This article carries on as an update to the original, 'Car Composition' which can be found here.
Bespoke Imaging work closely with Final Inspection and we're understanding of the benefits of detailing process documentation. The best time to photograph a car is directly following the perfect detail. We discussed and recommended the best cameras for covering detailing photography (in part one, May 2o13) and since then, many new camera bodies and lenses have been released, so its time for an update to that article.
In this post we'll cover the updates we've made to our equipment list and recommend some systems at different price points for people with different budgets. We realise some of you will use your gear for things other than cars, so we'll keep that in mind when recommending devices.
Since our last article we have acquired many new camera bodies and lenses such as the Nikon D3200 and D3300, the Nikon D5200 and 5300, the Nikon D7100, a Nikon D810, a Sony A7S and a couple of Panasonic GH4's which are surprisingly our most used bodies.
As usual, we own all the gear we review and recommend (unless otherwise noted) and we understand it all well, none of the review or any recommendations made are based on specs, it's all compiled based on actual use in a professional environment.
Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses, some cameras we use for very specific purposes, some are used as workhorses, some sit in rigs in the studio and some live in our cars for run and gun type work. The daily run and guns are 'A' cameras, the studio setups are 'B' cameras and the cameras with niche party tricks as the only reason we own them are 'C' cameras.
Bespoke shoot stills and video, we shoot portraits, weddings, babies, corporate events, property/architecture, we create visual effects, we produce advertisements for magazine and television commercials -but we love cars, cars are our forte and Final Inspection is our biggest client.
So let's get into it, here is what's new for us since we last wrote...
Our Sony A7S : Review
The Sony A7S launched to much fanfare. That acclaim continues, strong, to this day, but mostly amongst videographers as it has some cool video features such as 4K video recording. 4K is a buzz word for marketers and gear heads foam at the mouth every time its mentioned, the camera has sold well. We ordered one as soon as we saw the specs and we knew exactly how we'd use this 'new' camera.
This may sound harsh, but we're not sure why the A7S garnered so much hype. The A7S is a fantastic little camera, but it's a niche camera that does one thing and only one thing very well. It's not an all 'rounder, it is most certainly very quirky and different from its mainstream competition (Nikon and Canon), it has very many flaws (in our opinion), but as I said, it does one thing very well. We'll keep at least one on hand for the times we want to exploit that one niche capability.
It's fantastic that Sony had decided to buck the trend and create a twelve megapixel full frame stills camera in the age of the now fifty megapixel full frame camera era. There are advantages to having fewer pixels on a sensor (which we'll explain later on) and since Sony have the almost thirty-seven megapixel A7R and supply Nikon with the same sensor for the D8xx series of cameras, the release of a lower megapixel variant of the FE mount A series is welcomed by many, including us.
OK, so we don't understand the level of hype, but we're huge fans of the A7, the A7II and the A7S nonetheless. The A7R not so much, it is a camera that for us unfortunately isn't as good as the Nikon D8xx series, Nikon use the A7R's almost 37mp Sony sensor, but Nikon have none of the Sony quirks which make the A7R slow and cumbersome to use (as a professional stills camera). The A7R looks great on paper and is significantly smaller and lighter than the Nikon, but it suffers from a slow, unreliable auto focusing system, a very noisy shutter and colour science that is close, but not as good as Nikon or Canon. It's battery isn't as good, its metering and ergonomics aren't a match for the D8xx series and Sony has a native lens range that is embaressed by Nikon and Canon (for now, more about the lens range later on).
Having said all that, it's painfully obvious that DSLR's are becoming outdated. The SLR design has come a long way but the more space efficient mirrorless cameras are the future. We're sampling the new tech with two devices and one is the A7S. We expect Sony to release an updated A7R soon and we think we may just replace what we have left of our Nikons with that if the Mark II A7R has what we hope and honestly beleive is necessary to bring professionals like us at Bespoke over to the smaller mirrorless units we would rather be shooting.
As we stated in the earlier post, there's more to a camera than megapixels. Having ample resolution is one important feature, but there are many more important characteristics to look for in a camera.
Dynamic range, accurate, reliable and consistent colour, dependable and infallible metering, efficient ergonomics, weather sealing, battery life and much more. The Sony A7S is lacking in many key areas, we'll start with the bad first and attempt to explain why we've purchased it by outlining its strengths.
The A7S has a single card slot. We're nervous relying on a camera with a single SD card to capture memories at events such as weddings. Our Sandisk or Lexar cards have never failed, but they probably will one day and if and when that happens, those memories may be lost and we have no idea how we'll explain that to those clients, so we chose tend to rely on cameras with dual card slots, especially SD+CF cards for redundancy.
For cars this is less of an issue, you usually have the ability to re-shoot with only little inconvenience for your client. A second card slot is important and quality cards are reliable, but 'stuff' happens and it's far, far less likely to happen to two cards at once.
Auto focus. The A7S doesn't have the automatic focusing capabilities of our DSLR's. This is typical for mirror-less cameras in our experience and whilst they are getting better and will catch and surpass DSLR's at some point, they lag behind significantly now.
Auto focusing is terribly important for many types of photographers, an oof (out of focus) shot is an unusable image so nailing focus quickly, accurately and consistently is important.
