Mirrorless Cameras (MILC) and Lenses

[Mercutio]

My partner worked an actual high society event and in mid-size music venues. Lighting in nightclubs and 300 seat theaters is never going to be good, even with f/1.8 lenses and bodies that manage 12k ISO in an acceptable fashion. She seems to love the RF 24mm on her R7. ~35mm is definitely a fantastic focal length but she really shocked me for doing 80% of her shooting with that one lens. She has a much better knack for street photography than me as well.

I am looking at Dehancer, which seems to have a lot of film processing options, vs DxO + Filmpack. Dehancer has to be licensed per application but I could buy it for say Resolve and C1 for less than the DxO full package costs.

On the other hand I could just through a .25 Black Mist filter on and get a lot of the same results as far as skin smoothing.

 

[sdbardwick]

I don't know about NY, but have had no issues in Boston or Nashville with lighting. Was a P/S or some tiny sensor used that created excessive noise? What is meant by the Quickpath? The website indicates it is a platform for AI something or other, but nothing in particular for photography. Other uses are a keyboard or some hardware to connect in iNtel processors.

I think Merc meant QuickSync.

 

[Mercutio]

I think Merc meant QuickSync.

QuickPath is the tech analogous to AMD Hypertransport.
In my defense, I'm pretty sure it's also the interconnect for Intel Iris XE APUs.

 

[Handruin]

Has anyone been following and/or find interesting the news about Sony's new global shutter? Sounds like it's a decent step forward.

Sony claims to fix the rolling shutter problem with its latest A9 III mirrorless camera

Today, Sony is launching the $5,999 A9 III, a full-frame camera with a global shutter.

www.theverge.com

 

[LunarMist]

It is good for certain action purposes, but ES is always a little bit noisier than a mechanical shuttered body and this GS seems worse. I'd like to see Claff's analysis when the camera is released. Extra noise is not going to fly so well at higher than 24 MP.
A ~3ms scan time has been fine for decades in cameras with 1/250th sync. It's just the 1/30th to 1/125th readout times that are lagging. So I'd rather have 61MP sensor with a readout like 1/270th as the Z9/Z8.
S*ny sucks in so many ways, escepially with the lack of tele lenses, that the camera are rather undesirable. The a9III will probably be known as the first practical camera with the ultra-fast readout and most good cameras will probably implement that in a few years.

 

[Mercutio]

Not having to worry about banding on electronic shutter under cheap lights would make me a lot happier given my shooting needs, but I'm not buying a $6000 Sony just to get it.

Maybe the R6 mk 3 or a Canon R1 will have it.

 

[Handruin]

What you both hinted at was more my point about seeing a global shutter option available and the benefits it could bring for things like flashes/lighting and less specifically about switching to a Sony camera. I don't know their product lineup well enough to have any opinion but it sounds like you both have reservations about their camera lineup.

 

[LunarMist]

I've only drabbled in EMount, but 10K in it's not solving some basic issues of humanity. S*NY has a bunch of weird stuff and no teles to speak of. They never had much of a flash system. Nikon was best for that decades ago, but have completely lost interest. Nissin has a deal for all their
flashes recently. https://nissindigital.us/

Canon flashes are good, but the compatibility is ridiculous since they changed the shoe connections and deliberately don't allow the new ones to work on the R5 and older bodies. So you need to buy the $1000 ,EL-1 instead on the EL-5 for example. And nowadays the Wi-Fi systems are sucking interference badly.

 

[LunarMist]

Not having to worry about banding on electronic shutter under cheap lights would make me a lot happier given my shooting needs, but I'm not buying a $6000 Sony just to get it.

Maybe the R6 mk 3 or a Canon R1 will have it.

One of the issues with a camera is the versatility and the S*ny 1st gen GS is not giving that with its low resolution, higher noise and 250 base ISO.
I just don't see Canon doing with the R1 since it is reportedly coming out early next year. Maybe they will have an R3 II targeted for the sportive types?

 

[Mercutio]

Fingers crossed for an R6v3 when I get around to updating, although I suppose a feature like that will probably be reserved for the more expensive SKUs for at least the next couple generations. The 1DXmk3 is also a low-MP sports shooter and was fairly recently Canon's flagship, so there is definitely a bias toward fast and accurate shooting versus highest possible pixel count at the high end of its product lines. I'm very happy to shoot pictures of human beings at 20 - 24MP and 100mm+ focal lengths. Editing is a lot easier when I don't have to go looking for every scar, zit, or unplucked stray hair.

