Sony is everywhere at the moment. Every job I do has another photographer there with a Sony Axx and G master or Sigma ART prime on. They are still killing it with focus, have some very good glass (a bit OTT, but all credit to them and they have certainly addressed the glaring weakness from their early day) and their low light performance is the one to beat.
Sure, they are clinically perfect, in both a good and bad sense, but hey.
For the new generation of shooters, this is the Sony era, everyone else seems to be playing catch up.
I guess the big questions are still to be answered.
Question 1; Can AF ever read you mind?
AF is never used on major film productions, because even if you could (you actually can) programme an AF system to do what a human can do, it is still easier to use an experienced human to focus for you. Transitions? At what speed, what focus steps, how smooth? Human does instinctively and organically what the computer is told to do. The big pole is a miss by a computer is obvious, because it is confused often resulting in an over correct, where a human miss is subtle, gentle and can be fixed the same way.
Same difference I guess, but we are soon to reach that point when the human is the quant choice, not the automatic option. We are not however, there yet and the human touch will never be irrelevant, just rarer as computers offer “easier” fixes than muscle memory.
AF right now, no matter how good cannot read your mind or creative processes and even on the rare occassions it can make do, it is only replacing some small effort on the users part.
Question 2; Other than in run and gun trouble shooting situations, would you ever use a super high ISO setting rather than better lighting?
We once had to work with a very small range of low ISO settings for even decent quality (40-200 in my life time, 1600 being nasty). This range has expanded massively, but ask any pro and they will use the best ISO, not the highest when they have any choice in the matter. Expanding our options is always good, but at some point enough is actually enough.
Documentary and news shooters even subscribe to this, but often they have to compromise. Sure workable (not pretty) ISO 800,000 is great when you need it. Do you need it? Would you ever compromise the quality of your footage/stills unless you had to? Video only needs 1/50th of a second, stills maybe 1/350th does most things, so there is an achievable outer limit.
Once clean ISO 6400-12,800 is achieved, you are capable of handling most situations.
Question 3; How much lens is too much?
I touched on this recently. Super shallow depth and creamy Bokeh is a thing, possibly and over used thing and it is often not needed, nor even practical. In the past, the f1.4 lens was a must for low light, because ISO’s were limited, but now that is almost a thing of the past, that only leaves very shallow depth of field for creative purposes or bragging rights*.
An extreme situation handled by an f1.8 lens.
To be honest, if your background is that unworkable and ugly, then you probably need to use one of the many excellent background replacement tools available, control your lighting, or just go with f1.8 to 2.8 and better technique. Any lens can render a soft background if you apply good technique. One of my favourite lenses for soft Bokeh is a f6.7 zoom!
Question 4; How much resolution do you actually need?
Seriously, what are your end user expectations and what do you need to get there? Internet use, book or brochure printing? Even fine art has a limit usually imposed on it by a factor not camera related, so before you go and produce really massive files, only to have them down sized by up to 90% for web or print uses, think about your real needs. A high res, poorly executed image is of less use than a sharp, clean and clear lower res one.
I am in the habit now of just sending clients web sized images with the masters filed away for other uses. Rarely do they ever ask for anything bigger. My highest pressure pro shoot, the Telstra Board portraits ended up being printed as passport sized images in their annual report. This is also a f2.8 M43 file (see Q3)
The same with video. Anything over 1080p or 4k is for hypothetical future proofing***, something that is likely not a real issue for most footage that ends up at 720 or 1080 for web use. Pet projects, record keeping and sales to Netflix aside, the end viewing medium is likely 1080, maybe 4k and likely the watcher will not be able to tell the difference anyway, especially if it is upscaled.
I always find it funny how the high res crowd are also addicted to softening filters for that true movie camera look, which is often just less digitally perfect.
Like most things, quality is not necessarily best measured as quantity and larger quantities can introduce issues of their own like the need for ridiculously highly corrected lenses just to break even.
*
Most of the issues being addressed at the moment are only issues if you let them be.
Good practices have always been enough in the past and tech should not be a lazy replacement for them. How did we survive up to now? Good technique, knowing our gear and avoiding known pit falls.
Other things matter, like having proper lens coverage**, good colour, practiced technique, a relevant subject, being quiet, nimble, empathic, having happy shoulders for working long periods, not drawing attention to yourself or being “that” person.
F1.8 does basically the same job as f1.4 for creative blurring etc, if you know how to use it and for low light makes so little difference it comes more down to a lens by lens comparison or software choice. Save yourself the cost, bulk and hassle of the brutish lens and go with the other guy. They not only do the job, but sometimes have even better AF, handling or other benefits and often the slightly slower prime and a Pro f2.8 zoom cost the same as one or two “super” primes. Ask yourself honestly how often you will use f1.4 and does every lens have to be that fast?
Getting off the more, more, more train helps you grow personally, rather than your kit increasing, with a corresponding reduction in savings. I have seen far too many young shooters tote a massive kit of gear to a job that does not need it, and I wonder how many jobs they have to do to break even? Should two A7r4’s, a trio of 35/50/85 G master lenses, really be a pair of A7 mk3’s, a 24-70 and 85 f1.8, saving you $1000’s and offering a better range?
Software will be or is already the fix for many current problems. The recent NASA negative retrieval exercise that bought an astronaut out of an inky shadow is only a taste of the future.
Finally, it sometimes helps to just stop worrying. Cheaper kit is cheaper to replace, easier to carry and the whole thing can be replaced easily, allowing you to concentrate on better work.
A 75mm f1.8 acting as a 150mm f3.4 on full frame. Regardless, f1.8 was enough. F1.4 would have added a half stop fatser shutter speed or half stop lower ISO and even softer background, but may also have lost a part of the subject. In other words, even If I could, I would not have used wider.
*A local shooter at a Mayoral swearing in ceremony recently showed me his Nikkor 0.95 lens, that he intended to use when he did the studio lit portraits in a small room? A 50mm f1.8 would have easily done that, but oh, the wanker value!
In a presser yesterday at a small graduation ceremony, photographer “X” was so tied to his G Master 50mm, that he spent far too long shuffling people around a small room until they all fit in his shot. A Pro 24-70 would have been ideal, but the super fast prime, which I bet he did not shoot at F1.4 when his group needed to go three deep to fit the shot, was a hindrance (I also wonder how big the images will ever need to be from a rushed group shot). As an aside, I got the same shot over his shoulder with a tiny M43 17 f1.8 at 1.8 (ff f3.4) with room to crop!
**I rarely use my 8-18, but when large groups may come into play, it is handy. Having a set of super sharp, super fast primes at the expense of more width or length just does not make sense. Look at the older shooters who run a pair or three zooms and a select fast prime or two as options. This comes from a long history of just working and cannot be more relevant than now.
I bought the wide lens along just in case for this shoot. Group shots were a last minute thing, then they got bigger and bigger on a crowded stage, but 16mm eq covered it. No other lens I own solves as many problems as this one from so little use, but when it is needed, there is no other option. Another fast prime instead? No way.
***Nothing shot from the later 20th century to now is unwatchable, but you can tell the generational differences and changing styles. We seem at the moment to have a fixation on video resolution without a true understanding of the realities of change and viewer perceptions. Things will change regardless of our attempts to arrest it. Our footage in 20 years will look dated no matter what we do, because preferences and tastes change, techniques evolve and quality (not just resolution) increases. Shoot 8k if you feel you need to, but nobody but you will know and none will request these massive files “as is”. Ironically, future software will likely allow for massive upressing anyway.