Danyyyel

So will it be at 6400+ ISO with contrasty scene and with lots of motion? Because if it is at less than 1000 ISO shot in low contrast scene like golden hour and static scene then I am sure that most camera can do it.

If you already have a Nikon glass and is used with the workflow, why don't you use the D750 with the Ninja. Don't think that because the D600 is not good in low light that it is the same with other Nikon camera. Since the launch of the D5200 two years ago Nikon has been using pixel binning, that is sampling much more pixel from the sensor and down scaling them. Since then no more moire/aliasing and very very good lowlight. The D5200/d5300 where about equal to the 5dmark3 and now the latest D750 beat it. In widely available camera it is only beaten by the C100/C300 and the A7s. Note that the A7s and most Sony camera exibit some strange blowout/colour shift on strong blue light like led stage light, I don't know if it is of any concern to you, but I think it is good to know. You have some example of D750 high Iso here '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> or http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D750/

The problem with your comparison is that you are comparing the C100 against 4 other camera. Compared to all these cameras that have one or more down side the C100 mark 2 is good to very good in every domain. factor in that it has features like internal ND and MIC/xlr imput that would need addons like external sound recorders and ND screw on or Variable (less quality) or even matte box. I am a Nikon shooter so I have no bias toward Canon cameras. But this is a solid product with the added 60p which was the main problem in the mark1. There are non in the cameras you listed that have as good Low light, resolution, DR, rolling shutter, colour science in one body. As for full frames lens being a waste on Apsc camera it is the exact contrary as it uses the center which is the best part of the lens. This camera will be huge success and I am sure that it will be a mainstay for many years and will have a huge following in the used market. I can see it selling tons to people in the documentary, Tv, wedding, corporate market. As is already seen the C line has become one of the most used camera for the indie filmmakers in festivals and has been used in many awarded feature films. As for the C7 I sincerely hope that Sony has made some progress into their colour science, because all spec in the world won't matter if skin tones look more like corps dead low CRI fluorescent colours (If I can describe it in words I see it used in horror movie). Working with Nikon, I just can't understand how a company like Sony cannot at least produce some good even if not great skin tone. I mean its a given for me, when I see all those threat where people discussing continually to get just decent result, I just can't understand. For me it is just saturation/contrast adjustment and voila great skin tone.

Thanks I downloaded it. I don't know if it is the lighting, but they seem to be better than I thought they would. At first I thought that it was the crushed black, but using Gom player and lifting the lows the noise is still very nice. The D750 is cleaner and in this lighting even the 12800 looks very nice and 25600 usable. The D810 6400 iso still looks good with lots of resolution and very nice filmic noise and 12800 would be usable. The D800 is clearly a step below those two in terms of noise and resolution. From what I have seen before they all look better by 1 stop from what I thought. In other footage the D750 seemed to have a sharp degradation of the quality between Iso 10 000 and 12 800, did you see the same. I can also understand why the D810 was chosen for that big studio Australian Movie. It has a lot of resolution and it retains a lot of detail even at high ISO. You can easily shoot at 3200 ISO with a ton of detail. This is enough for any movie.

I have always been very critical of the Canon Dslr video, but the C line is very solid in terms of image quality. People can say what they want but for $ 5500 this is a very very solid camera and you have just to look at the success of its predecessors to know that this will be another hit. The C300 was a bit overprice and the C100 had no slowmotion capability at all. Now the C100 mark 2 rectifies all that. My only wish would be 10 bit even if the 8 bit codec on the c line is considered to be very solid. In six month this camera will be selling for $ 5000, only 1500 more than the 5d3 which was considered industry standard (in these price range) only 2 years ago and you get so much more for the money. The only dslr I would consider close to it would be a D750 with a good EVF and an external sound recorder like the Tascam DR-70.

But is the 4k usable!!! I have seen from Cinema5d site and Samuel Hurtado on Dvxuser giving the A7s between 28 and 30 ms for rolling shutter in full frame mode. To put that in perspective the best cameras are in the 12/18 ms and ................. the Nikon D90 about 33ms. So already the A7s is very near to the D90 uhhhh and I have seen test that the Samsung is worst than the A7s. So has jello cam D90 considered good to shoot in 2015 now because it is 4k. Another thing to consider is DR and low light. Cinema5d has measured the Samsung at about 10 stop which is very low to todays standard. Well some of there readings of cameras are a little bit odd in terms of DR, but from nearly all the footage I have seen the DR seems very low, blown out highlight and crushed shadows in winter UK is quite conclusive about the Cinema5d readings. As the C line is very very sharp with its downscaled 4k sensor, I think the super low light and much better DR makes it a much better image and camera overall.

