I understand your point, but surely his clients expect these things these days and he’s just trying to make it easier on himself at work.
I'm a Nikon guy with a D850 and 300/2.8 until recently. I photograph dance and running dogs, some human critters. And from the D300-D700 onward I've been thrilled with Nikon's auto-focus once you learn the different modes and controls (which are not well documented in the instructions, Thom Hogan does a better job explaining things).
In the olden days I would photograph ski racing and life with manual focus and earlier auto focus systems and it's really no comparison. With good technique and pre-focusing at a fixed point I could get 10-30% of the action shots in acceptable focus but really crisp shots were more a matter of quantity and luck. With the modern Nikon AF technique it's more like 75-80% keepers and really tack sharp more often than not. Real sports photographers say the same thing, I've stood on the side of World Cup races and am using the same gear, gotten similar photos and often access merely because I looked the part.
We can argue about user interfaces but I really dislike both Sony and Canon's logic. None of the Japanese cameras are very good but at least Nikon stays mostly consistent between models and I've figured it out.
As for mirrorless, I have a Z7 and although it was very poorly explained in Nikon's instructions, I think its AF is amazing after having come up with many early mirrorless cameras back to the Panasonic G1. I haven't tried the latest Sony or Canon but to me the Z7, set up correctly, is on par with the D850. I imagine that the D5 and D6 pro sports bodies are another tick better.
My only gripe is that making a smaller body is all well and good but physics still requires larger lens housings for faster apertures and AF motors. The Sony/Zeiss primes aren't any smaller or easier to lug around than any other brand of full-frame camera and if you have larger hands the bodies force you to crimp (arthritis). Trying to handle a full sized 70-200/2.8 on the A7-series seems like it is going to rip the lens bayonet off the body to me.
Seriously a $400USd ancient Nikon D700 probably has better AF than your current kit. More realistically the D810 (~$1000 used?) is fantastic (I owned three) and also has live view for critical manual focusing for still life. My main rant against Nikon is they hide their strengths because they probably figure most customers aren't dedicated enough to figure things out. They'll spend thousands of hours developing this technology and then barely and rarely mention it in their marketing or instruction books! Crazy
In the olden days I would photograph ski racing and life with manual focus and earlier auto focus systems and it's really no comparison. With good technique and pre-focusing at a fixed point I could get 10-30% of the action shots in acceptable focus but really crisp shots were more a matter of quantity and luck. With the modern Nikon AF technique it's more like 75-80% keepers and really tack sharp more often than not. Real sports photographers say the same thing, I've stood on the side of World Cup races and am using the same gear, gotten similar photos and often access merely because I looked the part.
We can argue about user interfaces but I really dislike both Sony and Canon's logic. None of the Japanese cameras are very good but at least Nikon stays mostly consistent between models and I've figured it out.
As for mirrorless, I have a Z7 and although it was very poorly explained in Nikon's instructions, I think its AF is amazing after having come up with many early mirrorless cameras back to the Panasonic G1. I haven't tried the latest Sony or Canon but to me the Z7, set up correctly, is on par with the D850. I imagine that the D5 and D6 pro sports bodies are another tick better.
My only gripe is that making a smaller body is all well and good but physics still requires larger lens housings for faster apertures and AF motors. The Sony/Zeiss primes aren't any smaller or easier to lug around than any other brand of full-frame camera and if you have larger hands the bodies force you to crimp (arthritis). Trying to handle a full sized 70-200/2.8 on the A7-series seems like it is going to rip the lens bayonet off the body to me.
Seriously a $400USd ancient Nikon D700 probably has better AF than your current kit. More realistically the D810 (~$1000 used?) is fantastic (I owned three) and also has live view for critical manual focusing for still life. My main rant against Nikon is they hide their strengths because they probably figure most customers aren't dedicated enough to figure things out. They'll spend thousands of hours developing this technology and then barely and rarely mention it in their marketing or instruction books! Crazy
Damaso
Photojournalist
I think sometimes we do get caught up in the latest and greatest rather than pushing ourselves to do better with what we have. Again, when the 5D II came out it was amazing for sports photographers and I'm sure many awards were won and assignments delivered with that camera.
When you say "his clients expect these things" what do you mean? Are people giving clients unedited takes? My question again is "is the OP not getting enough sharp images due to 'slow" AF?"
