The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[tokes99]

I don't think the A7 can beat the 5D in stills but in video is another story.

I'm mainly doing still shots not filming.

'beat' prolly isn't the right term, on a purely technical image making level EVERY a7 is better on some level than the 5d series maybe excluding the 5ds/r which is exclusively about resolution & isn't much for video, a7s/sII= crazy low light performance-more dynamic range, a7/II=more resolution -more dynamic range, a7r/r2=much more resolution-more dynamic range...but of course photography is highly subjective, so preference of things like color science, handling, ease/speed of use, etc. enter in as well and there is also that 5d just has a better all around & broader lens selection...any moderately priced camera you could get these days is going to produce awesome images that will be almost impossible to distinguish what camera made them...

In what way is it inferior?

I pretty much only do portraits and weddings and typically only print no larger than 20x30.

I've seen no benefits to shooting my 5d mark 3 over an A7R II. Definitely dont see any reasons for me to upgrade to a 5D Mark IV over a A7R II.

IMO what we're going to see with mirrorless is what we experienced 12-15 years ago with digital.

At this point, the only reason I see to stay shooting a DSLR is, of course, mainly budget. I also only currently see a need for sports photographers who shoot flagship DSLRs.

High end still photographers who use medium formats too probably can't switch either yet.

not in terms in capability to produce high quality images, but many would say that the sony cameras are quite 'sluggish,' too small to handle, have too many features that are confusing to navigate, are unbalanced with such small bodies & large lenses-at least for the high 'pro' quality lenses, then there is also the fact that sony isn't a camera company so their infrastructure in terms of repairs & pro service isn't quite up to par with the canons & nikons, it may not be up with fuji, olympic, and panasonic...but nah, if you are just talking about what the camera is capable of the a7r2 is a more capable camera than the 5dm4, though it should be noted that being the case does not necessarily mean it would be the most capable camera for every photog...

 

[keko jones]

'beat' prolly isn't the right term, on a purely technical image making level EVERY a7 is better on some level than the 5d series maybe excluding the 5ds/r which is exclusively about resolution & isn't much for video, a7s/sII= crazy low light performance-more dynamic range, a7/II=more resolution -more dynamic range, a7r/r2=much more resolution-more dynamic range...but of course photography is highly subjective, so preference of things like color science, handling, ease/speed of use, etc. enter in as well and there is also that 5d just has a better all around & broader lens selection...any moderately priced camera you could get these days is going to produce awesome images that will be almost impossible to distinguish what camera made them...
not in terms in capability to produce high quality images, but many would say that the sony cameras are quite 'sluggish,' too small to handle, have too many features that are confusing to navigate, are unbalanced with such small bodies & large lenses-at least for the high 'pro' quality lenses, then there is also the fact that sony isn't a camera company so their infrastructure in terms of repairs & pro service isn't quite up to par with the canons & nikons, it may not be up with fuji, olympic, and panasonic...but nah, if you are just talking about what the camera is capable of the a7r2 is a more capable camera than the 5dm4, though it should be noted that being the case does not necessarily mean it would be the most capable camera for every photog...

for still pictures I go 5DR 7DR2 5D4 FOR VIDEO I'll go with Sony all day. If just images I'll go with Canon ... Not only for body but because the lenses as well.

I'm not about the metabones and Dookie AF ...

 

[djyoung08]

'beat' prolly isn't the right term, on a purely technical image making level EVERY a7 is better on some level than the 5d series maybe excluding the 5ds/r which is exclusively about resolution & isn't much for video, a7s/sII= crazy low light performance-more dynamic range, a7/II=more resolution -more dynamic range, a7r/r2=much more resolution-more dynamic range...but of course photography is highly subjective, so preference of things like color science, handling, ease/speed of use, etc. enter in as well and there is also that 5d just has a better all around & broader lens selection...any moderately priced camera you could get these days is going to produce awesome images that will be almost impossible to distinguish what camera made them...
not in terms in capability to produce high quality images, but many would say that the sony cameras are quite 'sluggish,' too small to handle, have too many features that are confusing to navigate, are unbalanced with such small bodies & large lenses-at least for the high 'pro' quality lenses, then there is also the fact that sony isn't a camera company so their infrastructure in terms of repairs & pro service isn't quite up to par with the canons & nikons, it may not be up with fuji, olympic, and panasonic...but nah, if you are just talking about what the camera is capable of the a7r2 is a more capable camera than the 5dm4, though it should be noted that being the case does not necessarily mean it would be the most capable camera for every photog...

for still pictures I go 5DR 7DR2 5D4 FOR VIDEO I'll go with Sony all day. If just images I'll go with Canon ... Not only for body but because the lenses as well.

I'm not about the metabones and Dookie AF ...

