SRV1981

48 minutes ago, markr041 said:

It is too bad you cannot yet have big sensors, high bitrates, high resolution, high frame frame rates from a tiny camera with no fan and not have heat issues.

Agree 100%. 

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

this camera might shut down after 20 minutes.

Is there evidence of this? Also curious what similar sizes apsc body cameras record 4k60 and how long until they overheat?

1 hour ago, FHDcrew said:

60% of the YouTube camera space has become a giant ad.

I’ll take it. I get free access to what cameras look like and do without having to read it online I can see it. 

13 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

ethics

Not sure it’s about ethics - at all. It’s profit. Want all day video? Buy an fx30/fx3/fx6. 
 

Want a hybrid ? Buy an a7iv/a6700/a7C 

5 years ago I’d be in shock to have these options and quality 

7 hours ago, barefoot_dp said:

why has no other company done it yet?

This

in fact I’d be happy getting the a6700 for hybrid use and if demands dictate more - grab a used fx30 for long form video. Best AF in the game, best DR at price points, best log profile at price point, easy single lens mount with cheap 3rd party options. 
 

as a non-paid user of these products I’m very happy with this

My mind is a little blown about people upset about overheating/heat dissipation. 
 

im not an engineer - are you guys? Can someone explain why these companies put out cameras that can overheat? 
 

I’d assume that their customers mostly don’t shoot continuous for that long at 4k - especially when they sell cameras for that (fx30/fx3/c70/r5c). 
 

Seems like a great deal and we’re the winners.  You’re ant hybrid affordable?

xs20

r7

r8

a6700

im happy to stress over these choices 

1 hour ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

Of course Sony could not deliver everything at once - front dial is there, but no joystick on the back. Ok, since their AF is so reliable, you could always go for tracking and recompose, but a miss anyways.

$100 more than a X-S20 (which I guess it is its primary competition). Better in some ways, wors in others.

- Back LCD: VERY bad, 1.0 million dots, compared to the 1.8 million of the X-S20. Fuji wins
- EVF: both have (probably the same panel) 2.36 mp. The magnification is better on Sony, 0.7x against 0.62 on Fuji. Sony wins.
- IBIS: 7 stops on Fuji, 5 on Sony. But all these must be seen in real world. Both are usually bad for video.
- Weather sealing: Sony have (even a light one), Fuji not.
- As stated, Fuji have joystick, Sony not (only the LCD trackpad). 
- Video modes: 6.2k open gate on Fuji, not open gate AFAIK on Sony. The bitrates are higher on Fuji too, 4k until 360mbps, 100 mbps on Sony - albeit dunno if there is a huge difference on quality. Since is the same quality of the other Sonys, probably not.
- SD card slot on the side for the Sony: always a plus.
 

Looking good for Fuji, my X-S20 is on the way, but...this one is the 1st tempting Sony for me. 

First, a personal reason: I prefer "rangerfinder" bodies for not-being-noted reasons. Second: because Sony already have a AF mode perfect for me, that ONLY Fujifilm does not have for video: have a single AF point on the frame, half press, track the subject. No more worries tracking a person in frame, with a lot of people behind.

Ths X-S20 have (kinda of a lot) things better in my opinion: open gate, Film Simulation for stills, AF joystick, maybe a better IBIS (some user reports are saying that is much better for video now). But the video AF in the Fujis is currently my worse problem - and looks like that a general tracking in video will never be implemented.

And there are some user reportings emerging about overheating in video with the X-S20. Will test when mine arrives.

But reliable AF in a rangefinder body is starting to make me thinking about Sony.

AF is such a basic necessity on these cameras I sold my Fuji. I I’ll never return till AF is as good - not nearly as good - as Sony and canon. Not even a question. 

27 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

Looks like an absolute beast. He doesn't list a price here, but he says it's "significantly less money" than the FX30. I may need to pick one up as a C cam.

1,398 USD

41 minutes ago, kye said:

It's a pity everyone wanted more pixels instead of better pixels.

This! I’ve said it in a few posts. The market is pushing for more megapixels, etc. and I’d rather have 1080p with the image quality seen in that film. The colors just really drew me into the story. I saw a few modern movies after yesterday and was just like wow that’s digital looking. 

From Sony rumors:

Allegedly this is a sheet from a Sony A6700 presentation in Asia. If true (and I have no clue if it’s true) this would confirm previous rumors:

26MP Exmor R APS-C sensor

6k30 4k120p

3,69 million dot EVF

All we know for sure is that the new High End APS-C camera will be announced next week on July 12!

watched this today but in way better quality.  
 

The color and DR was insane. I’ve never seen a digital look this good. It was so amazing to watch. 

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/wild-rumor-a6700-will-have-focus-stacking-in-camera/

9 hours ago, kye said:

Did you watch it?  Is it a good interview?

There's heaps of content on Joker around online - I think they did a bunch of it as PR.

Here's an interview of The Joker colourist Jill Bogdanowicz by Cullen Kelly who is a professional colourist:

I highly recommend Cullens YT channel BTW.  He's a real working pro and the more of his videos I watch the more embarrassed I get for the other YouTubers that pretend to be colourists.

Yes good interview interesting anecdotes etc and advice.  

The game of thrones vibe is great.  I feel like they’re saying “let us gingerly touch tips”

49 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

 

Exactly the opposite you want for sport.... shallow DoF is key as most of the background is quite distracting.... you would probably not see any pro sport shooter with m4/3...

A couple of examples from today, 8k RAW 60fps 300 2.8 1/2000, imagine these at 150 5.6 they would not pop..... 







