p.73 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Profits of course. So said Milton Friedman and most businesses obliged.
I used to spend a week each year with Milton Freedman and William Buckley. Many long conversations with both of them. I can assure you his views would very much align with mine.
Profits over the long term are directly correlated to customer satisfaction. Even in the short term, if the client is not satisfied with the work product and refuses to pay, it is a very unprofitable proposition.
There are unsatisfied clients who refuse the product, and refuse to pay.
There are marginally satisfied clients who pay for the current job, but don't return.
There are very satisfied clients that reengage a vendor for a service, and often refer others.
In each case client satisfaction is the key ingredient. There are whole business on the web for clients to share satisfaction levels good and bad. Gauging client satisfaction is a centerpiece of most successful companies management and planning.
Profits are inexorably linked to client satsifaction.
p.73 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
1bwana1 wrote:
Profits over the long term are directly correlated to customer satisfaction. Even in the short term, if the client is not satisfied with the work product and refuses to pay, it is a very unprofitable proposition.
Tell me how the airlines got in trouble after reducing the leg space to the point of transforming the seats into "iron maidens".
It's all about providing passable quality at the highest price and lowest cost possible.
Should it be like this? Maybe not, but that's what we were doing for the past century and it doesn't look like it will change anytime soon.
Coming back to the cameras. You're oversimplifying if you reduce it to the perceived quality of a test shot. There are many factors to evaluate when it comes to chosing a camera for professional use. One could probably use an 8x10 camera to produce an image of similar or even better quality. Should you rush to buy one for your next wedding assignement?
p.73 #3 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Tell me how the airlines got in trouble after reducing the leg space to the point of transforming the seats into "iron maidens".
Since travel services are the benchmark you have chosen we will look at them.
It is really simple. Customers are more satisfied with lower airline ticket prices then leg room. They vote their satisfaction priority every time they choose their flights. For those who are more satisfied with legroom and other services, there is business class and first class.
I am more satisfied with better accommodations than I am with lower prices. I always choose business or first class unless the flight is very short. It is the same with hotels. I am more satisfied with a suite than I am with a low priced room.
In each case I choose airlines, and hotels based on my satisfaction with previous experiences.
You speak like these levels of service are somehow forced on you rather than a choice you make. I don't get that.
p.73 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
1bwana1 wrote:
Since travel services are the benchmark you have chosen we will look at them.
It is really simple. Customers are more satisfied with lower airline ticket prices then leg room. They vote their satisfaction priority every time they choose their flights. For those who are more satisfied with legroom and other services, there is business class and first class.
I am more satisfied with better accommodations than I am with lower prices. I always choose business or first class unless the flight is very short. It is the same with hotels. I am more satisfied with a suite than I am with a low priced room.
In each case I choose airlines, and hotels based on my satisfaction with previous experiences.
You speak like these levels of service are somehow forced on you rather than a choice you make. I don't get that.
And brides are more satisfied with lower photography prices than with more megapickles. The vast majority of weddings will still be shot with good old 5D for many years to come. 30MP is "good enough" and it makes a lot of business sense to not "upgrade" to a new system that doesn't provide any competitive advantage in the intended market.
Glad to hear that you're among the 12% that can easily and permanently afford business class. Maybe you could also lecture me and the other 78% about getting private jets so we could have all the leg room that we want? All from an aristocratic "let them eat cake" position?
p.73 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
And brides are more satisfied with lower photography prices than with more megapickles. The vast majority of weddings will still be shot with good old 5D for many years to come. 30MP is "good enough" and it makes a lot of business sense to not "upgrade" to a new system that doesn't provide any competitive advantage in the intended market.
Ah, and that was my original point. I do agree that for most Brides they don't give one lick about the equipment, or the MP. Looking at the two images in the sample, the client would be happy with either one. So, it made no difference which camera was used.
Finally we come full circle and back to agreement on my original post.
vdo1 wrote:
Glad to hear that you're among the 12% that can easily and permanently afford business class. Maybe you could also lecture me and the other 78% about getting private jets so we could have all the leg room that we want? All from an aristocratic "let them eat cake" position?
Permanently is an optimistic position. Lets just say for now that is my fortunate situation. It has not always been the case let me tell you. I have traveled in some meager conditions in my life for sure. You haven't lived until you have travel in an African Matatu. Life has taught me that It could go away almost instantly.
p.73 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
GabrielPhoto wrote:
I would say that they both have their own color cast when working with them but overall, to my liking maybe the Canon took a few less clicks on this particular image to match the look I wanted. But also it seems to take skins past where I want if I white balance it exactly where it should be where the Sony seems to land skin colors closer to where I want them when white balanced.
