MdB
-
Posts
173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by MdB
-
-
53 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:
The X1D to me almost feels like its in the same ballpark as that snakeskin covered monstrosity that Robert posted when it comes to being considered a real Hasselblad.
Its like they've looked at what Leica did with the T (which was a radical departure for them) and thought "Yeah, lets get hip and down with the kids like they seem to be doing".
Its ended up being like someone's Dad thinking about how old their Dad looked at 50 and putting a pair of skinny jeans on and getting a tattoo.
Sometimes, its not only appropriate to just be your Dad but its also actually better.
Completely disagree, the X1D is a perfect example of how these things aren’t immediate and instant for a company with no experience in a particular market.
Its like the constant pundits who think that because Canon make great DSLRs they’ll make great mirrorless cameras right off the bat, first go.
They simply don’t. Nobody has. Not one company. Leica probably got closest with the SL, but that probably came with a lot of experience from Panasonic.
The X1D is a very interesting product and another generation or two and it will be a really serious contender.
-
3 hours ago, newfoundmass said:
I dislike the Sony a6xxx ergonomics, so yes, the M50's ergonomics are better in my opinion.
Not sure disliking the Sony makes the M50 better. Have you used the M50? It’s worse than anything I’ve ever used, by a long, long way. I’ve used most of the Sony’s at one point or another and they are WAY better. Canon automatically having better ergonomics is total BS, repeated as a trope or discussion point from those with nothing to contribute.
2 hours ago, mercer said:Well, a $600 camera shouldn’t compare with the 1DC... I’d be kinda pissed if it did if I were a 1DC owner.
But to your larger point, I don’t know if it’s nostalgia, but I’ve always been fond of the soft (mushy) 1080p from the t2i and other earlier Canon offerings.
As long as you rely on close ups and don’t throw the widest lens in the world on it (like most videographers tend to do) it’s really quite flattering.
Look at Kendy Ty’s stuff. In my opinion his work took a visual hit when he abandoned his t2i for the a6300.
With that being said, point noted and appreciated. Every bit of info helps.
Well the 1DC is how old now? It was the first 4K DSLR. It’s 1080p surely could have trickled down by now, especially as the M50 actually represents their best current 1080p outside of a C series.
Well if that’s the case I think you’ll love the M50. Honestly to my eye it’s one of the only Canon’s not to have unusable 1080p. Which is such a shame as their really good cameras have a really good image. They just don’t do much in the entry level. M50 is a step in the right direction.
Couple other (hopefully) interesting observations:
M50 is the first non-camcorder to use a compressed H.264 codec for their 4K. The XF400 also does similar and from a similar era. This is probably the single biggest leap, really if the 5D IV did this (crop and all) I’d definitely have one right now. I would have had one for ages. So that’s going to be a big deal.
Second is the M50 outputs a (somewhat) clean 4K through the HDMI AFAICT. This again is new. The 5DIV and 1DX II don’t, their max is 1080p. I say it is ‘somewhat’ clean in that the displays are overlayed and it is the only output when used (no EVF or monitor). These aren’t things I’ve had to worry about for years, kind of took me wayyyyyy back. The touch screen is obviously not active when you use a monitor then. Also the only way to get a ‘clean’ output is to turn all the displays off AND the AF, otherwise you’re going to have crud all over the display.
On the plus side though the 4K HDMI output is rather nice. But if you want to use the 1080p and DPAF, then don’t bother.
I think the M5 II that is rumoured to be coming will be a lot of things this isn’t. I still think the quirky and poorly planned aspects of this camera carry through the entire line. But a few extra dials, less RS and less crop will be an absolute winner. Canon are on the cusp of finally, finally doing 4K well in the consumer category.
-
On 5/28/2018 at 12:45 AM, DaveAltizer said:
I guess that Rokinon 12mm f2 and the upcoming Laowa 9mm f2.8 EF-M would be a better option. Both will work at APSC and 4K.
All your normal UWA zooms too, like Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and 14-20mm f/2 etc. Plus the wider ones like Sigma 8-16mm.
On 5/28/2018 at 12:49 AM, mercer said:They have a few of those smaller aps-c lenses. I’ve used the 12 and the 21mm, which I liked for their size and smooth operation. They also have a fast 35mm. So on the M50 with 4K crop, the 3 lenses would give about a 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm FOV respectively... hell, it almost sounds like they were made for the 4K crop of the M50.
Those Rokinons are all awesome, have had the 12/2, 21/1.4, 35/1.2 and 50/1.2. The 21/1.4 is the weakest, but still fantastic.
On 5/28/2018 at 6:30 AM, tyger11 said:All true, but with the Sony, you get IBIS, 6K to 4K downsampling, 30p, no crop in 4K, much better bitrate, and a much better native lens selection (and a much better selection of lenses if you're willing to use and adapter). Things could get more interesting on that front if MetaBones comes out with an EF to EF-M SpeedBooster. Supposedly they had one ready back in the day, but never bothered to bring it to market when the M tanked.
If you're willing to shoot in Slog and grade your footage, the Canon color advantage goes away.
Price and ergonomics are the only advantages. In its price class, though, yeah, the M50 is a quite good 1080 camera. I;'m hoping the Magic Lantern folks can turn it into a beast.
I wouldn't call it a 'good' 1080p camera, just slightly better than some previous Canons. I also wouldn't be giving the 'ergonomics' nod to the M50 either, it's kind of junk in every possible way.
ML could be really, really interesting!
On 5/29/2018 at 9:34 AM, Dustin said:I also don’t shoot video enough to warrant purchasing a $1k camera but even with warp stabilizer I want my next camera to have IBIS to at least help out my shakiness. This camera does have everything else I’d need.
How about a lens with IS? Seems like a good start to me.
On 5/29/2018 at 12:01 PM, kye said:Trying to get nice 1080 while casual handheld shooting with an ILC is a mine-field I've been trying to cross for some time.
To grossly over-simplify:
- All cinema cameras are out because they're either too heavy or too attention grabbing
- Canon non-cinema cameras are deliberately crippled to protect their cinema line
- Canon with ML is unreliable and has a steep learning curve
- The GH5 either can't focus reliably or people can't work out how to do it
- The Sonys all seem to overheat (although depending on what you shoot this might not be an issue) and the smaller/cheaper ones have bad RS
- The Fuji XH-1 chews batteries and the extra grip costs extra and makes it pretty heavy
- Things like the original BMPCC need a rig and becomes cumbersome (BMPCC needs external power)
- Going modular with things like the BMMCC requires a rig and BMMCC has almost no controls and so you can't use it to adapt to changing situations
Mostly the way I see people getting around this combination is to either choose Canons soft 1080, sacrifice reliability and use Canon ML RAW, get a fast fixed-lens camera like RX100 or RX10, accept RS and overheating with a6300/6500, or accept a fixed focal length and give a big middle-finger to the whole industry and use their phone (where with up to 4k60 and 1080p240 it beats everything up to 10x or 20x the price). Or just put it on a tripod, and accept that you'll get hassled or barred from most places you go.
