Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  1. Agree, the camera market has been collapsing for some time and I think Canon just chose to limit its R&D investment to maximize its profit and keep the cash-cow going for as long as they could. They might have been able to squeeze some additional unit sales by targeting hybrid/video shooters with less-crippled offerings but they probably decided it wasn't useful since the market is seen falling into a hyper-competitive, lower-margin business anyway, with insufficient volume on the low end to amortize their R&D and manufacturing capital investments. Such is not the case for their professional video division so crippling the video on the prosumer/enthusiast offerings was probably seen as an additional safeguard against cannibalization of sales of that division.
  2. "ProRes RAW output in development for Atomos recorders" Do you have a source for this? I haven't seen it reported anywhere else.
  3. I don't see what you're basing that intuition/assumption on. There is no equivalence theory to apply here - optics/ray angles don't change based on sensor size. The only impact on sensor size would be using a larger-format lens on a smaller sensor, where some of the rays are thus cropped (don't reach the image sensor), but that's not what we're speaking to here - the Voigtlander is a native lens.
  4. But we're talking about a native MFT lens (Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95), so the relative angle of incidence across the frame will be the same as a FF sensor with a native FF lens of a similarly scaled design.
  5. Vignetting is due to the angle of incidence of light reaching the pixels on a sensor and I can't think of any reason why a smaller sensor would have less oblique angles. In fact, the higher the pixel density the more likely vignetting is to occur. BSI sensors should be less prone to this but to my knowledge neither the G5 or G5s are BSI.
  6. The light-gathering ability wont be the same due to more pixel vignetting from the f/0.95 lens.
  7. horshack

    NX2 rumors

    The rumor sounds crazy, absolutely crazy, but would be awesome if true.
  8. The raws indicate a reduction in read noise rather than an increase in sensitivity. If sensitivity was increased the noise differential would be noticeable well below ISO 12,800. Btw, where did you get the 1.66 figure from?
  9. Dpreview just posted their GH5s review, which includes a full set of High ISO raw stills for their IQ comparison widget. Here are few comps I generated: GH5s vs GH5, ISO 6400, Low-Light, Normalized to Common Image Resolution GH5s vs GH5, ISO 12800, Low-Light Normalized to Common Image Resolution GH5s vs GH5, ISO 25600, Low-Light, Normalized to Common Image Resolution
  10. Regarding what actual low-light improvements have been made to the GH5s sensor (vs just video noise reduction), the best way to suss that out is to look at the raw stills performance compared to its predecessor. Any noise improvement in video which is not also demonstrated in stills performance can only be the result of noise reduction (presuming the predecessor's video processing didn't have its own faults/limitations, such as the need to sub-sample/skip lines due to limited readout performance, which the GH5 didn't have). With that said, here's a comparison from dpreview of the GH5s vs GH5 for ISO 1600 - they don't currently have higher ISOs depicted because they've only done ISO invariance testing so far. Dpreview ISO Invariance Widget, ISO 1600, Normalized to common image resolution And here's a comparison of the base ISO DR: Dpreview ISO Invariance Widget, Base ISO, Pushed +6EV, Normalized to common image resolution
  11. It's because Sony read the sensor out at 1/15 in FF mode on the A7rII, which isn't fast enough to support video frame rates, so it employed line skipping, which throws out both light-gathering ability and sharpness as well (soft video). On the A7rIII Sony reads out the sensor at 1/30, which is fast enough to support video frame rates without needing to toss out rows.
  12. The Sony A7R III has a 42MP sensor vs just 10MP for the GH5S which makes the similar low light performance in 4K video quite mind-bending. How did Sony manage it? Temporal Noise reduction most likely. And that would be from Panasonic's ASIC processing of the video rather than a property of the sensor itself.
  13. Andrew, in the video you demonstrated the Canon 35mm f/2 IS with the Metabones (AF sucked). Did you try that Canon with the MC-11 as well?
  14. Every ISO has a conversion gain, including base ISO. If you read back over Jim's post you'll see him calculate the theoretical conversion gain for "base" ISO 100 on the A7rII.
  15. Jim and I converse all the time. The explanation you quoted from Jim doesn't have direct relevance to the discussion because "dual native ISO" isn't what the name implies - and btw there's no such thing as "native ISO" since conversion gain happens at all ISO levels. Again, it's simply Pany's name for the Aptina technology, which is a dual-gain configuration and has been implemented in multiple sensors prior to the GH5s, from both Sony (A7s, A7rII, A7rIII) and Nikon (D4 and forward). "Dual gain" has been around for a while but it's not implemented in that many cameras, at least those using APS-C and larger sensors. Nikon first implemented on their sensor starting with the D4, and Sony with the A7s. Btw, gain is applied at all ISOs, including base ISO.
  • Create New...