 

[LunarMist]

The new 200-800 RF turned out to be a POS.
According to the Cheapskates on the internet Canon will go out of business for doing such a terrible thing.

 

[Mercutio]

There's a certain level of aggravation in the low-cost slow aperture RF telephotos but $2000 seems reasonable for THAT much zoom range. The guys getting mad that it isn't able to keep up with $kidney-priced pro telephotos they want are perfectly free to go buy them.

I had good enough weather to really put the Sigma 120-300/2.8 through its paces. One of my friends was feeling happy enough about 55 degrees in December (in Indiana. Go go global warming) weather to get out on a motorcycle and give me several passes where I could shoot her riding from an overpass. Overall, I feel like the AF isn't as fast or sticky as the 70-200/2.8 Sport on my R6, but that guy is also the fastest-focusing lens I have. It's probably right around what my RF 35/1.8 does.

 

[LunarMist]

The S*ny 200-600 is sometimes aggravating, but it is damned sharp over most of the frame in the focal plane. There are some weird artifacts towards the edges in the slightly OOF areas, more at the long end. The bokahs are not bad for a zoom. It just buggers the mind that even Nikon has a similar 200-600 now, not to mention the 600/6.3 PF.

 

[LunarMist]

I've lost any remaining respect for CR once they listed the 200-800 as the #1 best Canon lens of 2023 and the 100-300/2.8 as #3. They must be blind as a bat. Anyone could have reviewed the MTF of the 200-800 and seen the awful meridional results vs decent sagittal results. It's not just weak due to f/9 diffraction.

 

[Mercutio]

Didn't Canonrumors get bought out a couple years ago? New guy may have some different priorities. And so might Canon, with all the cheapy-cheap telephoto options.

 

[LunarMist]

The original guy had some mental issues. Several of the rumour sites obtained most of the illicit info from a few sources which have since dried out. Canon, like other makers, has some mediocre zooms to fill parts of the market. The problem with the RF 200-800 is that IQ should be better at the $2000 price since S*ny and Nikon have significantly better 200-600 zooms. We'll have to see if DXO can do some magic with the astigmatism.

The new kids at Canon are primarily interested in size/weight and IQ is only secondary.

 

[Mercutio]

More or less every "serious" lens Canon is making right now weighs in at well over that $2000 price point. Sure, there are some relatively affordable RF primes and that weird 3D stereo lens, but most everything (although not the 35mm and 50mm; the usual cheapies) that's /1.8 or faster? $2100, bare minimum. It's like Canon thinks that should be the starting point for pricing. That's why I only have a couple RF lenses.

re: Image quality, I suspect that most folks aren't really seeing lenses from different systems with any great frequency. You seem to have both a large collection of bodies and glass, so it's a valid complaint. Many others are just stuck with what the system offers unless they want to sell all their lenses and jump ship over one must-have product.

 

[LunarMist]

I'd much rather have a $4K slow-ish tele zoom that is optically quite good, rather than such mediocrity at $2K. Canon still cameras are rapidly becoming superfluous.

 

[Mercutio]

What do you tell the folks who can't afford $4k lenses at that point? Go be poor someplace else?

 

[LunarMist]

There are plenty of options like Sigma and Tamron 150-600s on the used market. I also suggest maybe an R7 and 100-400/8 as an entry level. However, there are some users satisfied with 200-800, especially not going all the way out and/or using the low-res RF bodies.
Nikon has that gaping hole of no high-res or high performing cropper and in FX only the 45MP sensors for 8K videos. A 60+ MP Nikon body with the 180-600 would be welcome. Ideally you want about 3.7µm pixel pitch for very good reach at 600mm. For example I get the same reach with the a7RV and 600mm as I would with a 704mm lens and the R5. But the 500/4 IS II and 1.4x III provides better IQ as does the 600.4 RF with RF 1.4x.

 

[LunarMist]

Topaz Gigapuixel 7 is out. It is confusing because most people expected that the Photo AI 2 was replacing the individual imaging programs DeNoise/Sharpen/Gigapixel.

 

[Mercutio]

Hopefully there will be an update to DeNoise soon. Adobe's noise processing truly is the best out there right now.

 

[LunarMist]

DXO is more than adequte for anything I would do and much better than Topaz expect for TIFs.
Is Abode integrated into the bridge or it still makes you create a DNG first?
I'm still waiting for >45MP in Canon or Nikon before making any more changes.