The basic issue is that industry assumes that consumers who want convenience don't want image quality (compact point-and-shoots), consumers who want image quality only take photos (Canon DSLRs take lovely photos), or that if you want image quality then you're a pro and you can use a tripod and don't mind a huge camera. We're caught between the other users basically.
New Blackmagic Pocket 4K should be good to go without major rigging IMO.
Fuji, the X-T2 is a lot cheaper. But yes the Fujis are a bit lacking.
Canon, yep pretty much only cinema line (for now).
GH5... nah. Although focus issues are probably around the 4K modes more so than the 1080p.
Sony's don't overheat in 1080p (or haven't for a VERY long time now). In Sony the best options for nice 1080p are the A7S (original is cheap as these days and still produces stunning 1080p) and the A6000 (still better than the A6300/A6500) and the A7 III is pretty darn good (and really good 24/25/30/50/60/100/120p modes throughout).
Personally though, the C100 is still one of the best, if not best if you want just really nice 1080p. Plus it has all the other benefits and as other have mentioned is reasonably small when the handle it removed, but you don't want to go without the side handle.
How about the little box camera Canon make for industrial purposes based on the C100 II? Looks awesome for drones and gimbals and stuff too. Nobody talks about it. I want to say MS20 something...
On 5/29/2018 at 4:26 PM, tweak said:Personally I wouldn't choose this camera over a6500 (having shot both) and I'm pretty much a Canon fanboy and own and shoot with 5Dmkiii and several EOSM1s all with ML.
Me either. I own the camera and has been nothing but regret. It's not nice. There is very little I can say about it that is good.
On 5/30/2018 at 8:54 AM, kye said:If they took the XC10 and added ILC mount and DPAF it would be great - they could even make it a bit bigger, but just not three times the size like the C100.
I'd be happy enough with the guts of the XF400 in the XC10/15 body. They are kind of from the same family. But the newer sensor has DPAF and 4K60 and 120fps 1080 etc. The XF400 actually kind of looks like it fits your needs. Only downside for me on that camera is lack of C-Log (but does have Wide DR).
On 5/30/2018 at 9:17 AM, webrunner5 said:If Canon made a XC20 with what you ask for it would cost 4000 bucks or more.
I would be surprisingly ok with that. Canon have nothing in their range below the C200, except the underpowered XC10/15. An updated version of those that sits between would be wonderful. In fact RED threatened for years to produce something like that and never did.
On 5/30/2018 at 9:17 AM, webrunner5 said:The C100 mkII is smaller as is the C200 body wise than that original C100 mk I shown.
C200 is quite a bit bigger than C200. C100 MkI to MkII is nominal at best, the EVF pokes out a lot more on the MkII. Are you thinking of the C300 / C500?
On 5/30/2018 at 11:00 AM, Trek of Joy said:The XC10/15 and EOS-M need to have a love child - the EOS-MXC using the C200's sensor and the EOS-M lenses. I dig the XC15, but the fixed lens is a deal breaker for me. So is the m50's rolling shutter.
Yes please! In fact let's not really bring anything from the M50 except maybe the processing to finally get Canon files into smallish codecs (straight to cheap SD cards). Oh and the nice 4K output on the M50 please.
On 5/31/2018 at 12:06 PM, kye said:
Where did the lens go? That doesn't look right.
-
On 5/27/2018 at 2:17 AM, samuel.cabral said:
It runs EOS firmware. Not a Powershot firmware like the EOS M5 and M6.
That is super interesting. It also means that IPB codec options are available on it. Plus I think this has a lot to do with the improved colour compared to the M3/M5/M6 etc (which were not great).
On 5/27/2018 at 5:20 PM, kye said:If they did decide to jump head-first into the mirrorless market how long would it take for them to build up a decent lens selection? It would be interesting to know how long it took them to build previous lens systems - I'm assuming they happened slowly and steadily but I could be wrong.
It was fairly easy to adapt manual lens designs to PDAF in SLRs. This made the transition really very easy (for pretty much everyone). Going mirrorless is however a completely different design requirements and is far less easy. On the other hand Canon are relying on you adapting their existing lenses.
On 5/27/2018 at 9:18 PM, tweak said:Why can't canon just do something half decent? I'd kill for an APS-C canon version of a6500 or GH5 etc... Yeah I know why, but still it would be nice.
TELL ME ABOUT IT! I bought the M50 in a bit of desperation, honestly it is rubbish. It is probably the worst camera I have ever purchased (taken in context). BUT there are some nice things Canon COULD be doing if they wanted to. I think the next batch of Canon APS-C is going to be fairly interesting.
On 5/27/2018 at 9:52 PM, tyger11 said:Hilariously bad compared to an a6500; not even remotely in the same class.
Nope, definitely in different classes.
On 5/27/2018 at 11:07 PM, Andrew Reid said:But price difference?!
Yep
On 5/27/2018 at 11:07 PM, Andrew Reid said:And colour.
Yep
On 5/27/2018 at 11:07 PM, Andrew Reid said:And C-mount glass.
Sure, although you can do the same thing on Sony.
On 5/27/2018 at 11:07 PM, Andrew Reid said:And ergonomics & menus.
Uhm, no...
On 5/27/2018 at 11:29 PM, newfoundmass said:Yeah, the ergonomics and color science alone make this more appealing to me than the a6500. The Canon color really is leaps and bounds above Sony.
Have you used it? Sounds like a typical throw away comment. Colour yes. Ergonomics... yeah no.
On 5/27/2018 at 11:54 PM, mercer said:So the 1080p on it isn’t that good?
Really isn't. It is maybe serviceable as a home movies type camera (the AF helps there too).
On 5/27/2018 at 11:54 PM, mercer said:It seems from what I’ve been reading, it’s the star of the camera? Clean and detailed with a lot of focus points for the DPAF?
Compared to what? Yes it is definitely better than say my 7D II (which I would never use for video). The DPAF is a little better as well.
On 5/27/2018 at 11:59 PM, DaveAltizer said:1080p is good for sure but it’s not any better than all the other canon dslrs and the 5dmk4 1080p and super35 1080p on 1DC are in a different class than that really.
Yep. The 1DC S35 (and 1080p out) are a world away from the M50. It's ok. It's better than older Canon 1080p mush.
On 5/27/2018 at 11:59 PM, DaveAltizer said:4k is where it’s at. Perfect happy medium. It’s not mind blowingly sharp like GH5 but it’s really usable and runs so smooth on my base model MBP. It’s a shame the rolling shutter is so so bad. I’m putting the camera in a cage to add some weight and make me use it more like a real camera. I think once you add the weight and stuff it’s usable.