Quirks such as not being able to quickly move the focus points on the A7S make using it irritating at times. The camera comes with the rear wheel dial left, right, up and down buttons assigned to default features which we've been able to only partially re-assign. Only the left, right and down buttons can select 'focus settings', up can't be reassigned from 'DISP' and we find ourselves attempting to move the focus point up or down and entering a menu. Couple this button assignment issue with slow and unreliable auto focusing capabilities, especially in strong back-light and the camera is simply too slow to use for any moving subjects which is a shame :(
There's so much lost time that we've often missed the opportunity to capture the image and since we're paid for images we capture, the A7S is left behind when a job has a moving subject. In the right conditions however, the camera locks fast and accurately and it does it in less light than other cameras can. Again, it has its niche operational conidtions that we're aware of, we just love the sensor and want to be to use it more!
Since the A7S is advertised and sold as a premium $2.5K stills camera, it will be disappointing to anyone expecting to come back to the computer to find many shots are unusable.
No built-in flash :( We use this on the D8xx, admittedly very rarely, but it does come in handy for very light fill lighting in a pinch and can save a shot. Even our $300 dslrs have a built-in flash. It's handy and at $2.5K should be there, it's probably not there to either save weight or cost (or both) or to help with weather sealing, that's the usual reasons, but our D8xx is just as weather resistant as the Sony as it has a built-in?
No touch screen. Nikon, who was late to the party, has a touch screen in a much cheaper camera (D5300). We didn't think touch screens were important until we used one on the GH4. If the Sony A7S had a touch screen, it would solve many ergonomic issues it has. At $2.5K and for a very new device, we expected one.
The screen tilts 90 degrees up and 45 degrees down which comes in handy, but it's not fully articulating, it's not a big deal but when you have used a fully articulating screen it's annoying to use the limiting, tilting only versions. Some people say it's not an issue, but it is for us. For instance, we can't tilt the screen down (to see what the camera sees) when it's on our tripods as the baseplate stops the screen from swiveling downwards. Yes we could get another baseplate or configure a work-around, but the GH4's screen doesn't have this issue because it is fully articulating, the way the A7S screen should be. We could use the wireless app to see what we're doing also, but...
Sony have a very basic wireless app that is unreliable in our experience. The app never syncs with the camera on the first attempt (with our iOS devices, we've heard it functions with Android devices reliably) and when it is working, the peculiarly named 'Play Memories Camera App' is very basic. Panasonic's wireless application puts it to shame. Hopefully Sony update this app soon.
Lenses
The native lens range from Sony is growing, but right now there are only a few great lenses. There is the very nice, sharp, contrasty, small and light but inexplicably expensive 55mm 1.8 manufactured for Sony by Zeiss and there is a good 35mm 2.8. there is nothing else exciting, so we haven't purchased yet.
The lens range and mount type are probably the most important thing you should consider when buying a camera as you're buying into a system. The lens range is expensive. We believe the lenses are a little expensive because they are (mostly) made by the German optics manufacturer, Zeiss, which make many, in our opinion, and as mentioned in the last article, slightly overpriced products. Zeiss make premium lenses and whilst they are very good products, it's beyond us why they are priced the way they are.
For example, one thousand dollars for the Sony (Zeiss) 50mm 1.8 (review at the bottom of this article). It's a great lens, very nice, but when DSLR's shooters have available to them lenses such as the similarly priced, faster, sharper and contrastier Sigma 50mm 1.4 'Art', that's going to hinder Sony's ability to sell both the lenses and the bodies in our opinion. Nikon's 50mm 1.8D is as sharp wide open, it has very soft edges, but stopped down it's sharper and it's available at a tenth of the price.
Sony's Zeiss made 35mm 1.4 FE is $2.5K (in Australia) and isn't as nice (in our opinion), nor as sharp (many tests have shown) as Sigma's $900 35mm 1.4 Art. The bokeh looks beautiful on both, the vignetting, CA -all characteristics are so similar on both that there is next to no difference in results. The only difference is the Zeiss's ability to de-click the aperture ring and that is cool, but not over one and a half thousand dollars of cool.
Fortunately the Sony mount is very versatile and Sony do provide you with an adaptor for Nikon and Canon mounts free of charge, it's also a quality Metabones brand adaptor. This is offered, obviously, to facilitate sales of the new systems and steal market share, so you'll be able to use your existing Nikon and Canon glass without extra cost. Nikon adaptors won't allow auto focus an the A range and we've heard (first-hand) complaints about Canon glass auto focusing issues. If you're a video guy, AF (auto-focus) isn't a big deal.
This is extremely subjective but we find the grip too small, especially after long periods of constant shooting. The dials are great, they feel well made and are positioned well and the dial functions can be inverted which is nice! Being such a small camera, the switchgear is cramped, especially if you've fat hands/fingers (like someone) :(
There are two issues with the video features, the camera only captures 1080p max resolution to internal memory, the camera was advertised with 4K capability as a main selling point, but this is only available if you have one of only two external recorders we are aware of, the brilliant but expensive Atomos Shogun (which we've tested) and the even more expensive Odyssey 7Q, which we haven't tested. Furthermore, these two devices weren't available for more than 6 monhts after the release of the A7S, so the only way to capture full resolution video from the A7S was to use a Blackmagic Design device designed to be rack mounted, into a computer which meant the camera had to stay close to mains. Fairly useless.
