Viet Bach Bui

Why are we labelling the whole video which comprises of many many shots as natural or unnatural? The colors in some of the scenes were not 100% to my liking but I would say 80% of them look pretty good/natural to my eyes.

My suggestion: keep the 5D2, buy about $300 worth of CF cards, install Magic Lantern, grab a used Tamron 17-50 VC for another $300 and shoot in 3x crop mode. There, you just breathed new life into your 5D2 :)

If you don't need 4K - this looks like the best 1080p footage yet in a full frame sensor -

 

vs  the Sony A7s:

This guy always post a fake comparison video when a new camera comes out.

If this were an A7S video you would say something about colors or skin tones being off :) But seriously, nice video even though the quality of the grades was a bit uneven. 70% of it looks really nice, the other 30% has this green cast, especially on people's skin.

Could these be the problematic cameras that people have been returning over the past year and BM is trying to rid of them? Where I live people only give a 50% discount on things which a) nobody wants or b) are defective or c) are nearing expiration date.

Looks quite soft to me.

Looks quite alright to me. If sharpness was my number 1 concern then I would buy the GH4. But to me DR is more important and it seems the A7S delivers in spades in this area.

because the outcome of allowing us to use s-log2 at the camera's optimum iso would probably mean the camera will compete too much with their professional division. They added s-log2 for marketing reasons it would seem.

Let's not jump to conclusions here. Many of us don't know what the base ISO of 3200 in slog2 means and whether the base ISO going up is a good or bad thing. The FS700 got an upgrade earlier that changed the slog2 base ISO from 640 to 2000 that was supposed to greatly improve its low light performance.

DxO results are in! ISO score takes the top spot as expected. What is unexpected is DR at low ISO. Perhaps the other cameras enjoy a bigger DR boost (as well as color depth boost) from downsizing to 8MP?

 

 

But it's the usual story at DxO, using only DR at the lowest ISO in their scoring. This is of more relevance to me:

 

thx a lot for this info! :) If I use 1920 x 1080 in crop mode which crop factor should I calculate? for example with 11mm lens should I get 47mm? I think I can shoot a movie with this focal lenght :) ok I loose the wide angle but it's not always necessary.

The 7D has 5184 horizontal pixels so if you use a crop with x pixels wide then the crop factor is 5184/x (ie if it's 1920 pixel wide then the crop factor is 5184/1920=2.7).

The crop factor is roughly 1.6 x 2.7 = 4.32. The exact crop factor depends on how many horizontal pixels you use.

How accurate are these tests though really? When I tested the a6000 (13.1 evs) and gx7 (12.2 evs), I took some raw photos and used Lightroom to push the shadows and pull the highlights on both at different ISOs. The  latitude on both ended up being the same (same highlight recovery, same amount of noise in the shadows). In fact slightly worse on the a6000 because at high ISOs the shadows had a purple cast.

 

And if you use the dpreview camera comparison tool, you can see that the Canon 6d clearly has less noise than the Nikon d800, yet it's rated lower on DXOMark.

One possible explanation: DxO resize all images to 8mp for their tests, while DPReview show 100% crops which put the 36mp of the D800 at a disadvantage.

Not saying the GH4 isn't impressive (it is), but the DR advantage is only up until ISO 300 or so. After that the 5D3 pulls way ahead.

The crop factor is (5616 : 1728) = 3.25 for 16:9 video.

This camera (and the LX8 maybe more so) might cut into sales of lower level M43 ILCs.

I am more interested in the LX8 but this still might be just what I want for video.

As for constant aperture VS 2.8-4 , how far does this cameras lens go @ 2.8? If it is still 2.8 at 200mm equivalent that that IS the same as the RX10 except you get the next 200mmat as a bonus.

"At 26mm it slows a fraction to f2.9, then to f3 at 30mm, f3.5 at 57mm and finally to f4 at 175mm all the way to 400mm"
Found this on dpreview.

Are we absolutely certain now that Panasonic's camera doesn't have any weather sealing? I thought that wasn't determined yet. But I do admit a preference for constant aperture lenses. Whether that's worth paying $400 more for, I'm not sure...

It's not 100% certain but if it was weather-sealed Panasonic would have advertised it, don't you think? Panasonic also does not advertise the FZ1000 as having a magnesium alloy body, while the RX10 does. On top of that the FZ1000 has only 1 command dial while the RX10 has 2 on top of having an aperture ring on the lens. Even if the lens on the RX10 doesn't cost more to make the build is still premium compared to the FZ1000.

 

And yeah, it's a $400 difference.

The smaller the camera the easier it is to put an ND filter in the narrowest part of the optical path. X100, RX100, Ricoh GR have tiny lenses. FZ1000 doesn't.

 

Also don't forget the RX10 is $500 more than the FZ1000 for that built in ND filter, and you lose 4K, gain moire.

 

I think it's fantastic value for what you DO get! No need to be angry at a few minor omissions...

The constant f2.8 and weather sealing must account for a large part of that $500 too.

I'm having the same dilemma but right now I'm leaning towards the 5D3 because:

- While the ML software may not be the most stable there is the 5D3 is a much more reliable piece of hardware than the BMPCC is. I would take the occasional dropped frames over high probability of bad pixels, easily broken HDMI ports and other technical issues.

- I do quite a bit of still photography so the cost difference isn't all that much between having the 5D3 for both video and stills vs a BMPCC and a still camera.