The RS really is just unusable IMO in the 4K mode. Hopefully their next outing will be faster in this regard and maintain the DPAF. Because the footage IMO is actually very nice looking, it's just unusable.
-
20 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:
They're so "humble" that intimidate reviewers
https://petapixel.com/2018/08/01/my-drama-with-hasselblad-bullying-and-their-latest-comparisons/
This has what to do with sensor design? Fanboys...
-
14 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:
Its only "assumed" for trolls. For photographers, its real. And there is no photographic "loss" in high ISO. Actually, D850 noise has slightly higher quality.
*sigh*
From DPR: "The D850 was able to tolerate an additional 1/3EV of light (not the 2/3 that its ISO 64 rating would imply), but the difference is essentially invisible, even after fairly extreme processing. This puts the a7R III's performance up with the very best cameras on the market at present, including the likes of the Fujifilm GFX 50S or Pentax 645Z."
Essentially invisible... That is unless your a little Nikon fanboy. Wanna explain how you're a 'real' photographer again?
14 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:According to lack of knowledge about Nikon advantages even among its loyal customers. According to their almost invisibility in social media.
They not giving you enough 'likes' on your FB photos? Poor, poor Eric.
I think this Anti-Sony disease that all Nikon users are born with would suggest otherwise.
14 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:Oh you needed a copy of circuit design to evaluate! Well, they can't give it to you
Nope. I know exactly what they 'design'. Go ask Phase One or Hasselblad who aren't too 'proud' to tell the truth.
-
1 hour ago, mercer said:
For the longest time, the 1DC was my dream camera, so paint me jealous.
Me too. Missed out on one twice and nearly missed this one. Got it as basically new condition for less than an equivalent 1DX - Pretty stoked.
1 hour ago, mercer said:Although, I MAY be able to afford a 1DC or 5D4, I like the idea of using the original C100. The image is still good enough for small jobs, if I decide to go that route, plus the obvious benefits of a cinema camera. It won’t be a competing camera in my toolbox, it will be a different tool for a different job... be it paid work or my short films... and I love the price.
Honestly the C100 is still a very very viable camera. WAY more practical than a 1DC in my experience of both. I thought I would have a C100 and a 1DC for those times that I really needed the special look and that's probably what I'll end up with. I sold my MkI with the plan to buy a MkII just for the better viewfinder and the DPAF upgrade plus the 50/60p. But it hasn't happened yet. I still miss it, a lot. The 1DC in my opinion does not have as a nice output in the S35 mode, it's nice but not C100 nice. The 1080p out of the HDMI using the 4K mode IS better. BUT then you either need monsterous CF cards or you miss out on dual record you get on the C100. The 4K is very nice, I haven't given it that much of a workout. But man that output going to my new BM Video Assist 5" (which is a perfect match for this camera IMO) is nice and has a lot of flexibility in post. Pretty bad rolling shutter in that mode though, unlike the S35 and C100. C100 just looks SO good with such natural motion with great rolling shutter.
Add XLRs, NDs, EVF, mounting points, full sized HDMI, amazing grip, top handle, perfect size and controls AND DPAF.
C100 (I or II) is a better tool. 1DC is a great stills camera with some really lovely video output when absolutely needed.
-
2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:
You can go on contradicting the man who has visited the Nikon lab until you've worn yourself out and you need a lie down, but the fact is, you have never been to the lab, you have never been to a Sony factory and until you do, you will keep contradicting the facts in Dave's article until you're blue in the face. Your knowledge is mishmash of third-hand speculative nonsense sourced by reading rumors sites.
Mate, READ the article. I don't need to do anything of the things you sugggest because it is literally there in black and white. The guy writing the article even says he doesn't know enough technically to understand some actually pretty simple things. The whole situation was CREATED by the Nikon PR team. He states specific technologies as being used in Nikon sensors, but doesn't state that that technology COMES from Nikon or even has anything to do with Nikon (other than its appearance in the sensors they happen to use). When he does explicitly state Nikon have some actual input, guess what it is about?! Packaging and sensor toppings.
Just read it again. I mean how long does he go on about LVDS as if it is 'special' to Nikon, just because they happen to use it?
Im frankly stunned at just how literally people seem to be reading it. Dominant readings all day everyday from the fanboys who already believed it, but just needed that 'credible' article to prove it was all true.
You stand there and defend it, but you haven't once been able to answer any of my questions.
7 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:With ISO 64 you can expose for an extra 2/3 of a stop without clipping highlights. Thats "real" benefit.
No, that's an assumed benefit. It's actually considerably less than that. With a greater loss in high ISO.
7 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:Funny thing is Nikon's marketing is the worst in the entire camera/optics industry.
According to whom?
7 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:They let Dave to visit their not-visited-before R&D rooms, but what Dave wrote is just his reaction to what he experienced. Simple as that.
Yes, that is what happened. He wrote about a bunch of things Nikon have in their sensors, many of which have nothing to do with Nikon, but the way it is written assumes that it does. He writes about LVDS as if it were a Nikon thing, solely for Nikon sensors. Which is either poor writing, or the guy actually didn't know any better. So which is it? Doesn't really matter. The point is there is nothing in the article that points specifically to Nikon actually having much say about anything in the 'design' process. Just a lot of jargon about the amazing technology Nikon uses (thanks mainly to the underlying Sony base designs).
-
3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:
What tends to be the fashion in 2018, is that people ignore the facts, and keep repeating their divine personal opinions like a religion,
Says the guy just repeating the Nikon PR hype train. YOU have no experience on this, you wrote an article repeating another article. If anyone says otherwise apparently they are fanboys, trump or divine personal opinions. It's called a discussion Andrew, you might want to look it up.
And PS people have been around this industry a while, perhaps some of us are better at sorting the wheat from the chaff when it comes to marketing hype.
Let me put it this way: The only way ANYONE is getting a completely custom sensor design is to make it themselves (at huge cost). Like Canon and Sony do. Otherwise they are getting a stock design with some tweaks to suit their implementation.
The sad thing is, nobody who is suggesting that these are Sony sensors (with OEM tweaks) are saying that that is a GOOD thing. Nobody is saying 'NO they are Sony sensors because Sony are the BEST', which is what you are implying with all the nonsense 'fanboy' talk. In fact I would argue it is the Nikon fans saying 'NO they Nikon sensors because Nikon are the BEST' (exhibit: your comparisons between sensors, which does zero to prove who designed them, only who use them). Nobody thinks it's a good thing, or the best, or whatever fanboy response you think they are having. Its just not PR peppered BS.