 

[Mercutio]

It changes everything into a DNG. That isn't ideal of my workflow but there's nothing stopping me from passing my Raw files on to Lightroom for Denoising before I start messing with them in C1 on my PC. Capture One is perfectly happy to operate on the DNG files. Denoise is supposed to be the last step in processing, but other than minor exposure correction, cropping/straightening and skin smoothing/spot healing, I'm usually not doing anything serious.

I get needled enough about using Lightroom but it really is better than anything else for that one task.

Even I'm a little disappointed to see that the R1's most likely spec will be 30MP. Maybe there will be an R5v2 soon?

 

[LunarMist]

Oh my. That R1 rumour is horrible.

 

[Mercutio]

Oh my. That R1 rumour is horrible.

Is it? I suspect it's like the 1DXv2, a particular product for particular market segment, to the exclusion of all others. A sport camera isn't great for birders or portraits and Canon seems to emphasize sport shooting above all else. How that aligns to the company that makes the 28-70/2 and 24-105/2.8 is an entirely separate question.

 

[LunarMist]

Many of the 1DX series users have long since moved to S*ny a1 since the medium res (21MP) HEIF is sufficient for action and PJ work. Now they may be revisiting the a9 vIII.
The enthusiasts are split between S*ny and more Nikon lately, with older people and cheaper people sticking to the Canons.
The 24-105/2.8 is another bizarre "mandatory computational" lens with excessive CA, supreme barrel distortion, and sub 43mm coverage at the wide end. The 24-70/2.8 is far more versatile and quite good. However, I'd get the optically excellent 28-70/2 if I had use for a fast zoom. Both the MTF and the borkehs are very good.
The R5 is so overdue it is not even funny. I feel like the idiot of assuming 2023.

 

[LunarMist]

The original guy had some mental issues. Several of the rumour sites obtained most of the illicit info from a few sources which have since dried out. Canon, like other makers, has some mediocre zooms to fill parts of the market. The problem with the RF 200-800 is that IQ should be better at the $2000 price since S*ny and Nikon have significantly better 200-600 zooms. We'll have to see if DXO can do some magic with the astigmatism.

The new kids at Canon are primarily interested in size/weight and IQ is only secondary.

https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-financial-results-for-fiscal-year-2023

This is not looking good.

 

[Mercutio]

This is more of a general interest post but here's Youtube Camera Guy Potato Jet watching an Oscar-winning cinematographer produce video using an iPhone 15. If you don't wanna watch it, the short version is that if you have professional lighting and production design, the camera itself is almost irrelevant.

I really like Potato Jet, Gordon Laing, Jamie Windsor, Anita Sandowska (she specifically shoots fashion/swimwear, so a lot of her stuff is about working with models) and Manny Ortiz, who I actually met in person before I saw his Youtube content. He was shooting along the Chicago river and I walked up to ask him about his camera.

The Petapixel guys are about as even handed as it gets for product reviews and I've found David Bergman, a contributor to Adorama, a big help specifically because he's a name in concert photography.

 

[LunarMist]

I definitely don't follow photography as art, style, or cult of personality, so I don't gor.

For the most part I find reviews sorely lacking compared to tests. The better reviews contain a goodly amount of controlled tests. The other ellie in the rooom is that most of the reviewers get free goods, and therefore are not really as critical as they should be. Half of the U-Tuber bozos don't even know the Seidel aberrations and yet are blathering on about lenses. Unfortunately many are very wrapped up into the art and marketing of their stuff for profits and don't have an engineering or science background. I'm sure you see similar BS on the webs by "experts" about computers.

Petapixel is one of the few remaining good resources. I don't pay much attention to their reviews though.
cameralabs.com (Gordon Laing) does some useful tests, but he's not so consistent. I don't think he has the access that some others have.
DPR was recently saved from destruction, but who knows how long it will last. Their comparometer of camera IQ is unmatched as a long term standard.
fstoppers.com is a good site for many things photographic.
thedigitalpicture is limited to Canon now, but the guy is very technical and does consistent tests.
I'm sure there are some other good ones left, but so much is on the Googles U-Tube and I cannot waste time on the linear format.

 

[Mercutio]

Most of what I'm looking for with is more related to production than equipment. I can't afford a full set of $2500 lenses and I know that; I typically don't worry about what's going on with that side of things. Potato Jet for example is Hollywood adjacent enough that a lot of his content is about how studios do something vs how someone with limited means can accomplish similar effects. Advice for how to shoot in tiny spaces or achieve particular lighting effects is usually more important to me than knowing that the newest $6500 camera has 2% better dynamic range than last year's model.