Thanks for the test. Even if the test is quite conclusive between those 3 cameras, I think putting it on vimeo would be better because youtube is so bad because of the heavy compression. Another thing I would dye for would be some out of camera video sample file between the d810 and the D750 at base Iso. I have seen insanely sharp images out of the D810, that is why I would like to see if the d750 matches it. It would be good also to match the field of view just to be sure about sharpness because the d810 crops a little bit so image looks a little bigger and thus sharper. Again thanks for the test.

At least some sense on this resolution and spec upset forum. I have been saying more or less the same thing for the last few weeks. This green/magenta bias on skin tone is really bad. If I would rank camera I would put Nikon higher than Canon and add the blackmagic cinema camera up there in the list of very good looking skin tone/colour science. When I say Nikon higher, I mean it is very close with a more golden/orange look to the Nikon but still the Canon is very very nice and would be easy to grade them very close. Now what I have seen of the Sony is perhaps the worst about skin tone. Even with the kholi settings on dvxuser his first example with the girl has still a lot of the green magenta colour. What is strange is what I would call solarisation effect like on her cheek where you have the magenta that makes a brutal change as if sunburn. If it was not the a7s I would say bad makeup but I have seen the same thing in the little girl video shot in slog. People are saying this is because the person did not shoot XYZ setting but until now I did not see one nice video with some natural skin tone and not graded like orange and teal. What is funny is that people are dismissing the C100 mark2 on another threat, because it does not have XYZ spec, but that is the same camera that shot film like Adele blue is the warmest colour that won the Cannes film festival and that looks very very good with a naturalistic colours. When people will understand that colour is by far more important, more so when shooting people, than 4k for example, it will be a big advancement for shooters here. We human beings are much more prone to colour than for example resolution. How many time when you are discussing about an image be it video or photo with somebody will he be saying how crisp it was... or will you hear most of the time how the colours were beautiful. A last thing about grading. I just made the experience lately shooting with some tiffen ND. Guest what with the green bias it becoming really tedious to correct all those shot. Even if I was able to get the green cast out in post the hassle is too much. I am going to buy some 82 mm Hoya pro ND filters. The cost in this case will far outweigh the time spend correcting every shot in the sun.

As a beginner I would recommend either the Black magic cinema camera with mosaic filter (I cannot stand moire /liasing) and a speed booster if you want at least the Cine 35mm field of view, or the Nikon D810 (eventually with a ninja recorder that will give you higher bitrate if you need the best quality out of it). They are good solid choice and perhaps the D750 which will give you additional very very good high ISO even if I am not sure if it is as sharp as the D810 which is very very sharp. The reason I recommend these cameras is because one of the most important factor in image quality that unfortunately be cannot be counted is colour. Colour is perhaps the most important thing in image quality. With these camera you already have very good colour science (The canon also are quite good but still low rez etc...) from which you can easily adjust to your taste. That good starting point will give you a good starting point from which you can learn and concentrate on all the other aspect of filmaking like framing, composition, lighting and the knowledge of light etc etc. The other advantage of the Nikon cameras, is the Nikon lense mount, which mean that every Nikon lens you are going to buy, you will be able to use on nearly every other cameras (except medium format and some rare cameras). Lens are more important than cameras. Camera body come and go but lens is a long term investment that can span for decades.

Yes it is true but to what extend do people need to shoot that low ISO. To get clean ISO 3200/6400 was considered extraordinary what two years ago like when the Canon 5dmark 3 came out. So what did happen during those last two years, have all places in the world decided to decrease lighting everywhere in town's houses etc... Is shooting in moonlight the new norm now. In photos, if you normalise resolution cameras like the D750 are much closer to the A7s up until 12800/25600, I can't even imagine shooting at that level.