Why does every Nikon fanboy think their company is so much more special than Phase One or Hasselblad? Because the marketing dept wants them to feel that way. Those companies proudly boast they are using sensors from the best manufacturer in the world (which is largely true). But Japanese pride and the fact that Nikon and Sony are competitors stop Nikon from doing that. It is really that simple. ESPECIALLY when they are on the eve of launching a competing mirrorless system to Sony who are their lunch.
I hate to use the term 'fake news', but fake bloody news Andrew!
-
16 minutes ago, Nikkor said:
Do you guys hold stock options at Sony?
No. I just use my ability to interpret BS.
Funny considering your own title on this forum...
-
8 minutes ago, no_connection said:
If they designed the sensor and processor together with readout to make it "the best", why is the rolling shutter so bad? Did they wake up launch day and go "oops, we forgot about that".
It would make sense for them to be all about image quality and dynamic range but to drop the ball so bad when it comes to other parts makes you wonder if they just don't care about the moving part of moving pictures.
Almost certainly this part will be Sony's fault. Because, reasons.
-
3 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:
Go look at the D850 4K in full frame, A7R III and let me know what you see there as well!
Ok? I guess I must see Nikon watermarks that prove that it's a Nikon sensor?
I'm not sure what you think your point is here? Both are horribly compromised designs when it comes to 4K, with lower resolution sensors being far better suited.
How about you compare the flagship D5 in 4K against the budget A6300/6500 and A7 III. What an absolute joke! But I guess Nikon always have the better sensors because they are always better at 'designing' them?
-
2 minutes ago, Eric Calabros said:
Read noise at ISO 6400: A7R3> 1.05e D850> 1.2e
You can't see this difference in images.
And nor can you in the extended DR. Plus the A7R III has greater DR at the same ISO. Who really cares?
-
2 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:
D850 pixel stores 10,000 more electrons than A7R3 pixel. So ISO 64 is not just a gimmick number that anybody can add to the spec list. Its indication of a state of the art read out circuit that is capable of handling such a massive amount of electrons.
This comes at the expensive of high ISO noise. For some people one is an advantage and for others the other. That doesn't make a single clear cut 'better' sensor.
2 hours ago, Eric Calabros said:AND some of those IPs are bought from Nikon, like PDAF
Actually Aptina.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:Toshiba were making Nikon's custom D5300 sensor at an independent fab before being bought by Sony
So wait, Nikon ONLY make custom sensors in their flagship cameras (your words) AND the budget D5300? What an absolute load of BS. Toshiba was making a better sensor than Sony at the time? Probably. Not really the topic of discussion. If I recall that sensor had a lot of banding issues in shadows.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:So you have to give Nikon much more credit...
Sorry because you say so? Still haven't seen any evidence otherwise.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:It's the same with ARM... And nobody denies there are ARM chips in our smartphones.
Did you just agree with me? Perhaps you didn't understand my point.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:Because there are established design rules and pixel architectures that everybody uses because they work well.
What?! Oh there was a magic book that fell to earth with the 'standard' designs... what rot.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:wouldn't say the 36MP K1 II chipset is anything like a Nikon D850 + Expeed so I think the premise of your point is kinda flawed.
Who said the D850?! The K1 uses a Sony made sensor of 36MP... sound familiar? Sounds an awful lot like the ones in the D800 / D800e / D810 / A7R. These were 'flagship' models and the claim here is that Nikon have been doing this for 'years'. Or did they start with the D850, because it's convenient for the arguement (as nobody else uses that sensor yet)?
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:Apart from talking about a complex sensor like a cake, do you really understand the implications of changing such a fundamental sensor architecture?
Do you? I didn't know you were a leading expert on sensor designs. The fact that you seem confused by this seems to suggest otherwise. YES toppings on sensors are a lot like cake. They even talk about these things in the article you supposedly fully absorbed. Real camera companies like Phase One don't pretend to design these sensors themselves and discuss things with far greater openness, depth and understanding than the PR stunt. Maybe read what those companies have to say on the matter.
Custom colour filter arrays are completely normal. They don't always change the layout, but they do change the filtering etc. Fuji changing to X-trans array does have processing implications for them, but that has zero to do with the sensor. Fuji still didn't design it.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:It is an architecture which has a knock-on effect on the de-bayering, image processing, micro lenses, and a whole lot more. So all that needs to be customized as well.
Micro lenses and CFA are essentially the customised toppings. Debayering IS image processing and has nothing to do with sensors. And again we are talking about the couple things these manufacturer have some input into and making it seem like they designed the whole shebang.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:So a custom design, printed by Nikon's own machines... And yet some people still can't except that it is a Nikon sensor, must be a Sony off-the-shelf cake with a Nikon topping of icing?!
Sounds like Sony aren't a fabbing company, they are a warehousing company for Nikon, who clearly are the leading sensor design and manufacturers, Sony are a glorified shed. Clearly Sony have no clue what they are doing because some fanboys want to believe.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:Currently market share of Nikon in lithography is 20%
Which is only a fraction of the market Sony has in sensors. But apparently they're all Nikon sensors made on Nikon machines by Nikon engineers with profits going to Nikon and all IP owned by Nikon because they are clearly the bestest at everything. Sony are just fortunate enough to let them store them in their empty shed because they don't have anything else to do.
Couldn't answer one question. Again.
-
6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:
You still did not read either article. So very, very annoying.
Actually I did. Did you really read it? Based on what you've said you have simply gone with the dominant reading of the article. This is what Nikon want, so well done there. It's a nice little propaganda piece put together for the launch of their new mirrorless system and so we'll quietly forget they just abandoned another mount.
Didn't bother to answer any of the discussion points? Very, very annoying. I did read the article and see nothing that suggests that Nikon design anything beyond packaging and sensor toppings, which is exactly what we've already always known. There is a LOT of implication that specific technologies used in the sensors Nikon use came from Nikon, but nowhere does it explicitly state it.
6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:Not in the flagship two models. Only in the lower-end cameras.
Wait, the article said they had whole teams dedicated to every sensor. Why didn't they say only for these models? Why didn't they say only 2 teams? Why didn't they say only for top 'flagship' models? Again, the article doesn't actually say what you think it says. You are taking the implications that are applied by the Nikon PR department (who had control over the whole situation as stated in the article) as being the 'truth'.
6 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:iPhones are designed by Apple, with custom silicon involving ARM and in-house Apple chip designers, but it ends up being made in a Chinese factory owned by Foxconn.
This is a silly argument. NOBODY is saying a Nikon camera is a Sony camera because it uses a Sony sensor. Apple also use Sony sensors, nobody is implying that iPhones are Sony phones. But people will say the LCD is an LG or Samsung or whoever. Just as they say the camera sensor is a Sony. Equally, if Apple customise (in whatever way) and ARM processor to their own specs, is it no longer an ARM processor?
