A7Sii: SmallHD Focus vs. Atomos Inferno

[Jadesroom]

I'm going back and forth between which of these two monitors I should buy.  The decision comes down to the answer to this question:  Is the quality of the Inferno's 8bit 422 image so much better than the A7sii's internal 8bit 420 that it justifies the extra cost and bulk of the Inferno compared with the Focus? What say ye?

[EthanAlexander]

10 hours ago, Jadesroom said:

Is the quality of the Inferno's 8bit 422 image so much better than the A7sii's internal 8bit 420 that it justifies the extra cost and bulk of the Inferno compared with the Focus? What say ye?

No. Absolutely not. There are plenty of comparisons online that show even under pretty severe grading it's not a big difference. All you'll really be doing is increasing the amount of storage you need by 4x-7x. 

[Shirozina]

14 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

No. Absolutely not. There are plenty of comparisons online that show even under pretty severe grading it's not a big difference. All you'll really be doing is increasing the amount of storage you need by 4x-7x. 

Totaly disagree  - IME on my A7s and A7r2 the files from the external recorder stand up to much more grading than the internal codec esp with Slog2 and particularly where blue skies are involved. I can't see  A7sII files being any different in that regard.

Btw - have you used an ext recorder with these cameras and compared the output and can you provide some links to these tests you refer to?

[IronFilm]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1336174-REG/smallhd_mon_focus_5_touch_screen.html

Micro-HDMI Input?? Nooooo

Thank goodness the GH5 did away with the Micro HDMI nonsense and went full size! However the a7S mk2 is still stuck with micro HDMI

But at least get a monitor with full size HDMI?

As for an external recorder, I reckon 9 times out of 10 it is not worth it unless you are at a minimum going from 8 to 10 bit (or raw. Or gaining a leap in resolution to 4K, such as with the a7S mk1). 

[Shirozina]

Micro HDMI is fine as long as you use a cable lock as even full size hdmi cables can be dislodged.It doesn't need 10 bit or RAW to see the advantage over internal codecs when grading log. It's the massive compression that's the problem not the bit depth. Ext recorders / monitors also give you better monitoring tools to enable you to focus, expose and WB more accuratley  - the later being more crucial if you are shooting log ( severely compromised anyway on an internal codec). Downsides are not insignificant - bulk, weight, power requirements, extra media for capture and storage, difficult viewing in bright light. I rarely use my VideoDevices Pix-e anymore for the above reasons and since I have moved away from log capture to getting the image 99% right in camera the improvements in image quality are not enough to justify It's use outside a studio or static setup.

[Axel]

4 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Micro HDMI is fine as long as you use a cable lock as even full size hdmi cables can be dislodged.

The smallHD Focus' Micro HDMI port is secure. It fits tight, and you theoretically could let the the monitor hang on the cable. In the camera sets, they provide two 40 cm cables, one Micro>Micro, one Micro>HDMI, and a double female adapter to prolong the latter. Nothing to complain here.

4 hours ago, Shirozina said:

It doesn't need 10 bit or RAW to see the advantage over internal codecs when grading log. It's the massive compression that's the problem not the bit depth

That's right. However, with Slog3 in 8-bit, you still may have banding in the sky even if you recorded externally, only slightly less than with native XAVC. With Slog2, you have to avoid noise in the shadows (> ETTR), because compressed noise is the worst. Other than that, there is no difference worth the hassle of a ProRes recorder. 

4 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Ext recorders / monitors also give you better monitoring tools to enable you to focus, expose and WB more accuratley  - the later being more crucial if you are shooting log ( severely compromised anyway on an internal codec).

I find the Focus to be very good for that. You have histogram, waveform, vectorscope, false colors, zebra, peaking, all completely customizable. And if you wish on separate screens that you can change  with a wipe on the touchscreen. Well thought out. The Inferno, as good as it may be, weighs 709g without battery, the Focus 106g ...

[Asmundma]

Another way to say it, I have the Shogun, but bought the Focus. Its excellent. Support what other says, however if you are filming water / sea - the Shogun can help- (a lot of movement in the picture)

[EthanAlexander]

9 hours ago, Shirozina said:

Btw - have you used an ext recorder with these cameras and compared the output?

I have used them, yes. Wouldn't have answered if I hadn't  

I've used professionally pretty much every sony camera FS7 and down (and external recorders). In all but the most extreme cases (~90% of them) the internal XAVC recordings are just as good as a ProRes external. 

So, since he asked if it justified the extra cost and bulk of the inferno, I think the difference isn't worth it. 

 

[Shirozina]

15 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

In all but the most extreme cases (~90% of them) the internal XAVC recordings are just as good as a ProRes external. 

 

 

Not my experience - esp with Slog.