Danyyyel

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue!/page5 So in full frame it is between 30.5 and 34.5, about Nikon D90 level !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

I have push the shadows in post a lot and I find virtually no noise at 1600 and 3200 and it is quite low at 6400. You have to push the contrast a lot to see the noise at 1600 or 3200.

I am far from a Canon fan, but really how come some people just resume a camera by it spec. When they go and market their job to their client, do they bring the spec sheet of their camera, or do their client care about the spec sheet. I see perhaps 1 out of 5, or 1 out of 10 videos of the A7s that is good. The rest the colours, more so with Slog is just ok to horrible. Just look at the amount of thread about how to .... try to get good colours out of the Sony's. For sure some can because they are good colourist but most are mediocre. Being a colourist is an art of its own. When you are more or less a one man band indie or freelance shooter, you have to be a shooter, an editor and now with Sony a good colourist. While Canon (I am a Nikon user) will provide you with a good image out of the box, just add a little contrast and saturation and you are good to go. No need to be an expert to at least get a good image to start with. For me since I got my D7100 (hopefully D750 in not too long), I thought that its the cameramen the limiting factor and no more the camera. If I cannot do beautiful image out of it, I won't with more expensive camera. The reasoning is simple if lesser camera like the gh2 have seen theatrical release, how can people devalue camera like the C100/C300 which are already much better. As shown here the C300 has been used in award winning Festival. One won the fucking biggest film festival in the world. So show us your masterpiece shot on your Sony A7s.

Ebrahim, you should open a thread dedicated to the d810. It seems to be a winner in terms of resolution/detail and DR. Unfortunately I already have a D800 and that is why I am more in search of details on the D750 to complement it as a more versatile and manageable 24 megapixel camera, as most of the time the 36 megapixel is overkill for mos jobs. I did a little test with the second image and it shows very good DR. With the white sunny lit white façade on one side and the darker shadows like the black car, and to be able to still show detail with an image that has been re-compressed, I think is very good.

The last video is really a stress test for moire, I can see it in two places, above the 15 in the centre and at the base of tubular structure, but we are talking resolution chart frequencies in this case.

There is zero motion and the only one in motion is slowmotion which does not about the Sony video look. It is strange but 24p should look like 24 p right. But with the Sony many time it looks like video, something more like frame interpolation in TVs.

I think that if you put a Nikon D90 or Canon T2i behind the Angenieux zoom you won't have this image quality. On the other extreme if you put an Alexa or another high end Sony or Red camera, for me the gain would have been incremental. What I mean is that between those two extremes, the C300/C100 would have been much closer to the high-end raw/prores camera that the low end dslr. The blue ruin one was done with Canon glass. Another thing of note is that those two films, more so Blue ruin, is more like Indie film making, with very small crew and budget. Blue Is The Warmest Colour, was more like freedom from big studio which gave more liberty and time for the director, with smaller crew etc. The camera did give them that liberty in many ways and if you look at them (I am just basing my though on the trailer for Blue ruin), they look much more naturalistic camera on the shoulder, not the overly complex lit and graded Hollywood style movie.

You also have the 2013 Cannes films festival winner that was shot with the C300 . Many still think that if a camera does not have x,y,z features, then it is not good enough. Today, the camera is no more the limiting factor, it is the man behind the camera. As much as it pains me about Canon dslr camera strategy, this C100 will sell like hot cakes. It is a good 8/10 on all the features of a video camera, good to very good in DR. lowlight, rolling shutter, colour science, ergonomics etc. Today if you don't have geek headline grabbing features like 4k or cannot shoot clean + 10 000 ISO etc, then your camera is just good for the bin. While most of these headline grabbing camera have one or more big weaknesses like colour science or ISO etc.

Use a downloader like downloadhelper on firefox, you just can save the video on your harddisk. I do that most of the times because my internet connection is not very fast .

I will never understand testing a camera and putting it on youtube. Those photography site are always stupid and Nikon should at least try to talk more to the video bloggers and website. I think the last philip bloom bias experience when he tested the d4-d800-5d3 in a crowded bar left a very bad taste.

Too many people on internet look too much at spec. Unfortunately things like colour science cannot be measured. As much as I critisize Canon to be the worst in terms of innovation, but if I am realistic they are going to sell a ton of these. This C100 mark 2 will be more than good enough than 95% type of work. It will be sold for 5k and in a year at 4.5k, so about the same than the AF100 at launch. A much much better camera than the Af100. All the event, corporate, wedding, documentary shooters will jump on it. A camera that has very good resolution, very good low light, good DR, good rolling shutter etc etc. It s two biggest flaws have been corrected, now it is an all in one, you can just grab it and shoot without any addon like evf and you have 60fps for decent slow motion. The 8bit is a bit of an issue but for the market I describe above it won't matter too much. The autofocus could also be a very good, better than anything else in the large sensor camera. In fact the C100 mark 2 could be the defacto large sensor camera that bridge the gap from S35 camera and eng small sensor camera that have been used for years. With much better quality than those small sensor camera. That is why I see this camera will become a success.

Sorry but your assessment has a lot of flaw. I have thoroughly tested my D7100 against my Canon 7D (Anybody would say all these Canon apsc sensor are about the same in resolution) and the D7100 is thoroughly sharper, just a little softer than Panasonic gh2. When you add an external recorder it is even sharper. The D7100 does not have 60fps in 1080p. I don't have a D810, but from what I have seen and downloaded if you see it less sharp than the 5dmark3 then I am baffled. I stop reading from there. If you could supply us with some example to show us your conclusion I would be happy to look at it, because from my experience and research as from the Nikon D5200, the Nikons thoroughly beat the Canon dslr line in terms of DR, low light, sharpness and no moire/aliasing etc.