7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:Again like Nikon they have custom designs and custom image pipeline, from readout to bespoke image processor.
You think X-Trans is a Sony technology?
Image processors are not image sensors. Again nobody is claiming that Nikon (or anyone else) use Sony image processors.
As for X-Trans - I would hardly call it a 'technology' in of itself, it is a rearrangement of the colour filter array. Bayer arrays are not Sony's (on Nikon's) design either. Additionally the CFA is part of the sensor toppings, which Nikon (and Fuji etc) do customise. It is really the main thing that anyone customises. So you are pointing again at the same thing and saying 'see, see?'.
7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:Pentax does take off-the-shelf parts, yes.
Oh of course, Pentax are too weak and feeble and unlike the mighty Nikon they take off the shelf sensors. But Nikon 'design' theirs. Why is it that the Pentax off the shelf sensors seem to be a LOT like the Nikon sensors?
7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:To be honest Rob I still don't see how your point applies to Nikon designing their own sensors.
Let me ask you this: If Nikon are responsible for the design of these sensors and the fabbing plant literally just makes them to Nikon spec, why don't Nikon diversify their production? I mean we've had earthquakes and other disasters that have left Nikon waiting and waiting for sensors, why not have multiple fabbing companies just make them for them? They are having supply issues with the D850, why not get Reneasis to make some D850 sensors as well, keep the supply chain going. Apple diversify their parts so that if a supplier goes down or has QC issues or whatever they can maintain production. Why don't Nikon for each sensor?
-
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:
The D850 46MP sensor does outperform the latest Sony 42MP. It is a newer design, Sony has tweaked an old design for the latest A7R III and will presumably do a proper revamp in the next model.
1. Higher overall DXO Mark score.
2. I own both the A7R III and D850. The Nikon has the edge for dynamic range at low ISOs and superior resolution. In video mode, it produces a cleaner 4K full frame image from the sensor, with less moire, due to a superior readout.
You are choosing 'some' areas and stating it is unequivocally 'better'. Better at some things yes. One would expect it to be given it is the latest in what Sony can make vs a 2-3 year old design. This is my bet:
Sony 42MP is exclusive to Sony. It is Sony designed for Sony cameras. Specifically around the on sensor PDAF.
The D850's 46MP sensor is also a Sony design. It is the Sony third party sensor replacement for the aging 36MP model (sold to Nikon and Pentax). The 46MP, like the 36MP before it has an exclusivity arrangement with Nikon for a period of time. After that time we will see a K-1 III rocking that sensor most likely. Nikon toppings and packaging notwithstanding.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:Nikon have a history of their own in-house sensors with dramatically different performance and specs to Sony.
Sure. As I said they made their own sensors. They also got other manufacturers to make their sensors (like the one in the D4 / Df). Not sure what that has to do with Sony sensors?
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:The D5 uses a radically different sensor than in any Sony camera.
And it has disappointing performance to say the least.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:Regarding supposed sales of Nikon-designed sensors to Pentax (D800 36MP) and Fujifilm (D7200 sensor), these were not Nikon sensors. The Nikon sensors were the D500 (20MP APS-C) and D850. Canon also sometimes uses Sony off-the-shelf sensors, such as the 1" 20MP chip in the G7X.
So Nikon have these designers that are the best in the world and make way better designs than Sony can, yet still use Sony designs? Seems somewhat contradictory. D800 was a 'Nikon' sensor until it wasn't. So was the D7200. Yes Canon and everyone else uses off the shelf Sony sensors even though they have their own designers too... Wonder why Canon don't just get Sony to make their designs?
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:It is clear, reading these responses, that Nikon do need articles like Dave's as part of a PR push, as there are MANY misconceptions out there.
It's clear reading this article that people will believe anything that aligns with their own beliefs.
57 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:Fair points, but I didn't say design was MORE important - it is critically important, not more or less. You can't have manufacturing without design and visa versa. Especially the kind of design and simulation Nikon revealed in the article. When you are designing at the level of an individual photon and atom, it makes a difference.
Honestly I haven't read anything that says that they are 'designing' at that level. They are testing reference designs and making design tweaks to packaging and toppings.
59 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:Until this Imaging Resource article all we had were SONY logos printed on Nikon sensors, pictured on rumours sites so not exactly a world class insight.
Sony have spoken about the relationship they have with their customers pretty frankly in the past. I seem to recall a DPR article where Sony were talking about the process for (say) the D850 sensor... Yet Team Nikon Boys still didn't think the D850 was even fabbed by Sony (until very recently when it was confirmed). Nikon Crew simply don't like Sony having any part of their camera.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:We are armed with quite a different set of facts now. And yes, although it is something of a staged PR piece, it is backed by substance - both the facts and evidence are there for all to see.
I'm still struggling to see what the 'facts' being presented are. Fact 1: Nikon design packaging. Fact 2: Nikon design toppings. Fact 3: Sony seem to do the rest. This has pretty much always been known. Fact 4: Sony don't use these sensors themselves except in some rare cases and as such most are not directly comparable.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:BSI sensor technology is a capability of the Sony fabs that make Nikon sensors but is not exclusive to Sony, and if you are simulating chip manufacturing at the level of fine detail Nikon is (at atomic level) then you are arguably using a fab in-house, to prototype your own designs, which is almost as good as having your own manufacturing facilities in-house.
Say what?
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:Nikon's team clearly are on the cutting edge and differentiating their image quality from Sony. If Sony turn around and decide not to take on contract manufacturing for Nikon sensors any more, there are plenty of other factories... they are 10 a penny
Samsung for one.
Interesting that Nikon take their manufacturing to Sony then given how much they go about hiding the fact. Why aren't one of those other makers making their sensors? Seems a bit weird for Nikon to hand over their masterful 'designs' to the competition.
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:Next innovation to be widely used is Quad Bayer, I think. It allows 2 exposure sensitives in one pixel, so HDR on chip, essentially. That's design, not just manufacturing. Patents are key and Nikon's team have quite a few.
Patents are a whole different discussion. Quad Bayer Sony just announced. You would think they'd have to wait for all the designers to announce theirs first
-
2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:
Oh dear. Is it ignore the articles and talk out of your ass day again?
Oh so Nikon didn't invite these journos in to try and spin what they do? Do you really think that's the case? There has been spin from the Nikon world ever since they stopped making their own sensors to try and state that they are their own work. Why do you think they always obscure who actually makes them?
2 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:Honestly, I dont think it does....
When you 'design' a sensor your have to make trade offs. If you choose a 'low base iso' you will score 'higher' than a sensor in 'dynamic range' than a sensor with a 'higher base iso'. But you will score 'lower' in terms of 'high iso capability'.
