Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canon 5D mark iv vs Sony A7r II for Event Photography - Advice?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Samuel H
    replied
    Of course I'm talking about what *I* like and that depends a lot on what I shoot and what I don't shoot. I don't shoot sports, I don't shoot wildlife, and I don't own a flash and wouldn't know how to use it. I light my stills just like I light my videos: with continuous LED and tungsten lights, which is what I own because most of what I shoot is video. YMMV.

    Still, I think most users shoot stuff where an EVF is better than an OVF: family reunions, kids, travel photography, that's the kind of stuff for which I'd really take an EVF over an OVF, every time.

    Leave a comment:


  • ggrantly
    replied
    I would venture that 95% of all the commercial-corporate photography I do uses some combination of speedlights. On a rare occasion, I use continuous lighting. Don't own any studio strobes with modeling lights. My issue with OVF for stills is the latency of the vf. Just me.

    Grant

    Leave a comment:


  • Bassman2003
    replied
    No worries from me. I think strobes are part of the professional toolkit but many people prefer available light photography. Many people act is if they are scared of using flashes or strobes or even like they are "so uncool"...

    Leave a comment:


  • dustylense
    replied
    Originally posted by Bassman2003 View Post
    I think Samuel is speaking of the WYSIWTG EVF for taking stills and seeing the actual exposure before taking the shot.
    I know what he his talking about. Like I said, doesn't work with strobes. And I know of no professional shooters who don't work with strobes. Plus, every camera has a live view mode. Wanna set WYSIWYG, go to live view, set exposure, then shoot away. EVF's have gotten better. But Optical lets you concentrate on the fraction of a second you are trying to capture. We all have opinions, right?

    For video, yes, an EVF is better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bassman2003
    replied
    I think Samuel is speaking of the WYSIWTG EVF for taking stills and seeing the actual exposure before taking the shot.

    Leave a comment:


  • dustylense
    replied
    Originally posted by Samuel H View Post
    I hardly ever take stills, so I'm talking mainly video. I still hate it when I have to take stills with the 5D2 because it's not showing me how the image will look like. I don't shoot sports or wildlife, in any case.
    What? Take a picture and look at the result. That is what your image looks like. And if you're working with stones, how would a EVF help anyway?

    Optical viewfinder for me please. I've had the 5dMK4 for about a month now and it's easily the best 5d they've made from a stills shooters perspective. As for video. Sure, I would pick a video centric camera before the 5dMK4. But the files from the MK4 are lovely. And honestly, I don't mind the codec. I'd rather work with it than the super compressed codecs found in other Dslr's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Samuel H
    replied
    I hardly ever take stills, so I'm talking mainly video. I still hate it when I have to take stills with the 5D2 because it's not showing me how the image will look like. I don't shoot sports or wildlife, in any case.

    Leave a comment:


  • ggrantly
    replied
    Samuel,

    Do you feel that way about stills as well as video? Have you ever tried to shoot photographs of a moving object with a EVF. Video is one thing, but capturing a single moment in time is something entirely different...at least for me.

    Grant

    Originally posted by Samuel H View Post
    And then I take an EVF as a clear improvement over an OVF, not for composing but for exposing: I like to see my image as it will be recorded, and with histograms or viewfinders at hand. And the package becomes much smaller when the camera has a viewfinder and you don't have to attach a loupe to the back (which also makes the OVF useless).

    This is a personal preference issue, clearly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Samuel H
    replied
    And then I take an EVF as a clear improvement over an OVF, not for composing but for exposing: I like to see my image as it will be recorded, and with histograms or viewfinders at hand. And the package becomes much smaller when the camera has a viewfinder and you don't have to attach a loupe to the back (which also makes the OVF useless).

    This is a personal preference issue, clearly.

