# Lens Rentals' Report on Popular Rental Equipment 2017



## VidThreeNorth (Dec 28, 2017)

Lens Rentals reports "Most Popular Photography and Video Gear Rented in 2017"

"Most Popular Photography and Videography Gear Rented in 2017"


----------



## Derrel (Dec 28, 2017)

Funny, this excerpt:

"But the most surprising information above might come from the Sony NP-FW50 Battery in 5th place. Yes, the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, Nikon D750, and all of Sigma’s Art Series lenses were beat out by a battery. If nothing else, it’s a humbling reminder to us at Lensrentals.com that we serve a huge utility purpose within the industry, and a reminder to everyone else that the Sony mirrorless systems still have a long way to go in terms of battery life, and at least one backup battery is almost a requirement when using the Sony systems."

Yeah...six batteries needed to shoot a three-hour football game...


----------



## Overread (Dec 29, 2017)

I like the Lens Rentals articles! The guy's got his head in the right place and generally doesn't subscribe to the whole "lets do something extreme/say something daft to get views" angle. Plus they gain a unique experience in that the volume of lenses and cameras they use actually lets them review and spot patterns and properties that most reviewers or regular users simply cannot achieve.


----------



## cgw (Dec 29, 2017)

Cicala and his crew's independent, informed findings are rarities relative to what the online weasels, cheerleaders and "brand ambassadors" shamelessly churn out. Required reading for anyone who wants/needs a break from the noise.


----------



## Overread (Dec 29, 2017)

cgw said:


> online weasels, cheerleaders and "brand ambassadors" shamelessly churn out.



That's a little on the harsh side. Whilst there are most certainly those reviewers who are sponsored and thus likely to favour one brand over the other; and those who are outright out to release sensationalist articles just for the clicks;  a large number are fairly honest. The main difference is that when they test something they might only get one or two copies to use; and of the high end stuff might only be able to rent it or own it for a short period. 

So their viewpoints are often different. Lens Rentals has access to WAY more gear both in variety of brands and in volume of individual items to test and measure against each other. It lets them spot things other reviewers can't or won't see.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Dec 29, 2017)

I shoot with a7 bodies. I need to get one of those shotgun shell holder shoulder slings but for sony batteries. Hmmm. Im on to something. 



Derrel said:


> Funny, this excerpt:
> 
> "But the most surprising information above might come from the Sony NP-FW50 Battery in 5th place. Yes, the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II, Nikon D750, and all of Sigma’s Art Series lenses were beat out by a battery. If nothing else, it’s a humbling reminder to us at Lensrentals.com that we serve a huge utility purpose within the industry, and a reminder to everyone else that the Sony mirrorless systems still have a long way to go in terms of battery life, and at least one backup battery is almost a requirement when using the Sony systems."
> 
> Yeah...six batteries needed to shoot a three-hour football game...


----------



## Derrel (Dec 29, 2017)

BATTERIES!!! Batteries! Batteries!


----------



## VidThreeNorth (Dec 30, 2017)

This is mainly speculation based on these numbers and whatever else I have read or watched through the last couple of years.  Add some Kentucky wind-age from my sausage and eggs breakfast:

1.  This guy makes mistakes too.  The battery was 6th, not 5th.

2.  The battery should change this year because the new A9 and the a7Riii have a new, bigger battery.

3.  Sony has been running along chasing features and performance (aside from battery performance).  They should definitely look more seriously at power conservation.  In particular, it appears to me that they are using power-sucking chip technology and just doubling the processors instead of using more expensive thinner line technology.  This is something I am likely to be wrong about, but the reputation for running hot goes at least as far back as the a6300.  Looking at the prices of their equipment, I think they can afford thinner line chipsets.  The Panasonics also seem to have a reputation for running hot, but mainly during 4K video capture.

4.  I think there is an on-going move to video for making money.  I read constantly here the problem with making money in the still side.  Video is going to go that way too, but for now, there does seem to be a better opportunity in the video side.

*NOTE:*
- Most Popular #5 is the Sony "a7S II" which is aimed at video and NOT the "a7R II" which is more still oriented.  Also, eating batteries is even more an issue on the video side.

- In the "New Gear" list, #1 Panasonic GH5, #2 Sony a6500 and the Sony a9 are a "balanced" (video and still) and the first two have made their reputations mainly for their video performance.  #9 Olympus OM-D M1 Mark II is also a balanced design with new 4K video support.  Below that, #11 and beyond have some almost pure video cams in the mix.


----------



## Overread (Dec 30, 2017)

Thing is mirrorless is always going to be less powerefficient than mirrored because you've got to have the liveview running the whole time in order to see anything. In certain situations this isn't a huge issue, but some areas of interest its just wasting power. Wildlife or all day sports/events where you might well be waiting for a shot its just burning away battery with the camera doing nothing that it couldn't do with the mirror system. 

Plus at the larger sensor sizes you're really not actually saving that much physical camera space. Mirrorless for space saving only makes sense on smaller format cameras. I kind of feel that mirrorless has gotten itself into a big of a marketing hole in that now its had so much marketing behind it its almost a default people are aiming for or wanting even without realising what its really giving (or not giving) them. A bit like 3D TV where the marketing actually worked (as opposed to 3D TV where its failed time and time again for the most part).


----------

