Wulf

Perhaps it's mainly a question of the light source?

Unnatural lights (with flawed spectrum, like LEDs) = unnatural look?

All what we see is a reflection and if the light source has large gaps in its spectrum, we could not exspect 'true' colours in all finest nuances.

Have you ever taken a still shot in a scene illuminated by these yellow street laterns? Yeah, it really sucks - the only way to achieve a more pleasant, 'natural' look was to lighten the whole scene with some flashlights...

Reasonable arguments.

In practice, however, there is a simple reason why I would like to stay fullframe for ever  - I'm socialized with 24x36 since decades and as a wideangle prime lover, a 20 mm is not only a focal length nor an angle of view, but a special look of exactly that old glas. Allthough I like to keep my gear simple and small, I regulary found use for three totally different 20 mm lenses, for example a modern rectalinear zoom for straight lines (architecture, some landscapes), an old prime with a lot of moustache distorsion that IS GREAT for shooting people and sometimes a 16 mm fish with an 1.4 extender and an extension ring for some special closeups...

Of course the same could achieved with a speedbooster and Super35 might be the future as bigger sensors are disproportionally expensive. But 4/3 is obviously a nogo.

Regarding shallow DOF, I would agree on using it sparingly - more like an effect. It could be a great tool for portraits in special moments; IIRC both in 'Private Ryan' and in 'Gladiator' for example the DOP chooses to isolate the protagonist for a single short shot in the opening sequence(s). But all this shots are mostly done by at least f=4 and by having a greater distance to the now blurry background, so in short it's for me mostly a question of composition - remove all non-essential stuff out of the frame with an ultra shallow DOF as last resort...  :-)

tusoli, dahlfors - could not agree more. For me it's not the resolution alone, it's this insane DR.

I stopped shooting analogue film the day I got the D800.

 

So why do you think the D800 sells for less than the Canon 5d mk III?  The market doesn't seem to think it is worth more. 

the body was allways cheaper as the canon; I think it's a mixed calculation - they hope to sell some lenses as well... :-)

 I didn't spend much time trying to fix it to make a point: Sony color science is a challenge (have the same issue with the FS700). The A7S is a useful tool despite the issues- I'll spend time figuring out how to work around them (something I wouldn't need to do with Canon).

 

 

 

Weird skintones... obviously not only an issue, but a very emotional too: Nobody wants to sit hours after hours desperately trying to fix stuff like this... :-)

Sry again for my harsh words, JCS, but I was really shocked at first look! Thx for the warning, the picture illustrates your point perfectly (unfortunetly, one might add).

Perhaps I was a little biased by the a7s review of the camera store, fimed with the GH4  - here it's vice versa, the Pany looked very unnatural in comparision to the footage of the a7s. On the other hand, we are seeing even very unpleasent still pics every day out of canikons too, so as allways in life every detail needs a bit love...

 

A7S with Metabones v4 adapter and Canon 50mm F1.4 @ F1.4, ISO 6400, picture profile 1 (+ post CC)

 

The A7S really shines in low light (kind of like having Neat Video built into the camera). The GH4 with a very fast lens isn't too shabby, and cleans up well with Neat Video. I still prefer the GH4 color science, though I am still experimenting with the A7S settings (seeing too much green/yellow in skin tones).

 

everyone who's not colourblind would agree about the green and yellow in her face - but sry to ask, wft was this for a lightening situation?

your gh4 slomo looked really great, w/ doubt, but this pic just sucks ... no hard feelings please, but I really think you could do much better. :-)

More slow motion videos are required for proper analysis…. you know, for science.

yeah

Yeah, it was really hard to keep the colors from posterizing.  Maybe there's a trick to keeping stuff natural looking when re-saturating 8-bit log footage...

 

Of course, the easy way out is to keep the log look to the footage, maybe tinting it overall warm or teal, but I think that trend is getting a little stale. And it works best for bleak subject matter...I think most brides would shoot their wedding videographer if they received an ultraflat grade as the final product.

 

So the sweet spot with the A7s is probably a mixture of picture styles and S-Log, depending on subject matter.

I'm NOT an expert in grading movies, but if I had to fight this is photoshop, I would just try to add another complete desaturated black/white level (via 'calculations'), quite subtle around 15-25 % ... and mainly in the shadows.

But your 5D in raw rocks more...

Probably you are absolutely right by involving picture styles - often I'm wondering what's the reason to shot everything ultraflat. Even with 14 bit raw stills, it proves to be really difficult in photoshop to create a acceptable, natural look other than the actual light situation during the shoot. I found it's much easier to wait until conditions are better... :-) or at least as you said trying to optimize the shot as much as possible in cam, especially with 8 bit footage.

