Fancy a change of equipment - Need advice

Elrond

Member
Currently, I have a Canon 5D Mk III along with the kit 24-105 L lens, and also the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

To try and cut a long story short, for the last few years I have only used it for holiday snaps, and even then, the 70-200 gets left at home. So it just seems a big camera to carry around especially when there are probably smaller and better options out there now. Also, when I look at images that come out of say the Sony camera's, they look so much better than the dull colours I seem to get. Maybe it is all about post though......or my photography skills :laugh: So, as the title suggests, I'm starting to consider my options.

I would also like to try my hand at filming a holiday rather than photographing it as well, and as far as I'm aware, the 5D doesn't keep autofocusing as you move the camera around.

Now, I know this is going to start as broad requirements, but its a starting place and they can be refined.

  • Full frame. I don't think I could go back to a crop.
  • More size friendly than the 5D.
  • If there is something much better than Canon out there, I will try not to be brand loyal. Cost of new lenses would need to be considered.
  • On the subject of cost, I would part-ex or sell my current equipment, but I don't want to have to give up a kidney as well!
  • Something that would be good to try and give film a go.
I'll admit I haven't kept up with camera technology in the last few years, apart from knowing mirrorless is a thing, so, any advice would be greatly received :thumbsup:
 

273K

Well-known Member
From what you've said I guess the Sony A7 would be the obvious choice - full-frame on a relatively compact body.
Playing devil's advocate though, I have to wonder, why are you so tied to full-frame? Surely there are loads of cameras that'll be fine for holiday snaps (based on my own definition of "holiday snaps", which could admittedly differ form yours), and video. Unless you're hoping new gear will revitalise your interest and get you taking considerably more pictures?
In which case film's maybe not the best idea either as the novelty can wear off pretty quickly (you'll probably end up having to digitise and edit anyway). Then again having the option film alongside digital can be a nice change once in a while.
 

Elrond

Member
@273K Thanks for the reply. Apologies if you know, but when I say “film”, I mean video.

I guess going back to crop could be an option of all the factors align making it a better option than full frame. But as you hinted it, I would like to get back into photography other than just on holiday.
 

newbie1

Distinguished Member
What sort of holiday film? Using your phone might be an option, depending what you want?

5DM3 is a pretty capable video camera although does not have the face tracking that the M4 version has. Magic lattern might help too if you want experiment with it before you change.
 

Johnmcl7

Distinguished Member
Do you post process the raw files from the Canon or are you using straight out of camera jpegs? Sony colour is generally regarded as a weak point and a strength for Canon cameras, I don't know how true that is in reality as I haven't used any recent Canons or the Sony A7 series.

In terms of size and weight savings none of the current full frame mirrorless options are much smaller or lighter in practice, the Canon EOS R is around 2/3 the weight of the 5D shaving 300g but the RF mount 24-150mm is almost identical in size and weight to the Canon 24-105mm. In practical terms I wouldn't say that's going to make a much more practical system if the bulk of the current system is off putting.
 

AMc

Distinguished Member
FWIW. I spent quite a long time resisting shooting raw and editing everything as it’s time consuming- kidding myself I could get it all right in camera with the jpg.
Then I started doing some post processing in GIMP and quickly realised a few tweaks in curves dramatically improved the pictures. Skip forward and I started shooting jpg and raw and editing in lightroom 6 (no subscription).
You can imho only get the exciting colourful images I was aspiring to with some post processing and to do that well you need to start with the raw file.
Maybe a better photographer can do it all in camera but not me ;)

If you haven’t played around then I’d strongly recommend installing some trials and playing with your favourite shots on a wet afternoon. I suspect you’ll be amazed at how a few tweaks make a big difference.
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
I have a Sony A7 (full frame), A6000 (APS-C), Canon 6D and EOS R (full frame).
The A6000 is the smallest, lightest body but that becomes a disadvantage with most full frame lenses, they just make everything unbalanced and look ridiculous. It's nice and small though using the Sigma F2.8 E mount prime lenses (19mm, 30mm and 60mm) which give good results plus the excellent Canon 40mm pancake using a cheap mount adaptor. PQ is decent up to around 800 ISO, 1600 at a push (although I tend to try and keep it at 400 or lower). It's controls are frustrating in use, even more so if trying to balance a large FF lens.

