SRV1981
-
Posts
630 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by SRV1981
-
-
The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 seems like a potential better buy than the Sony 24-105 f4 for video and AF in photo?
-
I realize this is a forum geared toward filmmaking. What’s a good photography forum to discuss this? Any good recommendations?
-
Fair - what would be better? 85 1.8 Viltrox?
I like the 24-105 for general video and photo - maybe an 85 1.8 prime would help with indoor AF and noise?
-
Would the 24-105 f4 be good enough for indoor and not well lit sport facilities to get my track kids running?
the 24-105 has great distance and f4 is still enough bokeh/separation but can the ISO performance of the a7 iii make
up for the f4 aperture?
theres now way I can afford a 70-200 2.8 for being an enthusiast
-
Is it dumb to drop my XT2 and jump to the a7iii if this is a few months away?
-
Does anybody here own a Sony a7 iii and live in NY?
-
Thanks!
what advice would you have to get the best SOOC color? Any in camera processing that can be done to get Nikon canon Fuji quality color?
and for post processing what’s the easiest NLE to learn/use for enthusiasts? I have a 2016 MBP.
-
Most likely leaving the XT2 for the FF a7 III.
Mostly shooting poorly lit indoor track and field as well as family portraits and street images. Video - the same but also narrative cinematic looks with documentary interviews and b-roll.
1. what lenses would be good to start that cover much of the above needs?
2. any good suggestions to get great color with little post production? I don’t have much experience with NLE software.
thanks!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
Should I just be waiting for the A7R IV to release?
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
@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?
-
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?
-
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?
-
I appreciate the perspectives!
What budget? $5K
What focal length needed? up to 200m for Sports and regular 25-90 for video
Do you need 4k? Yes
Do you use the whole range of 50-140mm? Yes, for sports its imperative
Do you want the camera to track the subject across the frame on its own? Yes!
For video I'd go either to a X-T3 with it's beautiful IQ or A6600 for tracking autofocus - My only concern is lowlight even in video performance, for someone who won't be rigging my gear or using lighting for personal narrative, family events, sports, documentary type stuff I need more of a run/gun low light camera
You might get the DSLR with lens for around 1500$, 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.)
Question: What would be the best single system for autotracking photo/video, can be handheld, is great in lowlight, and has good images (color/rolloff) SOOC? What would be a great combo to achieve both; 1 for photo 1 for video?
-
thanks all - some good stuff to consider; unlimited options.
I'll start as follows:
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..
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?
3. What two systems would you go for to separate video/photo with the above needs?
I am not shooting weddings or professional sports etc. but would like high quality options. I think of this as an exercise in problem solving.
Needs:
1. Good image quality (color, rolloff) SOOC
2. low light performance
3. AF performance
4. Handheld shooting mostly (IBIS preferable but maybe OIS lenses can be adequate?)
-
Is it better to look for 2 different cameras? One for video and one for photography?
Sony A7 III - Color and Lenses for “Beginner”
In: Cameras
Posted
Maybe the 24-105 f4 for general/majority of shooting and an 85 Viltrox 1.8 for indoor low light sports etc?
Yeh my only concern is having a lens for indoor sports and low light conditions to reduce noise ... What would you pair with that as a prime for sports etc?