Jump to content
adamhanlon

Which full frame camera would you chose?

Recommended Posts

I hear u Interceptor121. Trouble is I also do photography and a lot of work on land. Don't have the finance for different kits for different needs so there will be sacrifices in certain areas. I've got 3 friends where I live (all full time UW photographers/videographers) who use the A7iii or A7rii. They've all made the switch in the last year or so from Canon and Olympus backgrounds and they are all delighted. I've seen their work for years and now seen the difference moving to FF has made to them. It's astonishing TBH. The great thing is about the A7riii is the super 35 mode, where you can still get the 1.5 crop if you want. It's a big commitment for me which will have to do me a very long time, so believe me, I'm not going into it with my eyes closed.

Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk


Point me to their work as I have yet to find someone shooting sony that does amazing work with few exceptions seems like the best out there shoot Nikon and some canon
The super 35 crop is interesting but have not seen any amazing use yet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point me to their work as I have yet to find someone shooting sony that does amazing work with few exceptions seems like the best out there shoot Nikon and some canon
The super 35 crop is interesting but have not seen any amazing use yet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lol. I guess "amazing" is subjective. They sell their work daily to customers on the boat primarily (make a good living from it too), 99% of it isn't made public, some of them have IG accounts they post on from time to time but thats about it. But yeah I'll leave it at that and not hijack the thread any longer.

Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to gently steer this excellent discussion back on track...

The original premise was:  

Quote

If you had the choice of any one full frame still camera on the market and expense, current lens ownership, housing choice etc. were no object, which would you chose and why?

When responding, please ignore space/size/weight as a selection criteria as all full frame system housings and ports all seem ultimately pretty much the same in terms of weight and bulk. The weight of the camera itself seems to be largely irrelevant!

Rather than tell us why you actually chose a specific camera, what would you have if we were to ignore cost, lens and port ownership? You should not ignore factors like lens availability (e.g. is the lack of a native fisheye with Sony and Nikon full frame mirrorless cameras a deal breaker?), but blue sky thinking is most welcome.

This is not real world of course. I think it is an interesting exercise though to see how "desirable" different camera models are being viewed and which features underwater shooters see as being important.

Adam

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@adamhanlon Just to answer your earlier questions:

>Just to be sure I am understanding your reasoning...
>
>You are willing to forgo effective AF for macro and a native fisheye option in order to use an LCD? How do you check for critical focus >with the LCD? Peaking?

>Adam

It's more a case of "did not realise that AF for macro was pretty much impossible ;)". But the A7rIV is supposed to be far better with the Sony 90 mm in that respect, so I'm putting that issue in the "solved" basket with the newer camera. Hence why that model would be my selection for the most desirable full-frame camera right now, rather than my current A7rIII.

It'd be nice to have a native fisheye option, but the Canon 8-15 mm works fine, so I don't view it as a major issue with the Sony system. Adding an adapter does make it a bit more expensive though.

I use DMF focus + peaking for macro using my LCD with my A7rIII. It's... alright. I'm a whale shark scientist, so I'm mostly shooting wide angle with the fisheye near the surface. The LCD is extremely helpful for that scenario, as it allows me to shoot one-handed, swimming frantically, with my arm extended while still composing accurately with effective AF. I realise that it's a niche case though!

So yeah, A7rIV is the dream camera for me. I can think of a few ways I'd improve it for UW use though (faster sync speed would be good).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SimonPierce said:

 

So yeah, A7rIV is the dream camera for me. I can think of a few ways I'd improve it for UW use though (faster sync speed would be good).

If you have an A7R III I really can't see what issues you may have. Once you go past the Sony quirks on menu and you have the lenses there are no problems really? What would be that reason for the IV those extra points in the autofocus are not going to make a different for macro where I use single spot anyway. Otherwise the camera will focus on the reef or anything else it likes. or go full manual. Are you sure your challenges are not due to lack of practice on macro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a Nikon D800 in Nauticam, which does everything I need. However, it's far too heavy for me in my dotage. I am tempted by the Sigma fp with a Nikonos 15mm in Pawel Achtel's new titanium housing. I seldom like the fisheye look and don't shoot macro.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting concept with the Sigma Fp in Pawels housing will be shooting stills with continuous lighting. I am not so sure how that will work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought a Sony a7rIV 2 weeks ago. I'm upgrading from an Olympus OM-D E-M10, so no investment in anything to sway me one way or another.

 

I debated getting an a7rIII, but went with the IV mostly for the reported improvements in AF over the III.

 

I chose the rIV over a Nikon D850 because I wanted the higher resolution sensor. I have gotten some photos that I was fairly happy with from my E-M10 - but only by cropping them down to nearly the pixel level (and I've got plenty that I'm very happy with that did not require such extensive cropping). Sometimes that's just how it is, for me. A subject is a little small and a little far away. Close enough for my strobes to give me an okay exposure, but far enough that I really needed to zoom in some. Except that I didn't have time to do that. I want the extra MP to be able to get those same photos, crop them, and still have something that can be sharp at bigger print/display sizes.

 

Also, as I had to base my decision primarily on reviews - no direct experience with either - my impression is that the Sony's AF is at least as good and may be just a hair better than the D850. The Backscatter review comparing the D850 and a7rIII translated, in my mind, as they are pretty equal, with each having its pros and cons. As the a7rIV seems to be a clear step up from the a7rIII, in my mind that translates as being (in general!) a better camera for u/w use than the D850. I do realize that they each still have pros and cons, so it's not black and white. But, I pretty much only shoot WA and CFWA (mostly sharks and sharks'n'wrecks) and I have the impression that the rIV will do marginally better for me than the D850.