Sony reused the A7 and A7R body for the A7S and either added 4K capability as an afterthought or didn't think that a) the wait for an external recorder was an issue or b) the cost, two and a half thousand dollars, as much as the camera itself, for the external recorder wasn't an issue, or, simply didn't have faith in the product, enough to develop a new, slightly larger body that would allow the heat dissipation necessary for capturing internal 4K video. It is the heat created by processing 4K internally that is the issues according to Sony. We wish they made the camera GH4 size and included 4K internal recording, if the next version has it, we're upgrading immediately and will lose our GH4's too.
Panasonic capture stunning 4K internally to cheap cards, hell, they even supplied us with a fast Panasonic card and spare battery free of charge and that camera is one thousand dollars cheaper. The GH4 is $3.5K cheaper when you consider you have to purchase the external recorder to capture 4K on the Sony, which brings us to our next point, 10bit colour. Colour is important and having 10bit colour when recording externally on the GH4 is brilliant. It's 4:2:2 10bit which is very close to what high-end professional devices such as Alexxa, RED and to a slightly lesser extent, Blackmagic Design cinema cameras output. The Sony does with 8bit colour in and out, 4:2:0 in and 4:2:2 out. The A7S's video is very nice, but it would be better if Sony could at least match the video specs of significantly cheaper Panasonic GH4 in this area.
Having said that, Sony do have better colour reproduction than Panasonic, so even though the ability to grade your footage is (very slightly) hindered, the colours delivered by the Sony are always better than the Panasonic (and many other brands) and almost as good as Nikon and Canon. We've shot video on Sony products (Betacam) since the 80's, Sony know how to do broadcast quality colour.
There is also the widely reported rolling shutter issue with the A7S, which is to be expected as it has a large sensor that reads from top to bottom. We personally think it's a non-issue, rolling shutter is also usually quickly and easily solved in post
The last gripe we have with the A7S is the battery life. It sucks, we can empty a battery in as little as just one hour. That's pathetic, irritating and potentially very unprofessional, especially if you're capturing video of your client when the juice runs out. Running a second battery in the grip is good, but it makes the camera about as big and heavy as other devices and of course there's the cost. The grip is good for long still photo shoots, we don't like it for video.
There is the option to power the camera from mains supply and charge the battery at the same time which is great! We've just never really had power handy when we've experienced the short battery life. The batteries are tiny and they are relatively affordable (probably because they are small), but you will need to buy a half dozen of them if you're a professional and need the camera to shoot heavily, all day.
We've a feeling Sony realised this and that's why they do include a spare battery with the camera. We'd prefer they killed two birds by doubling the size of the battery and the grip it's housed in making the camera only slightly heavier, but with better ergonomics and a power solution.
They are all the annoying inadequacies we found, every camera has downsides and this wouldn't be a review worth reading if we didn't try to convey our honest thoughts. Now, here are the few, but very exciting things we love about the Sony A7S;
FE Lens Mount
Sony uses its 'E' mount on the A series, but requires 'FE' mount lenses.
The F is for Full Frame (35mm) and the E represents the eighteen millimetre distance from sensor to flange (lens mount point).
This is what makes the E mount so versatile imo. It's one of, if not the most versatile mounts becuase almost any lens will adapt to it. Your Canon 'EF', Nikon 'F' (and 'G') and Leica 'M' mount lenses will attach and work well on the FE mount with an adaptor. We use the quality Metabones adaptors, there are cheaper options but we've found issues with them such as light leaks and loose fitting, so prefer to pay slightly extra for the good stuff. By extra we mean about $50. It's not worth ruining the mount of an expensive lens or the camera mount or both by risking adapting lenses to your Sony with a cheap adaptor.
We regularly adapt (Cosina made) Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlanders, old Nikon F mount, new Nikon G mount, Canon EF and a few Nikon mount Sigma lenses to our A7 R & S via Metabones adaptors. We haven't met a lens we liked that wouldn't quite easily adapt to our Sony A series bodies. This is huge and a reason for buying into the system right there. Lenses are everything and being able to use any lens you want (almost) is a big plus.
Twelve Megapixels
Some point out and you've probably wondered why the low pixel count doesn't make a mention in the list of cons. That's mainly because we knew what we were getting when we bought the camera and we bought it specifically for the fact that the full frame sensor in the A7S has huge photosites (which are very senstive to light) as a result of the low megapixel count. You can't buy a 12 megapixel camera and complain about it only having 12 megapixels. Besides, 12 megapixels is enough, here is a crop of an A7S's 12mp still:
Melbourne city shot handheld at ISO 51,200. Most cameras would require a long shutter speed and a tripod to hold the camera steady for this shot, but this shot has frozen water ripples with crisp reflections instead of blurred water because of the short shutter speed which are only achievable to us becuase of the high level of sensitivity.
For those that aren't aware, when a high megapixel sensor is created, each photosite that accepts the light is reduced, in almost all cases the more resolution you have, the lower the sensitivity that sensor has.
When you increase your ISO, you ask that sensor to be more sensitive to light, which means you can have your shutter open for less time to freeze action, or reduce the iris size on your lens for more depth of field, or both. When you do raise your sensitivity though, you impact your signal to noise ratio and accumulate more and more noise as a side effect as you raise sensitivity.
As a rule of thumb, we find our current crop of cameras create usable images upto ISO 3,200 and this is rarely required and very rarely exceeded. All of our cameras bar the A7S have maximum ISO settings of ISO 6,400, which is only one stop (step) above 3,200 as the number doubles every step, the increase seems big as the number is big, but the increase is relatively small.
