Jump to content

Stronz

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Stronz


  1. ‚Äč

    Everyone says this, but I'm not sure why it couldn't be.  Tony Northrup suggest that less pixels aren't the real reason why the A7s is so good in low light, but because the camera can move data faster from the sensor (there are less pixels).   Also since data can be moved faster, the A7S is able to use a better algorithm to create better low light video.  I'm not saying having "big" pixels doesn't help in low light situation, I'm saying the data transfer and the better algorithm is where most of the low light magic happens.  In any case, I could totally be wrong but if still images from the A7R which has a lot more pixels than the A7S; if the A7R and the A7S basically have the same quality image file with the same shutter speed in low light situation, I think the "low light magic" is NOT due to the lower number of pixels or because the A7S has "bigger" pixels.  Just a thought.  Remember video is just the combination of multiple still images.

    ‚ÄčThe tests Tony did were shot with well-lit subjects and most examples people showcase also feature lit or moderately lit scenes. I think where the large photosites really come¬†into play is when you have very very very low light such as a crowd at a concert at nighttime, some wedding venues, documentary shooting at night, etc. Having used the A7s, I have yet to see anything that shoots that clean with that little amount of light.¬†

    When scaled down , high-megapixel cameras can "combine" pixels which helps to reduce the appearance of noise but if those pixels are really noisy to begin with, they aren't going to combine into something clean.

    I could be wrong since I don't have the cameras but I'd imagine the next version of the A7s will do better in true low-light compared to the higher resolution A7rII


  2. Specs sound near perfect on the A7rII but I really wish sony would redesign the form factor. I really dislike the handling of the A7s and find it's short battery life and awkward ergonomics beyond frustrating. The form factor of the GH4 is much more to my liking but Panasonic needs to make a mirrorless camera with a larger sensor.

    Sony fix the form factor or Panasonic offer something larger than MFT, whoever moves first gets my money. Canon and Nikon can keep living in the past.


  3. Thanks Andrew! Loving the GH4 so far, so many awesome features and customization options in the menu. Did a shoot recently with the Nikon D600, Canon 5DmkIII (unhacked) and the GH4. Some people don't see a difference between HD and 4K, well the Nikon and Cameras aren't even shooting true 1080p, they are mushy and ugly compared to the crisp detail on the GH4.

     

    The raw hack on the 5DmkIII is nice but the workflow is so slow and cumbersome. It gives beautiful result but is not user friendly at all. The GH4 gets you very close while being very easy to use.


  4. Thanks for sharing this. I can't get too excited about the actual camera with 400fps at such a low resolution but I can get excited for the potential this brings. I know things aren't exactly linear but if you can do this for $300, it doesn't seem completely unreasonable that you could do 120fps at FullHD for not much more. Hopefully it's something we can see from the next GH or NEX cameras.


  5. Sensor size shouldn't really matter unless you absolutely crave shallow depth of field. What should matter is the dumb EF mount they paired with the smaller sensor. Sorry, but unless there is a mirror involved, no cameras should be shipping with an EF mount.

    I'm sure it was a marketing decision to sell a small sensor camera to the indie filmmakers who already own a bunch of Canon glass because they crave full frame and shallow depth of field...oh wait...ahh now I see why everyone is complaining about sensor size.

    Then again BM can't market a camera with an E-mount because then it's not "pro" :)

  6. I think it's funny that, for the most part, these are the features people were asking for 4 years ago from the 5D and its other variants in the EOS line. It amazes me that after 4 years $2500 still buys you pretty much the exact same camera.

    I think it's just a testament to the fact that Canon really screwed themselves over by introducing video into the 5DmkII. I don't think they've ever wanted to improve video at that price point. It completely undercut their "Pro" cameras and they've been trying to recover ever since. Time will tell but from their product releases it appears that Canon has no interest in the indie/low budget film market.

    Sony, however, seem to be pushing ahead full steam. Panasonic seems like they are on the fence and don't know what to embrace.
×
×
  • Create New...