BUT take the above with a grain of salt until I get the R5 again and do more testing of these types of things. For now, all I can say is that I can work with either of the cameras perfectly fine and get results I will be happy with. ...Show more →
Thanks Gabriel for taking the time out and for sharing this great comparison as well as demonstrating that great results can be achieved regardless of the gear and it is a real testament to your skill set. The more I use the R5, I am finding that comparatively, I need to finesse the image a bit less, i.e. fewer clicks. Were you using Adobe's stock profile or DPP?
p.73 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
1bwana1 wrote:
Ah, and that was my original point. I do agree that for most Brides they don't give one lick about the equipment, or the MP. Looking at the two images in the sample, the client would be happy with either one. So, it made no difference which camera was used.
Finally we come full circle and back to agreement on my original post.
Not so fast.... The original disagreement was regarding the idea that quality is the single factor in making a business decision on which of those two cameras to chose. However, picking one or the other of those cameras, in a business context, has also to account for other factors, like the cost and availability of the cameras, their lens and accessories, fitness to intended purpose etc. You cannot just brush off those.
p.73 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
armd wrote:
Thanks Gabriel for taking the time out and for sharing this great comparison as well as demonstrating that great results can be achieved regardless of the gear and it is a real testament to your skill set. The more I use the R5, I am finding that comparatively, I need to finesse the image a bit less, i.e. fewer clicks. Were you using Adobe's stock profile or DPP?
I used DPP but I was not happy with the results as for my style, it is too heavy-handed, specially sharpening. So if/when I get the R5 I plan to work with DPP to tweak it to my liking OR use Capture One which was giving me slightly flatter image that matches my preference more. Not sure how long it will take me to get an R5 and become a dual system shooter.
p.73 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
GabrielPhoto wrote:
I used DPP but I was not happy with the results as for my style, it is too heavy-handed, specially sharpening. So if/when I get the R5 I plan to work with DPP to tweak it to my liking OR use Capture One which was giving me slightly flatter image that matches my preference more. Not sure how long it will take me to get an R5 and become a dual system shooter.
Yes, dpp adds way to much NR and sharpening to the image. For wildlife, I find the “detail” profile the best place to start though it probably wouldn’t work for portraits. The adobe profile isn’t much better. Hopefully, Capture One and other folks find better solutions.
p.73 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
Not so fast.... The original disagreement was regarding the idea that quality is the single factor in making a business decision on which of those two cameras to chose. However, picking one or the other of those cameras, in a business context, has also to account for other factors, like the cost and availability of the cameras, their lens and accessories, fitness to intended purpose etc. You cannot just brush off those.
Not so fast?
Seriously, my original post on the subject was simple, short and very limited in scope. It had only to do with a client's perception of the finished product. The point of it is that the images are so similar in quality, that the equipment choice doesn't matter. If the choice of equipment doesn't matter then all those other things you mention also don't matter. It is very simple.
Here it is so you don't have to go looking for it:
"The important thing is that any paying client would have the same perception of quality from either camera. In the end, that is what counts."
All that other stuff was, and still is being interjected by you. This says much more about you than it does about my original post.
p.73 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
armd wrote:
Yes, dpp adds way to much NR and sharpening to the image. For wildlife, I find the “detail” profile the best place to start though it probably wouldn’t work for portraits. The adobe profile isn’t much better. Hopefully, Capture One and other folks find better solutions.
Oh yeah Adobe has a lot of work to do IMO, the colors were way off. But Capture One seems good and I can work with DPP I am sure, just need more time to tweak to my liking
p.73 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
1bwana1 wrote:
Not so fast?
Seriously, my original post on the subject was simple, short and very limited in scope. It had only to do with a client's perception of the finished product. The point of it is that the images are so similar in quality, that the equipment choice doesn't matter. If the choice of equipment doesn't matter then all those other things you mention also don't matter. It is very simple.
Here it is so you don't have to go looking for it:
"The important thing is that any paying client would have the same perception of quality from either camera. In the end, that is what counts."
All that other stuff was, and still is being interjected by you. This says much more about you than it does about my original post.
You didn't pay much attention to what Milton had to say, eh?
If image 1 costs you $40 to produce with equipment A;
and image 2 costs you $60 to produce with equipment B;
and the products are similar in quality so you can only charge the "paying client" the same market price of $50 for this type and quality of image;
how exactly is the image quality exclusively "what counts" in your business? Profit vs. bankrupcy is a moot point?
Your argument suggests that you have zero experience with trying to conduct photography as a business.
p.73 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
1bwana1 wrote:
No wonder you have to sit in coach. You focus on the wrong things in business.
I'm done.
How would you know, have you ever sold a single photo?
Sep 07, 2020 at 10:18 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.73 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
vdo1 wrote:
You didn't pay much attention to what Milton had to say, eh?
If image 1 costs you $40 to produce with equipment A;
and image 2 costs you $60 to produce with equipment B;
and the products are similar in quality so you can only charge the "paying client" the same market price of $50 for this type and quality of image;
how exactly is the image quality exclusively "what counts" in your business? Profit vs. bankrupcy is a moot point?