Is it me or the DR at least in video (did not see any photo test) look quite low. I see crush shadows and blown higlight in every video I have seen. I mean most have been shot in northern hemisphere winter with low contrast lighting and yet everything is very contrasty.

Exactly, why do customers have to defend some brand. The problem exist and can be repeated in many Sony camera and does not seem to affect other cameras. Why don't all the bloggers who have been singing A7s praise do at least some test to verify it and at least warn people who do these type of work with blue led if their test are conclusive. Unfortunately it seems that nowadays singing prays rather than thorough research is the norm. The first time I see this problem mentionned it was not necessarily on blue led but very bright highlight like car lights etc (But I am not 100% sure).

I mean I never saw people complaining about this in other cameras even if they shoot high ISO. That is why people consider it a problem, if every camera did the same it would have been considered normal.

Exactly what I think. In 2/3 years every camera will be shooting 4k and we will have do deal with it as hype marketing will make everyone believe that it is better. I am talking from cell phone to digital cinema camera, the video/tv manufacturers have to drive sale as they are running out of ideas. The sad thing is that for example Plasma has died because of the hype of led TV, while until oled comes plasma is so much better. Somehow, There will come a time of reason in the enthusiast and Pro level. The same that is happening in the photo camera world. The D800 was the step beyond, what I meant is that people just saw that they did not need that kind of resolution in 99% of time. In fact it was beginning to get cumbersome because of file size and processing. As a very satisfied owner of the D800 it does have super DR, colour etc etc but my next purchase will be a D750 because it will better cover 90% of my need. The same will happen here when people will realise that the difference between 4k and 2k is like 1% increment in quality, because we are reaching the limit of human perception. People can put all types of numbers and formula on the ground, but in the end until robots replace us, just go to a movie theater and watch a film shot with the Alexa and tell me if you saw pixel. I have seen people comment who went to see James bond in 4k claiming that it was better than film in 2k LOL as it was shot with the Alexa.

Isn't super clean ISO above 12800 suppose to be one of the main advantage of this camera. Isn't Andrew and the rest of the blogging community saying that you can shoot very high even to moonlight level http://www.eoshd.com/2014/11/photography-shooting-moonlight-sony-a7s/ . So it not necessarily user errors but a combination of Sony, the reviewers and the users that did not do the research well as it is present in other Sony cameras and I guess won't be corrected.

I don't feel any of those 8bit 4.2.0 camera coming out as caviar. The Arri alexa with it only 2.7 k is more caviar that most if not all those 4k camera. Arri showed that the intangible like coulour science, DR(when it was launched) was much more important. They even put live a promist filter in front of the sensor to get a little highlight blooming to cut the harsh clipping associated with digital sensors. These thing made much more to the image quality that an additional 2k like its main competitors in those last 3 years. As for me as a professional photographer I have invested more than $ 20 000 in camera, lens, flashes and studio equipment the last 8 years. You can add another 3-4 000 in video equipment. My highest investment in one go was the D800 for $ 4000 (in my country) and $ 2500 (24-70 2.8). So I don't think I would feel jealous about most 4 k cameras people are shooting here that cost 1/4 to 1/2 what I paid for the D800. The only reason I am writing all this are for the person that might thing that 2k as such (I am talking about true 2k and not Canon cameras lowly resolution one) is a very good resolution and not to be obsessed by resolution because it has its caveat as I listed above.

So I don't understand where it is written that it is only one third resolution.... Even if it is so in dominance, lets see about real life, do you know many people complaining about the Arri Alexa !!!!!! I always see the contrary, in fact it is one of the reason why after what 3 years this camera is still at the top of the game (All marvel film will use primarily the Alexa as from now). The reason the bayer pattern has work so well to become the de-facto sensor capture tech it is because while it has flaws on paper in real life it is much much better than you would think on paper.

