Bob Wall

Thanks!!  I shot about 15 min. after sunset which left enough "glow".  There were also some lights from the house next door and my outdoor light was on.  The video was not bad but it had too much noise - the stuff I saw from Philllip Bloom made my buy this camera and now I see just noise in my video that I do not see in his....  I'll get the right card and try again!

You are probably underexposing. 

It's old news - F35's have been going at that price point for several years. 

I used one (A Genesis, actually) on a film, and indeed, it was a great image.  Many of the films and television shows that I love the most from a pure image aspect are shot on F35.  F35 color has always impressed me more than any other camera, for whatever reasons. 

That said, I have almost zero interest in owning one, even if it was free.  My own work involves travel and moving around shooting B roll and interviews, with little or no help.  Have you ever carried a kitted F35?  It's not light, and it's not small.  I'm not willing to get a superior image by sacrificing my back to the degree that an F35 would require.  My clients wouldn't care either.  I suppose if you had a studio and did a lot of work in one place, it might be attractive, or if you had a crew.  Accessories for the F35 aren't super cheap or common either, so unless you're buying a kitted package, beware the actual price.  

Things like this are going to happen more and more often as hardware becomes more generalized and the firmware and software that runs them becomes more specialized.  Stuff like this obviously happens in the computer realm every day and has for decades, camera makers just aren't used to being hacked because they are so specialized in function.  I don't think it's unethical for Sony to disable features, in fact I think it's probably really common.  They shouldn't be surprised that this happened though.

Philip says that he's sure it would be shut down in the next firmware update...but wouldn't that firmware update have to offer something useful to make people apply it?  If I was an f5 owner, I'd be sitting there thinking that this hack, with current firmware was extremely valuable - to make me apply a new version, that new version would have to offer something at least as valuable.  Otherwise I'd stay on the same firmware forever - because the camera works perfectly well right now. 

That looks very good - those interiors would be incredibly challenging to shoot for any camera at any price. 

Interesting post from Squigs over at DVXUSER.  He has a great reputation and I have read a lot of his posts and seen his videos from both raw and a7s.

 

After 3 weeks of testing I think the A7s is best suited as a b-cam for the 5D MK3 raw. The biggest issue is the 8bit S-log files (including prores), there's not much info there and it's a lot harder to get a solid image in post (this may change when new LUTs come out). The A7s is very good in high contrast scenes (as long as you can avoid the highlight aliasing) and it does have a bit more dynamic range than the MK3. Beyond 3200 ISO the A7s has the edge but for everything else I think the MK3 is a better camera. There's nothing about the A7s that makes it worth giving up the versatility and quality of a digital negative which you can manipulate as much as you want in post. There's just too many compromises with the A7s, it's just not good enough to give up raw and go backwards. I hope somebody does a raw hack on the A7s but until then I'll just use it for production stills and for low light scenes. Having said that I've been known to change my mind on occasion 

 

Guess I am keeping my 5d3 and working on some new glass now :)

I wouldn't base your purchases on one person's findings.  Reading that thread, actually I found Squig's findings to be questionable - he still never posted a single clip or still where he got acceptable colors, and yet many other people have; it may be that his aesthetic is peculiar.  Anyway, can't make decisions based on these forums.

I don't really understand this argument, at least as it relates to the camera itself.  All of these clips that are being posted are going through very heavy LUT's and grading, with what would usually be considered VERY stylistic color correction.  It's a choice being made by the posters in some cases because they are seeing how far they can push it and in other cases for whatever aesthetic.  Look at Ed's other work - it's not like he doesn't KNOW how to make something look not hipster or teal/orange; that some of his A7s videos are that way are a choice he's making with that particular video.  I don't see how it really reflects on how the camera's "color science." 

Of all those examples above, the only one I like much is the darwinfish mitakon which really doesn't look all that desaturated to me, and maybe the first video which is pretty nice. 

Anyway, it would be nice to see some videos that aren't going through a LUT, that ARE showing the default color in a mode that most users will be using.  I'm not going to spend 10 minutes color correcting every single clip for my own work - I want something that works and looks acceptable with minimal fuss.  For me on Canon DSLR's that was the FilmPS picture profile.  I don't shoot for masterbatory purposes, I shoot to support my family and pay my mortgage and save for retirement.  Whatever gets the job done and makes both the client and me happy.  This camera looks like a great day to day shooter covering a WIDE variety of lighting situations with increased sharpness over Canon DSLRs and lighter weight and lens flexibility.  Most of the "test" videos so far though aren't exploring that aspect; I think this is because people are still feeling it out. 

