I'm interested in motorsport and look forward to buying a new camera. I've been thinking about Sony and either their 6700 or A7 III. They're similarly priced in my country, so that's not a concern.What do?
7d mk2Better made camera, really good frame rate uses really inexpensive lenses and more likely to be able to be fixed in an overseas place without a huge presence
Do you already have a camera and are involved in a certain system? If so, just stay in this system. If not, buy an R6 mk II, it's great for sports due to awesome autofocus. But there's no great difference between modern mirrorless cameras, despite what gearfags will say. If you like sony, buy sony, if you like canon, buy canon, if you like shitty autofocus, buy nikon. Lenses are far more important than camera body anyway.
>>4362349Yeah just get an a7iii its great and affordable with access to lots of cheap, native lenses made by sigma and tamron/p/ has a lot of unironic shills on it fyi, they will range from cherry picking to straight up lying. Get the fuck out of here ASAP before you witness the usual>THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A SONY SEES A SINGLE DROP OF RAIN>cameradroppedintheocean.jpg>NO OTHER CAMERAS BROKE EVER! NEVER! ITS SNOY SHILL LIES!>NO A SONY HAS NEVER SURVIVED THE RAIN ITS SHILL TRICKS!
>>4362354Right now I'm using Nikon D5300 and it sucks at motorsport. I've heard Nikon has shit autofocus, so I've decided to try something different.I like that Sony has a big variety of available lenses.
>>4362357Yes the sony will be better than a cheap DSLR, ignore the gearfags here they want you to buy a $2000 mirrorless and a bunch of pro glass or a $2000 8 megapixel leica.
>>4362356If you have the knowledge, are the GM lenses worth the price?
>>4362357That's true, Sony has a great choice of lenses with all the third party manufacturers like Sigma. On the other hand, a big downside of Canon system is that RF is currently closed and Canon makes pricey lenses. However, they're all at least good, and you can't go wrong with L lenses. In addition, you can always use an adapter and buy older EF lenses, which are much cheaper. And, Canon has arguably the best lens ever: EF 70-200 f2.8. Perfect for motorsports and sports in general, if you can live with that focal range. All the sweet Sigmas and Tamrons are also available in EF version, which works just fine with adapter.
>>4362364Yes. Canon's L lenses are better, however both are great.
>>4362364Some of the GM lenses render less pleasing photographs than cheaper lenses. Like the 84mm f1.4 gm vs the 85mm f1.8. They add a marketing gimmick (“weather sealing” but no one covers weather damage under warranty, and light sea spray kills every brand because water gets past the seals kek!) and an aperture ring, nothing important >>4362369Bro canon’s L lenses are WORSE. Thats why sony got so big and stayed big (that, and nikon incompetence). Canon RF L lenses manage to be 50% larger than FE GM lenses and sometimes even vignette more, for roughly the same sharpness unless you get super critical of test charts (aka field curvature tests with no real world implications)
>>4362371This might be a matter of personal opinion, but personally I like Ls over GMs. It doesn't really have anything to do with measurable metrics, I just think that image you get from Ls is more pleasing to the eye. With a notable example of GM 24-70 f2.8, which is an amazing lens and I'm sometimes thinking about switching to Sony just to have it.
>>4362377exception not example, duh. My bad.
Get the A6700. Better AF, same res pretty much, more reach, little bit lighter especially if you factor in that you can use a shorter lens which matters if you're holding the camera up for the duration of a race and don't have a monopod.
>>4362394I'm leaning towards A6700 myself, but I keep hearing that full frames are the way to go nowadays. Are there any advantages APS-C have over them?
>>4362591Like I said, size and reach. You go full frame if you want the higher resolution or the best low light performance, probably not something that applies to motorsports.
>>4362602>best low light performance, probably not something that applies to motorsports.it does, indirectly, better in low light=better at fast SS
>>4362603You can just raise the ISO a stop. I doubt you'll be that high in the ISO range and I wouldn't consider motorsport to be something where you need the absolute cleanest files. I would say it's a fair compromise for the extra reach. With full frame you'd need to buy a lens 1.5x as long which brings additional weight as well as cost.