So take the D850 v A7riii
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7R-III-versus-Nikon-D850___1187_1177
The D850 scores better for DR (because its base iso is 64), the A7riii higher for iso performance. The fact that the Nikon sensor 'outperforms' Sony in dynamic range doesnt really mean it outperforms it as a sensor.
But even if you argument is that Nikon is 'better at designing sensors' than 'Sony', it doesnt get around the fact that 'Sony' is better at manufacturing sensors than anyone else!!
And this. There was so much chest thumping associated with the D850 about how perfect it was because it had to be (rather than it is) that a lot of the 'facts' were decided about the camera before the thing even landed in anyone's hands.
-
19 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:
You can be sure that if Nikon makes their own sensors for the upcoming FX Z-mount mirrorless cameras, they will be true Nikon custom silicon and not just a “greatest hits” of other people’s technology. Indeed it might not even matter if they are manufactured in facilities owned by Sony, Toshiba or TowerJazz – it is the design process which is key to defining the performance, both for stills and video. Quote...
Honestly, this is missing the whole point.
Pretty much anyone with say well less than US$100m investment can 'design' an incredibly fancy sensor with 'adc', 'BSI', 'stacked sensor technology' '10nm'. Now go out there and find yourself a 'foundry' to manufacture it for you and you will find there is exactly 'one' manufacturer who can do it - and that is 'Sony'. (Well possibly Samsung can do it but doesnt seem interested.)
I read about an estimate for say Canon to upgrade their silicon manufacture to Sony's and it was something like US$16bn.....
(PS. Incidentally Sony bought out Toshiba a year ago.)
I am unsure whether it is Sony's tech (such as stacked cmos sensors) or the incredible 'capital investment' (which in Sony's case is supported by its smartphone sensors) which is the key to defining your sensor performance - but it certainly isnt the 'design'. Designers are 10 a penny.
This. 100% this.
This whole article about the design process at Nikon is literally designed to make people think they have more in house involvement than they do.
Read between the lines and Nikon do the following:
1. Design the way the chips are packaged
2. Design sensor toppings
Thats about it. Nikon are not designing a sensor from scratch and saying 'hey make this'. Sony give them the basics of what can be made and Nikon customise.
Isnt it funny they say they 'design down to xyz' and then point at the bits we already know they (and everyone else making big enough orders) customise?
There is no secret sauce here. D850 sensor is better than A7R III sensor? Really? Sure about that? A7R III achieves the near enough same DR but at ISO 100 rather than 64. A7R sensor has OSPDAF that the Nikon lacks. They are similar enough and yet the Nikon sensor is what, 2-3 years newer and still doesn't have the tech in the Sony.
I would be very interested to see where Nikon is getting its mirrorless sensors from.
11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:How do you explain why the Nikon design out-performs the Sony from the same foundry then?
Which sensor specifically? Sony rarely uses the 'same' sensors as their off the shelf counterparts. Those that are the actual same units usually perform (according to DXO etc) as close enough to identical (or other factors that explain any minor differences).
Explain this: Why do Sony get to sell 'Nikon designed' sensors to Pentax? Or Fuji? Or anyone else that will buy them?
-
23 minutes ago, buggz said:
Does Olympus manufacture their own sensors?
There are hints on 4/3Rumors site, about a new "super" Oly coming, that is much better than the previous model.
Though, since this fab is a Panny/Tower Jazz coop, I now doubt it is for Oly...
Nope. Olympus use Sony. Panasonic use Sony. Nikon use Sony. Ricoh use Sony. Leica uses Sony and TowerJazz and Reneasis. Canon use Sony when they aren't using Canon.
-
8 hours ago, sanveer said:
" ... For this ‘DSLR’ supplier, the first front side illmination project is progressing according to plan, expecting to ramp the volume production in 2020, while the second stacked wafer based project with industry leading alignment accuracy and associated performance benefits is expected to ramp to volume production a year after."
I am guessing the 2nd generation of this will have something on the liken of a BSI sensor along with some other features (PDAF?).
I couldn't agree more with you @Andrew Reid. The Sony monopoly in the sensor market has made the others almost complacent and Sony had been slowly abusing its monopoly (Like the best 1inch, smartphone and other sensors are for its own cameras).
According to every Nikon fanboy ever, including the latest fanboy propaganda is that Nikon design their own sensors and Sony are simply a foundry for them. This would mean that if Sony cameras have the best sensors, it's because they have the best sensor designers or that those other brands aren't designing their own and are indeed using off the shelf designs. Either way, hardly call that Sony's fault. Or perhaps the idea that they are 'just' a foundry is total bunk (which it is).
The article says it's the second project for this manufacturer. I say it's Leica, they are the only ones currently using larger format sensors from TJ.
Additionally Leica are expected to be releasing a new S series Medium Format DSLR (which is what these could be for) as well as SL II (and Q etc). Also they are believed to be working with Zenit to produce a 'lower cost' model(s).
-
21 hours ago, mercer said:
@521photo Thanks a lot for all of that info. You actually already answered some of my follow up questions. I shoot ML Raw, so I’m not afraid of large file sizes. I’d probably get the C Log version if I decide to go that route, but as of now, I think the C100 is winning.
Do you have a link to your film?
C100 is a great camera. For 5D IV money you can pick up a MkII. I just took delivery of a near mint 1DC, the S35 mode is indeed quite similar (if not better) than the C100, it certainly has a bit chunkier files. I like this camera a lot for that very reason, S35 with GREAT 1080p SOOC with Log is fantastic. PLUS the camera does really lovely 4K if called upon PLUS is a really great stills camera. If you need something run-n-gun then the C100 is probably still the better choice, but for me the formats this camera shoots make it very very flexible indeed. Needs a decent monitor, but so does the C100 in my opinion and the EVF on that camera is utter garbage anyway. Plus this camera also does that great 4K to 1080p HDMI downsampling. So I figure this plus a Video Assist should be able to cover most bases.
From here I will wait to see what happens with Canon mirrorless, but even if there is no FF blah blah, I think they are about to get a lot more serious with video (and they have said as much) and so even models like the M5 II will likely be a decent step above say the M50 (and everything that came before). If not I may end up adding the 5D IV.
-
15 hours ago, Tone1k said:
Saying the FS700 is no good for a solo shooter is also saying the FS7, F5, F55, Ursa Mini Pro or any other camera that doesn't fit on a handheld gimbal.. Is no good either.
I didn't say it was no good. Pretty sure I've said multiple times now that the OP should buy it and that it is an excellent choice. The points I have made are points to consider and are in fact reasonable. It isn't black and white like you seem to want to think. i.e. Me: FS700 bad vs You: FS700 good.
