Andrew - EOSHD

In the D800's stills you have less noise in the very darkest shadows if you bring them up all the way in a raw file using Photoshop's ACR controls vs the same stills from the 5D Mark III.

 

However in video mode and at high ISOs the 5D Mark III is better in low light.

I don't think the production cost of a camera (or whatever device) is very relevant for the retraul price. Sony can (and will) price it whatever they want and whatever they think is 'best'. Maybe they haven't even determined the price yet... just feeling how the market reacts to it.. price it accordingly.

 

The marketing team have a large hand to play in setting the price, that's a big part of their job.

 

They will be getting feedback as we speak and some pros with money to burn will be telling them that the A7S is a Jesus Camera and should be priced $6000 :)

Who the fuck deleted my post yo?

 

I did! And mind the language too.

Working on the moderators today, will get it set up.

 

Cheers all!

The D800 has re-emerged!

We have the Mosaic Engineering VAF-D800 filter, compact $299 Atomos Ninja star ProRes recorder and now even a hack project based around the camera.

So I've picked up a D800 and plan to see what I get out of it.

Read the full article here

It's not really a matter of insisting. It has to do with the process of making the Silicon wafers and there are numerous other reasons for it, apparently. Some interesting answers here.

 

For example:

 

 

 

Another issue is the size of the wafer. They have been using 200mm for ages now I think. There is some switching going on to 300mm and 450mm is in development I think, but it probably will take a decade or more before it is standard, because all the machines have to be replaced and remade for the bigger wafers.

 

Btw... imagine the cost of that new 50MP Sony medium format sensor :) The price of the Pentax 645Z is incredible if you take that into consideration.

 

/Edit:

Interesting stuff on wafer sizes here.

57.8% of chip production (not only image sensors!) is already done on 300mm wafers. This will be 70% by 2017, but 200mm wafers are still being used for image sensors...

 

I love this stuff.

 

You're right the price of the Pentax is amazing and it would seem Sony are making huge strides forwards with their CMOS business. Usually very hard to break performance and price barriers both at the same time. Somehow they are managing to mass produce sensors that have unheard of until now spec for the price.

 

If Canon are playing catch up in 2 years time and image quality on their DSLRs lags significantly behind Sony, and Nikon are using Sony sensors, it could spell a serious problem for Canon, something not easy to fix overnight as Sony has been building up to this level of sophistication for years and have surely spent many millions of dollars in the process.

We could have a separate forum for selling lenses, but I'm not sure about it.

 

The for sale threads in the anamorphic forum keep it quite lively and bring about discussion of various unusual lenses. If we hid these away in a sub-section it might make the place a bit more dead.

 

What do you think?

Very interesting.

 

I wonder why they insist on making the wafers circular.

 

36% of the area wasted on the full frame sensor yield is pretty wasteful.

Did I miss anyone? Julian would you like to have moderator powers too?

 

Misbehaviour sticky - I'll leave this as defined by wider society :)

I would happily do that to some internet users.

If you pre-order now, expect this camera by March 2015, right before BM announces 3 more cameras...

 

It will probably ship with the two giant audio meters disabled or something :)

I'm not sure, sorry, how you can really compare slow-mo from a small sensor without interchangeable lenses, to the look of a large sensor with interchangeable lens. They will look completely different.

It came out.

Yes indeed.

 

Look - a sickly plastic texture to fine detail and a general lack of it. Looks like 720p!

Yes. But it still looks like digital puke to me.

 

No offense to the crew they did a good job making it look much better than it should be, but had they shot it on the 5D Mark III it'd have looked better especially in raw.

1.

Can we get this straight please? D4S image quality in full frame video mode is a disaster. It is not an accurate video. They used the crop mode which is very sharp but only uses a 2.7x crop of the full frame sensor. Why spend $6k on this? Great stills camera, not great for video.

Looks like something is off in your render there.

 

Maybe do another test but with them both set to 25p rather than the A6000 at 50p, as the codec gets pretty soft at that setting.

Hey, I'm new here too, thanks for all those great infos on the GH4, can we a have a comparision with a blackmagic pocket too?
I'm looking forward a good cinematic look and I'm a little afraid with the gh4 despite all those good things you think about it.

Keep up the good work!

 

Pocket was included in my studio test scene video with the GH4 here 

Did you test maximum exposure time for an electronic shutter still? It was 1 second with the gh3. To have long exposure possible electronically would be a big deal for timelapse people. I've asked a few places and it seems nobody has looked into this yet.

Thanks.

 

Frank has the camera at the moment for a Red Bull shoot but when we next meet up I'll check this. It's on my list!

Clearly a lot of that is shot in 2.7x crop mode which is a 1:1 crop of the full frame sensor and very sharp, but you lose the full frame look and a bundle of low light performance.

 

There's also some timelapse compiled from 16MP stills in there too.

 

So be careful what you're looking at when looking at a marketing video.

Only thing missing from the GH4 is Log mode.  I thought I initially read that there were controls to curve the highlights and shadows, or did I read that wrong?

 

There is the Olympus OM-D style curve adjustment in-camera yes. Haven't tried it yet on the GH4 but you're not wrong, it's there.

Andrew are you going to review this camera with a comparison video with other cameras for sharpness, low light performance etc..?

 

Anyway to me it doesn't look that sharp, I don't see the wow effect I get with the GH2 details 

 

You're right on close inspection it does not quite have the resolving power of the GH2 in 1080p.

 

And yes there is still some moire.

 

But it has a raft of other nice stuff that the GH2 doesn't have.

 

Final review coming soon.

"In electronic shutter mode for stills, the GH4 can silently shoot 16MP raw shots which is great – but of course these also use a rolling shutter so are prone to the related artefacts like skew."

 

Is this mode better than the GH3 though? I was hoping it would be considering they are both shooting from the same-ish 16 megapixel sensor, only the GH4 uses the 50% faster readout. 

 

The GH3 doesn't have a full 16MP raw output on the electronic shutter.

 

So much better.

 

Since GX7 and GM1 Panasonic have had the full pixel readout for stills without mechanical shutter.