Yurolov

If you dont need 4k, which let's be honest only a small amount of us really do, then it is the best bang for the buck camera out there in terms of the image quality and ergos. The image is better than the gh5s and in the end it will cost you less. I think Dave is right though in terms of size. It's not a camera that can be put on a single-handed gimbal like the gh5s. But with an IS lens you get fantastic handheld footage.

As the OP, I concur. The ship will right itself once new information comes to hand, at which time the discussion will return once more to focus on the camera.

The Kodak kai-02150 was the sensor used for HD video capture. AFAIK it was used in the bolex and ikonoskop cameras. There was a guy called Roald Christesen who even made his own camera with the sensor and like with the panasonic hack I think a laptop was used to capture. The old ccd's were just about the closest thing you could get to film (peaking with the ikonoskop camera).

I would have thought that getting 60p out of a full frame sensor takes much, much more processing than on a m4/3 sensor - not to mention the added heat dissipation issues that come along with that which are compounded by the fact that the full frame and m4/3 cameras are pretty much the same size. Look how big the 1dx has to be. Short of a redesign in the body I don't see it happening. Best we can hope for is Venice colors.

Not sure it can be done if there are patents and stuff involved. It is a great image I'll give you that. Good find!

What say you people? Any good?

Nice footage. Colors are great. Anyone got anymore footage with some c-mount lenses?? Preferably with skin tones.

I'd be willing to try my s16 superspeeds if someone can find a pl adaptor. I think Andrew is on the right track here. Canon colour, small package, ease of use and inconspicuous. Compliments a bolex well.

The monitors were sold and I owned one. But mine was an exact replica of a feelworld monitor just rebranded. The owner is a fiery spaniard but I dont see why they couldn't pull it off. Just dont expect any kind of service if you do buy it.

Sony can but it hasn't been utilised in the aloha series which is why I was excited about the fact that the purported as7iii will be getting Venice color science. People in video do not use the term color science in the same way as someone like Goethe did (I imagine). Simply put, it means how a camera reproduces color and also why it does it this way (which is color theory e.g. skin tone preference). There may be other definitions too. But we all know what we mean. Your arguments are semantic. Mine are substantive. I have explained to you why there are differences and what these mean to the final image. None of which you have responded to. 1. Subject isolation. 2. Dimensionality. 3. Skin tones and uniformity (see above). Now you can tell me why you think the Sony is better.

Look at what you said in your last sentence. That is the science of color. That is what I am talking about. The interplay of colors and their relation to each other. Effective use of this science yields results that have the effects that I mentioned previously: 1) subject isolation 2) dimensionality. Like I said canon also renders all hues similar to skin tones in a similar fashion (e.g a persons eye bags are not so pronounced on a canon because the tones are recognized in camera and brought to uniformity with the rest of the skin) so that skin appears smooth and uniform (not blotchy and patchy like sony) which further reinforces point 1 and 2 above. This last point is the one that most people don't seem to understand. You can see the blue eye bags with the sony image but that is corrected in the canon. It is a darker, more bluish skintone that is identified and corrected in the canon.

Some opinions are worth more, which I think you would agree with having bashed their opinions. I said: the results speak for themselves, because I too think their opinions are rather sophomoric. This is a cherry-picked frame. We all know that canon does not tend to green so I can only assume it is a WB issue. Regardless, you don't understand color science if you don't see that the canon image is far superior. In it's simplest and most effective form a good color science 1) separates and isolates the subject from his or her environs and 2) brings dimensionality to the image. If you notice all of the sony images look flat and boring and like they were shot with my smartphone. This is best exemplified at 4:00. You mention sharpness effecting the overall image. Yes that is true, but not to the extent you are saying. More important is how skin tones, and even more importantly, how tones which are similar to skin tones are interpreted by the color science. So that you can clearly see a blue discoloration under his eyes in the sony but not in the canon as that color is close enough to skin tone to be identified by the camera and interpreted as same to give the appearance of smoothness (and in his instance - health). This is my considered opinion, but even if I am wrong your opinions go against the weight of popular opinion.

Yes, you are right and everyone else is wrong. And showing me a video doesn't say anything unless you compare the two; case in point: I think the results speak for themselves. On an unrelated note, or perhaps not, rumors are that the new as7iii will inherit the Venice color profile which is something that could elevate the sony above its competitors. Exciting times.

Basically what you are saying is that the IQ for video hasn't changed all that much in quite a few years. Color is a major issue if we are talking about 8 bit cameras. Really the results speaks for themselves. 9/10 times the Sony footage looks like footage you'd get from a camcorder. The 1dx is another beast all together. It seems insane to me that you'd be willing to switch, but to each their own. The 1dx is a 5-7 year camera, maybe more, while the a7 will be replaced in 2. That's another consideration.

I would imagine so. But how much more are you really getting with the SmallHD product that will change the way you operate (apart from tilting screen, which is not a function of the monitor itself)? Seems remarkable what they have managed to squeeze in at this price point when you compare the price of accessories.