At the end if you want large DoF and portable why not use a phone? But if you want photo and video that pop a R8 or similar + EF adapte + used EF 70-200 2.8

Btw the new helmet AF of the new R5c firmware is really good, not perfect but really good.

 

How about R7?

5 hours ago, gt3rs said:

The above I posted especially as is a 4k one, so a R8 at 4k 60fps + a used ef 70-200 2.8 you would get a close enough photo out of the video as mine.

Unfortunately sports = large lenses… 

Yea I was considering the R7 and fx30. As long as you can print 8x10 that’s more than enough for personal use. 
 

may wait for a7c2 and a6700. The canon color SOOC is currently better than Sony 

1 hour ago, gt3rs said:

Mostly R5 and R5c. 

This one is from 2 days ago: R5c 4k 120fps 1/2000 F2.8 and the AF can keep up. AF tracking is quite good in video even for sport, challenging is the initial acquisition but for track and field it should not be a big issue

This is it! Unfortunately the price of those systems is a little high for me but more so the size of the bodies/system isn’t compact enough for my needs.  
 

the image looks stellar though!

6 hours ago, gt3rs said:

For track and field, if you shoot laterally by either tracking eg. gimbal moving in parallel or from a fix point by panning the sense of speed will be very different depending of frame rate and shutter speed.

24fps 1/50 will look like they go much quicker than 60fps 1/120 or look even slower at 60fps 1/500. Even when taking photo only panning laterally  you would always want to have some slow shutter speed so 60fps 1/120 will yield good pictures.

Now if they run towards you and your camera is not really moving eg. tripod or handheld, it will not matter that much if is 24fps 1/50 or 60fps 1/500 in term of sense of speed. But for photo grabbing 1/250 or above would be required. 

So instead of sticking with the 180 rule I change the shutter speed based on the position and movements and again if the prio is photo or video or both.

Some examples of my video grabs:

Slow shutter 180 rule

The below one works as the camera is moving (tracking bike) at the same speed as the athlete, if the camera would be fixed it would be impossible to get a picture out

 

 

High shutter speed 1/500 and above

For me 4k would be too low as I crop quite a bit and also take vertical photos out of horizontal video. If you would do it a lot to take pictures out a 6k or above would be better in my opinion. 

Some amazing images!  What camera(s) were used for this?  

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

That's my opinion also though my experience with this so far is waaaaay less extensive than yours. Some really great stuff I wouldn't know were frame grabs!

I can't really see a future when I WILL be doing this all the time.

I was going to flip to the Z9 (and a Z8) and do this partially, but have held off, sticking with L Mount, but definitely waiting on that next gen 6k...and I really hope they go for a highly developed 6 and not a limited 8k approach.

The photographer in me would be kind of sad to go this route, but at the same time, from a workflow and a whole load of other logistical and creative perspectives, it makes utter sense.

Agree about eventually getting to a point where workflow is just using video for photos for a lot of use!  Are there are any small body cameras that can shoot 6k+?  I'm going to wait for the A7CII and A6700 to see what they can offer.  A small body that can take excellent video internally with little to no grading SOOC is my goal. I tried the XT5 but the AF was too erratic.

4k = 8.2 mp. Seems you can print a decent size for personal use!?

2 hours ago, kye said:

In terms of assessing the maximum size for printing, that's another whole debate, but a way to test it is to pull the image up on a 4K display, and then zoom in to the image until you start seeing the video compression artefacts, then reduce the size down a bit, and then measure how large the image would be if you printed it that large.

Remember also that the larger you print an image the further back you will tend to view it from.

A friend of mine won a certificate and got one of those canvas prints about 2' x 2' across.  She sent in an early iPhone photo that was a close-up of one of her kids faces (it was a lovely photo) and the printing place said it wasn't "high enough quality" (read: not enough megapixels) and she had to insist they print it.  She hung it high up on their photo wall and due to how the furniture was arranged you could see it throughout their open-plan living/dining/kitchen area, but you wouldn't have looked at it from closer than about 5' away, and even then you'd be looking up at it significantly.

It looked great.  

Had it been taken with a high megapixel camera would it have been sharper? Sure.  Would she have ever been able to afford a high megapixel camera?  No.  Would you ever take that kind of photo with a "real" camera?  Unlikely.

This is kinda my question ! 
 

for your personal life - do you need high MP cameras if you’re not heavily grading or cropping?  
 

if you take video at 4k60p with shutter speed of 1/500 or 1/1000 sure the video may not look “cinematic” but if it’s purely for action and you’re using it to grab stills from and make 2x3’ prints for your wall or a photo album/book for coffee table and social media, does it matter? 
 

if we’re at a point where I can invest in a great video centric camera and grab still frames for my photos that would be the ultimate workflow. 

7 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

 

Seems like breaking 180 rule may help to grab photos from action on video?

19 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

It can cause unnatural looking motion to your video. 

Are you familiar if any videos showing comparisons between shutter speeds for video above the 180 rule?

12 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

It would help knowing what type of action/sports you plan to shoot and the type of shoot eg tripod, gimbal, mounted camera, fix camera, etc.

 

Say track and field - handheld (with IBIS?) 

3 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

It's not so much the frame rate that is the issue, it's the shutter speed. If you don't mind video that has motion that is a little off you can shoot at a higher shutter speed and get better results. But if you're trying to stick to the 180 degree shutter rule for video you're going to get motion blur during action shots. There's not a ton you can do to get around that. 

Is there a downside bumping the shutter speed up?