The A7S with its very sensitive sensor and excellent signal to noise ratio ranges from ISO 3,200 to 409,600, most will agree when we say that it is absolutely unusable at ISO settings of 204,800 and 409,600. We've determined maximum acceptable sensitivity setting is 51,200 which is just before noise begins to impact image quality and detail is lost. If the fact that a camera can achieve this doesn't sound exciting, you're probably not a keen photographer, or not yet. This is the main reason for the interest in this camera, we love the A7S sensor not for its ability to capture images in such low light, but deliver them with such little noise. Clean, crisp images with great, malleable colour information at 3,200 to 25,600 is a god send.
This is what makes the A7S different, this is the only area where the A7S shines, it's niche, it's very obvious draw card.
The back end of an Alfa Romeo 4C lit by a single LED in a pitch black workshop at almost midnight with the amazing A7S @ ISO 100,000
There is no competition for the A7S here, the Nikno Df comes close, but not as close, it has zero video capabilites let alone 4K and is one thousand dollars more expensive. The D8xx series can't keep up at 3,200 let alone at 6,400 where they are almost always unusable and by 12,800 the D8xx files are mush. The A7S was designed to live in the ISO 3,200 to 51,200 region and deliver easily.
51,200 is only a few stops 'faster', but it allows us to either have more depth of field or a faster shutter or small amounts of both whilst achieving equally bright images, the fact that at ISO's of 3,200 to 51,200 the images are so clean and retain so much detail and colour information is even more appealing and important to us.
It's not so much the fact that the camera can see in lower light than others, it's more to do with how respectable the image is at those settings and how well the image responds to editing, captured at such vulnerably high ISOs.
Whilst the high resolution of the D800 (and A7R since it shares the same sensor) deliver low noise and thus very detailed photos in good light, the A7S (the S stands for sensitivity) delivers better images even though it has a significantly lower resolution, in low light situations.
This chart (from DxO Labs) demonstrates how the A7S retains more information at high ISO's than the very good Nikon Df and the excellent (considering it's not a low light camera) D800E.
It also demonstrates why you wouldn't bother to shoot the A7S at ISO lower than 1600 if you had a D8xx (or any decent higher megapixel camera).
A good professional has the ability to understand and choose the right tool for the right job, we choose the A7S when a) light it low and when we are unable or not allowed to light the scene, b) when we require high shutter speeds that doesn't allow the sensor to be exposed to much light, c) when we require small f stops in low light for increased depth of field or d) a mixture or all of the above.
We'd not recommend the A7S for detailing as it isn't a camera that captures high res images, it is expensive, it's the most expensive in the A range from Sony and it requires a third party device (external recorder) that costs as much as the camera itself to make the most of it.
The lenses range, as explained, is also growing very slowly and there are no fast lenses in order to get the super shallow depth of field we like sometimes. You don't really need fast lenses with the A7S to help keep sensor sensitivity low as it is so capable, but you also can't deliver that razor thin dof you can with the faster lenses offered natively for cameras like the D8xx series and 5D.
Sony have no lenses brighter than f1.8 at time or writing, most lenses are f4's. We consider f1.8 to be mild in terms of lens speed. Sony seems to have no plans to manufacture faster lenses as they preference size and weight over maximum aperture.
So, to conclude, the A7S is a 'C' or third camera as far as we're concerned. We rarely refer to it and we do without it most of the time. Not recommended for detailers unless you've already got our top recommendations and have a few thousand dollars to spare for a 'C' or even 'D' camera.
Our Sony A7 II Review
The Sony A7 was a great camera, it wasn't something we were interested in buying , but not too long after the mark 1 came this new mark 2 with few, but important new features.
The A7 II followed the first version very quickly, less than twelve months if we're correct, which must be burning a few customers. The A7 II had the same 24 megapixel Exmor sensor as the mark 1 with the same sensitivity performance (as far as our real world test conclude), the same size body etc.
The A7 II though has IBIS (in-body image stabilisation). IBIS controls upward, downward, left and right rolling movements as well as yaw and pitch to stabilise the image and provide what we've found to be at least 2 full stops, possibly three of extra exposure.
Nikon and Canon use optical stabilisation called Vibration Reduction and image stabilisation respectively which is confined to each lens. This sucks because they usually charge extra for the technology, it's only available in new lenses (since the tech was invented and implemented) and only available in certain lenses.
IBIS in the A7 II makes the function available to ANY lens from ANY manufacturer that is mounted to the body. Sony aren't the first with IBIS, but they are the first to offer it in a full frame camera.
Some sites claimed 4 stops of improvement and we honestly believed that, but we cannot see more than 2 consistent stops at best -which is great anyway! It's fantastic to have stabilisation on vintage glass which has allowed us to use the focal length = shutter speed rule, e.g. a 35mm lens allows us to use 1/30th shutter speed, a 50mm lens allows us to use 1/50th shutter speed etc. Sometimes slower! We usually stick to double those shutter speeds on 24 + megapixel cameras and so the improvement in light gathering is about 2EV (exposure values).
