SRV1981

3 hours ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

It's fine for outdoors stuff, but I found myself really wishing I had an extra stop of light pretty consistently indoors.

This makes sense - I was seeing the wide-ranging zoom as an all-purpose outdoor lens for travel, sports, etc. I'd worry the 17-70 may not have the reach for sports, general outdoor video.

But I will check the Tamron for sports. 

3 hours ago, Phil A said:

I'd rather sacrifice some range and have a smaller lens.

Fair point as well

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

constant f2.8 aperture.

That is good

I was thinking you could have the 18-_____ for all-purpose video and then use a 20-24 fast prime for low light and indoor shots?

Anyone have experience with mid-level zooms with good range?  Curious what a good EDC zoom would be for video/photo on ASP-C bodies for Sony.

On BH I'm seeing: 18-105 (f4), 18-135 (3.5-5.6)

17 minutes ago, kye said:

I think this entire line of thinking is a product of the online camera ecosystem - it is based on the idea that cameras can be evaluated separately to them being used.  It's designed to make you buy the latest stuff.

It makes as much sense as having forums devoted to discussing hammers, evaluating their shapes, the materials in the handle, the hardness of the metal, etc, but without talking about using them to build something.

Yea I get it. 
 

my brain was thinking - all things being equal, if you put the fx3 sensor in a an environment with the A7IV - which of the 2 would have 

1. better DR

2. more accurate color 

3. better ISO performance 
 

4. and which image do you prefer 

a blend of objective and subjective 

all things being equal  

Thanks guys. I guess I’m naive and assumed we could discuss what sensor produces a nicer image based on some data and experience. It seems for here, I’m wrong. Thanks anyway! 

1 hour ago, kye said:

You can respectfully disagree, but maybe there's a reason that no-one has done this yet....

Agree, they don’t know - which is okay. I was just curious as per the original question. I don’t understand the technical specs of images and know some folks here are so wanted to see if anyone has investigated the original question………….

1 minute ago, kye said:

There is no such thing as objectively better.

For polite discourse, I’m going to disagree respectfully. 
 

Does one sensor produce better highlights? Shadows? ISO performance? Color accuracy? Absolutely yes. 
 

Which one you prefer of the two is subjective. 
 

for example, I’ve always like Fuji and canon straight out of the box standard profiles due to more pink or magenta tones. 
 

I still have yet to see anyone answer which sensor has the better numbers for objective or their preference for sensor subjectively. 

30 minutes ago, kye said:

It's fun to talk about cameras and look at the specs, but asking which is "better" involves so many variables that the situation really matters.

So you don’t think there’s an objective answer as to which sensor produces a better image? They’re different sensors, same manufacturer so the image is similar but it’s *not* the same. And if it’s not the same, I feel there’s both subjective and objective information within which to decide what image is more pleasing.  From there it could be determined why some feel one sensor is producing a nicer image than the other. Not once, has this been addressed or answered.  Maybe nobody here has compared or considered this but im not sure anyone’s really answered the simple question. 
 

simple: which image is better (your view)

complex: why is it better

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
 

seems a7iv may have better DR in lower ISO and they’re even in higher 

7 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Is there an existing camera?  Sorry if I missed that.  If so, which is it?  That could also be useful to know.

I’m just generally curious and interested in the topic. Currently using an iPhone 14 and Ricoh GriiiX

may dip into mirrorless for video and so find the topic fascinating 

That may be it - camcorders have been replaced by phones 

Been wondering about this for years! Why not bring the sensor of modern mirrorless to camcorder bodies. 

57 minutes ago, independent said:

This is why the Canon R5c can test relative poorly in raw yet approach very close to 13 stops with some noise reduction applied (in camera) and downsampled from 8k, which Gerald showed this in his review.

Of course, dynamic range isn’t the same as highlight roll off, in which the R5c is better than the FX3/A7s3 because it allocates more stops in the highlights. But it comes at a cost of a lack of latitude in the shadows, like the Panasonic s5iix.

The sigma fp and red Komodo are the opposite, so you have to really protect the highlights. 

None of this really matters if you understand your camera and exposure strategy. 

The Sonys and Canon c70 are balanced in their latitude, which can be better for doc work and run & gun.
 

Thanks for the knowledge - so how would you advise someone considering a camera - video first photo second when the a7c2 sports the a7iv sensor and the zve1 sports the fx3 sensor? 

6 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

You could check the cined lab tests for both.  If you do, the a7 iv seems to have better DR (though much worse rolling shutter).

I’ll check, thanks! RS doesn’t affect me for what I do or care about and DR is more important to me. 
 

am I seeing better noise in A7iv sensor here?

2 hours ago, kye said:

I like to think about this in terms of "what shots can you get with one and not the other?"

So how do we go about answering this when comparing the a7iv sensor (a7c2) versus the fx3 sensor (a7s3/zve1)

6 hours ago, kye said:

In digital, highlights don't roll-off - they clip faster than a Ferrari without breaks.  The roll-off is applied as part of the processing that occurs after the image is read from the sensor.

In terms of DR, you have to find a source that has tested both with the same methodology.  Luckily, CineD is one such source:

https://www.cined.com/sony-a7-iv-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

https://www.cined.com/sony-a7s-iii-lab-test-does-it-live-up-to-the-hype/

 

Thanks it seems the A7iv has more viewable DR than fx3 due to A7iv being 7k and fx3 is 4k but has internal noise reduction that can’t be bypassed 

As title asks - which is better of the two? I can’t find good tests comparing. Many of the new bodies sport these two sensors so I’d be curious which one produces the superior image for video. 