I haven't experienced anyone who actually uses the metabones mk4 adapter with canon glass who didnt think it was even better than what canon bodies can do when they pair it with focus peaking...

I don't think the A7 can beat the 5D in stills but in video is another story.

I'm mainly doing still shots not filming.

'beat' prolly isn't the right term, on a purely technical image making level EVERY a7 is better on some level than the 5d series maybe excluding the 5ds/r which is exclusively about resolution & isn't much for video, a7s/sII= crazy low light performance-more dynamic range, a7/II=more resolution -more dynamic range, a7r/r2=much more resolution-more dynamic range...but of course photography is highly subjective, so preference of things like color science, handling, ease/speed of use, etc. enter in as well and there is also that 5d just has a better all around & broader lens selection...any moderately priced camera you could get these days is going to produce awesome images that will be almost impossible to distinguish what camera made them...

In what way is it inferior?

I pretty much only do portraits and weddings and typically only print no larger than 20x30.

I've seen no benefits to shooting my 5d mark 3 over an A7R II. Definitely dont see any reasons for me to upgrade to a 5D Mark IV over a A7R II.

IMO what we're going to see with mirrorless is what we experienced 12-15 years ago with digital.

At this point, the only reason I see to stay shooting a DSLR is, of course, mainly budget. I also only currently see a need for sports photographers who shoot flagship DSLRs.

High end still photographers who use medium formats too probably can't switch either yet.

not in terms in capability to produce high quality images, but many would say that the sony cameras are quite 'sluggish,' too small to handle, have too many features that are confusing to navigate, are unbalanced with such small bodies & large lenses-at least for the high 'pro' quality lenses, then there is also the fact that sony isn't a camera company so their infrastructure in terms of repairs & pro service isn't quite up to par with the canons & nikons, it may not be up with fuji, olympic, and panasonic...but nah, if you are just talking about what the camera is capable of the a7r2 is a more capable camera than the 5dm4, though it should be noted that being the case does not necessarily mean it would be the most capable camera for every photog...

Oh yeah there's no doubt in my mind that mirrorless/sony isnt the best choice for everyone period, right now. I'm saying for my needs as a portrait and wedding photographer, the a7r ii definitely beats out anything canon has for me.

But i'll take a sony mirrorless adapting canon glass over a canon mirrorless adapting canon glass 100% of the time. Unless, of course, canon wanted to sponsor me to shoot

 

[keko jones]

I haven't done much in a while and I don't have to much experience with Sony. So I'm just speculating. I don't want to say that's better and what not because I'm not the one taking the images.

To many fan boys out there that always take sides without knowing what they are talking about.

I love my 5D + 85L combo for fashion and beauty work and there was nothing at the time that beat it. Now sure now.

 

[dragicon]

I just use whats comfortable. I prefer my Nikon system because I've been using it for the last 10 years. Sure, I would consider other cameras out there that are smaller and lighter for some photography. However, if I need a camera for a shoot that I have to have images for, and will be dependable, I'm picking the Nikon.

 

[djyoung08]

I haven't done much in a while and I don't have to much experience with Sony. So I'm just speculating. I don't want to say that's better and what not because I'm not the one taking the images.

To many fan boys out there that always take sides without knowing what they are talking about.

I love my 5D + 85L combo for fashion and beauty work and there was nothing at the time that beat it. Now sure now.

I feel it. My 5d has the 85L on it right now on my desk as i write this post

I just use whats comfortable. I prefer my Nikon system because I've been using it for the last 10 years. Sure, I would consider other cameras out there that are smaller and lighter for some photography. However, if I need a camera for a shoot that I have to have images for, and will be dependable, I'm picking the Nikon.

Exactly and i think thats key. Using the right gear is totally subjective to the photographer's preferences.

 

[bjamez20]

No luck with firefalls, conditions were 

 but I could have sat and watched the clouds roll in all day.

 

[dragicon]

^ you could have.... but did you?

 

[ksteezy]

Honestly they are all tools of the trade, there really isn't much one can give you over the other, for wedding photographers the best bag for your buck right now is the Nikon d750, you can buy two for the price of 1 canon mk4 body, handles ISO better than the mk4...has a very solid line up of lenses....however you can work magic with a mk3 or a mk4, a d750, Sony a7, etc...is really all about how you shoot and also the lenses which to me supersede the importance of the body any day and I think that's where canon and Nikon got Sony beat....at least for now.

