Also, if you shoot video, the differences between old and new models tend to be more significant.
The primary reason I upgraded from an A7M3 to an A7M4 was 10-bit video - there was nothing in the stills functionality I was particularly interested in. The more minor (but REALLY nice to have) thing was that the A7M3 had USB-C but did NOT support USB PD - and in fact would only consume around 0.8A at 5v when the power switch was in the “On” position - it would routinely drain the battery on external power. A7M4 supports USB PD which is a huge improvement.
Funny thing, most of my purchases lately have been cleaning equipment… No pets, but after 15 years my old car (which I’ve kept as a backup/beater) really needs some serious cleaning. I recently purchased a carpet shampooer (Bissell Proheat Revolution) and a steam cleaner (McCullouch MC1375) to take better care of my cars.
Which reminds me, I need to stop procrastinating on adding generic-brand Dynamat to my new car to dampen the road noise.
I did not though that my gtx 1650 would not be up to the task …
What would be the requirement to have average perfs on Dt with a 4K display ? How to diagnose of it’s not my CPU that is the bottleneck ?
I may change for an a2000 if I manage to find a good deal … I don’t want a GPU with extra power plug as I have a very low power PSU and intend to keep it that way
My GPU is clearly not in the same leage by at least an order of magnitude
Well, maybe my card is grossly overspecced. It’s the only one I’ve had, and came with the secondhand gaming rig I bought from a local lad who was leaving for college. It also came with some bare chested selfies of him flexing his biceps on the desktop as he failed to wipe the drive…
Here’s something to chew on. If you don’t want to buy a new camera, you might alternatively think about what processing you need to make the old camera palatable. In that regard, older noisier cameras need decent denoise, and the good algorithms for that operation are really compute-intensive. My limited experience coding these intuits that CPU-based denoise can be made digestible (> 30sec), but GPU-based alternatives can cut that by an order of magnitude. If the majority of your old-camera images need denoise, you might at least be buying a GPU and selecting software that uses it.
My old D7000 would put me in that bucket. My “new” Z 6 not so much; I think I’ve only had one image from it so far that suggested denoise, and it was a salvage operation for a mis-calculated exposure. Otherwise, it’s pretty clean in the shadows, keeping my feeble hack software in business…
Yes, this a veiled PSA for vkdt. It only makes sense, load the image in the GPU from the gitgo, only pull it out for export after all the ops are done as GPU shaders. Well-worth the $300US investment for the card. The CAD software I use is on the cusp of adopting a GPU-based mesh library, which will knock-down my longish render times significantly.
I have a relatively budget-level GPU NVIDIA Corporation TU116 [GeForce GTX 1660] (rev a1)
and on a 4k monitor (3840x2160) vkdt is instantaneous on most operations
Also, I’m too invested in bodies and lenses to change to mirrorless.
… i really hope on your machine vkdt doesn’t take a whole second to denoise images! on a 24MP image i get: [perf] sum denoise: 2.985 ms
so that’s a couple orders of magnitude.
I don’t think there is a single “pro perspective”. All major camera makers have pro models, and somehow they sell enough of them to justify R&D and manufacturing. So it follows that pro photographers use a wide range of cameras. And some of those cameras are actually not in the pro line of the manufacturer — yet they still help these photographers make great photos.
I find these videos somewhat arrogant, and, consequentially, pretty irrelevant. People who do photography for a living still have diverse preferences and requirements.
Personally, I find reviews informative in general. They help me narrow down choices to the 2–5 models that I want to try out when I go into a store to buy one.
Largely agree. But, I guess (and I say this as someone who spent years writing headlines for a living) that he’s simplifying for impact. He’s a studio photographer and I see his point that what you use is going to be influenced by what the rental companies have in large numbers. And along with this, the point that, beyond sensor sizes, basically cameras are much more similar than people seem to think and than manufacturers would want them to think. I always wonder when you see people saying they switched system and sold all their gear, why? To take a massive depreciation loss, for what? I’m not saying this would never be justified but in many cases it just seems like fashion and not much different from buying some sports car you will never take advantage of or a Birkin handbag. That’s fine but just call it what it is, consumption and status acquisition. Same with carbon racing bikes or whatever
The last youtuber I heard did this was Nick Pagez who said he was with a client standing in the middle of a river, the client’s new canon R series goes plunk in the river. They fish it out, dry it off, and it works fine the next day. He said Sony’s weather sealing and professional services are not nearly as good as Canon’s, so good by Sony.
Reasonable. And notably nothing to do with IQ, autofocus, shutter speed and other stuff that dominates reviews (ok, they mention weather sealing but only mention, generally)
He also said the Sony in general just wasn’t holding up too well, physically, IIRC. I think the straw that broke that camel’s back was when he asked the Sony reps at a trade show if they could reattach the “ID ring” (with name, focal length, etc.) back on a Sony lens of his. It had popped off (probably just glued on) but they shrugged and told him to send it to Sony, who would do it for $350…
In the last few years Sony(Or as far back as 2005, remember the rootkit?) as a company, not just their imaging division, has been like this and worse. Not to say Canon(specially Canon) and others are not equally bad of course.
