GroovyGeek wrote:
This guy owns all 3 main systems and his evaluations are very vague, supoosedly starting with an attempt to name "the best" and then naming one of everything. I don't find much depth to the few videos I have watched from him - mostly about super tele primes.
"I'm playing both sides, so that i always come out on top" - Mac, its always sunny.
this happens a lot to me for gear videos when I think I have it narrowed down, and they pull out the rug and give nothing conclusive enough to help.
GroovyGeek wrote:
This guy owns all 3 main systems and his evaluations are very vague, supoosedly starting with an attempt to name "the best" and then naming one of everything. I don't find much depth to the few videos I have watched from him - mostly about super tele primes.
Perhaps counter intuitively, I’m skeptical of reviewers whose qualification is that they “own all three (or more) systems.”
There certainly is some truth to the fact that if they actually use all of them sufficiently to become deeply familiar with all three (or more) that they have a basis for offering some comparisons that others may lack.
However, too often for comfort, I’seen folks who own a ton of gear and brands whose actual photography suggests that their talent lies more with the acquisition of gear than with its use to make fine photographs — which makes me question, at least a bit, their perspective.
(I know nothing of the specific reviewer mentioned in this thread, and I’m making a general comment without reference to any specific person.)
arbitrage wrote:
I find Jan's videos to be some of the very few useful ones for what I shoot.
Jan is similar to me in that he shoots all three systems off and on.
The reason I trust his opinions on cameras and lenses I haven't used is that whenever he does a video about the cameras or lenses that I do own his opinion mirrors mine to a tee.
I know his primary system is Canon but the pros he brings up with Canon cameras are legit. And the pros and cons he brings up about all three systems are legit.
I don't see why someone would want him to pick a winner? If one camera dominated in 80-90% of the categories then he would probably declare a winner. But I think when these three cameras each have their different strengths and weaknesses then it is more useful to hear about which features each camera excels at over the others.
If one excels at video then I don't have to prioritize that one as I rarely shoot video. If one excels at BIF, yet I rarely shoot BIF, then I can instead prioritize the one that excels at perched bird subject recognition.
I have no issue with people sharing videos like this on here. I'm glad the OP posted this for people that weren't aware of it. Someone looking to buy into a mid-range MILC will surely benefit from this video to help them decide on which brand to buy.
I don't think anyone is advocating for picking a winner. It is about having a differentiated opinion... which he either lacks or prefers not to express on YT to keep his options open wrt being designated an "ambassador of brand X".
gdanmitchell wrote:
Perhaps counter intuitively, I’m skeptical of reviewers whose qualification is that they “own all three (or more) systems.”
There certainly is some truth to the fact that if they actually use all of them sufficiently to become deeply familiar with all three (or more) that they have a basis for offering some comparisons that others may lack.
However, too often for comfort, I’seen folks who own a ton of gear and brands whose actual photography suggests that their talent lies more with the acquisition of gear than with its use to make fine photographs — which makes me question, at least a bit, their perspective.
(I know nothing of the specific reviewer mentioned in this thread, and I’m making a general comment without reference to any specific person.)...Show more →
The reviewer should be good at testing and reviewing the gear, analyzing the results and presenting it well. Nobody is expecting them to be make fine photographs; that's often a different skillset. The Googles UTube video in question is not particularly useful, though I have no idea if that is normal. I've pretty much not gained anything from it, but may be of some use to novices looking to start a system.
j4nu wrote:
I actually think A7V is a great all-rounder. It has significantly higher DR compared to the fast cameras (A1, A9), albeit only in mechanical shutter. It also has reasonably fast readout speed, which should be enough for most action. It also has improved battery life.
So, photo-wise it seems a great camera to me. Of course, there are still some things missing compared to the competition, like eyeMF aids, but those will probably never gonna happen.
I shoot mostly slow subjects with my A7R IV, and now that my kids are a bit older, I don’t really need A1‑ or A9‑level tracking anymore. What I do still love is the resolution — I’m a shameless pixel‑peeper. So I’m wondering: would I actually gain anything by selling the IV and moving to the V? My GAS is almost entirely lens‑focused anyway; for whatever reason, camera bodies just don’t excite me the same way.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I shoot mostly slow subjects with my A7R IV, and now that my kids are a bit older, I don’t really need A1‑ or A9‑level tracking anymore. What I do still love is the resolution — I’m a shameless pixel‑peeper. So I’m wondering: would I actually gain anything by selling the IV and moving to the V? My GAS is almost entirely lens‑focused anyway; for whatever reason, camera bodies just don’t excite me the same way.
What you have said above makes me think that you may want to consider the GFX100S II with some of the GF lenses.
ruthenium wrote:
What you have said above makes me think that you may want to consider the GFX100S II with some of the GF lenses.
I don't want a bigger camera. The GFX system and its lenses feel like they would push me in the wrong direction. I also own the Fuji X100VI, and while I can live with slower AF, Fuji still feels a few generations behind and it gets a bit annoying. I am not sure how the GFX AF compares, but I still shoot some kids sports and school events, so I would want something more reliable for that.