Another thing I wanted to add, normally we are in a film-maker forum, with some already doing it or some aspiring ones. Most are also indie low budget one. What the example of Desolation of Smaug shows is how resolution detail can be at the detriment of your work Why !!!!!!!!!!!!! because it will make everything pop up like make-up and any short comings in your props and sets. One of the mains criticism of the Hobbit was that everything looked fake, you could see the make up, the prosthesis and set design was just fake. How this will translate to your film? One of the reason the dslr and more so the full frame sensor gave was not just simply shallow depth of field but also as it was softer and shallower compared to normal cameras, thus hiding a lot the defects in the sets etc. The 4k will put the work of your make-up artist and set design to the test, much more than true 1080p (Alexa 2.7 K for example). Just some food for thoughts.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/17/hfr-the-desolation-of-smaug/ http://variety.com/2013/film/news/peter-jackson-hobbit-3d-looks-1200941962/ Just some link about the use of Tiffen Pro-mist filters in desolation of Smaug. Peter Jackon has been one of the most vocal directors about 4k and red and he had to backtrack because of the critics on the hobbit hfr but also the harshness of the images (mainly the actors).

You can see in my second post that I discuss some things you said about photo/video in a more technical way. I am very technical about my photography in natural light and in fashion with flash, with lighting ratios etc. But I take the example above of these 3 cinematographer because they are the one who have experience at a level than none of us have here. How many of us have any film or even award winning film to your credit !!!!!!!!! I have no ego to say that I have any knowledge or I have reach a level that I know too much or I am going to lecture anyone here. For me I prefer to take the knowledge and learn from these guys who know 99.9% more than anyone on internet forums and have worked on millions dollar films. They know the rigours and stress and level of expertise needed on those big production. Why did I put that video because the second poster ridiculed that report the OP shared, while those 3 cinematographer confirm what the report says. So who am I, or as it is a sharing site for the good of all, to balance the argument that this report is bad. So I think that anyone who just reeds that as how he said it as an authority (without any link to any other report dismissing the other first one) that it was bad. Where are his technical explanation with charts and studies about human visual acuity and some reference about his work and experience to back it up. I am not there to bash anyone but please if you are going to BS some report please give us some reference to back it up. There was a Sony report about 4k when they launch and what it basically said it was that the gain was very low at normal viewing distance. I have watched 4k TV (with scrutiny) 2 days ago on a 65 and 85 inch tv curvy screen. With the usual contrasty super punchy mostly wildlife demo footage (paint drying shot), there was zero difference at normal viewing distance (and my normal viewing distance is closer than most as I like to watch films on my 50 inch plasma trying to simulate movie experience, until I get money to buy me a high quality projector with deep black and contrast ratio). Does anyone watch a 65 inch TV at less than 2 foot !!!!!!!!! Sure the vendor will bend and make you come and look at the image (like a photo) at less than a foot just to sell you the screen and images with higher contrast will give much more a sense of sharpness. So this is why I wrote my first post Ebrahim, it was not meant particularly at you, it was meant at the second poster. Now if he has some counter arguments with links etc I am all ears. What those 3 DPs where saying is very important, it is not as if resolution is not important, but everything has a threshold and sometime when you go higher it is not only counter productive but start to become a liability. I shoot human being (as most filmakers will do) and too much resolution/detail is not your friend, most of the time I have to soften the skin. No one wants to see every pores of his skin and these DP confirm that. If you don't believe me about softening skin, just do a search about The Hobbit desolation of Smaug and promist filters. I am not saying that resolution or detail is not important but In between super sharp 4k image and barely 720p Canon Dslr mush there is a happy medium.

Another thing on a more geeky side, is that I would like the second poster in this thread to show me how a bayer (most dslr) sensor camera needs 18 megapixel to get 2k resolution. Please can you show us some example because it seems really far-fetched. I mean I have been doing photography since the 6 megapixel D70 and now a Nikon d800. So by your saying with my D800 I am shooting more like 2.6/3k resolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At 100% on a screen of a normal portrait shot with some room above the head and a up to the chest I can easily see every smallest vein in the eye and I mean with a 12 megapixel D700/d300 (amid vertically). I can clearly see more detail on a face with my 24 megapixel D7100 and D800 than with my naked eyes at very very close distance.