Also like James said, while mirror less is cool some people need to feel that weight in their hands and I'm one of those people...lol

 

[tokes99]

I just use whats comfortable. I prefer my Nikon system because I've been using it for the last 10 years. Sure, I would consider other cameras out there that are smaller and lighter for some photography. However, if I need a camera for a shoot that I have to have images for, and will be dependable, I'm picking the Nikon.

what camera you use is probably less important than knowing how to use that camera & being comfortable with using it, people are going to have different needs & preferences...which is why it is prudent to try, to the extent you can, before you buy

Honestly they are all tools of the trade, there really isn't much one can give you over the other, for wedding photographers the best bag for your buck right now is the Nikon d750, you can buy two for the price of 1 canon mk4 body, handles ISO better than the mk4...has a very solid line up of lenses....however you can work magic with a mk3 or a mk4, a d750, Sony a7, etc...is really all about how you shoot and also the lenses which to me supersede the importance of the body any day and I think that's where canon and Nikon got Sony beat....at least for now.

definitely, these cameras are just tools and all basically work on the same principles, though one of the best qualities of mirrorless cameras now is the qualities of the electronic viewfinder(s), being able to actually see the exposure in the viewfinder in realtime i would think would be super useful for (natural lighting) wedding photography...i'm surprised that neither canon or nikon have put a hybrid electronic/optical similar to the fuji system in their dslrs yet.

 

[ksteezy]

what camera you use is probably less important than knowing how to use that camera & being comfortable with using it, people are going to have different needs & preferences...which is why it is prudent to try, to the extent you can, before you buy
definitely, these cameras are just tools and all basically work on the same principles, though one of the best qualities of mirrorless cameras now is the qualities of the electronic viewfinder(s), being able to actually see the exposure in the viewfinder in realtime i would think would be super useful for (natural lighting) wedding photography...i'm surprised that neither canon or nikon have put a hybrid electronic/optical similar to the fuji system in their dslrs yet.

I guess since you can do it in live view, they were like crew it...lol my boy has an eyepiece that turns live view into a viewfinder and he uses it often because of this...having LV on all the time will destroy your battery tho

 

[djyoung08]

Honestly they are all tools of the trade, there really isn't much one can give you over the other, for wedding photographers the best bag for your buck right now is the Nikon d750, you can buy two for the price of 1 canon mk4 body, handles ISO better than the mk4...has a very solid line up of lenses....however you can work magic with a mk3 or a mk4, a d750, Sony a7, etc...is really all about how you shoot and also the lenses which to me supersede the importance of the body any day and I think that's where canon and Nikon got Sony beat....at least for now.

Also like James said, while mirror less is cool some people need to feel that weight in their hands and I'm one of those people...lol

I'm still mad at you for getting a pallet gear before me. I refuse to agree with you

 

[Fong$tarr]

I think there are tools for the trade for specific conditions. I don't think there is one camera body or camera lens that can do it all. That is why this is the worst hobby to ever get in cause you just buy, buy and buy and never really feel satisfied. I normally pro DSLR but man, going to Europe for 2 weeks, it would have been nice to have a lighter load on my back. I had an Incase Pro backpack filled with stuff which also included travel accessories, mini tipod and and my new manfroto tripod and 3 lenses and a body. Thankfully that backpack holds up ergonomic wise but man, I assume having a mirrorless would have helped in certain situations. But I do like the fact that my DSLR is weather sealed and is built like a tank which helped in places like Iceland and what not. I would have for my mirrorless to crap out cause it got too cold or damp. So I think if we could have it all, we wouldn't be complaining about which gear is better over the other. As a more or less landscape photographer, the Sony AR72 intrigues me cause it's a higher megapixel count, better dynamic range and I don't need fast AF for things that essentially don't move.

 

[airnikesnhats]

I had rented a Sony A7 for a weekend (a friend did as well and he ended up buying one) and while I loved the picture quality, I wasn't a fan of the ergonomics/handling, the menu system. Then I thought about the financial investment that would have gone into new glass. Even selling off all of my canon gear is still have to come out of pocket a bit for lens setups I wanted.

My backup (an OG 7D) recently blew a fuse and as old as it was, not worth repairing. Just grabbed a 2nd 70d and some accessories to hold me over till I get enough $ to move up to full-frame.

On another note.....rather then the 14mm 2.8 Samyang, was thinking about the 11-16 Tokina. May grab that closer to the summer for the hiking/camping stuff.

Anyone have any experience with the Sigma 17-50 2.8? The Canon version is more then double the price and not trying to spend an arm and leg for the Canon version if it's marginally better.

 

[ksteezy]

I think there are tools for the trade for specific conditions. I don't think there is one camera body or camera lens that can do it all. That is why this is the worst hobby to ever get in cause you just buy, buy and buy and never really feel satisfied. I normally pro DSLR but man, going to Europe for 2 weeks, it would have been nice to have a lighter load on my back. I had an Incase Pro backpack filled with stuff which also included travel accessories, mini tipod and and my new manfroto tripod and 3 lenses and a body. Thankfully that backpack holds up ergonomic wise but man, I assume having a mirrorless would have helped in certain situations. But I do like the fact that my DSLR is weather sealed and is built like a tank which helped in places like Iceland and what not. I would have for my mirrorless to crap out cause it got too cold or damp. So I think if we could have it all, we wouldn't be complaining about which gear is better over the other. As a more or less landscape photographer, the Sony AR72 intrigues me cause it's a higher megapixel count, better dynamic range and I don't need fast AF for things that essentially don't move.