My A7 is the original smaller version and is only a bit larger than the A6000. Much better controls though. Suffers the same disadvantage with FF lenses as the A6000. Using Canon adapted lenses the 40mm focuses OK, 16-35L, 70-200L F4 IS, and 100L macro don't and mostly require manual focus although focus peaking and viewfinder magnification makes this easy in good light conditions. I prefer using my Canon lenses on my 6D. Even with the battery grip adding size and weight the 6D handles better and strangely feels lighter as it is so much easy to hold with larger lenses.

The Sony kit 28-70mm lens is mediocre. If I want decent results I need to use the APS-C Sigma lenses which perform well but that means having just an APS-C 10MP crop from the 24Mp FF sensor. Not ideal. Or use Canon adapted lenses. Price of Sony lenses puts me off buying any of them and they would also be similar size and weight to the Canon adapted ones I'm using. Having two (or 3) different mount bodies I'm going to stay with Canon lenses as they can be mounted on Sony. Can't be done the other way around.

EOS R is smaller and lighter than the 6D (which is smaller and lighter than your 5DIII) and all my Canon lenses perform well with the bundled EF-R mount adaptor. In some ways even better as there is no need for micro focus adjust due to the focusing being done at the sensor level. The EOS R and 40mm pancake is a very nice small light carry around.

I find the EOS R to handle better than the A7 with full frame lenses. It's grip is much more comfortable to hold than that of the A7 where I will start to get discomfort after a couple of minutes. PQ is excellent and I can now use high ISO without qualms. With the 6D I didn't like much higher than 1600 or 3200 at a push. EOS R I'm happy with up to 12,800 and have got OK results with 40,000 ISO if changing the image size down to 1/2 or 1/3rd original size. The 30MP sensor helps to make it an easy decision as even at 1/2 size there are still a lot of pixels left.

Moving away from Canon to say Sony is going to require new lenses unless you are happy to put up with the potential limitations of using adapted lenses. Later A7 models have better auto focus with adapted lenses than the original A7 I've got but I don't think adapted will ever work as well as native. So you'd have to factor in the cost of switching everything over completely if going with just Sony and getting rid of Canon. That plus the price of the equivalent Sony lenses makes for a costly change.

In terms of cost from lowest to highest:
If you just want to give film (video) a go and dip your toe into the water while having a nice light kit to carry around I'd suggest something like the Sony A6300 or A6500 models. The 6300 with kit lens was £400 in Black Friday last year (after a Sony cashback). The A6500 has IBIS which would be useful if video is going to be a large element of its use. The A6400, like the A6300, doesn't have IBIS but has better auto focus than the other two. The APS-C A6xxx models have the advantage of being able to give good results with the smaller and cheap (around £150) Sigma lenses which makes them a joy, rather than a chore, to carry around. Even my full kit of A6000, two Sigma lenses, 16-50mm kit lens and a Samyang 12mm lens isn't too heavy or bulky (around 2.5kg including the bag and a couple of spare batteries).

If you wanted to stay Canon and full frame I'd suggest the EOS R or at a push the EOS RP.
That suffers from using the 6DII sensor vs the EOS R's 5DIV sensor and only has a 2.4MP viewfinder vs the 3.69MP one in the R. Comparing the R one to the 2.4MP one in my A7 I'd say it's well worth going for the larger size. At grey prices the R is around £1549 at HDEW whereas the RP being newer still hasn't dropped much in price and is £1209 (close to its £1287 at amazon). I'd expect it to be below £1K by the summer.

EOS RP is the smallest lightest 'new' full frame body (485g with battery), only a bit heavier than my A7 (474g), and lighter than the current Sony A7III model (650g). The EOS R/RP have better video auto focus than your 5DIII but aren't up to the level of the current Sony full frame models. Also don't have IBIS but that's not so important if using IS lenses.

