Jump to content

wobba

Members
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by wobba

  1. Inazuma, thanks for posting this A6000/GX7 comparison video. I much prefer the image coming from the A6000. In looking, for example, at the horizontal edges of the brickwork in the large building on the right, you can see very distinct aliasing/jaggies in the GX7 footage. This is also evident on the weatherboards of the smaller/closer building. This issue is not visible in the A6000 footage. This aliasing in the GX7 footage is ugly and gives it a very abrasive look. The A6000 has a little moire but, overall, the image just looks more organic.
  2. It would be far more meaningful / helpful to see actual video footage shot with both cameras.
  3. Yes, same here. I have not yet seen any comparison videos shot with both the GX7 and A6000 to see, first hand, how they perform in these conditions.
  4. It would be helpful if you could post comparison videos shot with both the GX7 and A6000. I've not seen anything to date which demonstrates that the GX7 is that much better than the A6000.
  5. It would be great if you could include some actual footage in your review so we can all see first hand how these two cameras compare.
  6. Now here's a very interesting comment from Philip Bloom: "Excellent 1080p image, detailed with few artefacts. Must be one of the best HD images from a stills camera I have seen, apart from the Super 35mm mode on the Canon 1DC" He actually prefers the HD image from the A6000 over the GH4.
  7. The 2.0x crop only applies if you're shooting at default aspect ratios (A7S at 3:2 & GH4 at 4:3). When you crop to 16:9 the difference is far greater since you're applying a 16% crop to 3:2 vs a 25% crop to 4:3.
  8. I find the GH cameras often produce a hard, glassy look. This may be due to the combination of small sensor and high inherent sharpness. I haven't seen any footage from the GH4 (yet) that looks more appealing than what J SPRUILL posted a few days ago, simply shot with an A6000 without any fancy lighting: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>
  9. I own both the A6000 and GX7, as well as a GM1. The GX7 bakes a little more sharpening in-camera. Once I apply an unsharp mask in FCP, I actually prefer the A6000. Detail is much the same, but the A6000 footage just looks more organic and shows less shimmer (looks more stable). In low light, it is superb and cleaner than the GX7. And for stills, the A6000 is considerably better in every way.
  10. wobba

    GM1 vs GX7

    Yes, the video quality is identical. The only difference is that the GX7 can shoot 50/60P.
  11. Recently, I've been shooting with both the GM1 and A7R and the GM1 seems to produce more moire/aliasing than the A7R. The A7R puts out a slightly softer image but it sharpens very nicely in post (FCP). This was quite a shock, given the way both have been assessed on this site. I'm finding the A7R holds up much better in general and particularly when shooting landscapes while panning. The GM1 produces lots of shimmer/moire with fine foliage while the A7R is very clean. I would be interested to know whether these cameras were actually assessed by EOSHD outdoors, in good light and while panning. The footage I have seen which accompanies the reviews seem to be shot in low light, on tripod (no panning) and with subjects lacking in lots of fine detail.
  12. I'm not overly ambitious. A couple of PAL appropriate frame rates will suffice. 5 years has passed since the E-P1 was released ... with just a 30P frame rate. And it's been that way ever since.
  13. According to Chipworks, the D5300 deploys a Sony sensor: http://chipworks.force.com/catalog/ProductDetails?sku=NIK-D5300_Pri-Camera
  14. Sure, but with so many good cameras to choose from nowadays, I'm not going to limit myself to shooting with a camera from a manufacturer that can't be bothered to offer more than one shitty frame rate. Olympus have been building m4/3rds cameras for 5 years. Surely, by now, they can do better than just 30P.
  15. Fisher Price should sell this camera rebadged and in hot pink. It's got to better than Mattel's Barbie cam (as shot by Philip Bloom recently).
  16. Are you referring to the camera with just a single, shitty 30P frame rate?
  17. I have zero interest in this camera, but this is the most thoroughly enjoyable/hilarious review I have ever read. These hollow, plastic DSLR's are akin to Fisher-Price kiddies cameras in terms of haptics. Perhaps this is the reason the D5300 features a Baby mode.
  18. The sensor in the GH3 is a generation behind the sensor in the GX7 and GM1. The GM1, as noted in your review, does not line skip. How does the E-M1 stack up, in terms of video, against the GM1?
  19. wobba

    Sony RX100 review

    Hi Andrew. Super review. I was interested to read your comments on the RX100 being sharper than the NEX7. The reason I ask is that the NEX7 and RX100 were reviewed by camcorderinfo.com and the the NEX7 sharpness measured higher than the RX100. e.g. NEX7 = horizontal 700 lw/ph vs 550 for the RX100. I own both and my impression is that the NEX7 is sharper, even with the kit lens. I also compared both to the TM700 and it is in a different league for clarity/sharpness. The NEX7 comes close to the TM700 with a good prime, but unless I have a substandard RX100 sample, I'm finding that video (shot at 1080/50P) looks a little dull, especially at the wide end of the zoom range.
×
×
  • Create New...