Yup, that was my issue when I went to Hawaii and that's when I first attempted to get into the mirror less thing with a Fuji...this was years ago, I tested myself and brought both cameras, my 5dmk3 wth a 24L and the Fuji, used the Fuji for 1 hour at most, the rest of the time I just lugged around my DSLR...I've realized the 24L gives me what I would need when documenting a vacation, so that's all I carry and maybe my tripod, no flash....you gotta just realize you can't do it all and remember that you are there to enjoy the moment.

 

[ksteezy]

I'm still mad at you for getting a pallet gear before me. I refuse to agree with you

 

[Fong$tarr]

Anyone juiced on the new Sigma lenses being announced? I think the 14mm and the 135mm are things that have never been produced with their apertures. Man...Sigma really coming out with some gear. I am still reading reviews on the 85mm ART and for the most part, it's been getting positive reviews aside from the weight. I wonder how these will balance out.

Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art
Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

 

[djyoung08]

Anyone juiced on the new Sigma lenses being announced? I think the 14mm and the 135mm are things that have never been produced with their apertures. Man...Sigma really coming out with some gear. I am still reading reviews on the 85mm ART and for the most part, it's been getting positive reviews aside from the weight. I wonder how these will balance out.

Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Art
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art
Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary

i'm VERY excited about them.

I think sigma should really focus on making lenses OEM's dont make.

I looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove my 85 1.2L II and wouldn't even consider the 85 1.4 ART.

But a 14mm and 135 1.8 ART..... i see you sigma

 

[Fong$tarr]

^^^^That 14mm will be great for star/milky way photos and what not. That 135mm really has me thinking I should get that and not the 85mm. I know the 85mm might be more user friendly but I probably would like the compression more of the 135mm and with a f/1.8 at 135mm, I know the bokeh will look super nice.

Since Sigma is making some crazy stuff, I hope they have the power to make a 24-105mm f/2.8 zoom. Hell, make a 15--105mm.

 

[djyoung08]

^^^^That 14mm will be great for star/milky way photos and what not. That 135mm really has me thinking I should get that and not the 85mm. I know the 85mm might be more user friendly but I probably would like the compression more of the 135mm and with a f/1.8 at 135mm, I know the bokeh will look super nice.

Since Sigma is making some crazy stuff, I hope they have the power to make a 24-105mm f/2.8 zoom. Hell, make a 15--105mm.

jeez a 24-105 2.8 would be game changing.

 

[timelessflight]

^^^^That 14mm will be great for star/milky way photos and what not. That 135mm really has me thinking I should get that and not the 85mm. I know the 85mm might be more user friendly but I probably would like the compression more of the 135mm and with a f/1.8 at 135mm, I know the bokeh will look super nice.

Since Sigma is making some crazy stuff, I hope they have the power to make a 24-105mm f/2.8 zoom. Hell, make a 15--105mm.

Man I hope they do make a 24-105 f/2.8 lens. I would literally get rid of my Nikon 24-70 lens lol

Would make a killer travel lens

 

[ksteezy]

My boy had the 35ART and hated it...I like that third party brands are upping the game only for the fact that hopefully canon will eventually stop pricing their lenses close to 2k and above...I'm L for life tho..

 

[djyoung08]

My boy had the 35ART and hated it...I like that third party brands are upping the game only for the fact that hopefully canon will eventually stop pricing their lenses close to 2k and above...I'm L for life tho..

THIS

 

[dragicon]

^^^^That 14mm will be great for star/milky way photos and what not. That 135mm really has me thinking I should get that and not the 85mm. I know the 85mm might be more user friendly but I probably would like the compression more of the 135mm and with a f/1.8 at 135mm, I know the bokeh will look super nice.

Since Sigma is making some crazy stuff, I hope they have the power to make a 24-105mm f/2.8 zoom. Hell, make a 15--105mm.

Man I hope they do make a 24-105 f/2.8 lens. I would literally get rid of my Nikon 24-70 lens lol

Would make a killer travel lens

I often use nikons 28-300 when traveling. It has yet to let me down.

 

[erdyawron]

Taking a break from cityscapes, going to be attacking more portrait/street shots for a bit...taken this past weekend during a meetup here in Chicago.

Let me know any criticism, PUHLEASE...really want to get good at portrait work.


Edited each shot slightly different as I wanted to try out some things