A smaller lighter option could be the EOS M models but unless you buy into their native lens range you'd suffer from the same problems I have with my A6000: small body, large lenses.
The EF-M adapter is much cheaper though than an EF-FE one for Sony.

The Sony A7III body is around the same price at grey prices as the EOS R but factor in having to buy an EF-FE adaptor (£200 to £400) if using Canon adapted lenses or the cost of switching your Canon lenses to Sony ones. The 28-70mm kit lens is rubbish and thus I couldn't recommend getting an A7III bundle which includes that. A7III would probably be better if you wanted to shoot a lot of 4K video. But if you wanted to be able to edit your films you'ld need a high spec PC with fast processor and a lot of RAM.

Whatever you go for handling the cameras and lenses you shortlist is essential. Better specs are of no use if the camera is too uncomfortable to hold and use easily.

If you want any more info I'd be happy to expand details on specific areas of interest.
 
Last edited:

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
FWIW. I spent quite a long time resisting shooting raw and editing everything as it’s time consuming- kidding myself I could get it all right in camera with the jpg.
Then I started doing some post processing in GIMP and quickly realised a few tweaks in curves dramatically improved the pictures. Skip forward and I started shooting jpg and raw and editing in lightroom 6 (no subscription).
You can imho only get the exciting colourful images I was aspiring to with some post processing and to do that well you need to start with the raw file.
Maybe a better photographer can do it all in camera but not me ;)

If you haven’t played around then I’d strongly recommend installing some trials and playing with your favourite shots on a wet afternoon. I suspect you’ll be amazed at how a few tweaks make a big difference.
I always shoot raw as the results are so much better particularly with my Sony cameras. Their out of body .jpgs just don't compare to what can be produced with the raw files. With Canon I find the .jpgs better than the Sony ones but again they don't match with what can be done with the raw files in areas like highlight recovery and shadow handling.

I'm using Lightroom CC but with every release it gets slower and slower so am looking around for a replacement. Any suggestions? (without wishing to hijack the thread).

Couple Lightroom/Photoshop with the free Nik Collections plugins (Is it still possible to get the free download version of the Nik Collection?) and it's easy to get good results fairly quickly after you've done the initial adjustments in Lightroom.
 
Last edited:

Johnmcl7

Distinguished Member
I wouldn't buy a Canon EOS R camera if the choice is primarily for video as that's a weak point compared to rivals since they can only do a crop video mode.
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
I wouldn't buy a Canon EOS R camera if the choice is primarily for video as that's a weak point compared to rivals since they can only do a crop video mode.
Depends if video would be the main use of the camera. From what the OP said I don't think that is the case, more dipping a toe into the water and seeing if he can catch a crab...;)

And surely not a lot of real difference between A6xxx 1080p/4K video at 1.5x crop due to the APS-C sensor to EOS R 1.7x crop at 4K which also has the bonus of no crop 1080p i.e. 24mm on the A6xxx is 36mm equivalent in both 4K and 1080p, 24mm on the R is 24mm in 1080p and 40.8mm equivalent in 4K.

Obviously there are lots of other diferences but the crop factor isn't a major one imo.
 
Last edited:

Elrond

Member
FWIW. I spent quite a long time resisting shooting raw and editing everything as it’s time consuming- kidding myself I could get it all right in camera with the jpg.
Then I started doing some post processing in GIMP and quickly realised a few tweaks in curves dramatically improved the pictures. Skip forward and I started shooting jpg and raw and editing in lightroom 6 (no subscription).
You can imho only get the exciting colourful images I was aspiring to with some post processing and to do that well you need to start with the raw file.
Maybe a better photographer can do it all in camera but not me ;)

If you haven’t played around then I’d strongly recommend installing some trials and playing with your favourite shots on a wet afternoon. I suspect you’ll be amazed at how a few tweaks make a big difference.
I have had the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography subscription since I got the 5D and I shoot everything in RAW. It just seems that I have to do a lot of editing just to get some colour into everything. Maybe I should explore different editing styles rather than the one I've been using for years.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'll make sure I digest it properly.

I always shoot raw as the results are so much better particularly with my Sony cameras.....
When I bought the 5D, I was um'ing and ar'ing over the Nixon D7(hundred and something) and from what I heard, other brands were leaving Canon behind with sensor technology. So are Sony sensors better than Canon's now?