15 hours ago, Tone1k said:Your comments about a decent camera will already have decent aids in place, show me a dslr sized camera that has a great fully articulating screen, false colour, waveform, accurate peaking, full LUT support etc
Really? Have a look at the GH5. But why does it need to have a fully articulating screen? The whole point of discussion was ADDING a screen. Ad yes the Pocket will have those features, so a decent display will inherit them as well. Besides, I am guessing you haven't looked at what is available in this space these days.
15 hours ago, Tone1k said:In terms of needing Follow focus motors and all that other parafenalia you mention... That's just not the case. In fact, you can put a small Sony E-mount lens on the FS700, mount it to a ronin or similar and have perfectly usable autofocus (with face tracking!) if thats what your into. Try doing that with the Pocket!
*sigh*
I asked HOW WELL does it work in that setup, which despite being a supposed owner and user, you couldn't answer. You keep diverting, saying how there is this work around or that. Fact is IF you need the setup I describe, it does NOT work well, if at all. That SHOULD be a point of consideration. That doesn't mean it is automatically a deal-breaker, it is up to the individual to decide how that affects them. Obviously you can put a compact AF E-Mount lens on there, that isn't what I was asking about. Wanna talk about the pocket? I have no idea what the AF is like. The AF on the FS700 is no way in the same league as many other cameras with reliable AF, like the Canon's you dismiss or newer Sony's like my A7 III. For everything else you are zone focussing or using a wireless FF. The smaller gimbals are offering wireless FF that are close to built in. FS700? Well it won't go on those gimbals, so now you need another expensive bit of kit that you buy or hire.
15 hours ago, Tone1k said:I said 'if you prefer the feel of a proper cine camera'... The FS700 odyssey combo feels more like a cine camera compared to small handheld set ups in its build, pro level features (with the odyssey) etc. 'if you prefer it' meaning closer to.
Sure I guess. But cameras like the C500 are much more of a 'proper cinema camera' but you decided to dismiss that based on 'spec'. So is it spec-dollar or how 'proper cinema camera' it is? The FS700 is in the handicam NEX group. That is the type of camera it is. It does a LOT for the money... But it is no better made than a GH5 or Pocket Cinema Camera... But it is bigger, hallow and plastic (the GH5 is magnesium alloy).
15 hours ago, Tone1k said:All cameras are good options, I know the FS700 can make me money, not sure about the Pocket yet. I'll see when I receive it.
They sure are. Seemingly though the FS700 is better than all of them... just 'coz.
15 hours ago, Tone1k said:It really depends what you need and where your priorities are as to which you choose. But please don't spread false information by saying things like 'you'll need a whole grip truck or camera van to use it'.
Sorry that you don't like it, but it is a valid issue. When developing a project these are things that need to be considered. Sure if you are going to use a bodgy shoulder rig, a cinesaddle and a tripod you aren't going to need a truck. But every bit of gear needs to be considerable bigger, heavier and more expensive for a bigger camera. This is a simple fact. If you have a lot of grip, that does start to get huge and expensive. Up to the user, but these are issues that need to be solved by someone. Don't spread false information that it has no impact, either you are clueless or you are really just trying hard to beat the drum of the FS700.
9 hours ago, webrunner5 said:Hell I can probably put a Arri Alexa on my Shoulder, Can't be as big as ENG cameras. But to say it is convenient or manageable solo, well sure a person can do anything if you want, but some ideas are, well, silly.a
Exactly. The cost difference between shooting an Alexa vs a Pocket Cinema 4K is not in the cost of the camera. Same as a R1 etc. Not to mention all the extra crew required.
-
On 7/23/2018 at 1:18 PM, Tone1k said:
I actually don't find the FS700 uncomfortable to use. Most people trashing the ergonomics were using it in its basic form, with the built in EVF. Yes, you can get a 'cheap and light monitor for Pocket4k but it will be no match to Odyssey. If you want a screen as good with professional aids, you need something better than the cheap light hdmi monitors out there.
If you have a decent camera the aids are already in place, so a basic monitor (with a decent panel) will suffice. No it mightn't be an odyssey, but again you are paying a lot more for that combo. You can alternatively get a very nice monitor that is still smaller and lighter and cheaper (and potentially even better).
On 7/23/2018 at 1:18 PM, Tone1k said:In terms of rigging, same requirements as C500 which you were recommending no?
Well no. I said I was interested in the C500 and FS700 but landed on the Pocket 4K. I may have also suggested the C500 is an alternative model that has some benefits (not the least being the significantly great connectivity to the outside world that the FS700 is limited in). The C500 would require the same rigging and Odyssey as the FS700. As a package would also be somewhat more expensive (but not that different, which is why I mentioned it).
On 7/23/2018 at 1:18 PM, Tone1k said:The FS5's 4k is 8bit so to get it to come anywhere near the FS700 w/odyssey you also need to get an Odyssey for the FS5. The FS5's raw output is also noisier than the FS700s and its double the price (Second hand). FS700 is a better match for FS7, F5 and F55 as a B Cam.
The FS5 is a lot smaller and can be broken down into a MUCH smaller system than the FS700 @ 4K. So the FS5 has a distinct advantage there if you need flexibility. First I've heard about it being noisier, only heard the other direction. Body is double the price, sure, but once you add the Odyssey you're looking at a much smaller gap. Add all the other stuff and the $1500-2k AUD difference becomes quite small indeed.
On 7/23/2018 at 1:32 PM, IronFilm said:Or bring up a massive dealbreaker that I hadn't thought of already, which I feel hasn't happened yet.
It sounds like you've found your camera then! No seriously, you were already sold on it and don't want to hear otherwise... So why not buy it already?
Personally these are the pros and cons:
Pros
- Does RAW and HFR pretty cheap
- S35 that match other Sony cams well
Cons
- Handles poorly
- Average colour (certainly fixable in post - if you like spending all your time fixing things in post this might be a plus)
- Clunky for grip (needs bigger grip than smaller setups, which adds cost and reduces flexibility)
- Low-ish build quality
- Expensive compared to some newer options
- Middle of the road connectivity, better than a Pocket worse than C300/C500
Those two Pros many very well outweigh those smaller Cons for you. As such just go and buy one.
12 hours ago, webrunner5 said:True, I would totally agree with your statement. But it is really Only good siting on a Tripod rigged the way it needs to be. I can't picture it on a Gimbal I could ever afford. So that is pretty damn limiting in this day and age compared to what the P4K should be able to do, even if the AF is crap.
Agreed. AF isn't terribly important but YMMV. The FS700 CAN be rigged up but it's a bit of a kludge. It's an awkward shape and design.
2 hours ago, Tone1k said:FS700 Only usable on a tripod? Nonsense! I use mine on the shoulder, on a cinesaddle, handheld in front of my chest, and on a ronin. On the ronin, you just mount the camera as per normal and the recorder becomes the monitor you would normally use anyway mounted on the cross bar.
