blafarm

I've been pretty happy with the resolution of my A7RII coming from the HD world, but I don't have a 4K monitor so I've basically been viewing all the footage scaled down 50%.

Actually, you've likely been viewing all the footage scaled down by 25%.  

4k is four times the resolution of HD

I disagree, viewed as a dedicated 'video shooter', I think the A7SII wins:

The Sony a7S II has the following advantages:

• Slog3 Gamma Mode (not always recommended) & gamma assist feature.
• Slightly better quality full frame mode in 4K.
• Slightly better rolling shutter performance.
• Better lowlight, cleaner image.
• 120fps slow motion mode in Full HD.
• According to user reports less prone to overheating on long recordings.
• $200 more affordable.

And, then there's this:

https://***URL not allowed***/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/a7s-II-vs-a7r-II-lowlight.jpg

But, everyone deserves their own opinion.

Normally, I would agree with that statement -- just like we wouldn't typically call a motorized slider a "motion control unit".

In this case, I think the multiple speeds in forward and reverse, the timelapse feature and the Stretch Goal (which adds the magnetic sensors that allow for speed ramping start/stop and repeat moves) and the fact that the device is capable of free movement and not limited to using a linear track -- allow for a somewhat liberal use of the term "motion control".

But, yes, clearly not the definition of motion control used in the business. 

Sorry I didn't catch your drift.  And yes, I agree, there are a number of lower-cost and less-polished options that would delivery similar, if not identical, results.

I say, "To each, their own".

But I would ask:  Can you fit that in your pocket?  Can you power it with a single AAA battery?  Can it spin on a single axis to provide a panorama?  How big is the track that would be required to make a slider out of that?  And how much time are you willing to spend coming up with a programmable multi- speed motor that also does timelapse moves? 

Like everything else in the world, it comes down to time and effort -- versus cost.  For me, at the Kickstarter price, this strikes a good balance.

Check out the Stretch Goal that has already been met:

https://d2pq0u4uni88oo.cloudfront.net/assets/004/838/860/482febef8b8342597cb2c76b8fa60574_h264_high.mp4

... which includes Start/Stop speed ramping.

In case anyone is interested, I thought I'd share this Kickstarter project:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2044759634/hercules-the-worlds-smallest-camera-motion-control?ref=email

It may not be the only reason, but the Sony 24-240 has to playing a contributory role.

Edit:  Also, let's not discount the differences between the bit rates (410 vs 100) and codecs (I vs. IPB).

It is not possible to shoot complex tripod moves, with definitive start and stop points, on bright exterior sunny days, with one's head glued to the EVF.  

Also, I realize that everyone does different types of work, but the angle of some of my shots makes it impossible to use anything but the articulating LCD screen to see the framing.  And it's not just me, there is no one in the Cirque Du Soleil cast that can contort their body enough to use the EVF on some of my shots. 

And yes, one can certainly purchase an external monitor -- but many of my shoots require the least-kitted setup possible.  The LCD screen works fine, and the Sunny Weather setting works fine.  

I'm not asking for the camera to be redesigned.  I'm asking Sony to not force a decision regarding power consumption or overheating on users for which that might not be an issue. 

I have that as well (the original version that required plastic surgery).  Unfortunately, it does vignette the EVF.  I use it with the Kinotehnik Blue Star Oval Small Eye Cushion.

I'm hoping this upcoming Hoodeye product, made specifically for the A7 series, solves that problem:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1165087-REG/hoodman_heyesg_hoodeye_for_glasses_sony.html

Still, there are plenty of situations where having your head glued to the camera simply does not work. 

That's a valid point -- that mode really does boost contrast.  Still, not being able to see what you are shooting, and the requirement of an external high NIT monitor, is infuriating.  Sony should at least give us the choice.

I wish someone would come out with a zero latency Head Mounted Display for photographers.  That would solve a whole host of problems.

Finally, a material advantage to living in a cloudy environment like Berlin or Seattle.

I am not happy about this -- and history has proven that the chances of Sony releasing updated firmware is less than zero.

I see no reason why this decision is being made for us.  I shoot clips that are typically no longer than 60 seconds.  Therefore, the chance of overheating is zero.  However, this default (and unchangeable) behavior makes it impossible to see what I am shooting in bright sunlight without using the EVF -- which is impossible for a good number of shots.  I bought this camera to avoid the necessity of lugging around extra equipment.  Now I can't effectively monitor what I am shooting unless I drop down to 1080.  How are you dealing with this Andrew -- external monitor?  

