Upgrading my photography gear . . . and how you did - too?

[Rob Wadsworth]

An overhaul of early 2010 equipment was now in order. Letting a vital skill lapse, such as photography when being otherwise left to idleness in late Fall and Winter, needs to be remedied. I need to improve on every photographic level so that this Spring I may be ready for the coming chase season.

My sordid tale begins with Facebook marketplace. Yes; amongst the mysterious garage sales, video card scammers, and lonely hearts clubs (thinly disguised prostitution - of sorts). Chanced to wade thru it all and managed to find the cameras and related gear. So, I browsed. My preference for Canon found a plethora of such items . . .

Found someone selling a used Canon T7 for $225 and purchased it. Hmmm. 24mp and LiveView, among other useful features, such as built in lens correction and auto ISO. Knowing that the 10-22mm, 18-55 IS, EF 50mm f/1.4, and 55-250mm f/4 EF-s I previously used with an older XTi would work just fine, I snagged it. Phase One complete. Or; so I thought. Pictures are very good, and am surprised with the feature set of this camera and the much improved auto focus system over the little XTi. Such a small expenditure; so massive a return.

In addition, am investigating some processing software. PaintShopPro was what I had used last decade, and found that it didn't keep up with the times as well as other software has.

Found Raw Therapee to be a little daunting and slow, but very powerful - for free. Didn't stop there and bought a copy of LrClassic, since it seemed to be a fave of many. Was only $40 for version 10.4. GIMP was also explored, but doesn't do the CR2 Canon RAW format. In addition, I am trying out PsElements, Perfectly Clear, and DxO as well. Jury is not in yet; but it seems that Raw Therapee and LrClassic are winning comfortably. Elements denoising seems to be top notch, as does Perfectly clear and DxO.

Now, the Real Fun begins. Did I say 'sordid'? Spending a few thousand for new gear means that kicking a few tires may well be in order, and this can get sordid. A full-frame camera choice was being considered between the Canon 6D mkII and EOS-RP. Mirrorless vs the DSLR. The arguments for and against are all compelling. But "if one boils it all down to gravy"; what do you think and what was the compelling factors for your choices?

 

[Alex Elmore]

In regards to equipment, I'm going to venture into the world of mirrorless cameras when I start making upgrades. It seems that mirrorless technology is where the industry is heading, and I'd imagine that will only smooth out some of the seemingly small issues current systems have and eventually draw prices down. I haven't upgraded because my Canon 70D and the few Canon EF-S lenses I have do what I need them to do for the most part, and I don't have several thousand dollars to sink into a full mirrorless setup currently. Once I have the need and ability to, I'll likely be going mirrorless.

As for software, I've used LrClassic and Photoshop through nearly all my years of taking photos. There are some that claim it is overpriced and that the new subscription-based payment plan is a rip-off, but I personally do not have an issue with it. I like knowing there's numerous resources and guides available on how to use the software, support and updates are regular and likely to continue for the foreseeable future, the user interface is clean and easily navigated, and it does everything I need it to do. I am likely biased, however, as this is the only software I've used for editing RAW photos. I've played around with others a little (GIMP is the only one I can remember), but they did not compare to LrClassic for what I wanted.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

So many do use Ps and LrClassic.
Seems to be a common choice and a solid one.

Well; the sordid tire kicking gave way to make some final evaluations, and then putting so much money where my mouth is.

I elected the Canon 6D mkII for my first full-frame camera (used - $925 - less than 12k shutters). DSLRs are still just as viable as the mirrorless, and lenses for these Canons still fetch a strong price and come up with just the same quality. The mirrorless boys are still buying converters and using the Canon lenses for their cameras because they are better and cheaper than the mirrorless version for the most part. Used DSLR bodies are cheaper than mirrorless; so saving some money ATT was being prudent, as the EOS -RP was also a consideration. Got the battery grip for it too, since making videos will need the reserve.