We had a feeling that the IBIS functionality and the extra twelve million megapixels may make having an A7S (for it's low light ability) obsolete. We've always maintained that megapixel count is important as far as image quality goes and that it improves low light ability. If a high megapixel image is noisy, down-sampling said image will reduce the perceived amount of noise/grain and improve the look of the grain simultaneously, so having less sensitivity can be mitigated by having more pixels. It generally isn't though as 'fat pixel' sensors such as the one found at the heart of the Sony A7S prove that, for low light, it is still better to have fewer photosites (the 'buckets' that collect light on a sensor which eventually turn that information into a pixel in an image, bigger buckets = fewer megapixels but better light gathering).
So we put the A7 II to the test to see if it bridges the gap between the entry level body and the top of the range A7S when it comes to low light shooting. If you want to know the answer now, it doesn't match or top the A7S, but it comes closer than it did without IBIS. Here are some of our real world test, some DxO labs data and our explanation of why and when IBIS helps.
The latest full frame 24mp sensors work well upto ISO 6400, so we'll test from 6400 and up. Here's the A7II on a desk wearing a 35mm 2.8 Sony/Zeiss lens set to 5.6 (maximum sharpness). The scene is a little boring, but it's got detail in this printed text and wood grain , shadows and highlights to test the A7II
Sony A7II ISO 6,400
Sony A7II ISO 12,800
Sony A7II ISO 25,600
If the differences here aren't clearly visible, here are some 1:1 crops to better demonstrate what we discovered.
These A7II files have been normalised which basically involves the reduction of the image size to the smaller image dimensions of the A7S so they are more easily comparable. This should give hte A7II a helping hand as downsampling images copresses noise making images appear cleaner. The two cameras were very close until teh A7II's maximum ISO of 25,600 so we're only showing crops captured at that setting:
mouse over or click on the image above to view the A7S crop, mouse out or click on another image to reveal the A7II image
Notice how easily the A7S records details in scenes captured at 25,600, even when compared ot the A7II's downsampled image which was double the size. This are what fat pixels (large photosites) do best. Resolution is great for detail, but only when the detail isn't swamped with noise.
This portion of the image is well exposed, unfortunately it gets worse in the shadows for the A7II:
mouse over or click on the image above to view the A7S crop, mouse out or click on another image to reveal the A7II image
mouse over or click on the image above to view the A7S crop, mouse out or click on another image to reveal the A7II image
All these images are directly from camera, apart from the normalising of the A7II files to match the dimensions of the A7S files, there is no post processing involved. Shooting raw may (or may not) deliver cleaner low light results, we did not choose to do this as it's not fair, we are very good at processing A7S images and have only had the A7II for 2 days.
These tests are also with both cameras on a tipod, so the A7II wasn't able to exploit its IBIS. Tests are also very boring and don't account for much. The only way to see if you're A7II will be useful in low light is to go out and shoot in low light, so we did! We took both cameras with identical lenses to our favourite spot in Melbourne for our typical night scenes, here are a few images from the A7II all hand-held with IBIS (which Sony call 'Steady Shot') on:
'Luna Gibbous' an easy one for any camera, we used a 55mm lens which is about 400mm too short, so this is a 1:1 crop, very nice crater detail that the A7S could not capture as well with such a short focal length
Looking at rod laver arena (left) and the lights of AAMI park (centre) this image has beautifully controlled highlights and shadow detail. The kicker is that we were able to capture at ISO 800 thanks to a very, very low shutter speed (made possible with IBIS) of 1/20th, the A7S required a shutter speed of 1/60th minimum to acheive the same sharp details. Click on or mouse over for a 200% crop to reveal very little motion blur at such low shutter speeds. The people walking in the shot are blurred, but not due to camera shake becuase the text on the signage is sharp, it's becuase they are moving. Shooting a fifty in the cold which makes hands shake, hand held at 1/20th is brilliant.
Here's another image of beautiful Melbourne city:
click or mouse over for a 200% crop
Low light shooting isn't everything though, we just wanted to see if IBIS would help and while the A7II still can't match the A7S and is still about 2 usable stops away from the A7S's low light performance, it's very good and better than any other full frame 24mp camera in this price point for low light shooting (provided there is no action), the competition includes the wonderful Nikon D750, the Nikon D610 (which we never found exciting) and the original A7 amoungst other cameras we've not tested from other manufacturers. The D750 is the low light king for 24mp full frame cameras, so the A7II results are stunning. If there's nothing moving quickly in a poorly lit scene, we're confident the A7II will capture it better than the D750 which is more expensive, much bigger and significantly heavier, albeit with cheaper comparable lens options.
So there's little not to like about the A7II, but no camera is perfect and what we didn't like included, but not limited to (as we've only had 2 days with the camera); the slow operation, the A7II takes longer to fire up and process images than any other similar camera we've tested, we constantly got the message 'writing to card, unable to complete operation' when attempting to review or zoom into images whilst writing to very fast speed class 3 cards. Both the A7R and A7S are faster which is strange becuase the A7R has to process more information.
The range and price of lenses, this is an issue with all Sony FE mount cameras, the range should increase soon though and hoepfully Sigma start manufacturing FE mount lenses so we don't have to pay $800 for 35mm 2.8's from Zeiss that aren't so great that they justify that crazy price.
It took us, as usual, 1-2 hours to get accustomed to the menu, it's diffrerent to the A7R and A7S and as usual, Sonly have buttons set up in a wierd way, luckily the buttons are highly customisable so we spent some time setting the camera up to perform faster. No touchscreen means that functionality is limited, the A7II is a $2K camera (in Australia, body only) and very new, we expected implentation of a touchscreen.
