Sony Worth?

[SeanDavis]

 

What is the thought with this graph? Would it just be worth to invest in better lenses? (lights too just to please @LaFemmeEnVert)

[LaFemmeEnVert]

2 hours ago, SeanDavis said:

 

What is the thought with this graph? Would it just be worth to invest in better lenses? (lights too just to please @LaFemmeEnVert)

whether it pleases me or not is not the subject. obviously you think you need a "new" camera to improve your photos but are you certain buying a new camera will do that when you could invest in something else that will better make your photos improve

[xQubeZx]

18 minutes ago, LaFemmeEnVert said:

whether it pleases me or not is not the subject. obviously you think you need a "new" camera to improve your photos but are you certain buying a new camera will do that when you could invest in something else that will better make your photos improve

I agree with you. However if he wants a new camera that is cool. However as you said how he uses it will be what makes a difference. 

 

As said above, I’d also get polarizers for the lenses to remove reflections and maybe some speciality lenses like a ultra wide which can look really cool on some car shots if you can get close. 

 

An simple 1 or 2 flash system with a remote trigger could also work for quick and easy flash work on location. Especially if you have a friend that could run around and hold the flash. If you got time with a car you could setup a tripod and use it to ”lightpaint” and then combine the files in Ps to create some high quality shots for relativly cheap. 

 

A simple starter flash setup may only cost 500-600 if you chose to go with something that isn’t native Canon or Nikon flashes if I’m right. 

 

I still think a D500 is a good option if you want more pro features. Otherwise I’d probably save up more for a move to FF. You already got some great lenses and getting equivilent of those on FF is expensive. 

[.spider.]

11 hours ago, LaFemmeEnVert said:

exposure setting on the camera will be similar with probably about 1 stop difference for shutter speed but he will still get blown skies.  

Why would there be a difference in shutter speed

[SeanDavis]

2 hours ago, .spider. said:

Why would there be a difference in shutter speed

he was talking about crop vs full frame

 

 

I think I'm going to upgrade to the d500 and see how it goes, as well as get some flashes. 

Any suggestions as to not break the bank?

[cc143]

Im not sure if they will work on Nikon, but yongnuo are doing some pretty cool stuff lately. You can also look at godox or phottix.

[.spider.]

11 hours ago, SeanDavis said:

he was talking about crop vs full frame

 

 

I know and the question is why would it result in a different shutter speed while all settings are the same?

[SeanDavis]

4 hours ago, .spider. said:

I know and the question is why would it result in a different shutter speed while all settings are the same?

Full frame sensors are one full stop larger. a f1.8 on crop is f2.8 on full.

[cc143]

2 minutes ago, SeanDavis said:

Full frame sensors are one full stop larger. a f1.8 on crop is f2.8 on full.

No it isn't how it works, in a very simplified way it is, but exposure is per unit area, in fact, a d500 would probably perform better than a d810 in low light situations, so with your existing glass, with a wider aperture you'd be overall better off. 

 

The only way the FF sensor has an advantage over the crop is if the photosites are larger allowing you to bump your iso up, but in all other aspects, exposure will be the same. The d750 for instance, although the technology is older than the d500, could potentially have a marginally higher iso tolerance (i.e. point after which noise introduced into the image is higher.) 

 

Don't forget, the noise levels are not only determined by the sensor, but also by the image processor in the camera itself. That is why a Canon 800d will perform better than a 750d, regardless of the fact that they share the same sensor size and resolution. 

[LaFemmeEnVert]

18 hours ago, SeanDavis said:

he was talking about crop vs full frame

I was giving a margin of error but with comparison of aps-c to full frame for argument sake if you have your D7200 and a D750 for optics you put the same 50mm f1.4 lens on the cameras and take a photo of something 10 feet away you get different angle of view or cropping because of sensor size. you also can get different depth of field because of the sensor size difference you need to apply crop factor to the f-stop. f1.4 on the d7200 will have depth aproximate to f2.0 on d750.  so you can get difference exposure value of + or - about maximim 1 stop between cameras with different sensor size which can be good or bad but it won't  improve or worsen your photo. it will only make the overal exposure of the photo brighter or darker tiny bit. you can maybe get this tiny difference with cameras with same sensor size or even 2 copies of the same camera. maybe how canon or nikon camera light meter sensor works or manufacturing fault tollerance or firmware

 

i feel its better to saave your money and buy a tripod or filters or lights 1st and see how to make your photos better before you spend more money on a new camera, because you said you are a student.  the d500 is 2000USD while you can buy lights for below 500USD I guess

 

18 hours ago, SeanDavis said:

I think I'm going to upgrade to the d500 and see how it goes, as well as get some flashes. 