How does it go with lenses in this config? The ones I've seen you can only really put very small lenses up front. Adding heavy glass or follow focus etc just makes it unusable on the Ronin from what I've seen. Yes obviously the monitor can mount on the bars. Still a Pocket 4K would be a lot more flexible (and fit easier and better balanced and use a smaller, cheaper, easier to move, easier to find / beg / borrow / rent / buy gimbal with low cost wireless follow focuses built in) than the FS700. FS700 is definitely doable on all sorts of grip, just every bit of grip needs to be the bigger, sturdier, heavier, more expensive, harder to find / borrow / rent / barter gear. Once you've got all that you suddenly need a dedicated production van for the camera dept and a second and third team members and so on. Shooting a bigger camera has compromises all the way down the line. If you are shooting bigger productions then no worries - But if you're shooting bigger productions then you aren't shooting on the budget camera you bought on eBay either.
It makes sense to stay smaller where you can unless there is the need to go bigger. Having the option of both (as you will) is also nice to have. If you've only got one, smaller is better.
All-in-one is also better.
2 hours ago, Tone1k said:If you pfer a DSLR form factor, get the Pocket4k but if you prefer the feel of a proper cine camera, the FS700 w/odyssey is a fantastic choice.
Agreed. Although I would argue that the FS700 doesn't in fact feel like a proper cinema camera.
-
On 7/20/2018 at 7:54 PM, IronFilm said:
has zero appeal to me, would I want *one* C300mk1 vs two FS700? Easy choice!
Same logic applies - 2x BMPCC 4K or 1x FS700? Easy choice!
On 7/20/2018 at 7:54 PM, IronFilm said:Better than internal FS700?? Of course!
But better than external 4K raw? Nope!C500 RAW > FS700 RAW. C300 OOC > FS700 OOC.
C500 and C300 are on a different level. FS700 is handicam / NEX group prosumer product. Don't need what the C300/C500 offer? Then FS700 is a fine choice. Offers better 'spec' and always has. Nothing new here. Plenty of professionals bought the C300/500 over the cheaper and 'better' spec'd FS700.
On 7/20/2018 at 7:54 PM, IronFilm said:If the total cost of ownership of a C500 with 4K was the same as a FS700 with 4K then I might maybe be able to overlook the negatives of the C500 and choose it over the FS700. However at the moment there is a massive price gulf in the difference between a C500 and a FS700 when you sum it up.
If you don't need what the C500 offers, again the FS700 is a good choice. Not really sure what you're arguing about? Do you want to know if the FS700 is any good or do you want to try and 'prove' that it is better than everything else?
On 7/20/2018 at 7:54 PM, IronFilm said:You just can't record great usable sound with the C500 in 4K after a certain point in time.
Hyperbole.
On 7/20/2018 at 7:54 PM, IronFilm said:Are we talking AUD or USD?
As if AUD that is less than 2x Pocket 4K cameras
Plus add in external NDs, that will spread out the gap further. (ignoring the whole hassle factor.... plenty of reasons to prefer the camcorder/cinema form factor vs a DSLR/mirrorless/pocket approach)Well I'm talking in AUD as that is my market. Pocket is $1585. FS700 is ~$2.2k+ plus Atomos which is $1k+ or Odessey which is $2k+. Really want to talk about NDs? Personally I'd just use them in-adapter for the most part.
As for plenty of reasons to prefer the larger form factor - Sure! Except the FS700's form factor is universally panned for being absolutely rubbish. So that is a big minus - It's cheap, it's uncomfortable so none of the pluses of a larger body and then has the minuses that means it needs bigger grip gear for everything, every time you buy / hire things like gimbals etc you need the MUCH bigger and more expensive versions of everything, but lets quibble about the cost of NDs
On 7/20/2018 at 10:59 PM, newfoundmass said:It's not enough anymore to say the C300 "creates great images" because, at this point, you can use a $500 G7 to create great images.
So what IS required then if that isn't enough? Surely your whole point is that pretty much all gear is 'good enough' these days so it comes down to specific uses or features right?
On 7/21/2018 at 5:26 AM, Tone1k said:I have a very early preorder on the Pocket 4k but what I still like about the FS700 w/ odyssey is the internal ND's, two proper XLR inputs, a great quality monitor, S35mm sensor, 4k 50p and even 4K 100p in burst (I'm in a PAL country).
I agree. The FS700 is still a great unit and those features are nice. BUT you can't break the FS700 + 7Q combo down to make it smaller, where you can build up the pocket. Pocket has a great monitor and adding one is cheap and light. S35 is achievable through speed booster anyway. Dual XLRs and some connectivity etc are definitely plusses, as are NDs and SDI and all that. If one can have both (or all) then go for it. If I'm only going to have one, I think the pocket is more flexible.
On 7/21/2018 at 5:26 AM, Tone1k said:Some of the work I do uses the Sony F5 and f55 as an A Cam so the FS700 cuts in perfectly with them.
The FS700 is perfect in that case. Or an FS5 etc.
On 7/21/2018 at 5:26 AM, Tone1k said:While the c300 does shoot lovely images, it's frame rate limitations made it a non starter for the work I do
Certainly less of an issue with the C500. But yes, the FS700 was definitely better in the frame rate options.
On 7/21/2018 at 5:26 AM, Tone1k said:Please don't get on here making it sound like I'm bashing on any particular camera, I'm just outlining why one camera may be better for certain people.
Same. I think the OP was already convinced to get an FS700, which is fine. I was only making some 'other' suggestions but they seem to be all wrong. I think they just wanted people to confirm how great the FS700 is.
On 7/21/2018 at 5:26 AM, Tone1k said:For me, the FS700 is still a perfectly great camera today just as the FS7, f5 and f55 are. The FS700 w/odyssey punches far far above its weight and judging it on its age or current second hand price is just wrong.
It is awesome what they can do for the money.
On 7/21/2018 at 5:26 AM, Tone1k said:I'm seeing FS700's w/ Odyssey's including 5+ batteries, 4x512GB CD SSD's, full cage etc going for $3500 AUD. I can't see the Pocket4k being any cheaper once I add a second monitor, batteries, the equivalent 4x500GB Cfast cards, ND's etc...but right now I can't be bothered doing the math.
That unit was indeed a great deal and got snapped up in 5 minutes flat. That's hardly the norm.
On 7/21/2018 at 5:26 AM, Tone1k said:What I am looking forward to with the Pocket4k is the colour science and the compressed RAW options.
Same.
Imaging Resource takes a look inside Nikon's sensor design studios, solves Sony misconceptions
In: Cameras
Posted
Didn’t quite understand did we?
Yes Canon make ‘ok’ mirrorless cameras by largely copying what else was around. Their first attempt at a mirrorless camera was woeful.