If I thought buying a camera was tough, lenses really showed even more of a challenge. Both for research and cost/expenditures.
Bought several:
1) EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II nano USM
2) EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
3) EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
4) EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
5) EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
6) Samyang 14mm f/2.8 prime
7) Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 prime
(already have a EF 50mm f/1.4 prime)

About $3200 for the lot. Can't find a reasonable price on the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. Version one is a more reasonable price, but will hold off for now and let my PayPal account cool off a bit first. Still looking though.

I think that mirrorless are still not yet what they will be even five years from now. Sensors are still changing in the industry across the board. Seems they already have sensors that can be almost noiseless up to 6400; but are still working out more of the details before they are put to market. The mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter; but most brands still suffer from live view lag time. Battery life is much lower too, IIRC.

 

[Ethan Schisler]

So many do use Ps and LrClassic.
Seems to be a common choice and a solid one.

Well; the sordid tire kicking gave way to make some final evaluations, and then putting so much money where my mouth is.

I elected the Canon 6D mkII for my first full-frame camera (used - $925 - less than 12k shutters). DSLRs are still just as viable as the mirrorless, and lenses for these Canons still fetch a strong price and come up with just the same quality. The mirrorless boys are still buying converters and using the Canon lenses for their cameras because they are better and cheaper than the mirrorless version for the most part. Used DSLR bodies are cheaper than mirrorless; so saving some money ATT was being prudent, as the EOS -RP was also a consideration. Got the battery grip for it too, since making videos will need the reserve.

If I thought buying a camera was tough, lenses really showed even more of a challenge. Both for research and cost/expenditures.
Bought several:
1) EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II nano USM
2) EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
3) EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
4) EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM
5) EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
6) Samyang 14mm f/2.8 prime
7) Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 prime
(already have a EF 50mm f/1.4 prime)

About $3200 for the lot. Can't find a reasonable price on the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II. Version one is a more reasonable price, but will hold off for now and let my PayPal account cool off a bit first. Still looking though.

I think that mirrorless are still not yet what they will be even five years from now. Sensors are still changing in the industry across the board. Seems they already have sensors that can be almost noiseless up to 6400; but are still working out more of the details before they are put to market. The mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter; but most brands still suffer from live view lag time. Battery life is much lower too, IIRC.

Sony A7SIII can go to ISO 12,800 or greater with little to no noise (dual native ISO at ISO 640 and ISO 12,800, values in between will be noisier, if you want clean video/photos and are at 10,000, push it to 12,800 and it will clean right up) and even higher if you use Topaz Denoise, very impressive. No live view time lag on the sony mirrorless models either. The A1 and A9 II have some of the fastest viewfinder refresh rates available on the market right now if you have 4500-6500 dollars to drop on a camera body. 5 years from now, who knows where mirrorless will be, probably somewhere around where we are now (~50mp sensors, 30fps, 8k video....might see someone throw in 8k 60p, but doubtful, most machines aren't even capable of displaying true 4k 10 bit 120p video let alone 8k, so we will see). Any camera body that is mirrorless of the last 4 years or so will probably be about where current technology is to be honest. Of course I'm speaking strictly from a Sony standpoint here, I don't have any experience with Canon or Nikon other than how badly the R5 overheats when shooting 8k lol.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Just creating a talking point here.
Feel free to jump in.

So, I listened to your advice Ethan, and got Topaz Denoise.
And - Topaz Gigapixel.
I experimented with an old jpeg storm shot from Webb IA using a 10mp Canon XTi and ef-s 10-22mm lens.
First, used the Gigapixel program to turn it into four times of the original pixel count.
Then used Denoise.
Took it into DxO and pulled every scrap of detail that I could get out of it.

Soooo; what is right and what is wrong with this pic?
IOW - what would you have done differently?

 

[Rick Schmidt]

Rob: It's a little too much contrast for my taste; otherwise it looks great!

 

[Warren Faidley]

Also, when you start seeing those dark "noise" elements on the edges of the clouds (lower cu to the left), you know there is too much sharpening, contrast or other adjustment.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

In the pursuit of leaning photography, I invested in a few more pieces. The EF 100-400mm f/4.5L IS, EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, and the Kenko DGM Pro 300 2X teleconverter.