Any suggestions as to not break the bank?

you can buy led panels or other types of lights, you dont exactly need to buy flashes

 

sorry for my english, its not my mother tongue and I type very very fast

[cc143]

Little experiment I did for myself just now, since I had some time on my hands after a while. 

 

Both taken at ISO 200, f/1.4, 1/100th. Both with the same Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art, from a tripod, so the position of the Camera didn't change between shots, even the focus point is on the same part of the image (Arnie's right eye). 

 

The only difference is the Camera itself, one was taken with my FF Eos 5dmk3 and the other with my APS-C Eos 50d, taken in raw and converted into jpg using lightroom, the only change is a 100K warming of the 5d3 image to match the 50d's colour temp. 

 

As you can see there is a slight exposure difference, but it is hardly 1 stop of light's worth. In fact, according to the lightmeters in the camera, (so not exactly accurate), the 5d3 image is 1/3 of a stop overexposed in comparison to the 50d. 

[Bustapalapeno]

No, the Sony line is not worth moving to. Is it better? IMHO, yes. I think shooting mirrorless is much easier, the sensors are slightly better, and the lenses are available and very high quality. But Sony is also super expensive, and the differences in quality are not substantial enough to justify a switch. 

[.spider.]

On 3/23/2018 at 9:30 PM, cc143 said:

 5d3 image is 1/3 of a stop overexposed in comparison to the 50d. 

Because it is showing more of the bright screen

[Kamjam21xx]

On 3/21/2018 at 1:21 AM, JohnT said:

I wouldn't bother with Sony. Just forget about them entirely.

 

Canon is better recognized for video features in their DSLRs. Keep that in mind if you really want to expand on your video skills. Nikon is okay in this department. I prefer Nikon for still shots. It's what I use for weddings. 

 

With that said. The Canon 5D mark 3 is an absolute beast of a portrait camera. The dynamic range is so brilliant it's almost unbelievable.  But the dynamic range of any full frame camera is going to be better than a crop sensor. The D850 is a serious camera as well. 

 

You have a decent eye for portraits in terms of lighting. Work on your composure and learn how to use the healing brush in Photoshop. You have some super easy edits to some of your photos where there are people in the background. Your edits to the automotive photos are tasteful. I'd say you have a reasonable career path if you really want to pursue it. Now your non-automotive photos are all over the place and I have nothing nice to say about them. Especially the dogs. What makes your dog photos special?

 

Here are three reasonable things I can recommend for you:

1) Forget Sony, for anything

2) Buy prime lenses first and then assess your need for fast zooms

3) Get rid of the dogs from your site

 

Answer this question: what do you want to be paid for? The answer is what you should showcase on your site. 

I know this isnt new... but i couldnt let this slide.... 

 

The dynamic range, noise, framerates, formats, resolutions, apps, and more.... make sony the no brainer choice for video.... 

 

Canon footage is the worst ive ever tried to do motion vfx on, its usually not even possible to get good results. 

 

Canon takes good video, but canon is the mac of the camera world now.. except there isnt a real advantage to using one other than how professional its bulk looks.

 

You try shooting in s-log3 at 8:30pm and then tracking and grading the shot... let alone not degrading the quality from rendering more than once to get it to the final product...

 

Canon is utter trash compared to any other choice at the same price now. Even a cheap 500$ camera. The look is probably just appealing because i think they have a gamma curve similar to film, but you can apply that curve to the footage of any good camera for half the price and get better results anyways..

 

Couldnt let that slide, sorry guy.

[Kamjam21xx]

To further drive home the importance of resolution and why canon is irrelivant at the moment for most.... movies for hollywood are shot in what is equivilent to 12k on IMAX cameras, and others are 8k, etc. 

 

Scale it to 1920 and 4k for people at home... its important for chroma keying, rotoscoping, and motion tracking to perfection. 

 

Accurate colors and luminance is important too for chromakeying, or other keying. Canon has a lot of noise in the footage if you dont set your shots up right. 

