Wulf

I'm not Ebrahim, and have not shot with the A7s, but with the ole C100 MKI and was fallen in love with the image, alone the colours are simply superb.

I would second everything Ebrahim and j.f.r. have mentioned; just look at the footage and not at technical stuff.

When the A7s was announced, I was absolutely sure to get one for me, but the longer I watched the clips, the more dubious the colours became to me. It's really seldom to find ugly footage out of the Canon, but imho > x5 % of the Sony stuff just looks horrible, even on DVXuser.com (and that's quite diplomatically formulated; the real number would upset to many much people here, LOL  ).

Just have a look at the reviews of our Canadian guys that were filmed with the Sony (just turn the sound off :-)); this is NOT a reference for the A7 in my eyes, I'm afraid. 

There is a reason why Canikon are so big in pro photography - their pictures simply look so much better...

Others might disgree, that's fine with me, as I see every camera as a tool and Nikons for stills and the C100 MKII for filming just deliver the best results for me nearly direct out-of-cam and I would much prefer to spend my time waiting for right moment in the field instead of grading or even 'rescuing' my footage at home. :-)

I have not decided yet if I want the MkI or II, but I think the VF on the old one sucks too much.

edit: XLR is a GREAT argument too, at least for me.

​my fault, you wrote about the old one

This is really great.

I was quite reluctant about the Sony because I had seen too much illgraded and miscoloured stuff. :-)

But thanks to artits like Brendan Li and you I have changed my mind.

good article

one minor specification, please: I thought the C100 II had 1920x1080p 59.94 and 50 ?

I think you are right on this, Ed: This is not a beauty clip for cosmetic stuff but for, hm, controversial energy.

Any retouch could impeach the credilibity.

I think it works as it is.

how big is the file?

While I would miss IS with still photos and longer lenses, I found it a bit overrated in moving pictures. It does help of course, but would not save you. But 
I dislike shoulderrigs, too! I prefer a tripod whenever possible, landscapes or macros for example never worked without a safe stand in my experience. Sometimes I had to use my lightest carbon tripod as monopod, which worked to some degree and opens quick reactions.

For any kind of shoulder- or handheld work I'm quite reluctant to went over 50 mm fullframe, that's 35 mm on S35, no matter if stabilized or not. The biggest benefit for IS is eliminating the effects on micro shaking and rolling shutter, which helps stabilizing the footage in post.

The biggest concern against IS are the modern lenses themselves, which make any focus pulling a pita. And being out of focus is a much bigger threat for me.

I thought a bit.

What I said:

An astonishing quantity of iconic still captures, which emotional aspects survives not only decades but cultural chances as well, could have been shot with an {popular brand of mobile phones}, as the making of this photos didn't include any complicated gear like big tele lenses or sophisticated lightening.

Another user suggests I had no clue, because this {popular brand of mobile phones} is overrated in his opinion. I have no doubt that this might be true, but does it matter?

Judge by yourself

https://www.google.de/search?q=iconic+photographs&biw=1600&bih=785&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=rFa_VIPEK66P7AaQsoGABg&ved=0CCAQsAQ

​Interesting, because his name is often involved as an example what you achieve with this or that cam, no matter which brand or forum. :-)

Just saying (and keep the good stuff comin', Brandon)

​I had an old one. And I really like the colour rendition as much as my customers in the right conditions, allthough I am not an expert on this aspect (but I have seen a lot of really ugly pictures from other brands).

But you are right, should have written 'mobile phone' instead.

Regarding flares, that's nearly always a problem with 2.8 midrange zooms, even the modern 24-70 suffers occasionally to some degree. While I strongly rejected cheap, plastic midrange zooms with variable apertures (uuurg) for more than two decades, ironically I fall in love with the old 28-75 3,5-4,5 AFD last year.

Normally I prefer primes, but when I found a dusty copy of this little plastic gem I gave it a try just out of curiosity and was much surprised: Apart from it's price, weight and pocket size, this baby did a great daytime job shooting in and against the sun. Colour rendition and sharpness was not that bad on my D800, I had no problems selling a few prints for mags. For 50-70,- it's highly recommended, if you could live with a 'darkroom' (most of my daytime shots are around f=5,6 anyway). Manuell focussing on Nikon's AF(D) plastic autofocus lenses is not that great to be honest, but still much better than the modern G generation which didn't have any hard stoppers at all. It has a rotating front lens.

At least it's a phantastic backup for me as I like to shoot in hail, snow, rain, on stormy sand beaches and other dangerous places for expensive gear, where most people would be even recluctant just to walk outdoors.

AIS 35-70 / 3,5 (?) As an alternative, you could try one of these former pro all-manuel lenses.