When you say "his clients expect these things" what do you mean? Are people giving clients unedited takes? My question again is "is the OP not getting enough sharp images due to 'slow" AF?"
Michael Markey
Veteran
Exactly .
I pushed myself to do better with what I had for years and it was bloody hard work and frankly not worth it in terms of consistent results .
Nobody wants to know how hard you had to try .
They know that today`s cameras make it easier and the results more consistent and that`s what they expect you to use .
Dan
Let's Sway
This ^^, and complaining about image quality while still using LR 4.4??? Upgrade your software and processing skills first, then the equipment you already own will perform much better.
hap
Well-known
Don't worry. Soon enough they will be "cancelled".
Larry H-L
Well-known
Not nearly enough information about what you are delivering clients.. what size prints, web photos, 4k video?
Are you using studio strobes, speedlights and LED video lights? Shooting all in RAW? What Panny lenses are you using?
And I agree with Saul, upgrading Adobe software and/or using Capture One for RAW conversions can make a huge difference, for a fraction of the price of new gear.
Will LR 4.4 even open RAW Panny G9 files?
Are you using studio strobes, speedlights and LED video lights? Shooting all in RAW? What Panny lenses are you using?
And I agree with Saul, upgrading Adobe software and/or using Capture One for RAW conversions can make a huge difference, for a fraction of the price of new gear.
Will LR 4.4 even open RAW Panny G9 files?
Bill Clark
Veteran
Please don’t give those people any more ideas.
Michael Markey
Veteran
But will it perform significantly better ?
The auto focus certainly won`t improve.
It`s not going to suddenly facilitate the camera maintaining focus even when your subject is temporarily obscured behind another player or obstacle .
I`m really at a loss to understand this apparent reluctance to take advantage of the improvements in more capable AF systems .
It seems parsimonious in the extreme not to .
I’m just an amateur and I’m interested in art. I can make my own decisions on what is acceptable. However, I would think in 2020, in the commercial world, they expect things to be sharp and in focus perfectly. Anything missed would be considered unacceptable. Of course he’s been using his equipment and making it work. Of course people have used lesser. However, from the very start he said he’s looking to make it easier on himself. There is nothing wrong with buying the latest for that reason if it makes your job easier. Again, we are not talking about art or my personal opinion of what is acceptable.
Archiver
Veteran
Both. I'm potentially dealing with companies at the level of Nike and Adidas. The images are intended for use in everything including websites, national marketing campaigns, large posters, that kind of thing. I have my foot in the door and want to make sure that my file quality is up to scratch.
Edited to add: I shoot in raw, and sometimes am asked to supply raw files for their graphic design people to work with. I supply processed jpegs as proofs and they select what they want.
I also create video intended for the web, shooting in 4K but exporting in 1080p. The footage may be used at a later date for TVC's, so I need to keep this in mind for quality levels, both in output and composition/lighting.
The 5D Mark II has awful shadow banding and noise which is sometimes visible even in properly exposed images. Depending on the situation, I shoot to preserve highlights in the subject, which can result in dark backgrounds that show this banding and cross hatching. The M9, interestingly, does not have this to anywhere near the extent of the 5D II, but I've processed some Sony A7rII and III raws and found them to be clean as heck.
I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with the autofocus of the 5D II, which was fine for landscapes, product photography, candids, still lifes etc, but not for rapidly moving boxers who pivot and shift in unforseeable ways.
As I said, I want to make this easier for myself, and ensure that my files are as good as I can get for the limited budget I'm working with at this time.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Well, we amateurs buy stuff we can't afford and probably don't need. At least you need it. It's an investment.
Michael Markey
Veteran
If you`re taking action in low light IMO its def a case for a Sony .
Their low light performance is way ahead of the competition.
I`ve been recently reminded of this as I`m currently using a CL ... lovely camera ect ect but I`ve been spoiled by the ability of the Sony bodies .
Its a shame that they didn`t make the menu system easier .
After a while though constant use makes that less of an issue .