    Leave a comment:


  • ggrantly
    replied
    Originally posted by egproductions View Post
    There is a reason why the vast majority of professional stilll photographers (which includes, wedding, sports, and wildlife) swear by DSLR and won't move over to mirrorless. It's not stubbornness but rather wanting to use the right tool to make the job easier and ultimately come away with better images. Here are just a few reasons:
    • The size of a DSLR is actually a benefit. It balances the weight of bigger lenses and make the camera easier to handhold, especially for people with larger hands.
    • Low light and action photography on a mirrorless camera is not fun. The video preview of the image ends up being grainy, slow shutter (lag) and not fun to work with.
    • An optical viewfinder is much more comfortable to use and compose images with.
    • Sony lenses can be good but nowhere near the variety you will get with Canon. Adapting non native EF lenses on a Sony often leads to poor autofocus results. Canon has some wonderful lenses and there are tons of 3rd party lenses that work great or better than Canon.
    • There is a lack of TTL flash support for anything but Canon and Nikon. This is becoming increasingly important as strobe manufacturers are beginning to flood the market with TTL and HSS capable products
    • Battery life is much better on DSLRs
    • Autofocus is improving in both technologies...mirrorless cameras are starting to have phase detection but the fact that DSLRs are still improving still means mirrorless needs to play catchup. The 5D IV has an incredible autofocus system.
    • Mirrorless is lacking super telephoto and super wide lens options.
    • DSLRsl look more professional to your clients and command more attention from your subjects. Sounds silly and superficial, however, when trying to connect with your subject it makes a big difference.



    On paper Sony mirrorless looks great but in reality, having a little more color depth or low light performance is really insignificant to most still photographers and the work they do. These are specs that are more paramount to video folks that can't leverage powerful auxiliary lighting as easily.

    The OP mentioned how autofocus is important and being able to aim in a general direction in low light. I will say that it's important to understand what modes of autofocus to use on your DSLR in various situations. For fast moving action in low light, you typically want to enable all your focus points and set the camera to AI servo. In situation where you have a second to pose your subject to take a photo, you usually want to have a single focus point enabled and set your focus to one shot.

    ^Truth

    For me, there is nothing like an optical view-finder for composing images. I am old enough to have owned many cams that were totally manual, no auto anything. Having to manually focus in certain situations is no big deal to me. And although there is enough alternative glass to go around with the right adapter, as a range of products, it's pretty hard to beat the Canon L series.

    Grant

    Leave a comment:


  • Samuel H
    replied
    I also used a 5D2 quite a bit, but it wasn't mine. Same with the original BMC and the pocket.

    I went from T2i to NEX-5N, then a7S, and now RX100 IV (as I wait for either 4k 60 fps or slog3 with all the DR slog3 should have on the next gen of a7 cameras). On all of those, day-to-day use became second nature after a month or so. By now, whenever I get the 5D2 again, everything feels odd.

    Leave a comment:


  • maarek
    replied
    Originally posted by Samuel H View Post
    I had a T2i a few years ago, but after four years with Sony...
    Which Sony? The T2i is ergonomically quite horrible but a 5dmarkIII is already a lot better.

    Leave a comment:


  • Samuel H
    replied
    To be fair, you can also get used to the Sony layout just by configuring it to your taste and using it for some time. I had a T2i a few years ago, but after four years with Sony I now have a very hard time using a Canon, whereas using my Sonys is as smooth as it gets. Then again, hand me over your Sony camera and I will have a very hard time using it; and it will take me an hour to configure the buttons and fn menu to my taste.

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrius Simutis
    replied
    Outside of specs, the Canon ergonomics are far superior to Sony's. Hitting the right buttons without looking becomes very intuitive on Canon cameras. Sony makes you dive deep into submenus to do things you really ought to be able to do with a dedicated button. Don't like the Canon button layout? No problem! you can assign most of them to your liking.
    Shooting with Canon becomes second nature and you work very quickly and can adapt quickly so you don't miss the shot.
    Sony does make some incredible products, but even those often suffer from this same problem of poor ergonomics.

    Leave a comment:


  • cookinghusband
    replied
    i have the 1DxmkII, 1DC, 5DmkII, so i have a very large collection of EF mount lens, the AF on mirror or liveview is as good as any thing you can buy ( panasonic's face detection do better in some situation) . IS on canon is the best 5axis VR is not good enough yet.

    i have the A7SII with 28-135 mm 4.0 / 24mm / loxia 20mm. Camera with excellent High ISO performance, difficult to master with a very long learning curve.

    Event or run-and -gun. video or photo 1DX2 is the best, and 5D4 is comparable. 16-35LIII, 24-70LII, 70-200LISIII, plus one or 2 of the prime, you can take on any event or wedding

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X