In addition, I went with a Canon RP mirrorless to add to the arsenal. Along with the adapter to use the L lenses. A battery grip and extra Canon battery was also acquired.

Not that the 70-200mm will have much use storm chasing, or the 100-400mm for that matter; but they have proved to my satisfaction to xlnt lenses. Moonshots and sunshots with the 100-400mm lens were taken (sunshots have not yet been attempted, but are planned) - in order to familiarize myself with its finer points/weaknesses. The 70-200mm did get quite a vigorous workout taking portraits of church members yesterday. Even though it is not the version II, it is an excellent lens by the photos it produced that shows its metal. Very impressed with it, I must say!

So the 16-35mm f/2.8 v2, the 24-70mm f/2.8 v2, and the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS will be in the camera bag for this season. Along with the 6D mkII and the RP. Hoping this will cover all of the bases. Unless any have other thoughts?

Although I am presently taking an online course in photography; is there any special studies available for low light photography that might be recommended?
Thank You.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The best advice for low light photography is to search the internet. There are many references. The secret to low light photography is to use a tripod with a release and avoid going over 400 ISO if you can, depending on the subject and the quality you desire. There are some instances where very high ISO's are required (sprites for example). Practice as much as you can during the off season. There are a lot of internal camera settings related to low light photography, such as in-camera algorithms for reducing noise (grain). Again, test, test, test and compare the results.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Good advice Warren.
Yes; a tripod, remote shutter switch, and window mount will be included in the kit too.

Do you use the SKYWARN net on 2m/70cm too - to talk to the locals?
And using the book that has all of those repeaters I'll bet.
Cell phone conditions aren't always working in an emergency situation - are they?

I imagine that TX meso/tornado pic on your web site main page must of had a high ISO, since it looks to me that you were right under the middle of the bears cage when you snapped that one . . . nice pic.
The RP and the 6D handles ISOs well into 20,000 without too much damage. I do have a 24mm and a 50mm f/1.4 that I might need to bring and use as well, since the f/2.8 lenses can only be expected to do so much.

I see some of the better twister shots are usually from the SW of a NE heading storm. At least in that situation, some sunlight can make a better exposure to get that ISO lower - if at all possible to position oneself in time. But that doesn't always present itself to our liking - does it?

Also, recovering underexposed shots in Lightroom will be the REAL test of a camera's sensor.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

The Canon RP:

Some quick observations
*They really should have advertised it as having 'night vision'. It can see in the dark thru the electronic view finder. A very cool feature all on its own. Imagine that can be useful at night with a twister out there that can't be seen any other way. Remains to be seen as yet - tho. A very dark room in the house at night looks just like daylight. Risky enough to be on The Plains during a severe thunderstorm - at night - and cannot figure out how close or far the tube is. Might save your life.

*Takes shots up to 40,000 ISO in auto mode, plus you can turn the ISO up to 51,200 in H1 mode or as high as 102,400 in H2 mode. The latter of which is so noisy as to be practically useless - but that can depend on the visual circumstances. Surveillance - perhaps?!? lol. 40,000 works; but up to 20,000 makes usable photos. Made a lot of xlnt photos from 8,000 -10,000 ISO; something unheard of 10 yeas ago when I first picked up and used a digital camera. Topaz denoising of the RAW images does make quite the difference too - IMO . . .

*Of course, face and eye recognition is quite good, even when not chasing. Have a picture of my Mom on the wall four feet away with a 50mm lens on the camera, and it located her eyes. Big deal; right? Considering the eye was no more than 1/16th (if that) of a inch across and found them without issue - four feet away? Make of that what you will. I say it is xlnt. Guess I am easily impressed.

*4K/30fps video performance lacks if action/extreme motion is present. You crank up the ISO to 12,800in video mode. But 1080p performance is very good, especially with some L glass. In-camera body image stabilization ('IBIS' works only in video mode) at ~60fps should work just fine with the 16-35mm f/2.8L (about to try that out). In addition, the new firmware allows for slower shutter speeds in video mode for better low light performance. Smeary? Dunno yet . . .

