Julian

Do people actually use the 1D X for video?

How warm was it?

Kinda looks like moving air because of the heat...

Even the Panasonic 14mm isn't really wide in 4K mode on the GH4 because of the extra crop. It'll be ~33.6mm fullframe equivalent. 17mm will be ~41mm, almost a 'standard' focal length. The Oly 17mm 2.8 definitely is NOT razor sharp either. Center is fine but corners are soft.

 

If you have the speed booster I'd go with some lens for that. If you want really wide and cheap you could look for a Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 with Nikkor mount. The 18-50mm 2.8 is a nice lens too. I don't have experience with it on a speed booster though.

The new camera still is crap above iso 400. That's not the point of the camera though. Compare it with old CCD medium format cameras. They are bad at high iso's too.

What's interesting about it?

Most old zooms rotate when focussing... The 50-90mm looks like it does so too.

So in this application, 444 is just an expanded version of the raw de-bayer.  It doesn't actually contain any extra information that you couldn't reconstruct with the debayer algorithm?

Since raw captures all the raw sensor data, it's impossible to capture more info with any other codec. If that was the case, raw wouldn't make sense.

Well, if you actually look at the test - the results are also really down to the profiles used. It's not a 'raw image data' test like DxO does (although that isn't useful for video anyway)

 

Sony A7S with Slog is more flat than GH4 Cine-Like, so not surprising the A7S scores better. I think the GH4 could do a bit better with a similar log profile, or a tweaked cine-like profile maybe.

 

Anyway, I'm not debating that the A7S is better for DR, that's to be expected. Nice score.

My first camera was a GF3. As a main camera not having full exposure lock isn't good of course, but if you know how to work with it it's really not that bad. I even did anamorphic stuff with it.

GF3 might not have a full manual mode, but in controlled light it's easy to get exposure under control. It does 1080p and it really isn't that bad. Better than Canon dslr crap for sure. If you can get a GX1 for that money go for it. It sure has a M mode - not sure if it's full manual in video.

Anyway, does this all really matter for gear vids? You could probably even use your smartphone. Just put a bright light source on it and any modern phone will do fine.

Panasonic GF3, since you already have micro four thirds. You should be able to find a body for under 100 gbp.

By the way: the '15.3 stops firmware', is the lauch firmware: V1.0, which comes with all final production camera's. DXO usually tests production camera's, if not, they note it is a pre production model. In case of the A7S they don't, so I'd assume they tested with firmware V1.0.

 

Also interesting is the fact that Sony actually gives a real number for dynamic range. Camera companies never do that. Ever seen Canon, Nikon, Pentax or whatever advertise with the amount of stops of DR a camera has? I haven't. It's just the cinema camera companies that do this (RED, ARRI, BMD).

Might not actually go back to full price- would make sense to me if it was just something they were saying to add a sense of urgency for people to buy it now.

Yeah, I'm thinking the same. But that's just lying. I know marketing often is ;) but still, I think it's stupid. We'll see what happens.

Nice!

 

Completely weird though to have a summer discount for _half the price_ and hike it up back to 995 after the summer.

 

Stock clearance, to release a new model (full price) in september would make sense. But who the hell is going to buy this for the full price in september?

TechRadar say they use equipment and software supplied by DxO to do the testing. You'd think after a result like that they would stop and check their methods. Clearly some kind of operator error!

It's not the first time I see a weird graph like that on TechRadar. I never valued their tests much personally...

 

For example:

 

Look at the Nikon D700 graph. So you should shoot at ISO 3200 instead of 1600? the signal to noise ratio is suddenly as good as at ISO 100? - Everybody who has ever used this camera knows this isn't true.

 

The EOS 60D has a just under 10 stops of dynamic range from ISO 100 to 3200? Not true.

 

 A day after their test release, Sony released a firmware claiming increased dynamic range in raw to 15.3, which means it was less before the release. I would like DxO to comment whether they tested it after or before the firmware upgrade, and whether there's a change at all or not.

 

I don't believe a firmware upgrade can give a sensor suddenly two stops of extra dynamic range. The RAW image data (like DXO tests) is really up to the hardware Maybe with S-Log you can squeeze out more dynamic range cause of image processing, but DXO tests will never show these kind of results because they test raw sensor data.