What we did like was the small form factor, the grip, the A7II has a larger, more comfortable grip and it makes holding such as small camera much easier, we wish our A7S had this grip. The EVF, as usual, is something special, it's one of the reasons we've moved on from DSLR's to mirrorless. The fast autofocus! This AF system is what the A7R/S sorely need to improve usability and make them comparable to DSLR's at the same price point. The autofocusing in strong back-light is still an issue though, so there's still an evolution or two (hopefully not more) for Sony to match DSLR's for moving subjects.
So what do cars look like with the A7II? We'll upload some shoots with teh A7II captured at Final Inspection soon :)
Our Panasonic GH4 : Review
Often and in our opinion, unfairly compared to the Sony A7s is the wonderful Panasonic DMC-GH4, our 'A' camera for video.
The GH4 is a stills camera with a video feature set that we wish we had on many other mor eexpensive cameras, such as the D800, which isn't a bad video camera but comes in at twice the price (body vs body) and more than 4 times the price as a system as the D800 requires significantly more expensive lenses than the GH4 which has a sensor 4 times smaller than the D800 and an external recorder. The Canon 5D3 is a slightly better stills camera, but, even with the Magic Lantern hacks, hasn't anywhere near the video quality of a factory Panasonic GH4, not even close. The 5D3 is also more than twice the price of the GH4 and again, requires more costly, bulkier acessories.
The fact that the micro four thirds (MFT) sensor in the GH4 is four times smaller than the D800 and Sony A7S as well as the fact that the GH4 is a very respectable $1,500 is the reason it isn't, in our opinion, truly comparable to those full frame cameras.
The GH4 uses even smaller lenses than the A7S, the lenses cost less, they weigh less and the lens range is huge. Panasonic GH4 users can also adpat, natively, Olympus lenses.
The GH4's MFT sensor means gorgeous, fast, full frame lenses can be exploited by adapting them to the MFT mount via a focal reducer which makes already fast lenses one full stop faster. We often use a 'Speedbooster'. A product from a German company called Metabones who make all sorts of adaptors, they also make the adaptor Sony sent us to attach our Nikon lenses to our Sony bodies.
The Speedbooster is basically the opposite of a teleconverter, it reduces the focal length of a lens, and, simultaneously improves the lens speed by concentrating the light delivered from the full frame size of the rear element down to the one-quarter sized MFT sensor.
Why would you want to reduce focal length of adapted lenses? Well, smaller sensors 'crop' lenses designed for larger sensors by using only the centre portion of the image cirlce. You are effectively wasting money paying for a larger, thus heavier lens if you are mounting it in front of a sensor that doesn't require such large glass. When you do this, you get an increase in focal length.
For example, our Nikon 85mm f1.4 is an 85mm focal length on our full frame D810, but on the GH4 with its MFT sensor, it becomes, effectively, a 170mm lens. This can cause issues as the photographer may not want to purchase different lenses to maintain focal lengths.
If we wanted to adapt a full frame lens to the GH4 and retain the 85mm focal length, we'd have to mate a 42.5mm (full frame) lens to it. Panasonic commission Leica to make a native 42.mm f1.2 with AF.
The Speedbooster product allows us to reduce the 85mm focal length of our 85mm lens to about 120mm so it has an effective focal length on the GH4 that is closer to what it is on our D810, whilst it's retaining a focal length that isn't too different, it also becomes 'faster' due to the compression of light the Speedbooster provides and is now, effectively, a 120mm f1.2.
The 'crop factor' that exactly doubles your focal length is somewhat negated with the Speedbooster which acts as an adaptor and a focal reducer, brightening an already fast lens.
The advantage of having a crop factor of 2x is that we can mount our 400mm lenses to make than 800mm lenses. No teleconverters, just an immediate doubling of our focal length and that comes in handy. Long focal lengths are easily achieved with full frame lenses ahead of the MFT sensor, it's getting wide that is difficult and for that we refer to a native MFT lens. There are many available and they generally all have great image quality, are inexpensive and fast.
So we find no issues with lenses which as we've said many times, it's one of or the most important aspect of photography gear.
The bad. The GH4 is lacking in almost no areas apart from noise which surely is a result of its small sensor and relatively high pixel count of 16. Remember, 16 megapixels on a sensor a quarter of the size of a full frame means Panasonic have crammed an awful lot. If the sensor was 4 times the size with the same pixel pitch, the full frame sensor would be a 64 megapixel monster. Considering this, the tiny MFT sensor in the GH4 is impressively sensitive and free from noticable noise up to ISO 800 and it makes usable images up to ISO 1,600 or 3,200, which is ample for most situations.
One more 'side effect' of the tiny MFT sensor in the GH4 is the fact that the camera automatically yields a broader depth of field. Full frame sensors will achieve a much shallower DOF at the same f stop than an MFT sensor and this can be good or bad.
We generally find the increase in depth of field to be useful as it's rare than anything is out of focus and we don't lose light 'stopping down' the lens to small apertures in order to achieve the desired DOF. The Speedbooster doesn't quite make up for the shallow DOF the full frame cameras are capable of, but with a good operator, a very, very similar shallow DOF characteristic can be achieved.
The only other issue with the GH4 is, as with the A7S, the lack of any redundancy by way of a second card slot. As we mentioned in the A7S section of this review, the ability to write to a second card simultaneously makes things more reliable. We value the insurance a second card offers and the extra space a second cards provides, there's no wasted shots fiddling with card changes which always happens at the worst time.
