Chris Gibbs

You have made a very valid point.  it could be that the quality of a medium format lens is contributing to the difference in look.  All I know is that on my forbes tests i am running a far from optimal setup.  lots of glass, lots of chance for errors and aberrations however despite all this the aesthetic still looks different to anything else.  

 

one of the initial shots in the Master is another great way to show the look - when he is cutting the coconuts under the tree.  nothing like it. 

This is an age-old still photographers debate and worthy of a Phd thesis..........

It's not about shallow DOF, it's the whole rendering which changes especially with wide angle shots.

Agreed, that's not far from the X-Pan format, shooting a normal lens on an X-Pan gave you a lovely immersive aesthetic, without that surreal wide angle detachment you get with smaller formats!

I suppose you could set-up the movie-mode to be in Program (auto everything) for those situations where you are trying for that camcorder functionality and utilize the stills modes where you want different levels of control.  Or would you be better shooting movies in Programed stills mode OR that or the green AUTO (idiot) mode where you want camcorder functionality (point & shoot)?  

This stuff gets confusing, and just as I figure something out I forget what it was...............(:-)

Good attempt at writing-up something that makes little practicle sense (now we know why Sony omitted a proper manual).  :)

1. Snagging stills whilst rolling video *like you can on the 5D3* is brilliant, Sony needs to address this omission on the A7's.

2. From a stills perspective (I'm a stills guy) I advise everyone to think and shoot in 16:9 mode, very few shoot to print anymore.

3. The fact that you can set a snappy profile for stills and a flat one for video is what makes all the difference working with the A7S over the R.

4. Never set a flat stills profile on the A7S (for stills) if you are a RAW shooter, it'll just mess-up your EVF for focusing!!!!

There are a ton more, but Andrew did a great job on something no one else has to date!

Makes you wonder why APS-C camera makers don't make ultrafast, wide lenses on their cameras by using a retrofocus design combined with a metabones like speedbooster integrated into the lens. It's not clear why there aren't more 23mm f/.9 lenses or such.

Sensible question to which the only sensible answer could be - you don't get anything for nothing in optical design.

Not doing anything extreme in post- no banding issues yet. Using Slog2 with Cinema Color Mode, +8 Saturation, and Cine2 (now using Cine1 as it's full range) with Cinema Color Mode.

Now, your Sea Bass video is hilarious, she's very cute too! :D  ~Chris 

Yes the A7s is hard to judge exposure with. I found using zebras is the best way to protect the highlights. If you set them at 100 IRE and you see them adjust your exposure a little until they are gone. 

Thanks, I know little about video protocol but had settled on that through trial & error.  Have you come up with a decent custom profile that keeps us away from 3200 ISO, that just doesn't work for me as I'm shooting 75/25 stills and video?  

Cheers,

Chris

Still having a problem with the Sony full frame lens options.  The prices are out of whack.

 

Lens Nikkor AF-S 50mm f1.8G
Full Frame Equivalent 50
Price $199.95
DXOMark 30
DXOMark Resolution 16MP
DXOMark Transmission 2
DXOMark Distortion 0.40%
DXOMark Vignetting -1.7 EV
DXOMark Chromatic Aberation 8um

 

 

Lens Sony FE Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm F1.8 ZA
Full Frame Equivalent 55
Price $1,000
DXOMark 42
DXOMark Resolution 29MP
DXOMark Transmission 1.8
DXOMark Distortion 0.40%
DXOMark Vignetting -1.6 EV
DXOMark Chromatic Aberation 9um

 

 

Five times more for the Sony lens.

 

Michael

You'd have to rent them each, perform some real-word tests and see which meets your minimum requirement.  You get what you pay for with glass but the FE 1.8/55 IMO is actually quite a bargain.  DXO is akin to a "job interview for a lens"  a lenses character is only revealed when stressed under different/challenging shooting conditions.  Just like a persons character is!

And by magic, this just appeared over on TOP:

How To Get the Best Performance from Your Camera Lens, Parts I and II (TOP Classic)

I have also seen the following statement in a different A7S review:

 

"Unfortunately at the time of this writing, no video editing NLEs offer lens and camera specific CA, distortion, and light fall-off correction so these IQ issues can be real concerns that affect videographers more than photographers, who have more options to correct them. While correcting for IQ issues is not new for photography, it is in videography and the Sony α7S is one of the first cameras that support lens corrections in-camera in video mode."

 

Can any of the video guys that have tested the A7S confirm this statement.

Wow, interesting thanks!