Orthogonal
Established
Having to supply RAWs for a graphics team I think is enough reason to steer clear of Fuji. While I know Fuji RAW issues have been resolved IMO it's still a non-standard workflow you can't expect a client/vendor to adapt to without potential friction. I have used an A7RII for work, I've integrated some of the images for backgrounds/set extensions for feature films and TV shows, which often involves a decent amount of pretty extreme grading and sometimes re-lighting. What I've done with Sony files is probably much more exaggerated than the work required of a regular pro photog and so I can say that even the older models from Sony are very flexible - more so than my 5D3, the caveat being that the JPEG engine is awful and I (YMMV) generally feel like throwing the camera off a building every time I have to use it. I assume the third generation Sonys are even better, but I'd really encourage you to try one out in person; I personally hate the A7 series from an ergonomics/UI standpoint but their capability is hard to beat.
I think the main question is what focal lengths and apertures you use most since it's not much use having a body with amazing AF technology if your lens is sluggish. Sounds like you're budgeting for a new body only, but many pro grade lenses will cost just as much. Considering that, you might want to look into the EOS R since I'm guessing you've got lenses you like for the 5D already, plus the EOS R is also a bit cheaper than the A7III. Some others have mentioned Nikon SLRs as good budget options, I've used a D810 for work a few times and have been very impressed, though I can't comment on the AF.
View Range
Well-known
If your sports assignments must be accomplished even in weather, the Nikon and Canon sports bodies are a must because of their weather sealing. Perhaps a good used Nikon D5 would fall in your budget. The D5 autofocus is unmatched by any camera. I haven't had the opportunity to try a D6; I can't imagine how it can be better than the D5. Most of my sports photography is auto racing with 400mm f2.8 , 200mm f2.0 and 80-200 f2.8 lenses with an occasional tele-converter.
Archiver
Veteran
The recent announcement of the Canon R6 has changed my plans. While the Sony A7 III would be a great candidate for me, I already have Canon lenses which I can use with a Canon EOS R body, and apparently the R6 works very well, perhaps even better, with EF lenses.
The R6 also has that Canon colour which seems to be strangely absent from the R. I'm happy to wait for another few months until people get them, and user reports and images start to come in. If the AF is what I'm after, the R6 will be the best suited hybrid that will take care of my stills and video needs for work.
What's even better, the EOS R system has an EF adapter with a drop-in variable ND, which means I can use any EF lens on it without worrying about screwing on vari-nd's for video!
The R6 also has that Canon colour which seems to be strangely absent from the R. I'm happy to wait for another few months until people get them, and user reports and images start to come in. If the AF is what I'm after, the R6 will be the best suited hybrid that will take care of my stills and video needs for work.
What's even better, the EOS R system has an EF adapter with a drop-in variable ND, which means I can use any EF lens on it without worrying about screwing on vari-nd's for video!
Archiver
Veteran
Only three weeks later, and plans have changed. The Canon R5 and R6 seem to have terrible overheating issues when shooting in 4K, which very disappointingly takes them out of the running for my needs. For stills, the R6 seems just right, but I want a hybrid that will shoot high quality, high framerate 4K and 1080p as well, thus lowering my gear footprint.
The just-announced Sony A7S III has everything I need for video work, although I am cautious about the 12mp sensor for stills in today's world. Not to mention, the A7S III is tipped to be AUD$5799. Yikes. The original plan to move to the A7 III is starting to raise its head again.
What's the world coming to, Canon now has awesome mirrorless cameras that overheat, and Sony has completely revamped menus and articulating screens??
The just-announced Sony A7S III has everything I need for video work, although I am cautious about the 12mp sensor for stills in today's world. Not to mention, the A7S III is tipped to be AUD$5799. Yikes. The original plan to move to the A7 III is starting to raise its head again.
What's the world coming to, Canon now has awesome mirrorless cameras that overheat, and Sony has completely revamped menus and articulating screens??
CMur12
Veteran
It's often said not to buy a new product for at least a year, until they get the bugs worked out. Canon may sort out the heating with a little time (and they may not).
- Murray
- Murray
Michael Markey
Veteran
I find a use for big MP sensors but I ran the first model Sony A7s for a few years and found the sensor (12mp I think it was then ) very useable and excellent in low light.
Sony`s tech is still streets ahead of other manufacturers and their pricing realistic.
gavinlg
Veteran
I agree, and canon in particular rarely half-ass their products. If they aren't working to full capacity from the beginning they likely will be after they update them.