*Tested this camera with the Canon RF to EF lens adapter. Every lens I have was given the test and all worked flawlessly as expected. In addition, the auto focus is quick as a bunny and just as sharp - or more - than I have seen on my other cameras - including the 6DmkII. Superb!

Frankly, I had expected much less overall (from 'reviewers') and found a lot more. Seems there is unfair bias against this camera, I must say. Especially at this price point. There are many features I didn't touch on, such as lens correction, exposure simulation, touch shutter, HDR, focus bracketing, and so on. Interestingly; that when the Live View screen is on and you bring your face to the viewfinder, there is sensor that momentarily shuts off the rear screen and turns on the LCD in the viewfinder. All very practical.

How well it works on The Plains with a storm; near dusk?
I cannot yet say . . .

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

I just purchased a Sony A7III and a Zeiss 24-70 f/4 lens.
More to come after testing . . .

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

The A7III works well in 4K using the Sony 24-70mm lens. It also works reasonably well using the Viltrox EF-E5 adapter with Canon lenses. I've only had this adapter since yesterday, but I've tried four Canon L lenses and they all worked just fine. Some settings in the camera had to be made to the AF to accommodate the utilization of this adapter.

The new Viltrox EF-E5 is HALF the price of the Metabones 5 T-Smart adapter and does everything that the Metabones claims to do. This Viltrox version is their latest generation that was released in March of this year. Never used the Metabones in particular, just relying of their advertised features/claims. The Viltrox sells for $199 from B&H; the Metabones 5 sells for $399 from the same source. Being the frugal buyer that I am (read 'cheap'), I took the risk and chose the Viltrox. After all, I can return it if not satisfied for any reason. So far, I am more than satisfied beyond what I had really expected. I expected false claims.

To make this Sony camera work for photos with the Viltrox, you move the switch located on the adapter's side to the "C" position ('Contrast Detection' autofocus sensing). For videos, you move the switch towards the "P" position ('Phase Detection' autofocus sensing). When changing lenses, you must first attach the Viltrox to the lens, and then put that assembly on the camera - in that order (as stated in the provided literature). Then turn the camera on. When going to video mode, you must first turn off the camera and then flip the switch from "C" to "P". Then turn the camera's mode switch to video and then flip the camera back on. So easy, a caveman can do it.

Picture quality from the Sony is very good, but the Canon glass was an instant improvement over the E mount Zeiss 24-70mm f/4 lens. The Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II easily SMOKED the Zeiss. Honestly? I did not see that one coming; thought it would be a closer race. So if you still have your Canon glass and want the benefits of using a Sony, the Viltrox - IMHO - is a usable solution. YMMV. Have not yet tried using the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 full manual lens with this arrangement, but the Viltrox literature claims that it is compatible. Including the Canon EF-s and Tamron/Tokina/Sigma and a few other brand of lenses as well. Have yet to try it with the EF-s lenses I have either. Like I said, just got the adapter yesterday . . .

Either the Sony A7III or the Canon RP do NOT make good pictures after 25,000 ISO. Honestly, most real detail is lost by 16,000 ISO. There is no real advantage found here in either camera that I've witnessed. For taking pictures on The Plains with either camera, a 14, 24, 35, or 50mm prime lens with an aperture of f/1.2 to f/2.8 will be needed in order to let enough light into the sensor to keep ISO values reasonably low in turn to keep down the noise content. Same is true when shooting video mode. Also helps to raise the exposure setting by one full step when shooting photos. Reason: there is 250 times more noise found on the left side of the histogram than the right side of it. One can always lower the exposure back down when processing in 'Lightroom/Classic/others'.

In video mode, the Canon is one whole exposure stop behind the Sony. The Canon is capable of 104,000 ISO/4K (yeah; surprised me - too!) and the Sony is capable of 208,000 ISO/4K. However, the RP will crop the image, and the Sony remains full-frame. The difference can be made up by using a 24mm f/1.4 prime lens instead of a an equivalent lens with a f/2.8 stop. One whole stop is not that much of a difference; but it can surely make some difference. At that high of an ISO range, either ISO looks not-so-good anyway. It would be frugal to get a wide aperture lens in either case for best results.