I spent the weekend making a new set of V-flats in white, grey and black. My first set are falling apart now because they've been loved to death. I used insulation board this time instead of just cardboard, so hopefully these guys hold up better.

 

[Mercutio]

I was looking at this article, trying to tell if something like Filmic Pro can turn on LOG video output on my new phone, but it accidentally has a really good explanation of the distinction between 8 and 10 bit Chroma sampling and SDR/HDR content.

 

[LunarMist]

Most of what I'm looking for with is more related to production than equipment. I can't afford a full set of $2500 lenses and I know that; I typically don't worry about what's going on with that side of things. Potato Jet for example is Hollywood adjacent enough that a lot of his content is about how studios do something vs how someone with limited means can accomplish similar effects. Advice for how to shoot in tiny spaces or achieve particular lighting effects is usually more important to me than knowing that the newest $6500 camera has 2% better dynamic range than last year's model.

In the old days we had internships. In one summer you could learn a tremendous amount.

A $6500 camera is really cheap stuff even compared to basic cine lenses. At least you can have several cheap remote setups and lose some in bad weather or when the rockets ignite. Zeiss just came out with some new "nano" budget primes in various mounts including the old Canon.

 

[Mercutio]

In the old days we had internships. In one summer you could learn a tremendous amount.

One of the models I work with just pays me to edit video rather than do camera work. Her husband has an MFA in Cinematography. I've been on a shoot with the two of them and I really did learn a lot, but mostly I learned that $25k in Godox gear and enough batteries fixes everything.

Canonrumors seems to think we're going to get an R5ii announcement soon. Maybe you'll get your 60MP Canon this summer.

 

[LunarMist]

Their rumors are less and reliable than when that other guy ran the place. The 5D and R5 series are not for Olympiads; the R1/R3 are.

 

[LunarMist]

The latest rumors are even more grim, that the R5 II resolution will be stuck at a lowly 45MP and there will be some some pay as you go AI firmware/software.

 

[Mercutio]

45MP is plenty of resolution if you ask me, but Canon not having anything better in mirrorless is a little sad given what Sony has on offer.

This is a dead simple and cheap tool for field backups. It could be further enhanced with an m.2 daughterboard, but an Rpi like that is a little bigger than a deck of cards and could pretty easily have 1TB+ internal m.2 storage. LattePanda has a $600 single board computer with a 13th gen i5, 2.5GbE, 2xNVMe and external thunderbolt connectivity if you want a crazy premium version of it.

 

[LunarMist]

What is so great about the Sonys? I'm in only for over $10K in and not so happy. The A1 was great good for it's day, but also due for replacement. I like the a7rV IQ, but it is only usable in mechanical shutter at 10FPS for even slowly moving subjects.

 

[Mercutio]

To my way of thinking, the A7rV, Nikon Z8 and Canon R5 are all hitting around the same US$4000 ballpark with strong hybrid features. Sony has the clear winner if you're really looking for that high resolution sensor and seems to be the better choice for video AF when compared to Canon and Nikon but loses for having very flat color reproduction. I can see why that would be important to certain sorts of camera users, albeit probably not the first choice for a wildlife shooter with crazy burst needs.

Neither the R6 nor R7 have what I'd call amazing video AF. They'll both hunt a little more for subject focus than they probably should. I'm told the R5 and R8 have the same problem, even if all of the above are extremely accurate for subject detection for photos. Sony on the other hand will lock on to human subjects in the foreground of videos. Newer Sonys also have in-camera correction for focus breathing, which is a big help for video shooters using zoom lenses.

Sony offers something just a little nicer if you plan to shoot video.

 

[LunarMist]

I'd prefer Canon or S*ny for video, but not the still camera form factor.

Most of the relatively slow-scan sensors suffer to one degree or another with AF issues, but the CPUs also matter.
S*ny did something between the a7RIV and a7RV to make AF better than expected given the crappy slow sensor that shows skewing even when slowly panning the camera. It is nauseous.

The R7 is particularly slow, but the whole Canon "7" series and their croppers in general suffer mediocre and/or inconsistent AF. Canon screwed up by using the older sensor to save a few bucks. But the R7 is so cheap that just a few keepers can pay for it in a week of use.
Stop buying suboptimal stuff and get S*ny if that will work for you.