Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'A7s'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • started by


Last Updated

  • started by


Filter by number of...


  • started by



Website URL








My cameras and kit

Found 64 results

  1. What is the best way to deal with potential banding from the A7s and from other cameras that produce 8-bit files? Here is an example of banding that appeared in A7s footage after pushing it in post. Thanks!
  2. Our first shoot with the Sony A7S. Shot 1080p60 1/60th shutter with Picture Profile 7 (Slog2), with Color Mode changed to Cinema. Graded in Premiere Pro CC using color curves and saturation, the same setting applied to all clips. The goal was to see how well the A7S handled skintones under very challenging, changing lighting conditions: low light, multicolor spots, etc. NR was only used on the first clip (very very low light). Shot handheld using the Sony SEL18-200mm APS-C lens (FS700 kit lens), AUTO ISO, AWB, AF (center spot focus area), IS, manual zoom, built in mics. With this lens and settings, the A7S makes an excellent low-light live/event camera.
  3. Hello! Just got my A7s over the weekend and would like to know how everyone's converting their MTS files to their favourite gradable file format. At the moment i'm doing Adobe Prelude to Apple ProRes 422 but somehow the output is much worse after transcoding. Most likely something i'm doing wrong in the code settings! Cheers Shaun
  4. So I run a small film company, Lightworks Films, and we have done a few reviews on the Canon 5d Mark III and the C100 (here is one of my reviews). I am really interested in purchasing a Sony a7s, and to my eyes (online) the camera looks better than the C100 - can anyone with both cameras comment? Or anyone who has used both? I am specifically referring to resolution - not 4k, but how well the a7s resolves 1080 compared to the c100 at 1080. Thanks for your thoughts!
  5. Using picture profile 7 on the A7S uses Slog2 Gamma and S-Gamut Color Mode. This can result in green/yellow splotches on skintones after converting Slog2 into something that looks close to Rec709. WB settings in camera or after correction in post don't appear to matter: only certain shades of skintones have the color issues. While this can be fixed with qualifier color range correction tools, that's a lot of extra work. I found that changing the Color Mode to Cinema appears to fix the color issue (Pro Color Mode also looks pretty good). It's not clear how this might affect dynamic range (figure primarily related to gamma/luma), as that's a major point of using Slog2, however so far the results look pretty good.
  6. Got the sony A7s while back in Hong Kong for vacation, full user experience and review coming soon, be sure to let me know what you would like to know about the camera so i can put it in the review. I was fortunate enough to listen and talk to Den Lennie about the sony a7s, which has helped me greatly in understanding the camera. This camera has amazing low light capabilities as claimed, some of the shots in this video were pushed to 64000 iso and still produced a usable image, around half of the shots were filmed in Slog-2. Say goodbye to the mushy canon dslr footage, the 1080 xacvs footage is detailed and has a good amount of wiggle room in post. Some stills from the film
  7. Quick Review A7S vs GH4 Where the GH4 is better: Build quality Viewfinder Flip out screen User interface (by a mile) Battery life (by a mile) Color science Skin tones Rolling shutter (by quite a bit) Detail (internal 4K and 4K to HD) Noise grain (mostly pleasing monochromatic) Built-in flash for stills When lens size is included, a much smaller package Can shoot best quality on < 64GB Class 10 UHS-1 cards (A7S requires >=64GB cards for XAVC-S) Price Where the A7S is better: Low light (it's very good however the noise grain is colored and multi-spectral; not as pleasing as GH4's mostly monochromatic fine-grain noise) Shallow DOF (add a SpeedBooster/focal-reducer to the GH4 and this isn't much of an advantage) Audio (no buzz; not tested thoroughly yet though) If a 5D3/full-frame owner: can use existing lenses with a non-focal-reducer adapter (with similar DOF) Super 35 mode allows use of many NEX lenses (some aliasing) Auto ISO After having worked with 5D3 14-bit RAW and RED RAW, where the unmodified RAW looks pretty good straight from the camera, Slog2, Cinegammas, Cine-D/V, etc., start looking like gimmicks. None of those gamma curves are providing a real increase in dynamic