 

 

I'm guessing Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor crashes their software. :P

 

DXO never tested a X-Trans sensor either. Understandable since those camera's work different - you can even see this in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom. So it probably doesn't work with their test methods. Same goes for Sigma Foveon chips. Never seen DXO-like tests of those. Just the conventional bayer sensor cameras.

DxO is completely irrelevant for video shooters. Unless you are shooting Magic Lantern Raw. Yes, it might give a suggestion of the capabilities, but it all depends on the internal processing of the raw data, so it can get either worse or better than the DxO results.

 

Also, I'd take the Techradar results with a grain of salt. I often see results in their graphs that are completely different from other lab tests.

 

Like this one. Look at GH4 dynamic range in raw, I wish it was that good! No way it has between 13-11 stops over the whole iso 100 - 25.600 range.

 

 

DxO looks much more reliably to me if you look at the DR measurements: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Panasonic/Lumix-DMC-GH4---Measurements

Would this benefit the GH4 too when recording to a 1080p recorder?

I wouldn't invest anything on a clamp solution for this huge beast. Waste of money imo, there are plenty of cheap smaller alternatives like the Sankor 16-C or similar that don't need a huge cumbersome set-up.

 

 

I have the Sankor anamorphic adapter model M and personally i love it, i have gotten some really nice test footage!

I attached it to a niffy 50 ( canon 50mm 1.8 ) and the photography looks and feels very cinematic, too me.

But with that said, it truly depends on what you're wanting to accomplish when you're filming and what your filming with.

I've attached 2 links below for you to review.

 

The aspect ratio of the first video is way off, should be de-squeezed about 33% less to get the normal proportions back.

Great footage. I love how you have thrown in a bunch of shaky shots and made such a great edit out of it. It really works, great style.

 

Also surprised how good the Pocket is regarding to rolling shutter. Doesn't bother me at all.

Feel free to add ways the 1D C trumps over the A7S...

 

:)

 

It has internal 4K recording...

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone in their right mind would doubt between the 1D C and the A7S. When announced the 1D C was already a bit silly, now it's ridiculous.... compared to the competition.

 

How is the rolling shutter on the A7S?

 

/edit: oh wait, you don't have the A7S yet. That picture fooled me... haha, nice hiding.

iPhone with blur filter?

 

The Depth of Field is enormous. From the front to the back of the hallway everything is in focus... the blur on the sides looks artificial, ugly imo. Could be a tilt lens, but looks more like a fake blur instead of bokeh - correct me if I'm wrong though.

The Voigtlander 0.95 is actually $600 dollars cheaper, than the Panasonic Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2. However, the Leica has OIS and is lighter. 

 

And autofocus. Which is nice for photography...

It's a 36,3 megapixel sensor. It is never going to be perfect in 1080p.

 

Comparing it to a XT-1 is silly though. Horses for courses. It's like saying the Arri Alexa is stupid because of the form factor, the GH4 is much more convenient to use...

Hi guys,

I just come to read an article that presents the fz1000. It says that in video mode, it's equivalent to a 37-592 ? Does it makes to you ? Does this king of crop factor belongs with other cameras such as a 4/3 camera ?

 

In 4K the FZ1000 makes a 1:1 pixel crop, just like the GH4. So there is a crop factor when shooting 4K, which results in a longer focal length equivalent. Not sure what you are saying with your last two sentences...

Apparently the cameras which have shipped in the US are not NTSC / PAL switchable. Anyone got theirs yet?

 

 

This seems to be the case... looking at the full specs at Sony.nl:

http://www.sony.nl/electronics/cameras-met-verwisselbare-lens/ilce-7s/specifications

Beeldformaat (pixels), PAL*

AVCHD: 1920 x 1080 (50p/28 Mbps/PS, 50i/24 Mbps/FX, 50i/17 Mbps/FH, 25p/24 Mbps/FX, 25p/17 Mbps/FH), Mp4: 1440 x 1080 (25 fps/12 Mbps), 640 x 480 (25 fps/3 Mbps)  

  I can't find the * part with explanation though...   But if you look at the A7R specs you see it has 24 fps.. http://www.sony.nl/electronics/cameras-met-verwisselbare-lens/ilce-7r/specifications