- The 5D3 is weather proof. I would be reluctant to take the BMPCC out on the beaches for long.

- It seems I will have an easier time managing the colors from the 5D3 RAWs. I believe I'm not good enough to grade the BPMCC footages.

- And finally, those really wide shots with relatively thin DOF I have seen from the 5D3 got me hooked!

At first you may be wowed by the tiny size of the GM1 (like I was with the RX100) but over time you will probably grow tired of the smallness and long for a bigger camera (it was great coming back to the NEX-6 afterward).

 

Having a really small camera may psychologically restricts your freedom in choosing lens because it just doesn't feel right putting big or even medium-sized lens in front of it.

If you own either you would know and not need to make such statements! I don't need to post the files or prove anything, go ahead buy the A6K, that's what I did? and then you will find the a6k is not very good, in fact its sensor is poor. It does not behave like the nex6 or 5n that went before or even the slt57. You have to expose the a6k like the old gh1, don't under or you'll be unable to pull shadows, as for detail forget trying to compete with Panasonic, they lost some time ago and just don't seem to be able to catch Pana.

I don't own either camera but that doesn't mean I cannot call someone out for making outrageous claim such as a 2-3 stop shadow recovery advantage of the GX7. You don't have to prove anything but neither does someone who says they are a Martian.

OK, will run a video test of the two and post the files soon, honestly I think the a6k is not bad but Sony not upto Gx7 level just yet in video. What a6k profile do you prefer?

Wait, were you talking about still or video when you mentioned the serious banding issue and 2-3 stops difference in shadow? I thought you were talking about still so I asked for RAWs. If it was about video then forget it, jpegs and clips can be easily manipulated. I'll just wait until a cheap GX7 pops up where I live and make my own judgment.

As an owner of both gx7 and a6k, am actually liking the gx7 much better than the a6k, which has surprised me. Especially in stills the gx7 is pretty incredible and holds its own against the a6k which is plagued by some serious issues with banding and artifacts in deep shadows. You can pull aprox 1 stop of underexposed shadows on the a6k, that's all. The gx7 is pretty impressive and you can pull 3-4 with very good results. For stills too the af of the Sony might be decent now in terms of performance but it still feels and looks a little hit and miss in accuracy. I was blind to this initially with my new a6k toy, but bit by bit the wheels are falling off it. The lack of touch, pin-point af and of course complete silent shutter and the fabulous build and swivel evf puts the gx7 in a higher class overall, it also has a level of ibis for non is lens in still mode offering an extra stop to stop and half too. On the surface a6k is great but after a month am back to gx7 and feel like a6k is unreliable trash, sorry! 24p is native to gx7 so you don't have to swap around ntsc/pal and the mics are better too, overall gx7 is still well and truly better.

If you own both cameras then please post RAW files of the same scene demonstrating the serious banding issue and better yet, the 1 vs 3-4 stops difference in shadow recovery. Otherwise, with the superlatives and exaggerations used, you sound like a fanboy/hater bashing the A6000 purely basing on spec sheets and what you have been reading on the web

Yeh I am foaming at the mouth a little :D I'm not saying the a6k is outright inferior, because clearly it produces great pictures. I really have no affinity to any camera or manufacturer; I've been through four different cameras in the past year. I just want people to be fair to their equipment (ie. give it a chance). Also, I guess I am a little miffed at some people disregarding my tests because Philip Bloom took some videos of his cat and pronounced it as one of the best video images in a mirrorless camera ever. I'm not even sure if iag has made proper use of his current camera? I've used all mine in various settings (from nightclub promos to amateur mountain shots) and so have a pretty good idea of the strengths and weaknesses of each one.

 

PS. Why is "foaming a the mouth" offensive? Its a common phrase,. At least where I come from.

To be honest I think you haven't given your A6000 enough time yet. Some cameras only unleash their full power after a few tweaks here and a few settings there. So far you only gave us snap shots, not full videos to look at, and even with those snap shots I am not reaching the same conclusions as you did. On the other hand, I don't find some of the A6000 videos as great as others say (the Avene one, for example).

 

"Foaming at the mouth" seems offensive to me because it conjures up an image of a batshit crazy person with a mouthful of frothing saliva or worse, of a rabid animal. But then again I'm not a native English speaker so I made have taken it a little too literally haha.

@Inazuma: you're probably foaming a little at the mouth, too (a very offensive thing to say, btw) from all the praises that you don't think the A6000 deserve. I get it, you think the A6000 is inferior to your GX7, and have said so repeatedly. You don't have to pop in every time someone says the A6000 is great.

 

As for me, I'm not swaying to one side or another until I see a well controlled test comparing the A6000 with the others.

Found this from SonyAlphaRumors. Not sure if this is a more accurate representation than the previous tests, but it doesn't look bad at all.

 

That is quite a strange argument you have put forth, jcs. It is the same as saying there is no portability disadvantage in carrying camera A which is four times as big as camera B since you can put it in the hands of someone four times as big. The previous statement is mathematically correct but what are the odds of there being someone that huge?

The keyword here is availability.

The situation is the same with focal reducers. Mathematically, FF sensors can benefit from focal reducers too. But nobody consider this possibility an advantage of FF, why? Because the Medium Format or whatever type of lens big enough for FF focal reducers aren't easy to come by.

So both the FF sensors' size advantage and the mirrorless crop sensors' focal reduction advantage all come down to availability.

Found this video on vimeo, sorry if it is the work of a member here.