You cannot compare video to photo. Many people do that same error, yes they are images but how they are perceived (I don't find a proper word for that in my english) is very different. They are very different art form. A photograph is eternity, a fraction of a second capture for eternity. It is like a painting, you can watch a photo at least for a minutes, your eyes wander through the scene, it is like a book it can convey many stories, have many actors etc. Like let say a scene at a market with a seller and woman discussing price. In a photo you could have those two into a heated discussing with lots of emotion, on one side or on her back the child of the buyer completely disinterested or bored about the discussion with a very candid face and a toy in her hand, some buy standers in the background amused by the scene with some interesting impression on there face, etc etc.. It could take you easily a minutes or more looking at this image if it is well done in terms of framing composition colour or black and white etc In a video scene of the same scene you would never look at the same scene for more than 5/10 seconds. For it to be interesting you would need this scene as an establishing shot, the you would do closer shots to capture the different people to tell the same story. At no time would you do a shot more than 5/10 second if else it will start to be boring. This is why the discussion about resolution in photo and video are two very different films. In a photo in a book or a bg gallery wall you can move toward the photo or put the paper closer and your eyes and mind can wander through it. You can watch a photo for minutes but can you tell me how many static video scene can you watch for more than 10/20 second. Video is about motion within the frame and outside of the frame (editing). As such your eyes(brain) cannot settle at any point for enough time to render the same resolution as in prints and this without facturing motion blur. Another thing myth about using 4k images for photography. When I do a wedding, I am easily shoot about 2000 photos. The work of sorting out these photos and doing selection is easily between half a day and a days work. Why, again photo can be scrutinise much more, if it is out of focus, it is out of focus..... while if in a video scene of 5 sec 5/10 frames are out of focus in a moving scene it will still be good, because again your brain will just skip it as it is not permanent, the half a second it is on the scene it is already replaced less than a second after that by other images. Then lets say you have 4 hours of footage and you have to search for lets say 800 to 1500 good one as photos as good one before choosing those that will be processed. And those photos will generally be on the lower quality jpeg compression (If you are shooting raw it is some gigantic file size). The last thing would be shutter speed, most photos will have motion blur which will equate to blurry photos at 1/50 sec!!!!!!!!!!!! For sure in some occasion it can save some shot, but 90% of the time it would be just spray and pray photography, the worst form of what is an art form. I have a D800 and I have shot with most Nikon cameras except the D3/D4 line and I pride myself of being able to capture that sense of eternity in a fraction of a second of what photography is about. On many website I see mostly videographers talking about using 4k for photo etc, and this tells me how much these two art form are very different and that they don't understand that the mindset is very different because video is about continuity.

So So Zach have you made your choice. I am very curious if someone did the comparison. For this test the D750 should also have been used with a Ninja or any external recorder as you could see the best it can do vs the best the Canon 5d3 can do. My experience is that you get a little jump of resolution when you shoot high bitrate prores or dnxhd and colour is a bit better. You do get a little more noise, but it is very fine grain type that I prefer to the more plastic low bitrate codec.

Geeks calling them DP/film-makers/Cinematographers will tell you that 4k is a big difference with all sort of mathematical formula etc... But artist and true cinematographers like the ones above will tell that there is so much more like colour to make a beautiful image. And how 4k is becoming detrimental as too much resolution start to impact the image and how they have to use filtration to soften the image. By the way the bayer filter is more like 2/3 resolution that is why Red Camera the most vocal camera manufacturer about 4k objective was to have 6k for true 4k. But in the end WTF, do people see it? even if it is 2k, 4k or 8k, motion blur and viewing distance will kill 99% of its advantage. You would need to be like 2 feet/50cm from a 65 inch screen to notice any difference and only static scene where motion blur won't take out any advantage in resolution. In this case you would have to move your eyes or head to be able to see all the scene. Its like a ping pong or tennis match if you have two actors talking to each other when they are on two side of the scene. The perception of true 1080p has been ruined by camera like the Canon dslr which even if it is written 1080p are less than 720p in resolution and SD in terms of details with the low 8 bit codec. You should take more the example of the 2.7K down-res Alexa for a proper 1080p image in terms of resolution and detail. Many films like the latest James bond have been shot with the Alexa and up-rez to 4k with no one complaining and DPs (Roger Deakins) have said how it up scaled well. In the end buy Tiffen stocks as when in 2/3 years, when every camera will be 4k and more, everybody on these geeky website will be asking what filter to use to soften the look so that there image look film-like and that the wedding couples, corporate clients, talking heads interviews, film actors to their family members won't be complaining about the highly digital look and crispness of the image.

37ba2ce3db8d0c2e7baf7de9d63a73b1