The GH4 is brilliant. It may be missing some features, but not anything we expect on a $1,500 stills camera.
The GH4 has so much goodness, almost too much to mention. It's a fantastic stills camera. Whilst it's colour science is second to Sony who are a close second to Nikon and Canon, it's still very good. With native Panasonic (or Olympus) lenses, the GH4 focuses fast, accurately, consistently and reliably in all types of situations. We won't go into why but it has something to do with the new DFD (depth from defocus) system Panasonic developed.
Panasonic customer service has been excellent, we've never experienced better service from a supplier and it has made us very loyal. We wish our experience with Nikon Australia was more like our Panasonic experience :(
The GH4 has a fantastic battery. It just lasts and lasts, I've never met anyone who has had any bad things to say about battery life. It sounds silly, but it's so nice not to have to worry about preserving a battery or carrying spares. We only have 2 batteries for each of our two GH4's. We have 6 batteries for our sole A7S and still the GH4 runs longer and harder. The GH4 will go all day, 8 hours, on two batteries.
Rolling shutter, if you find it an issue, it's much better on a GH4 than any other camera we own or have tested. We find rolling shutter a non issue in most situations but it is certainly better becuase on the GH4, due, mostly to its small sensor. Small sensors do have an advantage here.
The big thumbs up for the GH4 is internal 4K video. The video of the GH4 is gorgeous, there is no other way to describe it. If our $4K D810 captured video half as good as the GH4 we'd be much happier.
4K video looks great in 4K and even though very, very few people in Australia (or most other nations for that matter) regularly view video on 4K televisions or monitors, that is changing, fast. So you're 4K capture is 'future proof' to some extent, our clients are delivered down-sampled (resized) versions of their productions for compatibility, we retain and even offer the masters for them so they can view the higher resolutions version if, or more likely, when, they upgrade to 4K devices.
Final Inspection have started delivering 4K tutorials/instructional via YouTube for customers that are lucky enough to have 4K screens.
6K. Yes, the GH4 can capture 6K. Panasonic shocked us with a (free) firmware update that didn't allow 6K capture, but it did open up a workaround we can use to capture 6K with specific lenses and we exploit that often. The beauty of 4K, or UHD (Ultra High Definition) is that it makes even sharper FHD (Full High Definition 1080p) or SHD (Standard High Definition 720p) video. What UHD capture does for FHD delivery, 6K does for 4K. The down-sampling increases sharpness/detail.
The GH4 captures 4K with an 8bit 4:2:0 colour space which is good, but it exports a very professional and significantly better 10bit 4:2:2 version to an external recorder which, if you're in a professional environment, you should be using. All video should visit a colourist to be corrected and graded before (or after) editing (depending on the production companies workflow) and 10bit 4:2:2 grades better and more easily than 8bit 4:2:0. Most productions are sent out as 8bit colour, but the extra information is required in the masters for better grading. Good or bad grading can make or break a moving image just like a good edit or bad filter can improve or ruin a still image.
We find 10bit colour to help with the extensive chroma keying (green-screen) work we do, almost weekly:
We've never required 4:4:4 colour info.
The GH4 has a fully articulating screen, we won't go into it too much, but it just simply makes life easier and is a joy to have. The viewfinder (electronic) is perfect, the buttons and dials are chunky, feel very well made and with the exception of the Canon style front dial on top of the grip instead of in front of the grip as Nikon do (which we find slightly more natural/comfortable), everything is perfect. The touch screen makes previewing photos and flipping through menus blazing fast, functions are as easily initiated on the GH4 as on a smartphone. Using the touch screen on teh GH4 is so much faster than fiddling with menus on the A7S and D8xx cameras and other cameras seem old now that we're used to pinching, flicking and sliding.
The GH4 reminds us of our iPhone 2, that's the first truly intuitive phone experience and not having a touch screen on our cameras seems as silly and backward as not having a touch screen phone like that revolutionary device. Nikon have finally introduced it, Canon are, as usual of late, lagging behind with what we think is necessary tech for 2014.
The GH4 has a built-in flash. So useful, we've no idea why Canon and Sony refuse to include a built-in on so many models. The GH4 has a power button and shutter we can access with the same hand. Many cameras force you to use two hands to fire up and shoot, sometimes you don't have time and two hands free to capture a spare of the moment, moment. The GH4 fires up quickly, not Nikon quick, but quicker than the A7S which, strangely, has inconsistent boot-up times.
The GH4 allows video shooting with the shutter button, just brilliant. Sony (and Panasonic) as well as Nikon have tiny record buttons in awkward positions, but the GH4 allows recording to start and stop from the most comfortable and best placed button on the camera.
The GH4 has the best wireless control app (ours is the iOS version) we've experienced. It allows complete control of the camera wirelessly, everything in stills or video mode can be controlled and we mean everything. It transfers files quickly, it never lags, the camera allows it to reach long distances, it's password protected and it is very easily and reliably launched every time.
As an all 'round device for photos and video, we can't recommend the GH4 highly enough. About $2K will get you the camera, a spare battery (not that you will need it but you should have it), a fast card (you will require a fast consistent write speed to record internal 4K video and other high bit rate modes) and a lens. Our setup costs more, but it really depends on what you're going to do with the camera as a system. The GH4 is considerably cheaper as a photo and video solution to the D800 we also recommend and, for video, it's better. Ongoing costs are lower too with cheaper lenses, lighter tripods required etc. Small sensor cameras generally cost less to build up than full frame cameras.