(Btw, the F-mount is often classified as a disadvantage, but in my experience you will find enough vintage quality Nikkors for your needs, at least in the most important 28-100 mm range)

these were the very first guys I would hire, first because you could not find any better, second to stop working them for your competitor and that even for free

I hope it's true, they should have earned much more respect, imagine what they could have achieved if not old conservative managers in Tokyo holed up in their kamikaze approach to whom belongs the raw codec, the firmware and the mostly horrible UI

Take Nikon as an example - holly moly, what a mess alone with their own proprietary raw-encoder. Enjoy the D810, the world's most advantaged 36 mio jpg-only body, instead of worldclass working shareware, LOL

any risk? No, let people built their own firmware on their own risk and if they brick their bodies, it increases only your salaries by repairing it. :-)

excellente, merci

(and now some people could answer themselves why so many photographing mothers, ehm, very good feminin artists appeared in the last years)

all valuable thoughs and much more interesting than unsharp pics of electronic trash :-)

make a blog

share your thoughs, your problems with your cam, your solutions, _your_ unique personal experience and last not least the shots you really want to share.

Oh, I see you have just started allready in your last post? fine
 

Ok, of course I'm a joke, too.

Happy testing.

(PS: Regarding sharpness, I wasn't aware of this issue with the A7r, but since human thinking no Sony still cam could have competited with a Canikon, neither in functionallity, lowlight in equal resolution, autofocus nor colourscience, even if they shared the same sensor. No free lunch, unfortunately, as I like the A-series. BTW, still photogs should use the right tripod for the job, not the lightest one, if possible, but I got lost I think, so no hard feelings, keep on, I will end here )

a second source for trustful reviews of old Nikon stuff  is allways Björn Rörslett

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Mr Ken is right on this (btw, nearly all of his old stuff is astonishing reasonable), this was once an expensive pro lense.

of course it's getting a bit old now and not all of this antique glasses are in superb optical condition, but hey, there's no risk - you could allways sell it without loosing a fortune.

I did not shoot it, but my elder friends did in the days of slide films and the fact that my pics were better has nothing to do with this lense. :-)

C'mon, it's NOT April yet - comparing a six (6) year old 5d II with what? Oh yes, with an dubious adaptor. And it did not stop there, this guy could not even deliver sharp  pictures with a biiig tripod...

I have no doubt that the Samsung is an interesting product, but nonsense like this did not help to built up any reputation...

sry for the rant, but this is not a test, it's a joke ( politely formulated)

​no, I strongly disagree - and not that only Andre alone has this problem, it was even discussed in another forum before with no other solution or suggestion than changing the NLE.

A simple fade out to black could look really, really sh1tty, unbelievable bad with banding and colour shifts in all directions and yes, I have tried a lot of different codecs, too. 

It's Premiere, period.

At least on my system.

Or better said, it was PP for me - I'm really sick with this overrated piece of buggy **** which was contaminating my HDs.

At least, it's not me - you make me a very happy man, Andrew, a new dawn of time.

And this time it's not ironic. :-)

btw, the best way to improve your photography is to enjoy your work. And as allways in life, the better you could lie the better you get paid, no matter if stupid naive weddings or advertising needless stuff. Weddings were killing me slowly, everytime I saw these crazy ceremonies through my viewfinder, I would rather ask this people to think about the consequences.

Opinions might differ, that's fine, but if you need a beach, 1oo1 flowers, warm evening light, a 10 x 12' reflector, several flashlights, hairdressing & makeup to illustrate a so-called great moment, you are guaranteed doomed into stereotyped formalism

a lot of the most impressive shots from the last decades are technically astonishing easy (and could hav e been taken with an iphone, that's true)

​All true, but believe me - it's quite easy to earn your second cam with your skills, but it's gets only harder than. Enjoy the golden times :-)

As I said it's like show biz, it's difficult enough to land one really great hit, but staying on top for decades is a rare  phenomenon; most artists could only reach their own generation until they get lost and separated.

This why so many mediocre but clever photogs live from rich amateurs.

Good examples, Axel!

Regarding World Press Awards, at least over a third of this pics has been debunked in some way as, hmm, more 'inspirational journalism' instead of investigative. Apart from heavy photoshoping, false declared times/locations of the capture most of them just didn't show the correct topic, the context was simply wrong. 

But photography? More alive than ever.

"f8 and be there"? Gear and theoretical knowledge had been important in the past, nowadays a good eye and the right moment is often enough, as even iphones are much better as the average negative film of the 80's.

With such an unlimited abundance of great/adequate pictures in digital archives the fees for average photogs went down, that's true.

But this is show biz, guys, a career lasts only some years if you are not that great.

flickr.com most used cams: at least some 40 % mobile phones...

 

 the truth is the Canons offer a durability and reliability that Sony and Panny have yet to match (and even Nikon, though it would be closer).

--- the peace of mind that something really weird has to happen for the camera to fail on you.

Canon more reliable than Nikon?

an astonishing claim, and hard to believe for the semiprof models, period.

Canon has some advantages, skin colours for example, but never forget - Nikon win wars, Canon sport events and fashion shows.

it's impossible, don't you know?

Quirky,

you had one thing in common with Canon, but what's exactly  that is I will leave to you own conflusion

have a look here:

http://***URL removed***/articles/5579438583/see-impossible-canon-counts-down-to-something?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu

hint: last sentence.

and here's a link to pacific time

http://www.zeitzonen.de/pacific_standard_time_pst_-_usa.html

ups: it's not the last sentence, sry

:-)