Still having a problem with the Sony full frame lens options.  The prices are out of whack.

 

Lens Nikkor AF-S 50mm f1.8G
Full Frame Equivalent 50
Price $199.95
DXOMark 30
DXOMark Resolution 16MP
DXOMark Transmission 2
DXOMark Distortion 0.40%
DXOMark Vignetting -1.7 EV
DXOMark Chromatic Aberation 8um

 

 

Lens Sony FE Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm F1.8 ZA
Full Frame Equivalent 55
Price $1,000
DXOMark 42
DXOMark Resolution 29MP
DXOMark Transmission 1.8
DXOMark Distortion 0.40%
DXOMark Vignetting -1.6 EV
DXOMark Chromatic Aberation 9um

 

 

Five times more for the Sony lens.

 

Michael

Look at the Canon 24-70 f4 IS - $1500 and Sony has their equivalent at $1200.  They are pricing around the market.

What's suppose to change with the internal 1080p in 2 months?

Nothing, he's just saying that a 4k option will then be widely available.

Thank you.

 

Maybe an alternate characterization is in order:

 

Is the speed difference between those two lens-types largely rendered immaterial, in the majority of practical lower-light environments, given the A7s' sensitivity?

Get the 70-200 2.8 IS and then you have both (for that range). 

Also, Sony has a native wide (16-35) that will have OSS announced next month.

unfortunately you usually get what you pay for with fluid heads and tripods.  500AH is a very low end head and you can't expect miracles from it.  That said, I've used some cheaper (fancier 717) and gotten ok results.  But if very slow controlled (by hand) I would look to higher end fluid heads with a lot more mass and better fluid action.  I use a cartoni focus, which I would say is "good" for the money but I don't know that it's the best head in it's price range.

Indeed.  I just finished a production for a client who entertained the notion that his quad flying shots were appropriate for his film.  It was incredibly difficult to diplomatically try to inform him how to fly his toy.

 

Ultimately, he just liked to fly the damn thing high to the point where the landscape basically looked nondescript/static and then he would just pan and tilt the camera around randomly.  Augh.  

 

Some people would rather hang a painting of Kincaid in the house than a Wyeth.

 

I just had to accept it.  Lots of folks just don't get it.  Their subjectivity skews

 

toward tacky.  With flying shots it's typically low, slow, and in a straight line.  It's really that simple.

True dat. 

I just finished a piece using the same setup Philip has there - most of the shots I ended up using were less than 20 ft off the deck.

This is a lot cheaper than it is in the US when you factor in the adapter...

Can someone explain to me the creative benefit of the low light performance of this camera?

 

I'm a bit curious, as all I can work out that it would benefit me would be if I wanted to film at night a well lit scene, but had no lights. Then I could just make it look well lit. Which is really awesome! But that's the only benefit I can work out at the moment...?

Sure.  Usually you're balancing DOF (aperture) and ISO to get a properly exposed shot (in all light conditions).  With this camera the only consideration the aperture, not the ISO, as it's usable to a much higher number than any other camera.  So when composing in poorly lit scenes, you're thinking only about what sort of DOF you want, and you don't have to be wide open any more.  See the scenes out the car and several other here; clearly he's stopped down and getting considerable DOF, which wouldn't be possible with most other large sensor cameras, and small sensor cameras wouldn't be properly exposed with these levels of light (or very very noisy):

Dynamic range is generally high for this camera, so we're having to make fewer choices about what to lose, highlights or shadows.  The image is more detailed, than, say Canon DSLR (it's direct competitor).  It has a full frame sensor and reads the entire sensor, which is a first for a full frame.  It has a proper aps-c function built in, multiplying the apparent number of focal lengths you have with you.  It has the ability to do 120fps at what appears to be a pretty sharp 720p.  It's half the weight of a canon full frame DSLR. 

If you can't figure out what to do those things creatively to increase the quality of the work you're outputting, you might consider a different line of work.

That's exactly what I thought. And I will *try* to put my finger on it, and it's true for every Sony A7 low light test I've seen (well, in fact this is only the third ;) ): It looks videoish.

