  The thread is about 1 body for both or 2 separate.  If you're saying 2 separate then yes I am all about listening and learning about what photography body can get excellent photos in many conditions (fast moving sports, portraits, low light/high ISO performance without noise, etc.) but my dilemma in that is then what body for video?  Same mount for sharing lenses?  Will 2 bodies cost much more than going for 1 that do both (i.e. R6/A7IV)?

I apologize if I've misunderstood but maybe you can clarify?

[IronFilm]

12 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Of course ... for photography, but it seems one of us is missing a direct or implied part of this conversation:  photo AND video.

I think my point is being missed, I'll try again:
On forums there is a lot of focus on which one or another is "best", arguing over a small difference here or there or whatever. Missing the big picture. 

Ten or twenty years ago, all these discussions made a lot more sense. As it was the early days of digital. Because you were seeing a big improvement each generation. Made it much more worthwhile discussing these improvements from one generation to another.  So when someone said (& is right) that whatever-camera-body is "better" they really meant indeed BETTER!! Not merely some lukewarm "better-ish".

But eventually, once everything is "good enough" those improvements are plateauing. 

This happened a long time ago in the DSLR world, when exactly? Depends on your opinion, and the their own needs. (could be argued that say it plateaued out at a different point for a hobbyist than a pro) But I'd say ballpark, this has been the case for the last five to ten years for photographers. 

While that hasn't happened yet for HDSLR/mirrorless video (or perhaps, it only just happened, in the last couple of years or so).  

Compare a sequence of cameras from the same line up, for video:
Panasonic GH1, GH2, GH3, GH4, GH5. 
Each step, was a BIG deal. For instance as just one example for each is (and they all had more improvements than just the one example I'm highlighting): GH2 gaining full resolution live HDMI out so you can use monitors, GH3 gained slow motion, GH4 got 4K, GH5 got 10bit internal. At each step, all of these were a big huge deal.

Look now at photography, say for instance Nikon's range of semi pro DX bodies:
Nikon D70, D80, D90, D7000, D7100, D7200, D7500.

For the photographer, if you look at the D70 vs the D7500, that's a radical mind blowing improvement. But if you look at same the middle of the line up, say D7100 vs D7500? Meh. Yes, it is an improvement, but not earth shatteringly so. Can't fault a photographer if they decide to skip on the "upgrade". But in the first half of this line up, then each and every one of those steps from D70, to D80, to D90, to D7000 was a huge big deal. But after that? The rate of improvement kinda slowed down. 

Thus my core point is, if you need "good enough" (i.e. nearly all nonpros on a budget), then don't obsess so much over photography specs, compared to the importance of comparing their video specs instead. As in the photography world, the "good enough" point got hit many years earlier than it did for videos. 

[SRV1981]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Thus my core point is, if you need "good enough" (i.e. nearly all nonpros on a budget), then don't obsess so much over photography specs, compared to the importance of comparing their video specs instead. As in the photography world, the "good enough" point got hit many years earlier than it did for videos. 

Gotcha, thanks