Just as an example, here is a before (RAW file exported to JPG with no editing) and after editing (same export settings). Apart from the fact that I can never seem to hold a camera straight :rolleyes: I just wonder if newer cameras will give me something better straight out of the camera. I know the 5D is a solid camera though and so is used for a reason by many people, so maybe everyone is going to tell me there is nothing wrong :)

Before:
3E3A0806_Before.jpg


After:
3E3A0806_After.jpg
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
I have had the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography subscription since I got the 5D and I shoot everything in RAW. It just seems that I have to do a lot of editing just to get some colour into everything. Maybe I should explore different editing styles rather than the one I've been using for years.
Are you using Adobe RGB or srgb in the camera?
The former will often produce flat .jpgs which need a boost. The latter are better out of the camera for viewing on an srgb monitor. If doing Raw + .jpg the raw can be later developed as Adobe RGB etc as it doesn't have a colour space assigned to it so you get an editable raw and better .jpgs which can be used without further processing.
Adobe RGB Versus sRGB Color Space - Which Should You Choose?

With the photos you show the difference may be down to dynamic range of the 5DIII sensor. It's low by modern standards. Or just down to you having exposed for the highlights leaving the shadows needing a boost in editing. A sensor with better dynamic range might allow you to expose more for the darker area at the bottom without the risk of blowing out the highlights in the sky. What does the histogram of the unedited raw file look like compared to the edited one?

Could be my monitor but I think you've gone too far in the edited version and have lost the upper part of the image, it's flatter, too light (almost overexposed) and you've lost the blacks/contrast hence the flatness.

Do you uses brushes/graduated mask to pick out the areas you were lightening in the bottom or just use global sliders like shadows on all of the image?
 

Elrond

Member
Are you using Adobe RGB or srgb in the camera?
The former will often produce flat .jpgs which need a boost. The latter are better out of the camera for viewing on an srgb monitor. If doing Raw + .jpg the raw can be later developed as Adobe RGB etc as it doesn't have a colour space assigned to it so you get an editable raw and better .jpgs which can be used without further processing.
Adobe RGB Versus sRGB Color Space - Which Should You Choose?
Just had a look and they were exported using sRGB.

What does the histogram of the unedited raw file look like compared to the edited one?
Before:
Screenshot 2019-03-17 at 19.32.43.png


After:
Screenshot 2019-03-17 at 19.33.03.png


Could be my monitor but I think you've gone too far in the edited version and have lost the upper part of the image, it's flatter, too light (almost overexposed) and you've lost the blacks/contrast hence the flatness.
Going by the above histograms, I did overcook it in post.

Do you uses brushes/graduated mask to pick out the areas you were lightening in the bottom or just use global sliders like shadows on all of the image?
I would say that I use sliders 99% of the time but I have used graduated masks sometimes. For example where there is a clear separation of the sky and the exposure needs a tweak from the rest of the image.

I'm ashamed to admit this, but I basically push the highlights all the way down and the shadows all the way up. Then tweak the whites, blacks and exposure. As above, I should probably look at other methods.
 

newbie1

Distinguished Member
Just had a look and they were exported using sRGB.


Before:
View attachment 1130320

After:
View attachment 1130321


Going by the above histograms, I did overcook it in post.


I would say that I use sliders 99% of the time but I have used graduated masks sometimes. For example where there is a clear separation of the sky and the exposure needs a tweak from the rest of the image.

I'm ashamed to admit this, but I basically push the highlights all the way down and the shadows all the way up. Then tweak the whites, blacks and exposure. As above, I should probably look at other methods.
Worth looking at some tutorials? Personally, I doubt a new camera is going to be a magic solution and likely to be a disappointment.