The Sony acquired focus easily enough in low light, as did the Canon. The Sony was a little faster. Panning either camera was done using the same 16-35mm f/2.8L vII. The Viltrox seemed to work just fine, even though many reviews seem to differ with my results. I must state that my findings are somewhat preliminary, but what I have seen myself seems to bear out Viltrox's claims.

In no way am I affiliated with Sony, Canon, or Viltrox - even though it may read like that at some point.
PLEASE SHARE YOUR OWN FINDINGS HERE!
I would be most grateful and so others may benefit from the exchange.

 

[Ethan Schisler]

For Sony bodies I HIGHLY recommend using native glass over an adapter and canon glass (but this is up to the user, just my personal recommendation).

The 24-70mm G-Master (F/2.8) will smoke the Zeiss version (F/4) any day and its one of the older GM lenses they have and will likely get a refresh in mid 2022 (we just got the 70-200mm GM Mark II) with better autofocus system that works with newer bodies like the A1, A7SIII, and A7IV. I can recommend the 16-35mm F/2.8 GM for wide angle storm photography as well, awesome lens. If you have the extra money to spare though, the 12-24mm F/2.8 GM is king of fitting an entire scene into one photograph. If you want low light though, the 14mm F/1.8 GM is amazing as well. I've owned all these lenses and tested them.

Personally my chase setup consists of using the A7SIII + 24-70mm F/2.8 GM for video (with active mode on) and the A7RIII + 12-24mm GM for photographs along with my 100-400mm GM for longer distance shots. I have an A9 II I use as a backup too, but I run a portrait photography business on the side, so its the camera I use for that, so I don't usually bring it chasing.

Also should note with the A7III, there is a class action lawsuit out against sony for shutter failure around or before the 20,000 mark on those bodies. Not all of them do it, but I've seen many reports and photographs of it. Some fail well before that and some don't fail at all. They will replace the shutter. It will look something like this, many users report the failure between 10,000-50,000 shots, but like I said, it varies. I've seen some fail in less than 1000 shots:



Source: Sony Sued: Class-Action Lawsuit Says a7 III Shutter is Bricking Cameras

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Wow; and thank you, Ethan.
Did not know that. <shocked> In all the research I did for this camera, had seen nothing about this issue. But after looking into this issue now, the A7RII has also shown a defect in the shutter with some. Not to the same numbers/extent as the A7III - though. A couple of other Sony cameras also seemed to be mildly affected as well.

That law suit creates a legal precedent that others may cite in court against Sony. It would be wise - and in Sony's own best interests - for them to recall rather than to pay out scores of attorney's fees and other losses incurred by customers who used this camera in a professional setting (i.e. 'camera died in the middle of a wedding shoot'). The remedy should include an upgraded part not prone to failure before its expected and stated life cycle.

Looking back, I can see now why there were so many of these cameras available in the marketplace. People dumping these cameras does not relieve Sony of their own product liability/obligation to perform as when first purchased. But may be contended. 200,000 shutters is in their own scripts as evidence. Attorneys will rise, briefcases will be opened, and courtrooms will get heated. If Sony doesn't recall; will it be a major blow to their reputation?
To their photographer customers - it will be.

Does turning off the e-shutter in the menu change the outcome?
Or compromise greatly its effective and stated use?
Product attorneys seeking damages will unequivocally say 'Yes'.

Hope this camera can hang together long enough until a recall is made.
Concern for dust getting into the shutter track is a new priority to be observed.
Otherwise, a decent camera.

Just bought this one and checked the shutter count; it is at #616 using a free program called 'A7Info'. Had to update the camera firmware from 1.3.1 to 1.4.1. The Zeiss lens was also checked and is already up to snuff. Thanks for letting me know that you carry the 100-400mm and the 24-70mm. 70-200mm too? Sound advice, and will do the same. I will also be using the Canon RP for backup. Thanks!