TheRenaissanceMan

That's tech, man. Nothing is an investment anymore.

Looks like some awesome updates to what was already a solid editing platform. Audio and performance on sub-par machines were my main complaints, so this is like someone read my letters.

It is better to shoot and process in the highest but depth you can, then export to 8-bit or whatever you're delivering to at the end. That'll guarantee the best possible image quality for all your delivery formats.

Extreme low light is a great reason to pick Sony. For 98% of shooting, that advantage holds little allure for me. Thus, I continue to wonder what advantage Sony holds for that vast percentage of shooters that don't need crazy ISOs.

2 minutes ago, noone said:

Mostly photo but also some video.

A lot of live music.    Sometimes I have the luxury of a very nice stage but other times it can be a outdoor beer garden at a bar at night in the middle of winter.

My ISOs can easily go up to 102400 sometimes for full band shots or musicians not in the spotlight.      Individual shots will mostly be at much lower ISOs.

I also use lenses like a 17mm TS walk around at night.

Sports at night is another.      By having decent high ISO I can shoot at much faster shutter speeds.     I mostly use an old manual focus lens for that so AF doesn't matter (and I would take better high ISO over fast AF for night sports anytime for my uses. (football and harness racing and greyhound racing, not that I do enough of any lately.

D750 seems a good camera but isn't as good for high ISO and I am done with DSLRs for the most part now (after having had five).     I also prefer Canon lenses as they can adapt easily to both Sony and M4/3 with smart adapters.      D750 doesn't have as good high ISO, doesn't have digital/clearzoom, only has 1/4000 max shutter speed, lower flash sync speed and is larger heavier, doesn't have an EVF and plenty more.     I love the Sony ISO wheel, EVF, customization, ergonomics and more.

Don't get me wrong, most people might prefer a D750 to an A7 but not for me.     Same with all those other things other makers have that Sony doesn't.     That is all great stuff but not so much for me.

We each buy what suits us (I hope).

 

Well the forum is focused on video, as was my post. I understand photographic needs perfectly well, but was not factoring them into my discussion of the marketplace's offerings to video shooting.

3 minutes ago, mercer said:

Idk, what I believe or don't believe is personal to me. But to come onto someone's post and tell them to ditch their beliefs, on their video is... kinda shitty. Just sayin'...

For real. If it turns you off, just don't participate. Seems like personhood 101.

While these points are interesting, I think we've wandered pretty far afield of the topic...

1 hour ago, noone said:

I agree that most cameras are fine at ISO 3200 now.

Most people wont ever need (much) higher but for those that do, it really does matter a lot.        I don't need 4k or great slow motion or even great AFC but I recognize that others will.

A lot of my shooting is done over ISO 12800 and when I was using DSLRs I always wanted better high ISO.

FF just gives me more choice.      I don't find everything easily matched with a speed booster and something's not at all.

There are things I can not do with my Sony that I can with my Panasonic and vice versa.

The Council here is going to use three of my photos in a document they are launching next week.    Two from the A7s and one from the GX7 and none could have been done with the other.

Choice is better than ever now!

Photos, or videos? I was under the impression we were just talking video.

What do you do that requires 12,800 on the regular? Even the weddings I've worked rarely even need 3200.

And if you don't need great slow motion, 4K, or autofocus, and take lots of stills, what does Sony provide over a D750, for example?

The point remains: besides extreme low light and sensor size (which is a non-issue imo), Sony lacks a definitive image quality/usability differentiator over their competition's offerings.

2 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Yeah, you can pretty much feel each step on the 27mm pancake.

Its feels like you're safe cracking !

No, stepper motors allow lenses to make smooth transitions from position to position so that AF in live view/video works quickly and looks natural.

1 minute ago, Kubrickian said:

Do still photographers actually like that? I don't get why they do this. Sounds like a follow focus would be completely unusable. 

I think it's a side effect of stepping motors, as Canon's STM lenses have the same problem.

9 minutes ago, noone said:

They still have a FF sensor used FF.   

Don't knock low light performance as being a small thing either.

For most here who light their videos or shoot in the day time it might not matter.

Just out of curiosity regards a few different threads here I have been following, I put my old 300 2.8 lens on A7s on my cheap $5 tripod from a charity shop and stuck it out the window in the middle of the night.      I focused on a sign some distance away and used Clear Image zoom.      Was at ISO 51200 1/50.

Ok this is lame but I am now thinking of how I can use this properly.

 

300 2.8 clear image zoom.mp4

Most manufacturers look fine at 3200/6400 these days. Even in the evening or at night, I've never needed more. 

And personally, I find full frame overrated. Difficult to focus, and easily matched with a speed booster.