For minimum post processing, in camera jpeg is the way to go. The 5DM3 has several jpeg presets which you can adjust, you can also create your own profile on the computer and download to the camera, and you can further adjust with white balance adjustments in camera. It takes a bit more time to setup, however well worth it in time saved afterwards, especially for events etc where you are taking lots of pictures. Getty for example only work in jpeg at events where I’ve seen them working.
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
I'm ashamed to admit this, but I basically push the highlights all the way down and the shadows all the way up. Then tweak the whites, blacks and exposure. As above, I should probably look at other methods.
Yes, the highlights did look too far down and shadows too up.
In Lightroom I'd have either put a graduated masks across the images to take in the darker sides of the street and then just lighten the shadows etc in that area or paint a mask to do same with a lot of feathering on the brush. Probably the first since Lightroom got editable graduated filter/masks. That and leave the highlights mostly alone for the top of the photo.
 
Last edited:

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
Just had a look and they were exported using sRGB.
I meant the in camera setting for srgb or Adobe RGB.
If you find a lot of your .jpgs look a bit crap and you have the camera on Adobe RGB, try taking some raw + .jpg with camera set on srgb. Or vice versa and seeing if there is any preferable difference between them.
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
Back to the original question here’s my thoughts on potentially smaller FF systems. The are my opinions and YMMV.

A7 series. The most established mirrorless FF system, great cameras and lenses but plagued by bad ergonomics, not enough space between the grip and lens, bad colour rendering without plenty of PP tweaking and horrible menus. Also, I’m not sure the weather sealing is top notch.

Canon EOS R system. Great cameras, but a very limited lens choice unless using adapters. No real ‘travel lens’ that will save you weight over what you currently have. Also no IBIS, and I don’t believe they’re overly rugged.

Nikon Z series. For me the best ergonomically out of the FF mirrorless. Contentious one this but for me Nikon colours are the best as they are generally the most true to life. Again, very few lenses although the 24-70mm f4 is a nice ‘relatively’ light travel/walkabout lens. The new lens roadmap published in the last couple of days looks good too, including an 85mm f1.8 and 70-200mm f2.8. The big Achilles heel for me (and this is true of the EOS R too) is the one card slot. Why Nikon, why? :rolleyes:

Now you mention wanting FF and not thinking you can go back to crop, is there a specific reason for this? The reason I ask is that I run two systems (the Nikon D850 and Olympus EM1-II and at normal viewing size, and even printed large you struggle to see and discernible difference in IQ. In fact I did a blind test on here last year and 70% of people thought the Olympus was the FF shot.

Obviously this will depend on what you shoot, but when I go away most of my shots are landscape/cityscapes etc which are all shot with a small ish aperture to get large DOF in which case you’re really not going to see any difference in IQ between FF, crop or even MFT unless pixel peeping.

If you want shallow DOF then obviously FF is your friend, likewise shooting at high ISO. However, with my Olympus I rarely have to shoot high ISO as the IBIS is so good I can hand hold for 2s, yes that’s right you can shoot at 2s without a tripod :eek:

Going away, for the same weight as my D850 with 24-120mm f4 (1715g), I can take my EM1-II and 12-40mm 24-80mm eq) f2.8 (954g), 45mm (90mm eq) f1.8 (115g), 40-150mm (80-300mm eq) f4-5.6 R (190g) and Sigma 56mm (112mm eq) f1.4 (280g) and still have a lighter bag.

I know this is highly unlikely to deter you from looking at FF, just food for thought ;)
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
A7 series. The most established mirrorless FF system, great cameras and lenses but plagued by bad ergonomics, not enough space between the grip and lens, bad colour rendering without plenty of PP tweaking and horrible menus. Also, I’m not sure the weather sealing is top notch.
Agreed, ergonomics is bad unless you have teeny hands, or for larger hands don't have a pinky.
Weather sealing not that bad, but could be better Taking Apart The Sony A7rIII – In Search of Better Weather Sealing
Although check the section on the bottom plate which appears poor: In case you can’t tell, I’m pretty unhappy with the bottom design of the Sony A7rIII. There’s absolutely no protection or improvement over the Sony A7rII. Now the case designers (and most of you) are probably aware that rain falls down from the sky onto the top of the camera. The repair people (like us) are aware that people set cameras down and puddles occur; also splashes go up, and sometimes cameras are held in portrait mode. In other words, a liquid will find your weakest point.

