sanveer

The writer is a dinosaur. While I do subscribe to the economist, maybe technology is one of the areas on which they shouldn't write.

Aaaaah, ok. Interesting. I didn't know that. Maybe DXO Labs should answer it and quickly. Otherwise both Sony and DXO Labs seems to be overstating things a little.

I completely agree. I like the DXO lab testing. But, I feel, that not only is the Sony sensor superb, even their algorithms are great, especially for doing what Neat Noise or Neat Video does, within the camera itself. After looking at the various videos, I would even think its in the league of something like Cinnafilm's Dark Energy (I am obviously pushing it). I would like to see someone test the ISO 409600 range, and then try and clean it in post. I am curious as to the level of detail on that one.

These tests of the A7S show how the internal processing on the A7S in Jpeg (and presumably video), is rather complex. Comparing RAW images for noise and dynamic range among other things may not be suitable. I feel the colours have been muted slightly, but that has somehow pushed the Dynamic Range across the various ISO settings. I feel DXO labs did not conduct their tests accurately. I could be wrong. It's jusr my opinion. http://m.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/sony-a7s-1255921/review?src=rss&attr=all

Maybe you lost the plot. I did not take a certain short film out, and say that I did not like the story, or story telling, in that one. What I said was, that nowadays, a compilation of random shots is strung together, and labelled a short film.

I have a strange grouse. Nowadays everyone posts some random footage video of new cameras and equipment and calls it a Short Film. Why do people shoot random video without a story to support them, and term them as short films? Why has this come about

The pattern of this edit is extremely interesting. It has created an interesting look at the cameras's potential. I am really liking the video from the A7S. Its absolutely lovely. Alsi, I have a gut feeling that the Dynamic Range testing for video is quite inaccurate. I hope someone apart from DXO Labs also conducts tests.

This discussion is getting very interesting. Btw, whoever is doing this testing, could you not make the picture profile too flat, so that it does not come apart while grading. Also, in all the videos that I have seen of the GH4 and the Mark iii, I feel, its dynamic range is about 2 stops or more, than the Canon 5D Mark iii in video. In stills too, it does seem to resolve noticeably greater dynamic range.

Congrats. That's great news. I am curious. Have you ever thought of having a video kind of review too, perhaps, where you speak what you usually write? Something with a few jokes and interesting anecdotes put in?

I don't know why you're suddenly spewing vitriolic around, like some nutcases from other forums, but, YES, I do format my card in-camera, cause sometimes its faster, and sometimes, I do forget to do it on a laptop. I hope the answer did not disappoint you.

No sound metre, and no battery indicator? I just read above that formatting in camera is coming. That's possibly the best update so far.

I would like the Sony A7S being compared with the C100 and the C300, for extreme low light/ extreme high ISO testing. The C100 and the C300 seem to be highly competent, especially after the ISO 80,000 firmware update:

Its amusing how everyone has an opinion on how DXO Labs seems to have gotten everything wrong, and yet, none can substantiate their theories about how to calculate actual dynamic range, in anything even remotely scientific.

Suddenly everything under 14 stops of Dynamic range looks little. While not so long ago the Professional RED Epic MX was doing between 11 and 12 stops of dynamic range, and that seemed perfectly fine. http://provideocoalition.com/aadams/story/next_stop_the_last_stop_red_mx_latitude_tests/P2

The Dynamic range of the GH4 is rated at 12.8 stops (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Panasonic/Lumix-DMC-GH4) and the A7S is rated at 15.3 stops according to Sony themselves

I obviously have absolutely nothing to back this, but, I have a feeling, that the noise reduction and sensor read-out for video is smoother than for stills. Also, in the Comparison video, at upto ISO 25600, the A7S clearly had more details in the trees and the Caesar's Palace sign-board. Also, I found the dynamic range noticeably greater, and therefore, it looked brighter than the Mark iii. Also, after 25,600, the image quality didn't seem to deteriorate any further, and it seemed as usable at ISO 25,600 as it was at ISO 1,02,400. After that it looked like a 640p video. Beyond that it looked like the GH4 at ISO 3200, the only difference being, that it has insane Noise Reduction happening internally, so much so, that the noise didn't seem organic at all.

I apologise for the late reply. I didn't notice this post for a while, and then it slipped my mind to reply.

