Andrew Reid

  GH3 is easier to get up to speed with than the BMPCC for the general enthusiast audience. The problem is this audience DOES care about image quality and the GH3 just isn't enough. That's exactly where GoPro should step in. Hope they are working on something. CineForm due an update too.   Canon haven't officially said anything about Magic Lantern, despite me prodding them to do so! I guess they have their reasons. Not that I'd agree with them. Software is important!

  The problem with Sony is that their brave innovation usually turns out to be ill conceived. You mention SLT but that is the tip of the iceberg.   That's why the A7 line and RX10 are so refreshing. They are sensibly thought out.   Who the hell is gonna use a QX on their smartphone? It's way too bulky and difficult to operate.   Sony had their chance with the Cybershot phones. I used to have one. They were the best all round feature phones in the era before smartphones. Then the software overtook the hardware side and the rest is history, written by Apple.   If you look at Android (and Samsung) they have basically copied Apple. That isn't really innovation.   Samsung seem determined to throw features and new stuff out there, the complete opposite of Canon, but without the brains of Canon!

Clearly Nikon need to diversify. Historically they've been bad at that. Turning down the chance to own Adobe in the early 90's example numero uno.   Nikon should do a Cinema EOS.   Next they should sell lots of DF cameras. If the specs are to be believed it's the only retro inspired shooting experience where you can use a huge range of existing Nikon DSLR lenses on without compromises to AF or sensor size. The full frame D4 sensor also gives incredible quality images.   Nikon should gracefully bow out of the compact market or do what I suggest and make that Nikon-backed iPhone camera upgrade case. Must be thin and not be a drain on the phone's battery. Must not be wireless, must go into the lightning port and be instant to activate. Must have good apps to go along with it.   Then they should go all out into the software world. Buy some companies. Put out their own rival to Photoshop and Lightroom. And we're not talking Silkypix :)

  Any more info on this?   And yes I do think A7R will be second best of the DSLRs for video overall when you take all features and image quality attributes into account. 5D Mark III and Magic Lantern will still be in a league of its own because of raw, but the A7R is much more usable and has a more flexible lens mount.   RX10 and GH3 seem to give better resolution and less moire than the A7R though it must be said it's very early days to be talking about final performance and how they all stack up.

  Battery life on video is of more importance to me.... Of course a DSLR for stills will have longer life, it barely does anything when you're shooting through the optical viewfinder. The 5D Mark III in live-view mode will likely be similar to the A7 in live-view mode unless you are shooting 60p which drains quicker as the data crunching is more than doubled (both sensor and image processing side).   I get much better battery life on the RX1 incidentally now I have turned off the 60fps live-view and had it drop back to 30.

  Jerry read what I said a few posts above about the AA filter.   An AA filter doesn't operate in the lower frequencies of low resolutions like 1080p, it only has an affect at 36MP, which is why they removed it - to sharpen up the 36MP stills.   What does have an impact on moire in video mode is the 34MP you literally throw in the bin to get down to 2MP for 1080p, by line skipping and pixel binning!!

Engaging the uninterested general public with dedicated cameras was never going to be sustainable - not with smartphones around. But I think the decline of consumer DSLRs will actually be the best thing to happen to photography and video in the digital era. Finally companies will have to get innovative, putting more weight behind enthusiast and pro orientated camera line-ups. [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/11409/consumer-dslrs-dead-5-years]Read the full article here[/url]

  You mean via HDMI? I've not seen it advertised as 4:2:2 yet. Link please :)

Yes great for anamorphic lenses. No other camera offers 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratios at such high resolutions in that price range. Indeed it is something you won't find on the F5 or C500 either.

  Of course there's an argument to be had for matching the medium to the content, and against something which looks too sterile and clinically perfect.   Imperfections can be beautiful but they have to be the right sort.   All this digital puke isn't the right kind of imperfection. Well in very rare circumstances it does have a use.... 28 Days Later was shot on DV and the graininess, hard clipping, etc. added to the mood. However, going back and watching that film again I am shocked at how anaesthetically pleasing it is, despite being incredibly well directed and DP'ed. Also, if that look is a creative choice then you can take an Alexa and do that to the image in post. Why purposefully hobble yourself?   Digital puke is not the kind of 'roughing up' of an image that a low contrast hazy Russian lens is... It is a step in the other direction, towards something which looks less aesthetic and less organic.

  I'd go for the G6 over hacked GH2 as well. The codec is actually better implemented on the G6 and you don't get a nasty Russian man with personal issues calling you Voldermort into the deal. Bonus!

  No but last time I checked, the 64GB KomputerBay card cost $120 and the Alexa with Codex cost $80,000. Take your pick!

  Uncompressed HDMI + external recorder doesn't make it any better really. Everything on the page I wrote here still applies aside from compression. Even then, uncompressed HDMI doesn't help the compression of colour, down from 14bit to 8bit and 4:4:4 to 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 (I doubt it REALLY is 4:2:2 on a Nikon to be honest). Resolution doesn't improve either as the camera is still doing a bad debayer and running the image through the image processor before it reaches the HDMI port (to apply the crappy picture profiles and noise reduction for example).   I actually contest that HDMI is truly 'uncompressed' on any DSLR.   It has to go through the image processor and that involves some compression.   Maybe on the Sony A7 we will get a bigger benefit, as the image might go from the debayer stage direct to the HDMI port with no other image processing applied… That's what the Sony guy alluded to in my chat in Berlin any way.   5D Mark III raw bypasses DIGIC altogether. It's literally a sensor readout in a file. Everything happens in post, including the very nice Adobe Camera Raw debayer. You can throw huge power at the image in post, power the DSLR itself just hasn't got within the DIGIC 5+ CPU.