We shoot both the GH4 and A7S together sometimes, becuase we have to if we want multiple angles (this is called a multicam shoot) or becuase we want the look of the different sensors for different angles, aspects or subjects. Whilst it's possible to match the shallow DOF of the A7S with the GH4, it's more easily acheived with the A7S. It comes back to choosing the best tool for the job. We also only shoot GH4's and A7S's becuase they are affordable. We produce affordable solutions and using Sony F55's, RED's, Alexas etc isn't an option. We also think, no, honestly beleive that whilst those much more expensive cameras make shooting easier, we can acheive the same results via frugal methods.
A problem with using two (or more) cameras is matching, making them look like the same camera was used. The A7S and GH4 look very different and shooting both together requires you to hire a great colourist to match the footage. Here's a monochrome colour matching test between the two cameras:
Video setup
Setting up, properly, for video is sgnificantly more expensive than it is for still photography and much, much more expensive than most people anticipate. If you don't rig your video camera, you will find it incredibly difficult to capture decent footage. When we want scumptious looking footage, like this:
we make sure the camera is in its rig. A rigged camera can cost 5-10 times what the camera body is worth. If you're looking to film, do not think that a camera body and one lens is where the investment will end. You will require a decent tripod or shoulder rig -or both, a matte box, an EVF or feild monitor - preferably both. You'll need either a bunch of staple primes (for us its 14, 24, 35, 50, 85, 200, 300 and 400mm, mostly manual focus) or two very high quality zoom lenses (let's say a 14-24 2.8 for wide shots + a 24-70 2.8), spare batteries for the camera, external recorder and the EVF, cables, lights, stands, boom and/or lapel mics (booming requires either a stand or an assistant, choosing depends on the scene), audio recorder etc.
Our GH4 and A7S rigs come in at $5,000 without the camera or lens. That's actually not expensive for professional gear.
If you don't use a rig that has everything we have listed above, you'll either have to shoot very controlled scences or be very limited to the type of scene you shoot. Mounting a camera with lens on a tripod just won't cut it. The footage will look like unfinished, like your setup.
Last but not least in this very quick and dirty video setup advice, do not cut corners on audio. If you need sound in your videos, don't use the microphones in the cameras, use proper audio gear.
We use and recommend Rode equipment. Rode make professional gear that is affordable. They make everything you'll ever need for instructional YouTube videos to big budget Hollywood films.
Zacuto make our favoutite EVF and many great, properly professional rigs, Manfrotto make our favourite tripods/monopods, Kamerar make some of our favourite rig accessories -matte boxes, baseplates, sliders etc.
Our Nikon D3200 : Review
The Nikon D3200 was bought to test as a cheap solution for you guys! To be honest, we laughed when we pulled it from the box, it's tiny. The other cameras feel dense and whilst the D3200 feels compact, it feels almost hollow! It doesn't matter though, it was just a first impression and it's because we're used to bulkier tools.
We've now lived with the D3200 for the best part of a year and we've really grown to like it. It does have some downsides to it, but at ~$300 for the body (as of August 2014), you really cannot be too fussy, so we won't.
The D3200 is built well, if you don't get it wet, don't use it in very dusty environments and don't drop or knock it around, it'll last forever. It's simple, which is good, it has some very obvious cost saving (and space saving) measures such as the elimination of a front dial which took some getting used to coming from fully featured cams with many dedicated function buttons.
The viewfinder is tiny and a little dim, the screen on the back is more than good enough for previewing images, the buttons are just barely ample, but are very well placed and very easy to understand, if you're used to Nikon, there's not much to learn here, a couple of hours shooting did it for us.
The good news is that what is important, the image sensor, is magic. It's an ample 24mp with very decent dynamic range and that glorious Nikon colour science which means nearly foolproof and dependable metering and colour will ensure great looking shots provided you know what you're doing and are using great lenses. This is the most important thing. Lenses. If you buy the D3200 with the horrible kit lens and expect teh results we've acheived, you will be disspointed. The horrible, slow, soft kit lens is a great paper weight but a very average optic. You've been warned.
The D3200 does come with only 1 card slot. This is expected with a camera of this type, an this price point.
The D3200 really does require you not to use the, in our opinion, fairly poor kit lens (which serves us as a paperweight). Make sure you have good glass in front of that sensor, get your skill level up and there is no reason why you cannot capture stunning images with this fantastic light, small and reasonably capable camera. Here's one shot captured with the Nikon D3200 and a Nikkor 50mm 1.8D:
We've captured hundreds of images with it that have scored thousands of likes, many people have asked us what the camera was that we used and what it cost and when we advised them that the camera used was 2 generations old and cost $300 new (plus $100 lens), they laughed in disbelief. There's a feeling of satisfaction that comes from achieving something good with cheap, simple tools.
This camera will force you to learn better photography skills and is a good starting point or a good choice if you have a budget of under $500 to spend.
Every image in this recent shoot was captured with our D3200, a 50mm 1.8D and a $20 light from a hardware store, $500 worth of gear. Every image you see in this article of our cameras, except for the images of the D3200 camera iteself, were shot, quickly, with our D3200 as we compiled this article.
Photoshoots on a budget are absolutely possible given a photographer with a bit of artistic flare and a good amount of techical understanding.