Yes it would be nice to get some .mov file. What I would really like is to get some shots at best possible conditions to see the peak of the camera. A 10 second clip at 50 or 100 Iso at 24 fps with enough DOF to be able to judge sharpness (must not necessarily be very wide landscape shot which will strain codec). The shot must be a bit static so that it does not strain the codec who will otherwise have to blur the image to maintain bitrate if it is moving too much. This for me would be primary shot to see what the camera can do at its best. Then the rest like higher ISO shots and 60 fps one would be very nice. I am asking for more technical shots like this because we know more or less how nice Nikon camera colours are. I would have like one in contrasty condition to have an idea about DR, but without comparison to other camera or backlit chart it would be impossible to get any result unless you can measure the DR of the scene.

That guy cannot be relied upon, he does some supposed comparative shot when camera is not even out, so looks a bit suspicious if it is not click bait.

That is oversimplification. I for example have difficulty getting the same colours in RAW from lightroom using Neutral Nikon profile than the original Nikon Neutral profile images from Nikon Jpeg. I guess for certain photos I will have to use the original Nikon raw converter. I have never used the A7s but from what I have seen it is much further than the example above and by the amount of complain about skin colour here and other site, I guess it is not that easy. For sure if you put it under golden hour where the sun is directly hitting the person, everything will look nice with that golden orange look. But go into more neutral light, in shadows, overcast or worst case scenario in mix lighting or deficient lighting spectrum like cheap fluo or street lighting and the difference is much bigger. I am not saying that the Nikon/Canon colours will look good in every situation, but I think it will be much better and in video it is not even RAW file to colour correct. I still don't understand the low light argument. It is not as if the 5d3/C100 or Nikon d750 are bad in low light, we are not talking Gh2 or Canon Ti here and in photo the cameras are much closer in performance. With 5d3/d750, the bonus is that at lower ISO you get about twice the resolution for bigger prints or cropping. In terms of autofocus, they are tried and tested, the one of the D750 is better than the ones in previous Nikon D3/D4 cameras, that is better than the ones that take photos of the likes of Kobe Bryant, Usain Bolt, etc etc My argument above is more about a hybrid shooter like the OP. If it is only for video, I guess the A7s bar the aufocus of the C100 is a very good alternative. But if you are doing photos where the only advantage of the A7s is shooting above 6400/12800 ISO and it loses everywhere else and other Sony cameras are unproven. I guess either sticking to Canon or going Nikon is the best alternative, more so that the latter is getting better and better at video to have already surpass Canon.

I forgot to add that I hate the greenish pink Sony colour. It always make people skin look like under low CRI fluorescent light, giving an unhealthy and dead skin appearance. It is strange how Nikon and Sony use of the same sensor yield so much different colour science.

I think you are a bit crazy if you do photo to change system.LOL Wedding is a domain where reputation can be destroyed in a day, you cannot miss what is the most important moment in the life of a couple. For me there are only two mature system in photography for now for critical work which include wedding. It is not just about technical feet or spec sheet but mostly about reliability. How reliable is the autofocus of the Sony in low light, the metering in challenging lighting. How about the durability and work in adverse conditions etc. Camera do fail, my Nikon did, but it was always the shutter after very extensive use and I work in very humid and hot tropical climate. There are also a lot of other things like accessories/lens from third party manufacturers or Flash system. When you account for all the above I don't see myself changing system if I do wedding phoography. Reliability and maturity is first and foremost. I also don't understand also the craze about low light. Two years ago the 5d3 was a benchmark in low light video. Not so long ago I remember people raving about the low light of the C300/C100 even filming under moonlight. Now is it not good enough anymore. I don't know to what level of ISO people want to shoot now. In my near future I am thinking of getting a Nikon D750, it looks to be the best hybrid camera now. On one side from the report and reviews coming in it seems to be the best event all rounded camera. On the other it has very very good 1080p video with very good resolution, detail, DR and low light without aliasing/moire etc. The rolling shutter also seems to be low and you have added very good 60fps at 1080p. I have been pleading to my friends in the business about not investing in Canon since the surprise advent of the D5200 video because every new camera from Nikon has been better and better in video. But nowadays some are using 6D LOL

I made a lot of test of this camera on Dvxuser and for me it was the tipping point, that I would not buy any other brand camera because I had already invested in the system and that it was good enough. It was very near gh2 level of sharpness with much better DR and Low light and sold my gh2. I knew that if I could not produce good imagery out of it, it was me and not the camera that was the limiting factor. But go explain to many on the net that 4k etc won't make there work better, in fact it might make it worst because you will have to hide much more details so that it does not look fake, like in the hobbit.

I know what it is from a discussion a long time ago about the camera that we share and very good job showing how good it is.

Good luck waiting for Canon to upgrade significantly there video in its Dslr range. I think it is clear from Canon. If you want better video you have to move up to the Eos Cinema line of Camera.

Perhaps it is better to test with no lense and a cap on the mount. In this way you are eliminating one variable. It does happen that depending on the electronic arrangement in cameras, some component might cause interference. I did happens on Dslr (forgot Nikon or Canon) that lens or VR or non motor or motor lense caused some noise etc, long time ago.

It is a bit annoying from Nikon, what I mean in terms of consistency. Sharpness varies from camera to camera and now I saw it in a video where the D750 is noticeably softer in Dx, while the D810 is as sharp (Fstoppers video on D810 on youtube). The irony is that at least it is better to have very good video in full frame Nikon because it is much easier to get all type of lens dating 1/2 a century on full frame format.