newfoundmass

The camera hasn't even been released! Who knows how good the auto focus will be? What'd you expect from BMD? And Panasonic missed the mark so badly with the GH5 that it won camera of the year awards and seems to have sold really, really well. ?

Based on Sony's current mirrorless offerings there definitely does seem to be a tech barrier. You're right. For some reason I thought it only had HD. I could've sworn Max Yuryev went to the premier and that it could only shoot 1080p and didn't have s-log. Again though, it is a camera marketed for photography with features that appeal to photographers, specifically double in burst mode which isn't a minor difference for photographers. They were also released almost a year apart. We'll see. Again we have no real idea what to expect, but I think it's a taller order than you think to record 4K 60p internal unless there is a major breakthrough in the processing. That MAY be why it's been in development for longer than people expected? I think it's very possible, even likely, that it outputs 4K 60p but internally? Who knows. I feel like you put way too much emphasis on 60p and auto focus. I think @Shirozina makes a good point, I think 10 bit and a higher bit rate is just as important to many shooters.

Bless your heart @wolf33d, you're a very optimistic person! I kinda doubt the A7S III will have internal 4K 60p unless they have some giant breakthrough in processing to prevent overheating. I think people really don't understand how big of an achievement it was that the GH5 was able to do this in camera and implement it so well. It's not an easy feat in such a small body. And the FS5 mk II is relevant because it was just announced, is a professional cinema camera, and didn't include 4K 60p. There's more of a reason to include it in that camera than there is for the A7S III. The A9 is a stills camera that has basic video features. It's not marketed for hybrid and video shooters, which should be apparent given it only does 1080p. Comparing its video features to the A7III doesn't make sense. Part of the reason people are drawing blanks on what Sony could have in store for the A7S III is because there's a limit to what they can do based on the tech. They already push their cameras to the limit given the tech in them, so it feels like, to achieve a lot of people's requests, they're going to need to have some kind of breakthrough. It's reasonable to expect that they have something big, but how big and what the implications could be are completely unknown.

No need to be rude.

I will never forgive phone makers for allowing video to be shot in portrait mode.

I'm going to guess they mean 50% lower than competing companies like SLR Magic maybe?

Never purchased a used CAMERA from Adorama, but I've purchased used lenses, mics, etc. from them (and B&H) and have never had a problem. They're a great company, from my experiences, and often have nice little deals. I will say I'm partial to B&H as when I purchased a used lav mic from them and received it, I had to add padding to the battery door because the door wasn't pushing the battery down hard enough to power on the mic. While not a HUGE deal, since it worked still, I figured I'd return it and just buy a new/different one. They told me to keep it, refunded my money, and I bought a new one, giving me two of the same mics which was great because I intended to buy a second lav mic anyway once I'd found a decent one!

We have, we're just not interested in paying double the price for it!

Twice the price? No. $2,000? Yes. I'm really that not obsessed with auto focus.

$ Literally the only reason. It really wouldn't surprise me to see the A7S III released next summer, next fall or even in the early winter of 2020. I mean, why not? People were already speculating early in 2017 that it'd be announced / released by the end of the year. A year later, nothing. And as crazy as it sounds, a lot of the people going bananas for the A7 III (and rightfully so) are going to go right out and buy the A7S III, unless they really don't have something big (which almost seems inconceivable at this point.)

I absolutely agree. They NEED to improve it, it's what the market wants and demands, but man is it wild to see how dismissive people are of it now as a camera. I see myself happily shooting with mine for the next several years.

Look at a film like 28 Days Later. Shot on the Canon XL-1 in 2002 it made 86 million at the box office and is a critically acclaimed film. Not bad for a film shot on a "prosumer" camera. Imagine what they could've done today using any number of cameras under the $2,000 mark! Given a whole new generation of filmmakers have grown up and learned on these cameras, it's inevitable that we're going to start seeing successful features shot with this level of gear. While cinema cameras will never go away (nor should they), especially the higher end ones that are engrained in Hollywood and show business culture, it's exciting to think about what the future holds for filmmaking. And I say that as someone that really has no interest in narrative filmmaking personally, as far as shooting it.

You know we're spoiled by auto focus and low light performance when people are so dismissive of the GH5. It really is an incredible camera, a true achievement in camera development. I apologize if that makes me sound like a fan boy, but it really is.

It wouldn't make sense because so many people that shoot on those cameras started on DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras before moving onto higher end cinema cameras. If you're able to get equal results with a DSLR style body that you could get from their cinema camera line, and you're used to / comfortable with using that style of camera, why would you bother? I look at it like this: in 2000 the local production house I got my feet wet in shot with the Canon XL-1, which was a $5,000 camera. They had 4 of them. That was a $20,000 investment. Want to know what they shoot with today? 4 GH4s, a $6,800 investment. According to my friend that works there they don't feel they NEED to invest $5,000 into a single camera anymore because the capabilities of these little cameras are so good and while they could easily afford nicer cameras, given they work with tons of big clients around the state, why bother? The dynamic changed 10 years ago, and so did a lot of people's mentalities. If the DSLR revolution hadn't kicked off production companies like the one I started at would still be dishing out $5,000 for a camera, no doubt. But the key is they don't have to. These cinema lines need something to differentiate themselves, it's integral to their marketing. While a giant Hollywood blockbuster will never be shot on these little cams, it seems inevitable that eventually a pretty big motion picture will be shot with one of them. Hell, we got respected filmmakers releasing films shot on iPhones now! And have we forgotten features were shot on Mini DV less than 15 years ago?