 

The second one being 'In darkness' (the girl with the lantern on the beach), the first this one (A7R though):

 

To make one point clear: I'm all for video when compared to a forced 'filmlook' and 'cinematic cadence' and all that. So let me stress that this all boils down to personal taste.

 

But that's obviously not Blooms taste. 

 

 

Maybe, but I doubt so. 

 

By the way, if you liked to see the footage graded, that's what Bloom said how he treated the footage:

 

 

And what we look at are the remains of 4k downscaled?

 

And: I don't know what device Bloom uses to monitor his grading efforts, but more often than not I feel that the blacks are washed out. This also was the case with his 13 Stops Down The Canals Of Venice. Also sometimes there seems to be too much noise in the image to be ISO noise. Can it be that this is Film Converts film grain at work, not surviving Vimeo compression unblessed?

 

I know, I seem to be party pooper again, but I don't want to be. 

That clip is from an A7R.  Different camera, different sensor.  - Oh, I see you noted that. 

Thanks.  Also Jonesy, remember that with the exception of the FS100 and 700, all of the cameras that can take a speedbooster, whether s35, m4/3, whatever, are stills cameras.  The speedbooster has slow autofocus transmission to the body, so if you're a pro photographer, you're going to opt for the full frame, native lens mount every time so as to be able to actually use your autofocus quickly. 

That said, I did think it was quite interesting that it was pointed out that the speedbooster DOES work on the A7s in crop mode, opening up some interesting possibiliites in lens choice. 

You asked if you were missing something - ya, you are.  You're pointing out that speedboosters are great, basically, and you're absolutely right, they are.  They've only been commonly available (although an old design) in the last year or 2 though, so it's a very new thing.

But what you're missing is that to use a speedbooster, you have to have a lens mount that can take the speedbooster adapter on the camera.  So this excludes all EF mounts.  This excludes several other common mounts.  If you've got an E mount s35 camera, then all the points you're making are of course true.  But as far as I know, there are no other s35 cameras that can take a speedbooster (probably there are and I'm forgetting them.

You were making a point about fullframe vs crop, so as far as I know, s35 is the only sensor size that can be boosted to full frame.  M4/3 are out.

IF you're willing to spend the dough to take the FS700 up to what it can really achieve - that means upgrading the firmware, buying a 7Q, and the media and codecs, buying a speedbooster for it, shooting RAW 4k (or 2K) on it and spending the time to process the image, it really is a killer killer camera with amazing versatility and quality for the price and there really isn't anything comparable (continuous 2k 240p RAW) at the price point (I think about $12k or a bit under after you factor in the 7Q media, etc.)

For me it's more than I want to spend and a fairly big package - I'm willing to lose quality and versatility to have a smaller camera.  But if you covet an F5, it's getting very very close for much less money. 

Because few people (at least the type that read this forum)  want to haul around a (fully kitted) 30lb package that requires active cooling?

It gets used anytime the amount of light coming into the lens is greater than the ISO and aperture you want to be at.

It's also shot at 60i.

Looking forward to seeing your cat.

Dunno about the head - it would be cool to have an ultralightweight leveling head though...nobody really makes one that I can find. 

The miller legs are waaaay better than that - they are well suited to war zones.  But they are a touch heavier, and look silly with a small head on them (I have a 100mm flat adapter bowl, you can get a 75mm one too).  I need to keep looking - obviously I'm still in love with the miller legs - there's nothing on the market that's quite as good in my opinion - go from 6 in to more than 6 ft, light, strong, and you can even take them apart to fit into a carry on.  But sometimes I don't even bother with the tripod just because I can't be bothered with the weight.  Which ain't good.

I have a miller vj carbon with a cartoni head.  I love the legs but hate the weight of the head.  I too am interested in finding something lighter - I think I was looking at a mefoto then putting a manfroto leveling base on it, and then an inexpensive fluid head like a fancier 717 (which performs better than the light manfrottos). 

To be sure, my miller has a 100mm ball and so the heads aren't going to be too light - I do have a 75mm adapter ring.  I wonder what the very lightest *good* 75mm (or 100mm) ball fluid head is.   The miller legs are very very good and I imagine my legs (which can support a huge amount of weight and are very versatile) are about the same weight as a lightweight setup - it's just the head that drags me down.

What is this "Built-in IS function" ?

It's just saying that IS will function on the lens.