I'd gotten into this with a few video guys previously, there's a little disconnect with some of them reference lensing/reality.  When we get into this whole "wide-angle equivalence issue" things get a little convoluted.  A 24 is a tough lens to make without all the nasties, CA, distortions, vignetting etc.  Try making a 24-70 perform the same, that's even tougher, add OSS it gets worse and then try making it smaller and your going to have to compromise somewhere.  So yes, it makes perfect sense for Sony to work a little magic behind the shutter curtain..........

Now take all the above, substitute a 12-35, add in a third party lens adaptor (speed booster) and see how you'd stand comparing/correcting that moving image, that's ten times tougher.  Don't even get me started on these f/.85 CCD TV camera optics..........(:-)

All things being equal, maybe that Sony FE 4/24-70 OSS is a pretty good compromise for a video shooter on the A7S, especially one who wants to shoot with as little pissing around as possible in post?  

What I can tell you, the FE 4/24-70 OSS is a good little lens for stills on the A7S, and we're taking about assessing it at 12MP without corrections applied, with corrections applied and its very nice!

Chris 

The FE 4/24-70 have huge distortion on both ends of the zoom scale. Does the A7S do lens correction ( distortion, vignetting, ca ) in video mode ?

Those huge distortions are hugely exaggerated if you ask me.  I'm a stills guy, I don't shoot charts or architecture, often times I actually prefer the uncorrected RAW to what LR thinks it should look like.  It's kinda nice how a 24 pulls the image center when you want that effect.

I was asked about the "auto-correct" feature for video, I ran a few "real world" tests and it looked like it was correcting for distortion and vignetting on the 24mm end.  If I wanted huge distortions (from a stills guys perspective) I'd go have a play with those speed boosters. (:-)

EDIT:  You know they must correct internally, remember when Sony offered the firmware upgrade for the A7R and said it was for the FE 4/70-200, they made a big deal out of that fact.  This was one of my reasons for not wanting to play around with all these off-brand lenses on the A7 cameras, its often a PITA to correct for that stuff in LR or PS.  How on earth are you video guys doing it for motion?  Even Resolve "looks" basic compared to a high end stills editor where correction is concerned?

The math (kit requirements) on both systems is interesting, but I think its being spun by both sides in favor of one or another.  For years with the 5D2 video shooters complained and asked for better audio, i.e. XLR's, now we have TWO choices.  Just factor in the basic professional kit with one lens:

1.  Camera body

2.  24-70 field of view

3.  XLR audio adaptor

4.  Shotgun mic

5.  Batteries to run it all 

6.  External recorder with built-in monitor

Forget all the other bits & pieces, you'd need them for whatever.  But get that kit I've mentioned in your hand rolling video and recording quality XLR sound and note the cost.

Thanks for the great first part of the review.. been waiting with bated breath all week! Looks like I was right to order one. 

 

Question: what is the workflow like shooting at 3200 all the time? My understanding is S-Log 2 only works at 3200 and above? Did you use NDs? Were you able to achieve shallow depth of field in the middle of the day? I've got a six stop variable ND but not sure how much flexibility six stops would give me in bright light. 

 

I'd love to see a video comparison of non-S-Log vs S-log, to see if it is such a compromise as to be unusable. It seems like the lack of LUT monitoring in camera and the high ISO requirement would severely limit the functionality of S-Log 2. 

 

Also, what's your take on Sony's 35mm FE mount lens? I'm looking to use this as a travel photo and filmmaking tool, and I like that lens for its size and it's AF compatibility. Obviously for video I dislike its lack of OIS, but it seems like an okay compromise for the size advantage for me, plus with the high quality crop mode, the lens could switch between a 35 and 50mm, which is a nice combo for my shooting. 

 

Finally, I'd just like to note something I see but find it hard to describe. It's the subtle video-looking quality in movement that is probably a symptom of rolling shutter. I notice it in the movement of the woman around 4:40 on both cameras. Just a general, hard-to-describe warbly, cheap quality to the movement that feels uncinematic. I notice it on most DSLR footage, so I'm assuming it's a symptom of rolling shutter rendered in micro. Can't wait for them to resolve this problem. I feel like the look and feel of motion is not given it's due in reviews, generally. Everyone's obsessed with moire and banding, but the movement issue is just as distracting for me, visually. Only a true global shutter could resolve it, but a software solution like Andrew mentioned last week that Sony's got in the works would be great, too. 

The FE 2.8/35 is an excellent lens, no surprises, it just performs superbly.  Take a look at the FE 4/24-70 if you're using the A7S for video & stills, it really is very good on that body, the OSS is superb for video and it's small and compact.  The zoom is as good at f/8 as the prime on the A7S if sharpness is part of your criteria.

On the A7S the FE 4/24-70 really is worth a look at, it performs better on that sensor.  Both the FE 2.8/35 & FE 1.8/55 are top flight optics for stills on the A7S & A7R.  I shoot a great deal on the A7R and use both primes exclusively but on the A7S I'll reach for the FE 4/24-70 for the OSS.