I also can't seem to make the black spots appear when shooting the sun.

However, I have discovered a very disconcerting LCD brightness bug/feature that is causing me to consider returning the camera:

I just started testing the A7SII outside on a sunny day, set to record XAVC-S 4k, with the LCD Monitor Brightness set to Sunny Weather.  

In every shooting mode, after hitting the record button, the monitor dims to a point that makes it nearly impossible to see in bright sunlight.  

This happens whether Live View is enabled -- or not.  And it does not happen when shooting 1080 HD (although the screen dims a little bit).

Interestingly, the same thing happens in the EVF.

This could very well be a deal breaker for me.  I can't shoot -- what I can't see.

Am I missing something here? 

Interesting, and disappointing.

Yeah, I've read similar reports in this lengthy thread.

Kind of wish I was hearing about a relatively straightforward and dependable camera setting (PP or not) that provided a good combination of balanced color and serviceable dynamic range, without the constraints of minimum ISOs, and without taxing the limits of the 8-bit container.

I realize this type of camera setting, if it exists, would not provide optimum performance for any one of these individual goals.

But does a jack-of-all-trades camera setting like this exist -- and if so, what precisely is it?

Have the widely reported 'color science' tweaks applied by Sony to the A7RII and AS7II not had a material effect on the ease of grading?

Or, do those tweaks not affect Slog profiles? 

To be a bit more specific, and not that he's the arbiter of good taste, but Philip Bloom shoots daytime with Cine 4 / Cinema Color -- and nighttime with Cine 2 / Cinema Color and -4 Detail.  He did that with the original A7S and he has posted recent A7SII footage which also uses those settings (although it's hard to know if his approach has changed with more time spent with the v.2 camera).

Bloom Quote:  "Picture profile wise, I shot mostly the same as the A7s. Daytime Cine 4 with Cinema colour and night Cine 2 with same colour and detail to -4."

And as for Brandon Li, he shoots with Picture Profiles set to off and Creative Style: Autumn Leaves (-3 0 -3) with the original A7S.  Again, not sure if he has migrated to the A7SII or if he has changed his approach.

Li Quote:  "I now use the Autumn Leaves Creative Style (-3,0,-3 DRO 4) instead of picture profiles. I find this setting gives me the punchiest, warmest colors straight out of the camera while still leaving plenty of room for grading".

Andrew, as most of us do not have a 1D C at our disposal (or even a Canon camera) for an 'apples-to-apples' comparison, I do think it would be a very illuminating test, if you have the time and inclination to do it.

Thanks

Curious, do you have the same A7SII color problems with Cine 4 / Cinema Color -- or Cine 2 / Cinema Color?

And taking it one step further, although obviously a 'baked look', do you have the same A7SII color problems with no PP and Autumn Leaves (-3 0 -3)?

Just curious.

^ That is certainly one approach -- and it's a reasonable one.

However, SSDs do not fail gracefully -- they typically die with no warning.  And they typically die unilaterally (like a light switch turning off) with their data unrecoverable by utilities like Spinrite, PhotoRec, DDRescue and TestDisk -- which frequently allow some amount of data resurrection when used with mechanical drives.

Cloud storage is great, but it becomes a somewhat difficult premise when you are generating terabytes of data every week or month -- and if you are also dealing with proprietary data that cannot be compromised.

I wouldn't depend on the accuracy of that "Lifespan of Storage Media" chart.  

30 years for DVD-R?  That's completely moronic, the organic dye layer is absolutely capable of failing in less than 5 years.

And 34 years for a Hard Drive?  Please tell me exactly what drugs this person on?  Nobody's hard drive lasts that long. 

If you follow the enterprise players, you quickly understand that their approach to archival storage is LTO -- which isn't even on that chart (another epic failure).

However,  there are other options that are worth noting.  This is a piece I put together for a client.  It is not a promotional piece and I was not paid to write it.  You might find it interesting.