>>4362612>I doubt you'll be that high in the ISO rangeMost of the time you aren't but there's some events where you need everything the camera can give you[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS R6m2Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 7.1.2 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2024:01:31 00:00:22Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4362349See what a used Canon R6 goes for in your country, along with used EF lenses (EF/RF adapter). R6 will easily out perform either of the two you're looking at for fast action, and there's a massive amount of older but still great EF lenses available. Beware that some EF/RF lenses can't hit 12 fps with the mech shutter (due to aperture speed), but anything can hit 20 fps with the e-shutter. I'm not sure what your distances are, but an R6 + EF 100-400L mark II IS is a killer combination (hits 12 fps mech).That said, if you want to be in E-mount the two cameras you're looking at aren't bad at all for fast action. Even some old DSLRs would be quite good for motorsport.
>>4362619>Even some old DSLRs would be quite good for motorsport.Used flagships were still better than mirrorless cameras until the a9II and later most mirrorless with contemporary AF modules.An old 1DX is going to be completely usable at night in ISO6400
>>4362619>due to aperture speedCan't you avoid this by setting constant preview on?
>>4362631Canon themselves published a list of some lenses that can't hit 12 fps mech shutter on the R6. I believe it's aperture related, but it might actually be something else.Most lenses can. It's just something to be aware of, i.e. a 100-400Lii is going to be fine, a nifty fifty might be a bit slower.
>>4362619It only outperforms an a7iii by 2fps, with a premium L lens, otherwise if you want affordable lenses it gets more front heavy than mirrorless usually isThe sony a7iii can hit its 10fps with basically every lens. The mechanical limit of third party and older sony lenses is 15fps so I think canon is shitting people and using firmware restrictions to encourage buying L glass.I also would not put it past canon to use a firmware trick to cause third party batteries to fail faster. For some reason they have the most third party power supply problems.
>>4362650now for the real tragedyever since the a7iii, the only full frame sony cameras to reach at least 10fps without dropping to 12 bit raws (2 less stops of dynamic range) are high end video cams like the fx3 or have names that start with a1 and a9and every canon's e shutter framerate figure also includes a forced drop to 12 bit raws (2 less stops of dynamic range)... and no one is 100% sure if canons faster sensors had the whole 2 stops to lose, the deepest analysis anyone could do without canon trade secrets indicates they receive a 2/3 stop FAKE dynamic range bump from the noise reduction. this is not enough NR to hurt fine detail, but it does make comparisons wholly unfair unless you're going to bump the NR slider up by 2/3s of a stop worth of noise for every camera as well.
>>4362349get a fuji. sony has shitty skin colors
>>4362654yeah bro sony is unusable. they're not the #2 brand they're the #5 because their cameras explode when you look at them. they just paid the market share fags off and had a bunch of shills to claim that other brands weather sealing fails! all snoy lies! snoy is the worst! they dont even have a first party f2.8 toy lens what horrible company you literally cant take photos with a SNOY. SNOYs are not real cameras for real photographers (no i wont post a photo) buy a panasonic!just look at how shitty and worthless these a7iii skin tones arehttps://www.blog.juliatrotti.com/pictures/sony-a7iii-natural-light-portraitsoh my god it looks awful they're all so greenhttps://www.blog.juliatrotti.com/pictures/sony-28-70mm-kit-lens-portrait-photography[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7M3Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width6000Image Height4000Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2018:06:12 16:23:51Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.4Brightness6.0 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height667RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4362656Clive get this nigga GET HIM FUCK HIM UP
>>4362349I use a Sony a6000 and have had great results. I don't think the frame matters when it's in the hands of someone (who has basic understanding and a pulse) competent. ignore these nophoto losers who shoot rocks with $5k rigs. personally, I'd go with the cheaper and get a decent 30/50mm and the regular telephoto lens and you'll be set for most track days. those should cover all your bases from near to semi far track, and interiors.I'm phoneposting currently so I can't back up my claims at the moment, but I'd be happy to later
>>4363475it is later now, here is a random chaser from northern japan. ive got a couple supermotos somewhere on the nas
>>4362654