Chris

Also, the A7s is full frame but only when using an adapter (metabones or Sony A-mount) - is this right? Otherwise, when using native E-mount glass - it's an APS-C camera.

 

The native glass for the A7 series is "FE", think F for full frame.  The "E" series is APSC.

Many overlook the FE glass, but we in the photographic (stills) world will attest to its quality, the FE35 & FE55 are just as good as any glass we've had access to from Canon or Nikon.  In fact, neither Canon or Nikon offer a lens that approaches the level headed (read: no nasties) quality of the FE55.  On a side note, I'd imagine that, for you video guys, a lens like the FE55 that performs almost flawlessly wide-open is a better option than one like the 50L that isn't as well mannered.

Chris

Andrew Reid Wrote:

>If you try shooting video in stills mode and silent mode is enabled, you can’t select S-LOG or the other pro video picture profiles unless you enable the mechanical shutter, which is deeply odd<

I'm finding some interesting "quirks" (bug features?) like this too.

However, one feature that's very interesting (from photographers perspective) is having the creative style (stills) active when in stills mode and when selecting movie mode your now activating the video picture profile, that's very useful for maintaining a snappy EVF for faster paced stills work, especially if you've selected SLOG as your default PP.  In the A7R, when set-up for video you're always looking at this flat lifeless EVF, even when in stills mode.

All these "features" are explained in depth on pages 446, 675 and 893 of the A7S user manual............that we're waiting for Sony to write!!!!!  :blink:

I just can't find it anywhere, what's the dynamic range rated at in video mode with S-Log2? DxO Mark rated the sensor at 13.2 stops for stills, but does S-Log2 give you all those stops in video too? Has anyone compared it to a Blackmagic camera yet? 

Dynamic Range – Sony A7S vs. the others

 

Never really entertained the thought of buying a GH4...

 

The GH4 is cracking little camera but the sensor size is all wrong, it just has a poor aesthetic. 

I'm a stills guy by trade, a 5D3 user and can say the RAW's out of the A7R are superb (jpegs can be tailored to suit).  One thing I thoroughly disliked about the Canon file was the OTT reds!

No reason the A7S will be any different to the A7R IMO, here's hoping........

And yes, ditto on the Sony XLR module, the new one (with no tail) will be lovely, they're so easy to use -- even by an old stills hack! (:-)

Andrew Reid Wrote:

>Base ISO is always 200 on DSLR sensors<

​For all sensors & from all manufacturers?  Please explain this.

Best video image Panasonic.

Best still image Sony.

Best camera 5D3.

This stuff isn't B&W anymore -- pun intended. (:-)

Agreed, a straight (standard) jpeg out of the camera is "probably" the best basis for a quick mark one eyeball analysis.  

Problem we've been having is this constant skewing of data for "expected" performance.  We've had so many "internet activists" propping up one brand over another that its becoming more "brand religion" that's based on erroneous (or misinterpreted) testing methods.  I had one guy  (from this very board) telling me that real world jpegs out of the GH4 bore no relationship to actual 1080p footage, because you can down-sample this and add that to make it look spiffy.  That's no basis for testing anything, we need a realistic base measurement, a realistic starting point.

It'd be interesting to see a (standard profile) jpeg comparison from a 5D3, A7S & GH4 now, maybe throw in an A7R for giggles too.  I'm a 5D3 stills guy who also shoots the A7R and differences based simply on noise characteristics (based on RAW files in Aperture) are negligible.   

Hi Joel,  Good to see you again mate!

I have the FE 24-70 and if I were to make a comparison to Canon glass I've owned I'd say its very similar in performance to the 24-105, not thrilled by that, but its extremely usable.  The FE 35 however is an order of magnitude better, I have one glued (:-) to its own A7R, its a cracking little lens, my other A7R has the FE 55 welded (:-) to it and it is better than any Canon lens I've ever owned and I think that is where the problem arrises.  Compared to the FE 55, the other Sony glass kinda pale by comparison, its like comparing the OTUS to Canon's own glass -- not a fair fight IMO, but, for the price that FE55 is an absolute bargain!

What I & others were expecting from Sony/Zeiss was a 24-70 that was equal or better than the 24-70 f/2.8 L mark 2 but what we actually got was a short 24-105, again not a bad thing, but the 24-105 isn't a 2014 lens if you get my drift!

I'm a stills guy by trade but suspect the FE 24-70 may look surprisingly good as a video lens on the A7s!

Great piece Andrew!  Loved the group, they have a very cool sound -- made me think about Crosby Stills & Nash.