M-DISC is a mineral-based optical disc that holds up to 100GB of data and has a reported shelf life of 1,000 years.  The principal difference between this product and the current crop of optical media is that these discs do not use organic dyes that fade and decay.  Instead, M-DISCs use a data layer consisting of chemically stable, heat resistant metals and inorganic materials that are reported to last centuries.  In other words, data is ‘engraved’ into the M-DISC by physically altering the recording layer and creating permanent surfaces in the disc.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) tested five different brands of archival-quality, gold dye-based recordable DVD discs and the M-DISC DVD.  The tests were conducted to determine which media would hold-up under the harshest environments over long periods of time.  None of the M-DISC media suffered any data degradation at all.   Every other brand tested showed large increases in data errors and many of the discs were so damaged that they could not be recognized as DVDs by the disc analyzer.

M-DISCs have been around for a while, although they have previously only been available in DVD (4.7GB Single Layer) and BD (25GB Single Layer) sizes.  Recently, M-DISC released 100GB BDXL discs and the data densities are finally beginning to make sense for larger archives. 

BDXL discs are the successor to the original single and double layer Bluray Discs, which have capacities of 25GB and 50GB respectively.  BDXL discs are designed to hold 100GB and 128GB and are principally targeted for distribution of 4k/UHD media.

M-DISCs can be burned in a very wide variety of commodity-priced, consumer-level optical drives, and can also be burned using ultra-slim optical drive form-factor drives that are integrated into laptops.  Not surprisingly, optical drive manufacturers have gotten behind this format in a big way, most notably Hitachi and LG. 

In fact, if you happen to have a more recent DVD or BD burner in your computer or facility, take a look at the front panel to see if the M-DISC logo is there.  The M-DISC logo on the front of the drive means you can burn M-DISCs that are supported by that particular drive (DVD, BD, BDXL).

But the more important part of this equation is that M-DISCs are ‘backward compatible’ and can be read in any other optical drive.  In other words, while you need an M-DISC-compatible drive to ‘write’ or ‘burn’ a disc – any other consumer drive can ‘read’ them.  That means your archives can be read in any other optical drive in your facility, or your client’s facility – and the data is random access.

In terms of pricing, when purchased in 50-Pack quantity on the M-DISC website, the DVD unit cost is $2.78 each, while the BD unit cost is $4.40 each.  Note that the recent release of the larger 100GB BDXL product means that supplies are limited, and 15/50-Pack quantity pricing is not yet available.  More specifically, the largest size of BDXL discs is currently limited to a 5-Pack and the unit cost in that quantity is $19.90 each.  This represents a small price premium compared to purchasing 4-25GB BD discs having the same storage capacity for a total cost of $17.60.

Obviously, on a comparative basis, you would need 25 -100GB M-DISCs at a total cost of $497.50 to equal a single native 2.5TB LTO6 tape which is typically priced at ~$35.  As such, on face value, a direct comparison to LTO6 appears quite unfavorable.  However, M-DISC is clearly not an archival solution that is meant to compete directly with LTO6, unless of course you have a lot of money and your archive sizes dovetail nicely with M-DISC sizes.  

Another factor to consider is that LTO hardware and software can easily cost $5-10,000.  And that number doesn’t include potential annual LTO software maintenance contracts and the likely necessity of dedicating a higher-end computing platform to a tethered LTO drive, although that obviously doesn’t apply to a network-enabled LTO drive.

Conservatively speaking, at the very bottom end of that price range, and with the current limited quantity pricing for the BDXL product, $5,000 saved equates to being able to purchase 251 -100GB M-DISCs with a total storage capacity of 25TB.  And if you're facing a total cost of $10,000 for your entire LTO solution, it’s obviously double that.  But again, M-DISC size limitations have to be acceptable for your workflow, including the lack of cataloging.

Frankly, in addition to project archiving, there are many other uses for M-DISC, including show masters & protections, archiving sound effects and stock music libraries, DI and final mix elements, photos and client artwork, as well as accounting and tax records – all of which are frequently stored on spinning media in my world.  For those purposes, DVD and BD versions of M-DISCs are less expensive and more closely match the size requirements of those files.