Your argument suggests that you have zero experience with trying to conduct photography as a business.
The problem with your argument, however, is that the math is way way off.
Let's imagine a Canon Pro kit and a Sony Pro kit and to keep it simple let's image a two camera and two lens kit:
For Sony we might want an A7r IV for high resolution and an A9 II for fast action. For the lenses we might got with the Sigma 105 f/1.4 as Gabriel did and one of your favorites the FE 35 f/1.8.
For Canon a similar kit might be the R5 and the R6 cameras and for lenses we could go with the Canon RF 85 f/1.2L and the Canon 35 f/1.8.
Which kit is cheaper? Well actually the if you bought new the Canon is actually cheaper, but you might well get cheaper with the Sony kit especially if you bought used or if you swapped the A9 II for the A7 III.
My first point is that it is not at all clear Sony would be cheaper for a kit. That would depend on a lot of other choices you would make.
But let's assume you got your Sony kit for $5,000 less than your Canon kit. How much would that translate into savings for an actual picture? Would it be anywhere even close to the $20 per picture you use in your example above? Let's just do the math and see.
Let's assume that our hypothetical photographer grosses $100,000 a year in sales (and the photographer better gross something close to that if he or she wants to stay in business). Let's also assume that he or she keeps the gear for 3 years and sells it for half the purchase price. That means over the three year period our hypothetical photographer will have spent $2,500 more on his or her Canon kit than on a Sony kit. Now if we do the math and he or she has grossed $300,000 over that three year period, then in the sale of a $50 photo the Canon shooter will be making about 41 cents less on that $50 photo. This is assuming the high side of the cost of the camera gear as well with a $5,000 difference in price. Your example of a $20 difference in price if the photographer grosses about $100,000 a year would require the Canon kit to cost $240,000 more than the Sony kit. Of course that sort of price difference is utter non-sense, but the math if you work it out makes your example equally unrealistic. The truth is that even in the Canon kit costs $10,000 more which is implausible we are talking less than a dollar in the price of a $50 picture and that doesn't even factor in the tax saving you would have with the more expensive kit due to greater depreciation.
So, my second point is that your example is totally unrealistic. Cost differences in a kit from different brands is going to have minimal difference on the amount of money that is made from the sale of a $50 print. It is going to make minimal difference in net income (likely considerably less than $1,000 a year once tax savings due to depreciation are considered).
The bottom line, IMO, is that if you like either output and your clients are happy with both products, get whatever kit you like using the best, and don't sweat the price differences between the kits until you get way over $10,000 difference.
p.73 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Great analysis, but you’re taking your time to edit the pictures out of the equation, and that’s even more important that the price of the gear, because you can recover the money, but you will never recover the time of your life.
For me, it takes much less time to edit Canon files and leave them the way I like them, that’s why I know that eventually I will move back to Canon.
For the price, I will wait until the camera has an adequate price for what I want to pay, I won’t buy new released gear brand new... but of course I’m not working as a pro nowadays.
p.73 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
GabrielPhoto wrote:
Just for entertainment I tried a quick edit of a similar image from the Canon R5 and A7R IV here...
I know I'm late to the party and that you have revealed the results, but here is my take (not cheating):
The top image has the skin tones that I typically associate with Sony, and that I don't get the way I want. Don't know how to pinpoint it, but it is too much red in it and is colder, that's the simplest way to express what I'm talking about. The bottom image has more pleasing and typical Canon skin tones.
Afterwards I see that many Sony shooters got it the other way around. Wonder how much experience they have with Canon, or if it is a long time since. Also interesting that so many prefer the Canon variant, even though they think it is Sony
p.73 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
The power of familiarity/ nostalgia. Unlike an ex girlfriend, this won’t get you in trouble. The animal eye AF has surpassed Sony.
I would have considered it if the A7siii didn’t come along, and quite frankly, blows it out the water..... however I’m highly video centric. For photographers it looks Very good if you ignore the elephant in the room..... the E-Mount system is far superior as a whole, Sony’s head start along with open mount makes a massive difference. Half of my lenses are third party without a canon Third party alternative. The other half, canon doesn’t make, except for one, and the Sony version is more to my liking, smaller, lighter, high quality.
I’m always open to trying another brand, however the R5/R6 does nothing for me. For photography, I would rather use an A9, for video, the A7siii, for both, A7siii again, not disturbed by 12mp all that much. Trading higher MP for stunning video quality is totally worth it for me
I can say something similar with photography, I’ll take the stacked sensor before megapixels/dynamic range. Really sad the A7siii did not have the rumored stacked sensor, has me yearning for an A9s.........
vdo1 wrote:
This is one of the weirdest threads I've seen. After migrating to Sony out of frustration with Canon's ways of doing things, the same people are now hellbent to give Canon one more try. Reminds me of the "hold my camel" joke.
?