 

Also, I will use it for terrestrial photography as well and I like the more compact size of the rIV with a "walking around" lens attached.

 

Also, the cost of the D850 housing did not win any points. I preferred the Sony anyway, but if I were really on the fence, the price of a housing would have pushed me to the Sony.

 

I'm getting a Nauticam housing for it because I want to eventually be able to use a WACP. For now, I have a WWL-1 that I was using on my E-M10, so I got a Sony 28mm prime to use with the new camera and the WWL-1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a canon 5dmk4 and I love it. I've used a 16-35mm sense the whole time I've had it and I've grown to really like that lens. maybe I'm bias but I don't think I would trade out for anything else. its also all I've ever known so I can't say I'm coming in with other experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot with a D800 in Nauticam, having upgraded from a D90 in Nauticam.

I'll stay with Nauticam and Nikon DSLR as my favorite lens is my converted RS13. 

I upgraded to the D800 late in the cycle, and it was not worth the expense to jump to the 850.

Should an 850 replacement ever arise, and be an exponential improvement over the 800, I'll probably make an upgrade then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DocTock said:

I shoot with a D800 in Nauticam, having upgraded from a D90 in Nauticam.

I'll stay with Nauticam and Nikon DSLR as my favorite lens is my converted RS13. 

I upgraded to the D800 late in the cycle, and it was not worth the expense to jump to the 850.

Should an 850 replacement ever arise, and be an exponential improvement over the 800, I'll probably make an upgrade then.

I'm with you on this one. I got into a Seacm D800 (its not here yet so not used so far). But I will use it and hard. And when its days are over by then the D850 housings will be much lower cost and a D850 body with low shutter count will be bountiful on ebay.

I dont feel the need to be on the cutting edge of stills photography. Video is something different though. The advances there are rapid and amazing but for stills the plateau evened out years ago and is essentially flat these days....more Res..do we really need it? I think the D800 is the sweet spot right now. Just my opinion of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2019 at 8:48 PM, adamhanlon said:

Just to gently steer this excellent discussion back on track...

The original premise was:  

Rather than tell us why you actually chose a specific camera, what would you have if we were to ignore cost, lens and port ownership? You should not ignore factors like lens availability (e.g. is the lack of a native fisheye with Sony and Nikon full frame mirrorless cameras a deal breaker?), but blue sky thinking is most welcome.

This is not real world of course. I think it is an interesting exercise though to see how "desirable" different camera models are being viewed and which features underwater shooters see as being important.

Adam

 

For photo only: Nikon  D850 or Sony A7RIV. Probably leaning towards the Nikon for Macro and the  Sony otherwise, simply because of past experience with the 90mm macro focusing on the sony A7RII. Unless it's significantly  improved as Simon has heard, in which case I don't see much  benefit to the D850. But I'd be happy with either if all I was shooting is photos. 

In terms  of lens selection, the Canon 8-15 works great on the A7RIV with adapter, the Sony 16-35F4 worked great for wide angle for me in the past (I prefer it to the Nikon 16-35F4), even with a 180mm dome, and the Sony 90mm macro is a great lens, albeit it slow to focus on the older sony A7RII/A7RIII. 

For video predominantly: Probably Panasonic S1R today or wait for Canon 1DX Mark III. Stabilization is important, adopted lenses are fine on the S1R. But I tend to agree with Interceptor21 that full frame may not be the best option for video, and  there's a lot of interesting m4/3 and s35/aps-c options out there. Also, if you're shooting predominantly video, I think an  argument should be made to go for a purely video camera rather than a hybrid. I'd take a hard look at the BMPCC 4K and 6k and the ZCAM E2 (along with the GH5, which I own). The Canon C500 Mark II looks very tempting if you've got that sort of budget.

If shooting 50/50 Photo/Video:  ???? I don't think currently a great full frame option exists. The Panasonic S1R arguably, though I'd prefer to have higher resolution for the photo side. Sony white balance isn't great, and none of their offerings even shoot 4k60, which I've come to love on the GH5, so I wouldn't 'upgrade' to any camera for video that didn't at least have 4k60, stabilization, and prefereably a raw codec. For photos, I'd like to have >= 36mpix. I guess the Panasonic S1R technically meets those specifications, if shooting video in the 4k mode, but no higher bit rate options at 4k60 and no raw. One can hope that the Sony A7SIII when it finally comes around gives us a 36mpix sensor, sensor stabilizaton, 8k30/4k120 (or at least 60) and some form of raw recording. Now that would be perfect. But so long as it doesn't have raw and the sony white balance remains as it is today, I won't be buying it either.

What's conspicuously missing from all the above categories IMO is anything from Nikon & Sony's new mirrorless range. Lens selection for these cameras may be fine, but there's nothing particularly compelling about the Z6, Z7  or EOS R for either underwater photos, videos or in a hybrid role.

Edited by dreifish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dreifish said:

 

For video predominantly: Probably Panasonic S1R today or wait for Canon 1DX Mark III. Stabilization is important, adopted lenses are fine on the S1R. But I tend to agree with Interceptor21 that full frame may not be the best option for video, and  there's a lot of interesting m4/3 and s35/aps-c options out there. Also, if you're shooting predominantly video, I think an  argument should be made to go for a purely video camera rather than a hybrid. I'd take a hard look at the BMPCC 4K and 6k and the ZCAM E2 (along with the GH5, which I own). The Canon C500 Mark II looks very tempting if you've got that sort of budget.

You make no mention of the Sigma fp. Any thoughts on that at all ?

Your input is clear and concise and makes much sense. So interested on your thoughts about the fp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...