range. In certain cases they may provide more information for 8-bit compression, however they can be tricky to use and must be exposed carefully. I've had the best luck shooting Natural with the GH4 (and no crazy curves), though iDynamic is helpful sometimes (appears to be local pixel group based processing vs. a simple curve. The A7S has a similar feature (disabled if any picture profile or effect is active, though)). Rolling shutter is very challenging on the A7S in full frame mode (worse than the 5D3): not very usable for handheld without a lens with IS and/or a solid rig. The A7S menu and button system is a mess. The FS700 has a better design! (many folks find the FS700 non-intuitive to use). Both cameras have aliasing and moire in slow motion. Perhaps similar to the FS700 in 240fps mode (not as bad as FS700 480+fps modes). I haven't done a direct comparison, however the FS700 120fps and less slow motion is better than the GH4 and A7S (all slow motion modes). While the A7S isn't quite a one-trick-pony (low light), the GH4 is a much better all around camera. I haven't had the A7S as long as the GH4, so there may be other elements that make the A7S more compelling, yet to be discovered.
  8. Hi, Let's start this topic with a new high ISO test done by Artbenny.
  9. Hi, I am in photo and video since a few years and I had a lot of cameras : fuji XE1, XPRO1, canon 5D2, ... Since a few months I have nothing, and I watch the market which is changing a lot and want to invest in a system for a long time (lenses, accessories, ...) because I am tired to change everything each time. I am gonna give you what I shoot, and then my pros/cons for each and then you can tell me your point of view ? So I shoot 50% stills (Mostly landscapes and portraits). Exemples of shots : http://500px.com/loup_f What I basically need as lense is a or 16-35 (full frame) for landscapes and a 85mm for portrait for exemple. And 50% videos. My videos are only travel videos. When I go somewhere, I shoot and make a video of the trip. For exemple, my last trip in California : As you can see, I do a lot of timelapses (with the same lens as the landscape stills one) and basic shoot of people and streets (for exemple the 16-35 at 35mm would be fine, or with a 50mm). I also do paragliging and sports, so here it's a bit special. I use the gopro but wouldn't mind using the body in the air (lens with IS necessary here). Also, I like to spend time on edit. So I like the RAW possibilites. Now about the cameras: I just purchased a 5D mark III used. I made a good deal (200eur under normal used price) and I have it with the 24-70 that I don't like (not wide enough, not long enough, not fast enough (2.8) so I prefer primes^^). If I invest for the 5DIII I am going to buy : a sturdy carbon tripod, a glidecam, the new 16-35mm f4 IS just released (for landscapes and video), and a cheap 85mm 1.8 for portraits, ND filters, canon flash and so on. So as you see I don't want to buy all of this and then have to sell everything in 6 months because A7S is much better ... My dilema is : Should I keep 5DIII invest in what I said or just use it with the 24-70 2 months and then sell it and go for A7S ? My pros and cons : 5DIII pros: -RAW for video : big pro for me -Cheap lenses used (yes not the new 16-35 which will be 1199 like the sony one) but for exemple 270 for the 85mm. -pro body, resistant, nice to handle -price and value: got it for 1800 used / A7S is gonna be 2500 because no available used. Not a new body so value is going down slowly now. 5DIII cons: Big and heavy for travel No cool slowmotion (FHD 60fps and 120 fps like A7S, I use a lot slowmo) Dynamic range A7S pros: size - wheight : big pro for me slow motion : big pro for me DR for landscapes : way better than 5D here A7S cons: New body so pay full price and value is going down quickly No Raw video Lenses price : they are new only, the 85mm will be like 1500usd ... So a bit shitty. Conclusion For photo they are both fine (slight edge for A7S with DR for landscapes and timelapses) For video 5DIII has raw advantage and A7S has slowmo ( I don't use external 4K) A7S has size advantage and 5DIII has price advantage (due to the fact I got it used, and lens used as well) For future, for the moment I trust more in investing canon system (for exemple when 5D4 is out I get it and keep the rest) as Sony is changing system all the time like crazy. But I might be wrong. Sometimes I tell myself I should just get the sony RX100 III (slow mo, 24-70 5 axis IS, ...) such a convenient camera. But I am affraid it is only a "compromise" and will be frustrated by results (lack of bokeh, dynamic range for timelapses, no ultra wide angle...) So according to my conclusion and use what do you think ? Thanks for reading