On my Sony setup, I really only have two larger lenses: the 50mm GM f/1.2 and the Tamron 35-150. I absolutely love both of them. If I didn’t, I would have replaced them with something smaller by now. Anything bigger than the Sony 35 GM starts to feel annoying for me over time.
EB-1 wrote:
The reviewer should be good at testing and reviewing the gear, analyzing the results and presenting it well. Nobody is expecting them to be make fine photographs; that's often a different skillset. The Googles UTube video in question is not particularly useful, though I have no idea if that is normal. I've pretty much not gained anything from it, but may be of some use to novices looking to start a system.
EBH
Yes. And no.
Reporting facts and data is important, and it isn’t impossible to do that even if one isn’t a decently skillful photographer, I suppose. Certainly, a skillful technician can run image tests and collect data about, say, a lens or dynamic range or noise levels. Those things are fairly objective and subject to quantitative measurement.
But it is rare that photographic gear reviews simply report such data. They virtually always go well beyond that, both interpreting the significance of the data and assessing/rating various individual things that are not simply objective measurements and then attempting to come up with some overall evaluation that weights these various objective and subjective elements.
When it comes to that process, the skillful technician and “measurer” is often not able to offer truly meaningful or relevant assessment of the actual performance of the camera or other gear.
One other problem I have with the “own everything” reviewers is their too-frequent dismissal of the perspective of anyone who doesn’t “own all the gear.” Too often, it comes off as a defense mechanism: “I own everything so I know about all the gear. If you don’t own everything, your perspective isn’t valid.”
There are useful exceptions among some people whose full time job seems to be testing and assessing photography equipment.
Finally, I’m extremely skeptical of the “winners and losers” approach to evaluating things like, but not limited to, camera equipment. It gets attention — and “clicks” — but rarely is objectively accurate.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I shoot mostly slow subjects with my A7R IV, and now that my kids are a bit older, I don’t really need A1‑ or A9‑level tracking anymore. What I do still love is the resolution — I’m a shameless pixel‑peeper. So I’m wondering: would I actually gain anything by selling the IV and moving to the V? My GAS is almost entirely lens‑focused anyway; for whatever reason, camera bodies just don’t excite me the same way.
Well, if you're a hardcore pixelpeeper, it's gonna be an obvious downgrade .
What you get is better AF in general I think, both tracking and static subjects in busy environments (vs A7RIV)1. I guess precapture won't matter too much in your use case.
I'd like to see some battery life comparisons of non-AI (A7III, IV or A7RIV) models vs A7V, but I was not able to find any . Previous AI models were a significant downgrade in that regard in general shooting ("a day out with the family").
j4nu wrote:
Well, if you're a hardcore pixelpeeper, it's gonna be an obvious downgrade .
What you get is better AF in general I think, both tracking and static subjects in busy environments (vs A7RIV)1. I guess precapture won't matter too much in your use case.
I'd like to see some battery life comparisons of non-AI (A7III, IV or A7RIV) models vs A7V, but I was not able to find any . Previous AI models were a significant downgrade in that regard in general shooting ("a day out with the family").
I haven’t used Sony’s new AI‑driven autofocus yet. My two bodies are the A1 and the A7R IV, and honestly, coming from a Nikon D800, the jump in AF performance was already massive. For the type of shooting I do, the A7R IV still handles everything I need without leaving me wishing for more “AI intelligence.” I’m not tracking subjects darting through bushes or playing hide‑and‑seek. Eye‑detection AF is more than enough for my work, and I’ve never felt limited by it.
I’m also happy with the battery life on my Sony bodies. It’s not quite DSLR‑level, but it’s still several times better than what I get from the X100VI. It’s all relative I guess.
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
I haven’t used Sony’s new AI‑driven autofocus yet. My two bodies are the A1 and the A7R IV, and honestly, coming from a Nikon D800, the jump in AF performance was already massive. For the type of shooting I do, the A7R IV still handles everything I need without leaving me wishing for more “AI intelligence.” I’m not tracking subjects darting through bushes or playing hide‑and‑seek. Eye‑detection AF is more than enough for my work, and I’ve never felt limited by it.
I’m also happy with the battery life on my Sony bodies. It’s not quite DSLR‑level, but it’s still several times better than what I get from the X100VI. It’s all relative I guess. ...Show more →
I actually mis-remembered that: the first cameras affected by the drop in battery life were the cameras with the new CPU (easier identified by the new menu), so that would be A7SIII and A1 I think.
My old A7III could run circles around A1 when it comes to battery life in extended usage...
I doubt A7V will be better in that regard than the old cameras, but maybe it will at least be comparable again.
j4nu wrote:
I actually mis-remembered that: the first cameras affected by the drop in battery life were the cameras with the new CPU (easier identified by the new menu), so that would be A7SIII and A1 I think.
My old A7III could run circles around A1 when it comes to battery life in extended usage...
I doubt A7V will be better in that regard than the old cameras, but maybe it will at least be comparable again.
It very well could be. I use A7RIV 99% of the time. I should sell my A1; the poor camera sees no action.
.
. Previous AI models were a significant downgrade in that regard in general shooting ("a day out with the family").