 

To make things worse, to eliminate noise you have to lower iso and increase exposure. This adds lots of blur which complicates post. All blur and focus can be added after the fact on every individual element of a shot accurately, and there is no need to create it while filming. 

 

Canon is so obsolete right now. I think it would be awesome if they released cameras comparable to sony... but they haven't.

 

[johnt]

14 hours ago, Kamjam21xx said:

The dynamic range, noise, framerates, formats, resolutions, apps, and more.... make sony the no brainer choice for video.... 

I wasn't aware the op was looking for the no brainier choice for video. The op clearly said he mainly shoots photos and the occasional video, and that he is hoping to get into weddings... a realm where Sony is seldom used for photography. I think Nikon and Canon are sufficient for the "occasional video" photographer.

[Mihle]

On 11/04/2018 at 5:38 PM, JohnT said:

I wasn't aware the op was looking for the no brainier choice for video. The op clearly said he mainly shoots photos and the occasional video, and that he is hoping to get into weddings... a realm where Sony is seldom used for photography. I think Nikon and Canon are sufficient for the "occasional video" photographer.

If I remember right Nikon is shit for video if you want usable AF when recording.

[Kamjam21xx]

Sony is better for photography too... IF you can color grade.

[cc143]

5 hours ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Sony is better for photography too... IF you can color grade.

dude stop it with the fanboy bullshit. The guy already has a nikon camera with 2 of the best crop sensor lenses around. 

 

The truth is that even accepting your premise that sony is the best simply the best and no other camera is worth anything, which is VERY convoluted in the first place, 10 years ago it was probably Canon and 5 years ago it was probably Nikon and 25 years ago it was Minolta. These things change. Even given that, we are now in a place where the added benefit of upgrading a camera body is minute. You could be taking amazing pictures with a 5d2 or a d800 from 6 years ago, many people still use them, never mind with a modern camera from any brand, with iso that can be boosted up to 6400 easily, very quick AF, 15 stops of DR, 24+mp and so on and so forth. 

 

For every reason you suggest anyone can find 10 that Sony is crap, the same stands with Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic or anyone producing anything from cameras to cars to vegetables. 

[Kamjam21xx]

Nikon is better for photography usually

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

dude stop it with the fanboy bullshit. The guy already has a nikon camera with 2 of the best crop sensor lenses around. 

 

The truth is that even accepting your premise that sony is the best simply the best and no other camera is worth anything, which is VERY convoluted in the first place, 10 years ago it was probably Canon and 5 years ago it was probably Nikon and 25 years ago it was Minolta. These things change. Even given that, we are now in a place where the added benefit of upgrading a camera body is minute. You could be taking amazing pictures with a 5d2 or a d800 from 6 years ago, many people still use them, never mind with a modern camera from any brand, with iso that can be boosted up to 6400 easily, very quick AF, 15 stops of DR, 24+mp and so on and so forth. 

 

For every reason you suggest anyone can find 10 that Sony is crap, the same stands with Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic or anyone producing anything from cameras to cars to vegetables. 

Nikon is better for photography usually, especially under $1,000. im not fanboying. Its the facts, i look at the specs and realworld application of them and various softwares. I deal with this stuff every day. 

 

Youre just making stuff up...

 

Panasonic is a great choice, but there isnt anything they are a total winners for.

 

There is no perfect camera, but there are definitely clear winners at various price points, for various applications. The rest if preference.

 

Side note: bmpcc 4k looks awesome, cabt wait to see more on it. Probably going to be another good choice.

[cc143]

8 hours ago, Kamjam21xx said:

Nikon is better for photography usually

Nikon is better for photography usually, especially under $1,000. im not fanboying. Its the facts, i look at the specs and realworld application of them and various softwares. I deal with this stuff every day. 

 

Youre just making stuff up...

 

Panasonic is a great choice, but there isnt anything they are a total winners for.

 

There is no perfect camera, but there are definitely clear winners at various price points, for various applications. The rest if preference.

 

Side note: bmpcc 4k looks awesome, cabt wait to see more on it. Probably going to be another good choice.

What exactly am I making up? You are looking at spec sheets going this is clearly larger than the other so its better, thats all you are doing, and its not helping anyone, its just flaming the conversation.