  10. Does the A7s' high-ISO capability effectively negate the dof advantage I’d otherwise get by choosing a Micro 4/3 camera? (Assuming I’m trying to achieve maximum dof.) In other words, shouldn't I be able to match even the deepest dof I could get with an m4/3, just by stopping-down and boosting the ISO…and of course changing the lens to match perspective, etc? Here's the thing: I'm bumping up from teeny-chip camcorders with 10x (yes, that’s double-digits) crop factors, and from this point-of-view, and in light of the A7s, the dof advantage of a 2x crop vs. FF seems almost non-existent. I’m wondering if I shouldn't skip over the m4/3 sensors and go with the A7s. (I’m usually in low-light, high-contrast environments, so the appeal of the A7s on other fronts is obvious.) There are a boatload of questions about the still-unreleased A7s, but in terms of dof, does my thinking make sense? Thanks.
  11. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1044728-REG/sony_ilce7s_b_alpha_a7s_mirrorless_digital.html
  12. I am reading mixed reviews about the sony lens.Although DxoMark has rated it quite high. In case I get the A7s I am wondering if I should keep my 24-105 or go sony all the way. From what I've read metabones have created a mark 3 adapter that supports the IS of the canon lens. So what do you think quality wise between the too?
  13. Just curious how many people are waiting for real reviews or for the release date of A7s in order to get it instead of the GH4. Would also love to hear your view on whether a very good 1080p is good enough for you.
  14. A "tech geek's" comment inspired by the Sony A7S release... I appreciate the quality of codec/bitrates of the new Panasonic GH4 (there are several first examples available online), the maturity and all-round versatility of the system, as well as its plethora of great improvements (like the “depth-for-defocus†contrast-detection AF). However, there is one thing on GH4 I have never found to be the most elegant technical solution. Namely, it is rather high megapixel score (16MP). I do suppose for a motion-stills/video oriented micro 43 camera the optimal resolution would be 12+MP. The arguments are straightforward: 1. 12+MP on a micro 43 sensor is a “native†resolution for the academy DCI 4K standard (4096×2160 pixels). On GH4, DCI 4K is supported in the crop mode (x2 vs x2.3), owing to the higher horizontal resolution of its 16MP sensor (4608 pixels). To note: x2 vs. x2.3 crop is noticeably less pleasant for a video maker (!). 2. Higher continuous shooting rates for stills: 30% speed-up in the continuous shooting does matter (!). 3. Slightly lower ISO noise (and slightly higher dynamic range) in the video and pictures’ modes. For the motion-stills/video-oriented cameras (1) and (2) is much more important than extra 4 MP in stills. B.t.w, I lived a quite happy stills’ live with my G2 – just be thorough with composition and no need to crop :). There are well-known successful examples of the strategy (“less MP = more speed/IQâ€) in the DSLR world (Nikon D4 (16MP/FF), Canon 1D (18MP/FF)… And now – “suddenly†appeared at NAB, the first 4K mirrorless full-frame Sony A7S. As compared to the GH4, A7S has lower bandwidth/processing power (50 Mbps vs. 200 Mpbs for 1K, UHD (3840×2160) vs. DCI resolution, 4:2:2/8 bits vs. 4:2:2/10 bits etc.) with the advantage in the high ISO of course. Note that A7s has also 14 bit RAW for stills. However I would rather applaud Sony for limiting the sensor resolution by 12MP. It is a very harmonic engineering solution for the motion-oriented hybrid camera. Dreaming forward about 4K on micro 43… I would like to see two lines of Panasonic sensors: 16MP for the stills-oriented cameras and 12MP for the motion-oriented ones. For that I would gladly pay extra. Apparently, Panasonic thought about it more than me. Sadly, they do not follow this path likely due to the high financial burden for maintaining the two lines of the "perfect" sensors on one consumer’s products line. This is in contrast to Sony which always seem to have enough cash to sit on several sits (e.g. A7, A7R, A7S, NEX, ... )… PS I do not intend to compare 4K/micro 43 vs. 4K/mirrorless-FF as systems themselves here: the pro/cons are be basically the same as for the stills’ counterparts. Stay tuned, ZZ VISUAL
  • Create New...