What's the longest someone has recorded with it before it exploded into flames? Ha ha

I am not sure how / why they'd put 4K 60p internal into the A7S III when they didn't / couldn't with the FS5 II. Same with 10 bit. The A7 III really makes this a head scratcher, in terms of what they can pull out of their hat. I'm guessing that's the delay; one, letting the A7 III sell a ton and two, putting in the extra development time to make it a worthwhile successor. They have to have SOMETHING planned. But what? Some of these ideas people are throwing around sound too fanciful / unrealistic, but at the same time, what else could justify the increase in cost that will inevitably come with it? Improved battery life, less overheating, better colors, and even better low light isn't going to be enough I don't think. The A7 III has made it so that the it's going to need SOMETHING big.

Also you might want to reach out to Scott McKenna. He has a severe case of gear lust, ha ha, but it has allowed him to shoot weddings with a lot of different cameras, including the A6500. He bought the A6500, after selling one of his GH5 cameras, for a lot of the reasons you've given, but ultimately sold it because of the quirks. He did a review of it for a wedding which was pretty flattering, but he pretty quickly got rid of it; I forget which video he explained it in, it was a pretty quick explanation, but it ultimately seemed like the negatives outweighed the positives. He re-purchased a GH5. Another good idea might be to rent both the A6500 and the G85, put both cameras through the ringer, and see what works best for you.

I get why people love the a6500 but at the end of the day these are deal killers for me and why I went with the GH5 and the G85 for my b-cam: The battery life. Unless you set up some kind of external battery the number of batteries you'll eat through on an entire wedding day is ridiculous. This alone is a huge killer for me. The overheating. This scares the hell out of me, as someone that has never, ever had to worry about a camera overheating. Especially if I'm shooting an outdoor wedding on a hot day. It's probably more of a mental thing for me, but still, I like knowing that I'm not going to have to worry about my camera overheating, needing a break, or even shutting off when I really need it. The record limit. Not an issue if you're not shooting long form, however if you are, the recording limit can become a real pain in the but, especially if you're doing any external audio (which, for a wedding, you should for speeches, the actual wedding itself, etc.) Not a total deal killer but it's just a minor thing I'd prefer not to deal with. The rolling shutter. I don't mind a little rolling shutter but the a6xxx cameras have way too much. On a wedding shoot it's probably not a deal breaker, but overall, for me and my work, it's just too much. The 1080p is truly awful. I know a lot of people might not care because they will always shoot in 4K, but I still shoot regularly in 1080p for some projects and in my opinion it's unusable. The color science is not pleasing at all. Probably the worst out of all the major companies in my opinion. The form factor. This is obviously a much more personal issue, but I HATE the form factor. BLAH. Lens selection. It has gotten better, obviously, but still, it's still limited compared to other cameras and they come at a premium. Again though this is getting better. The menu system. Blah! All the other little issues others have raised. Overall I get the appeal of the low light performance and the auto focus. But they aren't enough for me personally to deal with all the other things that drive me nuts about these cameras. The A7iii does a lot to improve upon these issues, thankfully, and I think Sony will inevitably get better with this series of cameras. But right now they aren't for me.

Conformed might be a better word than compress, but yes.

Diminishing law of returns. While the SmallHD is obviously better is it 3 times the price better? For some maybe, but for others not so much.

Small rig doesn't have something similar?

It's nice to have as much data as possible to work with, but it's one of those things that people have gotten hung up on. It was inevitable with the digital video revolution as technology allowed us to work with footage in ways we weren't able to 20 years ago when I was a 13 year kid learning from the people at the local production company. It's a good thing, obviously, but at the same time people rely on it so much that they kinda forget that you don't NEED it to achieve good results. @webrunner5 is right, look at the C100.

It's 50 mbps over 29.97 fps. The camera has a buffer, so before it compresses it and writes it to the card it is processed so that 120 fps is played in a 29.97 fps file at four times the length. That all happens before any compression occurs, so it's not really 120 fps @ 50 mbps. True 120 fps at 50 mbps would be way too little. This is actually reasonable; variable bit rate only uses the max bit rate when it needs to. Because your clip likely has very little motion and movement, it didn't need to use all 50 mbps for it all to achieve the best quality and could do so instead at an average of 33 mbps, saving you space on your card.

Despite owning it for two years I've never done 120 fps with it, and I don't have it near me right now, but I'm guessing the 120 fps is slowed down in camera, so 50 mbps isn't actually being used for true 120 fps but the slowed down version that plays at 24/30 fps because 50 mbps would definitely be too little for actual 120 fps video. It'd be 1/4 the quality of 30 fps at 50 mbps and 1/2 the quality of 60 fps at 50 mbps.

I've debated chiming in, because the variable ND I use is a low budget option, but I've been using a Tyfoto variable ND after a friend recommended it to me almost a year ago. I've only really seen Nigel Barros review it since I've owned mine, so I'm not sure how well known they are, but I've been pleased with mine. I'm admittedly a sucker for budget gear, though!