As noted previously at least one of the A7 series lenses is poor imo.
Canon EOS R system. Great cameras, but a very limited lens choice unless using adapters. No real ‘travel lens’ that will save you weight over what you currently have.
EF 40mm pancake on the free adapter
RF 35mm F1.8 IS macro
both good walk around lenses.
RF 24-105L is 100g lighter than the EF. Not a lot, but every little helps...:)
and I don’t believe they’re overly rugged.
Why?
While I haven't tried hammering in nails with my R it feels solid and well built. More than can be said for my A6000 and A7 both of which feel delicate and fragile especially the control dials and switches. If you look at the R teardown down at Lensrentals it appears well engineered and put together. Teardown of the Canon EOS R Mirrorless Camera

If you want shallow DOF then obviously FF is your friend, likewise shooting at high ISO. However, with my Olympus I rarely have to shoot high ISO as the IBIS is so good I can hand hold for 2s, yes that’s right you can shoot at 2s without a tripod :eek:
Not much use if your subject moves in those 2s...;)
I was recently shooting my R at 40,000 ISO in a very dimly lit concert environment, in the 2s you mention my subject would just have been a blur. and that was with an IS lens giving I think 4 stops unshakyness. Good for stopping my old hands shaking affecting the picture, not so good for freezing motion. Best results were at around 1/500th hence the 40,000 ISO. Subject just wouldn't stay still...:(
 
Last edited:

snerkler

Distinguished Member
EF 40mm pancake on the free adapter
RF 35mm F1.8 IS macro
both good walk around lenses.
RF 24-105L is 100g lighter than the EF. Not a lot, but every little helps...:)
Granted I should have said travel zoom, but the 24-105mm whilst it may be 100g lighter than the EF mount L IS II, it's not exactly that light, and is actually only 10g lighter than the 24-120mm f4 Nikon lens, and is heavier than the L IS lens. Obviously the 5D3 is quite a heavy body so there's a few hundred grams saving there, and I guess only the individual can decide whether this is worth the £2k or so it would cost for that weight saving :smashin:

Why?
While I haven't tried hammering in nails with my R it feels solid and well built. More than can be said for my A6000 and A7 both of which feel delicate and fragile especially the control dials and switches. If you look at the R teardown down at Lensrentals it appears well engineered and put together. Teardown of the Canon EOS R Mirrorless Camera
TBH the EOS R looks better sealed than I first thought :smashin:


Not much use if your subject moves in those 2s...;)
No s*** Sherlock :p
As I said in my post they were just my opinions, it's what works for me and clearly won't be for everyone. I went around the houses trying to find the perfect travel setup and have settled on MFT. I may revisit this again once the Nikon Z or EOS R systems have matured, and/or if the rumour of an APS-C Nikon Mirrorless proves to come true, but for now MFT gives me 'the same' (with the caveats already mentioned) IQ in most situations for a fraction of the weight. For my upcoming trip to Cuba I'm taking a 200-800mm eq lens in my hand luggage, try doing that with FF ;) :p[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

273K

Well-known Member
@273K Thanks for the reply. Apologies if you know, but when I say “film”, I mean video.

I guess going back to crop could be an option of all the factors align making it a better option than full frame. But as you hinted it, I would like to get back into photography other than just on holiday.
Ah, no I didn't realise you meant video, thought you meant old school 35mm film! :)

On balance i'd say, unless you definitely need something lighter/more compact, or are sure it won't do what you want video-wise, why not just stick with the 6D? It's a pro-level camera, right, so if you're not happy with the pictures it's probably you (no offense intended!). It'll be more or less equally capable of taking as good pictures as anything else you're gonna buy. Maybe instead spend some money of software/courses to improve your post processing to get the best out of it?
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
No s*** Sherlock :p
As I said in my post they were just my opinions, it's what works for me and clearly won't be for everyone. I went around the houses trying to find the perfect travel setup and have settled on MFT. I may revisit this again once the Nikon Z or EOS R systems have matured, and/or if the rumour of an APS-C Nikon Mirrorless proves to come true, but for now MFT gives me 'the same' (with the caveats already mentioned) IQ in most situations for a fraction of the weight. For my upcoming trip to Cuba I'm taking a 200-800mm eq lens in my hand luggage, try doing that with FF ;) :p
In case you missed it my comments re the 2s were intended as a joke. I could have dropped down shutter speed considerably and thus ISO if my subject had just stopped moving.
 