>>4362650>It only outperforms an a7iii by 2fps- 20 vs 10 fps with e-shutter.- R6 has much better AF, especially continuous AF in low light (the A7iii stopped down AF problem).- R6 has deeper buffers.- 8 stop IBIS vs 5 stop IBIS.- Much better high ISO. The R6 is roughly one full stop cleaner at the highest ISOs. Even at "lower" high ISOs like 12800 the R6 is cleaner. (The best FF high ISO bodies in the world right now are the original R6 and the A7s II, not III.)- Let's not even talk about ergonomics or color.>with a premium L lensTypical shill crap. Most lenses can keep up with the mech shutter.>The sony a7iii can hit its 10fps with basically every lensThat's because the A7iii locks down the aperture which can cause it to lose focus due to the loss of light. I would rather have 8-10 in focus frames than 10 oof frames in low light.>The mechanical limit of third party and older sony lenses is 15fps so I think canon is shitting people and using firmware restrictions to encourage buying L glass.I think you're a dumb shill since the list of lenses that can/cannot shoot 12 fps mech has nothing to do with L or not.>I also would not put it past canon to use a firmware trick to cause third party batteries to fail faster. For some reason they have the most third party power supply problems.And to dig the shill hole deeper you just start making shit up.>>4362653>and every canon's e shutter framerate figure also includes a forced drop to 12 bit raws (2 less stops of dynamic range)No, not every single one, but this is true for the R6.>... and no one is 100% sure if canons faster sensors had the whole 2 stops to loseMore obvious shill bullshit. You're a terrible liar.>MUH NR!!!Doesn't affect detail, only applied at low ISO. And truth be told, everyone is doing something similar with their RAW files, it's just a question of whether or not PtP detects it.Now let's talk about Snoy star eating high ISO NR, which DOES affect detail...
>>4362656>snoy colors are great!Moment of truth: most of the time Nikon and Sony give you RAWs with good color. The problem is that sometimes they screw the pooch and fuck up color in a way that's not related to WB and is a pain to fix in post. And that's coming from friends who shoot Nikon and Sony.Canon and Fuji always produce good color. You're always at a good starting point, and often don't even need to touch it in post.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4362650>>4362653Oh, I forgot one other R6 advantage: weather sealing. inb4>noooo the test wasn't fair!>noooo it's just the A7Riii!>noooo muh snoy that i never take out of the closet is fine!If you need weather sealing, then Sony is out until the fourth gen FF cameras.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width1284Image Height1324
>>4363494>source: 1 badly edited badly shot photo from a gearfagShill lies, or skill issue?>>4363495Deboonked so many times its unreal. /p/ has a rabid anti-sony shill problem. Its like virgins and their hatred of apple over made up nonsense, things that are as bad or worse on jeetdows/lunix, dumb luck and total user error/abuse.
>>4363488They look the fucking same
>>4363497>noooo it's a skill issue!The camera fucked up head on flash which is always daylight balanced. Head on flash doesn't look good by nature, but the COLOR should always be right. It's a perfect example of how sometimes...not all the time, sometimes...Sony just fucks up on color.>>4363497>nooooo i debonked that!https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+a7iii+water+damage
>>4363497its the opposite, /p/ sony shills believe there's no reason for any other camera on the market to exist if it's not a sony, they'll start spittling at the mouth and foaming if you tell them you bought a canonikonfuji over a sony and tell you how your preference is absolutely wrong even though it's your money and not theirs like a multi billion dollar Japanese company needs their white knight shills
>>4362349>>4362357For motorsport? a6700, easy. Get the 70-350 with it for track shots and a sigma 18-50 for more general stuff and you're pretty much set for life. The car specific autofocus mode is actually really fucking annoying for still shots but fantastic for cars in motion, I can't go back to not having it. In this specific niche you're gonna want more effective reach so apsc is the way to go unless you start actually getting paid well enough to justify the cost and size of full frame bodies and lenses (and when you're running around the track all day you'll sure as hell feel the size difference of an a6700/70-350 vs an a7III/200-600)Automotive is what I've done the most of so if there's anything else you want to know ask away.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-6700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.5.1 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2024:09:23 01:53:39Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/10.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/10.0Brightness8.8 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceDaylightFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4362349Motorsport... oh brother
>>4362349A6700, if only because it has the upgraded menu system and better autofocus.
>>4362371The truth is that some GM lenses are better and some L lenses are better. You can't say that either is better than the other across the board.24mm? Sony wins (Canon doesn't have one)35mm? GM wins.50mm? Tie85mm? Sony doesn't have an f1.2135mm? The Canon is better