I think banning people from sites lacks greater pleasure. Clever Repartees are wasted on cerebrally challenged and ineloquent whackos. I am sure they come nowhere near hurling rotten food at someone. Andrew, you don't need a certification from anyone. If anyone thinks they can run a successful website with a comparable number of visitors and members, they should do that. Btw, Michael Thames was in the Wrong Site. This is what he posted in this thread: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> "Spec sheets are boring to me, and I have to admit I don't like reading manuals. I find I learn much more by apprenticing myself to a master, or to someone whom I look up to and respect. In this way I seek knowledge about my particular craft." This Site does not have a MASTER, but, All of Us know a site, which has a master, where Michael Thames can practice being disciplined :D ;) :P P.S.: No guesses for what the site is called ...

Hahaha, Andrew, I noticed this, after your post. I felt both embarrassed and stupid, for having jumped the gun. My bad ... :P

It's not about making a good camera. That the Canon did not just with the expensive yet well-features 5D Mark ii, it did it with the 550D and that range of much cheaper cameras. For most Indie Filmmakers, especially those not making Features, it was more than sufficient to pick up any of the cheaper range of Canon DSLRs shooting in Full HD. The C100, C300 and C500 is a completely different target audience. And, it does have advantages over regular DSLR video (Flatter Colour Profile, Higher Dynamic Range and Higher ISO). But the C100 starts at $5500 (for Dual Pixel) for AVCHD which doesn't even do 60fps, and the C300 does 60fps at 720p, and costs $14000. While these cameras are good for broadcast standards, they don't really cut it for Filmmaking (more due to the fact, that that there are emerging cameras like BlackMagic and others, which are far better for coloring and grading and cost a fraction of the cost of the Canon's Cinema Range). The Panasonic GH4 and the Sony A7S are the future of Independent Filmmaking, especially for productions will smaller budgets. The Canon Cinema range, is almost there. Though not quite precisely.

Canon should probably fire its engineers for coming up with this in the first place. Whats an over-sized piece of _ _ _ _. And this is incomparable with the A7S for filmmaking. Also, after seeing that the A7S does clean 4k video upto 100,000 ISO, I am sure it can be used for more technical and scientific purposes.

I guess if Canon does not genuinely innovate and allow technology to trickle down to its mass buyers as oposed to the Niche C500 buyers, its headed for extinction. Also, apparently, in sensor technology Canon hasn't really innovated in the last half decade. Almost At All. Only on paper, not in actual field tests.

I remember, last year, Canon teased a sensor, which, apparently did Superb low light. What we saw, unfortunately, was a highly pixelated and Very Noisy video of fireflies. The Sony A7S is actually the camera that Canon spoke about, but did not make. Anyway, that sensor was only 2MP or something, so it wasn't really made for production. Here's the url and the video: http://petapixel.com/2013/09/13/canon-debuts-exciting-prototype-sensor-exceptional-low-light-capability/

I am curious why none have discussed the GH4 B&H Webcast, which I thought was pretty interesting, highlighting a few things that were either in doubt, or were things that users thought, needed to be addressed: 1. Most people recording 96fps on the GH4, found the video rather soft. Panasonic (Matt Frazer) explained that one must set the shutter speed to 1/200, so that they get the right kind of sharpness for the image. 2. In the GH3, people could switch between the Shotgun and Stereo mic pickup pattern (on the Panasonic DMW-MS2), and, apparently, now, in the GH4, even the angle of pick up, for the shotgun can be adjusted, making it narrower or wider. And, also, apparently, it can be set, to self-adjust with a zoom lens, depending upon the amount of zoom employed. I think, on paper atleast, this feature seems amazing. 3. Also, there was a reporting of noise by many people, saying, that, there was a strange buzzing noise, coming from the GH4, at all settings. Panasonic explained this in the Live Webcast, saying, that this was due to the fact, that most plus in 3.5mm jack mics are not grounding out correctly, which is apparently due to the Tip, Ring, Ring, Sleeve Adaptor on Panasonic Mics vs Tip, Ring, Sleeve Adaptor on most other mics. They explained, that they understood that the mics are not grounding properly, and their engineers are working to resolve this issue now. Did anyone else notice anything else extra, which wasn't already discussed, about the GH4.

Thanks Andrew, Great Review as always. I am curious: 1. I am curious as to comparisons of screen grabs between the C100, GH4 and C500. 2. I would like to know the Exact Flatness of C100 vs C300 vs GH4, from in-cameras, and otherwise. 3. Most importantly, how much Flatter does the Cinema D profile, with everything dialled down (-5 Highlights, +5 Shadows + 15 Master Pedestal) make the profile? With the optimum settings, I suspect the GH4 pushes a tad bit under 12 stops of DR, in video (according to DXO labs it does 12.8 stops for stills). What do you feel?