snerkler

Distinguished Member
In case you missed it my comments re the 2s were intended as a joke. I could have dropped down shutter speed considerably and thus ISO if my subject had just stopped moving.
I know, I thought I was joining in on the joke but obviously my humour was off the mark ;)
 

GoingGoingGone

Distinguished Member
I know, I thought I was joining in on the joke but obviously my humour was off the mark ;)
It's likely too subtle for me. Rather than your punchline of "For my upcoming trip to Cuba I'm taking a 200-800mm eq lens", I would have gone myself for the old Mae West standby: Is that a Panasonic 100-400mm lens in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?...:D
A fair indication of where my sense of humour is at...:blush:
 
Last edited:

jon9001

Active Member
Currently, I have a Canon 5D Mk III along with the kit 24-105 L lens, and also the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

To try and cut a long story short, for the last few years I have only used it for holiday snaps, and even then, the 70-200 gets left at home. So it just seems a big camera to carry around especially when there are probably smaller and better options out there now. Also, when I look at images that come out of say the Sony camera's, they look so much better than the dull colours I seem to get. Maybe it is all about post though......or my photography skills :laugh: So, as the title suggests, I'm starting to consider my options.

I would also like to try my hand at filming a holiday rather than photographing it as well, and as far as I'm aware, the 5D doesn't keep autofocusing as you move the camera around.

Now, I know this is going to start as broad requirements, but its a starting place and they can be refined.

  • Full frame. I don't think I could go back to a crop.
  • More size friendly than the 5D.
  • If there is something much better than Canon out there, I will try not to be brand loyal. Cost of new lenses would need to be considered.
  • On the subject of cost, I would part-ex or sell my current equipment, but I don't want to have to give up a kidney as well!
  • Something that would be good to try and give film a go.
I'll admit I haven't kept up with camera technology in the last few years, apart from knowing mirrorless is a thing, so, any advice would be greatly received :thumbsup:
Slightly late to the party, but some thoughts in case they help...

It partly depends on budget and what you want to shoot. For hand-held video the more stabilisation, the better AF and the better sound the happier you'll be. You can cheat AF a bit by having a lot of stuff in focus (meaning a wide-angle lens).

Remember you can get smaller FF mirrorless cameras but the lenses are still quite big and heavy generally.

I think the Camera options are probably:
Sony A7III
Canon R
Fuji XT3 or XT30 (I know not FF but not bad compared to the 5D3)
Nikon Z6

Sizes:
Compact Camera Meter

Low-light performance (move box around in top image, change ISO in top left sub-image to change all):
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Lenses:
The problems here is the 24-105 lenses you probably want are quite big and may not even exist in the system. Plus while you can adapt your 24-105 seamlessly to the R it gets even bigger. Also using the Sigma MC11 (you want that, not the metabones) to an A7III isn't great for what AF features you get:
Compact Camera Meter
The Sony and the Nikon have in-body stabilisation (IBIS ), which is better for video, especially with a stabilised lens.
The Fuji lens you probably want (the 16-80) isn't quite here yet, so it's wider/faster/heavier (16-55), not-so-wide and lighter (18-55) or more super-zoom-ey but less quality (18-135). The IBIS camera isn't as good as the two I list, so it's stabilised lenses for video.
The R has a crop in 4k video mode, but you can use a EFS 10-18 to help with that.

I'll stop there in case you've already decided, feel free to ask questions if not and anything here is of interest...
 

The latest video from AVForums

Panasonic HZ2000 4K OLED TV Review | The best OLED for movie viewing in 2020

Latest News

Samsung updates and expands access to Samsung TV Plus
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Disney+ UK introduces GroupWatch co-viewing feature
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Netflix UK for November 2020
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Harman Kardon launches Citation Amp
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 21st October 2020
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Top Bottom