Here's my grade of the Arizona Falls footage (thanks to W. Ashley Maddox).  Tried to make it saturated to see how the color holds up.

while the pastel colours would not really represent my favoured look  :-) , you (and the cam) did both a great job in my eyes.

Allthough not just on a level like a canikon still shot, it's more than acceptable from a dedicated lowlight body. thy for sharing

I think these tests are fake anyway. If you look at them all, they seem to be shot with the same two cameras.

 

exactly my thoughts

forget about this tests in the internet, guys

thx for sharing your work!

some of the very best out of a nikon yet! so it is possible

What's weird is... Panasonic is also a Japanese company. But they seem to have no problem embracing video.

they had no problem embracing stills - Panasonic has a long tradition in broadcast

You do know it  will cause a painful loss when you swicth from one brand to another,right?

Why?

There are just tools, not a religion (well, for some of us it is :-))

Let's hope it was not really a prof colour gradist... :-)

a complete satisfied customer is a lost customer - you wouldn't see him again

technically, all of the big ones could have built the ultimate film+foto body long ago, but their main interest is to lure us in another investions again and again

some of the shoots looking f' gorgious, really 3D like.

Whatever you are doing there, you have the right eye for proportions

Looks very nice. Sony is back! If possible, I would like to avoide shooting in raw... :-)

For several years during the DSLR-boom, there was no need for real progress in sensor technology - customers were happy with all this plastic bodies and the money flows.

Two years advantage is a long time nowadays, so I'm not that surprised that Sony came back when compared with the DSLRs of the last generation.

At least Sony has done it once before - they invented the D3 sensor and rescued Nikon btw.

fav: Gitzo tripods

least fav: everything from Manfrotto

They will listen and will react, but only if you are moving away.

Historically, C and N had made most of their money with cheap plastic bodies. No real innovation? Even better, as long as the people during the DSLR boom were running for overaged technology, there was no need for expensive - and maybe risky -  innovation. It was a winning team. Sensor and chip producing is about quantity, mass production, 'quantity even having its own quality', to paraphrase Stalin. Run as long the casting moulds will allow to form the plastic and if worn out, make a relaunch of the same stuff with a slightly different design. A lot of, maybe even most of the customers would even never ever chance their kit lense...

For a good reason, because a lot of them would not distinguish the difference between bad and good glass, at least not in their own pictures with the artificial boosted oversaturation. 

How many really good photogs did you know? :-)

As said, most people never ever even touch the movie recording button.

How many Cine Cams did C sell in comparsion? Did you know one personally who own one? Why not?

An expensive tool, and if not needed everyday it's better to rent one. What profs would do.

Art is expression.

Don't tell me you can't communicate with your D5H4  or whatever.

It's not the gear nowadays.Look at the sh1t quality of tv. Not even full HD. And thanks God that is the standard. 

YOU see the difference, but not your customer if you could make him proud with your footage.

It's all about emotion, the story you want to tell.

Yes, a certain camera brand is like a love affair... Yeah, I know: the endless hours, the experience,  the hard work, to get exactly this look. The search for a lense which could transport exactly that feeling. And oh, why they did not hear me?

Get rich of it, if she/he don't listen. The only lingo they understand is money. They are stupid, ugly ****  - they did not deserve you.

If you really need a cine cam today, rent one. Or steal one. To expensive, to dangerous? Then you did not need one probably.

In history, film has always been one of the very most innovative trades. Like war.

The innovation must come from you, not out of the box.

If you don't make it now, it would not happen. You want this fcking cinecam? Earn it.

Rent them first!

after all, only _you_ could decide which fits your need. After a weekend shooting both you will be much wiser. As you said, money is not an issue.

maybe it's half strategically, Bob, and half the necessary pricedrop by massproduction of sensors...

A fullframe sensor is very very expensive if only built in small quantities, you would never ever be able for any competition.

Canon/Nikon make the most money with cheap plastic bodies, not with (semi-)prof. Dxxx III's. But sometimes you need a superb product just for reputation. Take for example Nikon: Technically they were nearly dead, kaput, finished in 2008 - and rescued only by the miracle of the D3 sensor (which Sony build). Allthough only few D3 were delivered in comparision, the mass market react positivly.

Most customers still imagine 'quality = DSLR', no matter how useless the mirror indeed is for their needs or how much the product is in reality overdated. So, Canikon dictate the DSLR-market and Sony's own DSLR adventures have never meet their expectations in selling turns, but only providing their sensors for Nikon.

a mirrorless body is cheaper to produce nowadays then a prism, but people are still reluctant to invest in high end mirrorless systems; Sony can't go much higher with the price.

If we assume mirrorless is the future, than one could assume too Sony wanting to become a big player in this market just at the beginning.

And in the end, it's of course not only the body - you are investing in lenses, flashlights and so on.