M-DISCs can also be used for file-based deliverables that need to be shelf-stable for many, many years, albeit within the 100GB capacity constraint.  Your clients and vendors already have DVD and BD drives, all of which are automatically capable of reading M-DISCs with no problem.  And clients who would need the larger 100GB storage capacity of BDXL discs wouldn’t blink at spending ~$50 price for a new BDXL drive.  That’s a petty cash expenditure, and the BDXL drive they purchase doesn’t even have to be an M-DISC-compatible drive (not that they cost any more) if all they need to do is read the discs.

The broad 1,000 year claim is certainly a potential point of concern.  However, the DoD tests linked below instill quite a bit of confidence and Hitachi has incorporated M-DISC into their Digital Preservation Platform (DPP) which is an archival solution marketed to federal governmental agencies.  An M-DISC lifetime study conducted according to the ISO/IEC 10995 Standard indicated that the expected mean life was 1,332 years and that the expected 5% failure time was 667 years.

For me, the more important issue is that I don’t need 1,000 years of longevity.  At most, I need 20-30 years.  And, frankly, I really only need a very reliable 5-10 years, at which point the fast-paced world of technology will likely deliver a ‘next gen’ storage solution that replaces LTO and M-DISC.  For the near term, M-DISC offers a solution that avoids the inevitable failure of solid state and mechanic storage, as well as the data rot of organic dye-based optical discs.

If you can deal with the pricing and capacity issues, the arguments for this technology include:

- Discs can be read in any other optical drive -- on any other computer

- Interface options include:  USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt, eSATA and SATA

- Burners can be easily swapped between different computing and OS platforms

- No need for HBA (Host Bus Adapter) or proprietary hardware/cabling

- No need for a dedicated high-end host computer (e.g.: LTO)

- No need for proprietary drivers, middleware, software or catalog migration

- No risk of a LTO software vendor ‘falling down’ and their product becoming EOL

- Random access to folders and files with no ‘hunting’

- Compatibility and interoperability with clients and vendors (regardless of their technical sophistication)

- Media has no moving parts and the read mechanism has no physical contact with media

- Media is resistant to temperature, light, humidity, water, RF, EMI, magnetic and mechanical failure

- Media does not need to be ‘exercised’ several times a year (e.g.: hard drives)

- Existing ecosystem of optical media cases, mailers, shippers and labeling options

- Small and robust form factor helps with shipping to clients, vendors and offsite storage locations

For those not using a LTO-based solution for critically important data-at-rest, and who are rolling-the-dice relying on individual hard drives for that purpose, M-DISC would at least add a layer of backstopping.  The same might hold true for those using NAS boxes running RAID5/6. 

And for offsite archives (which really should be considered a mandatory requirement), M-DISCs offer a nice form-factor that can be put in a standard cardboard mailing shipper or UPS/FedEx envelope, and they are resistant to the physical, magnetic and environmental issues associated with shipping and offsite storage, which are often times beyond our control.

M-DISC is clearly not for everyone, but I like the idea of being able to restore data using any optical drive on any computer, and not being reliant on 3rd party software (or the software company’s ability to survive in the market).

I’m not suggesting for a moment that this technology replaces LTO, or the sophisticated software products that support it.  However, there are a number of use-cases for which this product might offer a viable solution.

Here are some links:

M-DISC Home Page:

http://www.mdisc.com/

M-DISC Store (products are also available on Amazon)

http://store.mdisc.com/

M-DISC Technology:

http://www.mdisc.com/mdisc-technology/

M-DISC Test Data:

http://www.mdisc.com/proving-ground/

M-DISC Drive Compatibility:

http://www.mdisc.com/m-ready/

Department of Defense Naval Air Warfare Test:

http://www.esystor.com/images/China_Lake_Full_Report.pdf

More specifically, see Document pages 43 and 44  (PDF pages 48 and 49)

Wikipedia BDXL Disc:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#BDXL

BDXL Drive Example:

http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-Internal-Rewriter-WH14NS40/dp/B007YWMCA8

The short answer is yes -- significantly more stabilized than lens-based OSS alone.

Here is a good explanation on how the two technologies interoperate:

http://briansmith.com/sony-a7ii-hands-on-review/

Andrew, thanks for the preliminary write-up.  Always refreshing to read your gear critiques.  And I expect this review, when completed, will be especially illuminating given your own personal equipment progression over the past 15 months.  Keep up the good work.

​Thank you.  And I concur, the Sony remote is a sweet accessory.   Comes with a clip that attaches to a tripod's pan arm.