They problem as I see it as that the GH5, on a spec for spec basis, competes with the FS5/FS7. In order to compete in pure capabilities, Sony would have to canibalize their own high end cameras. Don't get me wrong, that sounds great, but I just don't think it's probable. Plus, on a pure reliability/ergonomics/ease of use level, none of Sony's mirrorless line holds a candle to Panasonic's. 

Low light performance has reached the point of diminishing returns, frame rates are impressive all around, and everyone's sorted out internal 4K. The technology has begun to plateau, begging the question: how will everyone differentiate themselves? Panasonic rocks in ergonomics, bit depth, and stabilization. Canon has pretty color, lens selection, and DPAF. Sony still has the edge in extremely low light, but other than that...What do they offer over everyone else? 

8 hours ago, jonpais said:

I'm not asking you not to be yourself. What I'm questioning is why your content must be exclusionary.

How is quoting scripture exclusionary?

Not religious personally, but it didn't bother me.

1DC produces lovely skin tones, and the contrast/color on the C/Y Zeiss is so choice. Liked the edit and lighting too.

What exactly are you dissatisfied with in your current setup?

Blackmagic Pocket. Amazing image for the price and a great learning tool for beginners.

23 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

 

The 35-70 3.5 is the Minolta copy. The 35-70 F4 is a Leica designed lens. But it's good to know the 3.5  matches the rest of the R line!

I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. The 35-70, 24mm Elmarit, and 16mm Elmarit were all Minolta Rokkor designs licensed by Leica and built to their QC standards.

Nonetheless, the coatings are similar enough that they match without much fuss. Minolta famously worked hard to mimic the Leica look, hence the nickname "baby Leicas."

3 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

Probably my next lens to pick up. Leica 35-70 F4. Great look and seems to have almost no focus breathing.

The Leica R 35-70mm is actually a rebadge of the Minolta MD version, which goes for like $80 these days (compared to $300-400 for the Leica R version). I use it alongside my Leica R primes with no problem whatsoever.

Avenger and Kupo are both good bets; in fact, I've heard rumblings that some Avenger products are rebranded Kupo gear. Can't say for sure though. If you can get reasonable shipping from any seller for either, I'd recommend going that route.

And @tupp, generally you are correct. In this instance, I'd say the Kupo combo stand is lighter duty than any junior I've ever used. Great for its price, but not as sturdy as a good junior imo. Ymmv

No complaints with the SLR Magic VND. 

First of all, I'm in love with the sound grip jokes. Keep em coming; movie set memes has had me in stitches since the whole thing started.

Second of all, I'd second the Kupo Master Combo HD stand. B&H has them for $155 with free shipping right now, which is hard to beat.

Or if you're looking for something even studier, you could go for a used Matthews beefy baby. B&H regularly has used copies for ~$170. Just no built in combo head, if that's what you're after.

8 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

I searched under both 'egg crate' and 'honeycomb'. My problem is that it's an inexpensive softbox, so I don't really want to spend more on the grid (see what I did there) than I did in the first place. Thanks for the suggestions, though - I'll have a look.

In my experience, egg crates are a real pain that way: Everyone overcharges like nuts for them. The one for my Rifa ex55 retails on its own for almost $200, on top of the price for the fixture itself. Craziness.

13 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Not sure if I ever heard of 'egg crate', that might be the limiting factor in your search. Howabout '(honeycomb) grid', the usual term for I guess the same thing (or did I miss something here)? Meking (eBay/AliExpress, etc) makes cheap ones, you might have to join a couple together to get the size exactly right.

Egg crate is an extremely common industry term for such grids. Many are called by that exact name by their manufacturers.

I have very few complaints with my Aputure FineHD VS-2. Excellent monitor for the price.

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

I'd wanted to get Aputure lighting, but they're not available here, and they cost a small fortune anyway.

Lol! Clearly, you haven't shopped for many lights. Aputure are dirt cheap compared to Kinos, HMIs, plasma, and most comparable LEDs.

Can you pin down exactly what they mean by "hard light look"? Do they mean gritty with lots of contrast? High key? 

If it's what I'm thinking of, you could cover all the windows except one, then use that as a hot edge and gel a softer source (1/2 CTB should be fine) from the opposite side as your key. Or vice versa, depending how the ratios work out. Then some negative fill on the down side of the face. Should give you something like this. 

I would avoid undiffused redheads/blondes. They tend to have hot spots and an uneven spread, and are therefore not controllable enough to use directly on talent IMO. Better off using a fresnel with Hollywood Frost or a couple sheets of Opal.

Mediazilla offers similar functionality via an internet link