On 3/4/2024 at 11:56 AM, philipd said:

I had a TM700, it was not all brilliant, fan noise was picked up by the mics, and the codecs were not great with quite a bit of compression artifacts noticeable, but was much better than most other options at that time.  The form factor though is definitely much better than using a photography camera for video.  I moved to a camera because they supported more formats, I wanted 4K but didn't want to drop back to 25P after 50P HD (in PAL land), and no camcorders in that sort of format supported 4K @ modern frame rates, and still don't.

Unfortunately there is no money in camcorders anymore for the likes of Sony or Panasonic to invest in the R&D to go into bringing anything new out in that form factor, the mobile phone killed them off.  The mobile phone has also killed off a lot of point and shoot cameras.

MarkusPix also loves small camcorders for all the reasons discussed here. 

 

 

Is that Ken? 

5 hours ago, kye said:

10-bit is always better than 8-bit, and 4:2:2 is always better than 4:2:0, but the question is if that difference is actually visible / meaningful.  If you're doing very little grading in post then 8-bit vs 10-bit and 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 probably doesn't have any visible or meaningful difference.

But I suggest doing a test.  Just find a bunch of scenes around the house (or not out of the way) and shoot the same composition in each mode and then just load them up side-by-side and look at them.  If the 8-bit 4:2:0 shot doesn't make your stomach turn then just go with it.

In the end, if you can lessen the impact or eliminate overheating, that you can lessen or eliminate the impact of running out of SD card space, then that means you can relax more while recording, you could shoot more, you can have extra time and energy and headspace that was previously devoted to worrying about or managing these things.  If you can have more headspace and be more relaxed while shooting then the way you use the camera, and the way that you behave while recording will be better.  If you behave better then what is in front of the camera might also be better.

So, realistically, the option is potentially of having a very slightly worse recording of potentially much better material.

This nails my thinking precisely but too amateur to articulate. I’m trying to find examples on YT and whatever I do find I see no difference between 8-10 unless you’re heavy grading log. So if you’re doing that then I can see overheating being a concern but if you’re not doing much grading shoot 8 bit with burned in LUT?

2 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

I don't know if this is universal, or just the cameras I've tested, but I've found that recording 8 bit produces blocky color artifacts that are visible even without log recording or color grading. See my example in the other thread, and note that the comparison is with roughly equivalent bitrate (In this particular example, the 10 bit file ended up slightly smaller but within a couple %).

 

What camera did you shoot? I don’t see really any difference 

Heard a discussion that if you’re filming and baking a LUT internally and aren’t going to do much grading (ie Davinci etc) in post, that internal recording 8bit won’t produce degradation compared to 10 bit. 
 

is this accurate? If so, does that mean filming the same clip in 4:2:0 would also not affect the final image? 
 

scenario would be to prevent overheating in smaller bodies, extend space on SD cards etc. 

thanks for any info 

17 hours ago, Chrille said:

Yeah, it's the size mainly. For fotos it's mainly kids and family, the idea for video is to shoot stuff that i can use later on in music videos, video essays or short films. So many things going on in the city that want to be archived for the future.

 

 

Have you considered a Ricoh gr3x

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

How very strange, a cage for the X100:

https://www.newsshooter.com/2024/02/23/smallrig-fujifilm-x100vi-retro-cage/ 

Looks cool seems odd

Interesting takes 

5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

The issue is, it’s all baked in and for many, this might be OK, but as a photographer, I would much rather shoot Jpeg + Raw

That’s fair but the thread is regarding x100vi and jpg is one of the main reasons this camera has been hyped. People buy it for travel and casual use - so the option to get film like images through emulations baked in is the main sell from my vantage point. 
 

still curious if Luts can be used on photos for Sony - if so, that would make it an easy decision 

this guy gets really nice jpgs on a Sony, which rivals Fuji emulations. 
 

curious if others have done this here and also if Sony allows LUT uploads to be baked into photos like they do for video. I know Panasonic does this. 

1 hour ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

For me, a 10-minute recording limit is absolutely fine for a pocket camera and 40 megapixels + 6k video offer a really nice upgrade over just using my iPhone.  If you want to shoot documentaries/interviews/etc, it’s probably not the best choice.  I’d just use other cameras for that (and maybe whip out this camera for BTS or similar).

As far as whether the newer Sony bodies would fit in a jacket pocket, I’m guessing they would - but the A6700 (specifically) is only 24 megapixels, has Sony UX and colors, and has no internal ND.  I shot Sony for a number of years when they were the only ones making viable full frame mirrorless, but I never really got to a point where they were any sort of a joy to use - it always just felt like using a hammer (a hammer with cruddy menus at that - though I’m told they’re somewhat better now).  

I still have my old ZV-1 (and maybe an RX100V?) - and one of the reasons I never really considered any of the newer models is that Sony got rid of the internal ND.  For a pocket/carry-around video camera, internal ND is pretty huge.

(And I’m glad it has f-log!)

Fair rebuttal. Thanks!  I’ll stick with the Ricoh for a bit but these are valid takes.  I’m just greedy 🙂 would love Fuji simulations with Sony AF and longer record times in the same size form factor! Heat dissipation has been discussed ad nauseam here so I know im Not alone wanting this and thinking it’s feasible.