  Magic Lantern is free!

To learn more about using raw video on the 5D Mark III, get your copy of the EOSHD 5D Mark III Raw Shooter's Guide here What is the real advantage of installing Magic Lantern on your Canon DSLR, specifically in this case the lovely 5D Mark III? Is it possible to finally SHOW it? Yes it is. Here is the most in-depth comparison yet between the standard video mode and raw and why the image quality is worth your attention. [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/11395/real-difference-normal-dslr-video-5d-mark-iii-raw-video]Read the full article here[/url]

  It takes stating the obvious to new unchartered territory.   When his wife gets in the car, he probably tells her to make sure it has wheels.

  IMAX version was 2K? If so, yeah, looked fine.   Don't forget however that 4K makes for more dynamic range, as there's no (or little) pixel binning. It also makes for much cleaner 1080p when downsampled in post, with less aliasing.

luisrjm, wow I would love to have that guy in the room at an equipment test on the set of a big Hollywood production...   "Hey put that camera down!! The script needs more work. Hey! Stop evaluating the flare of anamorphic lenses. Can't you see Clooney isn't right for this role?? Hey stop messing with robot arms and projection systems Alfonso. You've gotta give the festivals I call, get a slot at Cannes!! HEY!! Don't you think Sandra's character needs a bit more balls? HEY?"   Give it a rest man!!

The AA filter / OLPF is a source of great confusion out there.   The truth of the matter is that it has ZERO affect on video.   It only affects the very high frequency patterns - i.e. stuff which occurs subtly over a 36MP still.   It has no affect at the 1080p level. It'd have to be a very strong filter to soften 36MP so much to affect 2MP! No camera has a filter in it this strong as it would impact on the sharpness of stills when viewed at 100%, giving the camera a disservice in photo-orientated reviews and on pixel peeping charts. The only filters this strong are the Mosaic Engineering ones for DSLRs.   Moire and aliasing is 100% down to the way the sensor is scaled - i.e. the way pixels are binned or skipped.   I found out the hard way when I removed the OLPF from my 5D Mark III. Aside from also removing the IR cut filter which made my image purple, it had no affect on sharpness in video mode. Though the IR contamination did give me more dynamic range :)   The Sony rep here is putting out bad info without having ever seen the video output from both cameras and compared. He may as well reel off the spec sheet.   http://vimeo.com/77758977

  Agree with you on usability. I actually think usability are the A7R and RX10's strongest points. Very practical tools. The A7R video is much better than the NEX 7 that's for sure. Cleaner at high ISOs, larger sensor, less moire and aliasing. But I haven't yet done an extensive shoot. This was literally just an hour long hands-on.

  Sounds like you definitely need to check out the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera then.

  I shot with it at ISO 3200 but couldn't do a proper low light test in a bright room. The RX10 is definitely an interesting run and gun video camera. As for narrative run & gun, where you can start and stop the action, I think that gives you time to change primes so maybe you'd be better off with an A7R or Blackmagic… But the RX10 is definitely the most usable in terms of the features it gives you.   Shallow depth of field - yes plenty. That lens is a beauty.   Stabilisation is very good on it too, but at the very longest end of the zoom it doesn't quite hold steady enough so you will still need to have a few contact points on the body for run & gun if you want to make use of the full zoom range.

  Interesting. Yes saw the 4K DSLR earlier in the year. I think it's only right that convergence applies to Sony's divisions as well as their products. You can see that very clearly in the RX10. It's the best ever fixed lens hybrid camera and really does give the GH3 a run for its money. If you only use the GH3 with the 14-140mm kit zoom, the RX10 is better. Peaking, zebras, ND filter, F2.8 lens, it packs a LOT in. Love the handling too. LCD top panel is great. It is as if Sony sacked all their NEX engineers!

Pricing is pretty competitive for full frame cameras. 1499 euro for the A7 and 2099 for the A7R.   I think the decision hinges on which camera you use for stills and video at the moment.   If you're a Blackmagic user you will like the practicality of the A7R and RX10 but it isn't a step forward in terms of the image, only in terms of the lensing and sensor size.   That full frame look CAN be special, but you might miss that 10bit and 13 stops dynamic range more. The choice is yours.   The A7R may well replace your stills camera. The 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 have a dwindling amount of advantages, namely the AF system and their lens ranges. If you're into MF like a Leica user and haven't invested in 20 L lenses the Sony will easily replace your full frame DSLR. Easily.

Quite unexpectedly today at the Sony Centre at Berlin Potsdamer Platz, demo units of the A7 and A7R were available to try including the more video-orientated RX10. The dilemma over which to pre-order for video is over! [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/11380/new-sony-a7-a7r-rx10-exclusive-hands-look-video-quality]Read the full article here[/url]