kye Posted February 1, 2021 Author Share Posted February 1, 2021 20 hours ago, BTM_Pix said: It gets very, very close to their IQ but is a significantly better camera when viewed in the round. Size, weather sealing, IBIS, AF etc mean its an everyday camera. As with the Phase One and Hasselblad you are getting F1 performance but the difference is that you can also pop down to the shops in it. Absolutely, and that's why I am even tangentially interested in the format. My expectations of a camera are that the 'rig' is the camera body, an SD card, a lens, an on-camera mic and a wrist strap and then I put a couple of spare batteries and a couple of other lenses in my bag and I'm off for an 18-hour day, during which I shoot anything and every that that peaks my interest. In those circumstances my phone would take better images than a Phase One because my phone would suit the conditions and the Phase One would be a PITA. 20 hours ago, BTM_Pix said: My point is of it being a hybrid so they are all going to be compromised but its a question of degree. The P6K has a far, far more limited stills capability than the GFX100 has a limited video capability. If you want RAW from the A7s3 then you'll need an external recorder as well so there's no difference there. The biggest gripes I see about the P6K (aside from AF which I seem to remember someone has a plan for) is that is doesn't have an EVF or IBIS. The biggest gripe about the A7s3 is that it can only do 12mp stills. So the GFX100s kills the P6K on three very desirable features for shooting video and kills the A7s3 for photography and matches it in how you can aquire RAW with it. And so it should for $6500 😉 Another $600 when you are already $6500 in isn't exactly chicken feed but considering the extra quality bump it will give you then there's no point spoiling the job for a ha'porth of tar. Also, in my opinion, a lot of the negativity about having to use a Ninja V etc doesn't really give enough balance in terms of the additional monitoring features and media advantages it brings. I'm looking at it from the perspective of video-only and also from the perspective of getting good-enough quality with a portable package. For me, shooting with an external monitor / recorder is a downside as it means the rig is larger, heavier, requires more complexity in power solutions, has messy cables, and creates unwieldy file sizes. The A7S3 internal codecs are good enough for me (actually they're radically more than what I'd need, but luckily they have high quality 1080p and ALL-I codecs). I just saw that the GFX100 can do 1080 at 400Mbps so I guess that's fine for my purposes. In a sense the more integration that they build into these cameras the less they will make them usable with things like focus peaking and exposure tools etc, so that's not a good thing. Anyway, it's good to have the option of external RAW but keeping good internal quality should remain a high priority. 20 hours ago, BTM_Pix said: Resolution isn't frame rate though so i'm not sure what you mean ? I meant that with a 100MP sensor it's odd that it can only do 4K. Considering the hype has moved to 6K and 8K which are now settled as standards you'd think that offering these would be a 'home turf' advantage of MF. If you think about MFT, doing 6K or 8K means having to work on new sensors and dealing with all kinds of new issues, but MF was already the king of high resolution, so you'd think that these things would be playing to the strengths it already has. 20 hours ago, BTM_Pix said: The advantages of having a much higher aquisition resolution than the target output resolution were vital to me in terms of cropping latitude and downsampling. The images being put out on the wire might only have been the equivalent of 5-6mp but we were still shooting on 16 and 20mp cameras. And I would've bitten your hand off to have 100 megapixels! Ok, that makes sense. 20 hours ago, BTM_Pix said: It depends on the lens. Very much like MFT lenses on the APS-C JVC LS300 which theoretically should have covered around 82% of rhe sensor but in practicse some of them could get much closer to 95 or even 100%. But whilst some had that additional coverage some of the edge performance wasn't workable. I guess I see the crop factor as being a strength and weakness. It's great if it can use FF lenses, but that also means that the sensor isn't so much larger than FF. Given a hypothetical 6x4.5 camera as a competitor, it wouldn't be able to use FF lenses, but would have a huge sensor size advantage over FF, so would be easily worth the trouble. I guess that brings us to.... 20 hours ago, BTM_Pix said: It was actually beyond fine and for whatever reason performed better on the GFX100 than I'd seen it on any other camera that I've put it on. I think I got so excited that I almost declared that it had mojo. Almost. For me, I see MFT as having the advantage of being what I already have lenses for. FF as being the thing that is now good enough, has a larger sensor, and has heaps of lenses and overall support. MF represents going away from what I already have, and where all the lenses are, but you'd do it for the mojo. Considering that the GFX is only a little bit larger than FF, but is the best you've ever seen that lens and is also almost good enough to use the M-word, maybe a 645 sensor would be crazy good and worth all the 645 lens shenanigans that would be required. To me, a format that is only just a little bit better than FF seems to be skimping on the thing that it really has going for it. Now, of course, there are limits - I'm not going to be lining up at the camera store to buy an 8x10 camera for shooting my travel films, but MF needs to offer something significant over FF to really make it worth the hassle of going through that transition. 16 hours ago, TomTheDP said: Not sure what you mean exactly. You can replicate DOF on a bigger sensor to a point until you run into lens limitations. Can't get past .95, which is pretty rare on lenses to begin with outside of M43. @mercer is talking about a certain X-factor that can occur with larger sensor sizes. I've been trying to chase down what this might be, and you're right that it's not FOV or DoF, but it's important to know that the math doesn't explain everything that's going on with sensors and lenses. I've tested a lot of lenses in controlled conditions and when you do these tests you start to see differences that there are no readily available explanations for. An example of this is the Takumar lenses, which render images that are noticeably flatter and less 3D-looking than other lenses, and this is under controlled conditions with everything else being equal. Same focal lengths, apertures, same lighting, camera position, etc etc. It's something that the Takumars are known for. The question is, if the background is the same level of blurriness, then how is the perception of 3D space different? I've been looking at this question for years and haven't come up with anything, except that I've seen it myself enough times to know that something is going on. Sensor size can have a similar effect, some things look more 3D than other things. Not sure why, it just does. This is one of the attractions of larger sensors. See @BTM_Pix comments above about the Contax lens being better than any other camera he's seen it on. Why would this be the case? Who knows. I've played with things like this and these effects hold up even if you decrease the resolution, bitrate, and even colour depth and even if you make the images B&W, so I can't readily find an explanation for it. 9 minutes ago, TomTheDP said: Its gonna take a while for Medium format to really catch on for video. The golden standard for Cinema is the Alexa LF, which is really just full frame. Arri doesn't put out new cameras too often. FF only took a few years to 'catch up' to where MFT was, and the MF cameras we're talking about aren't that far away from FF in terms of sensor size. Certainly they're a lot closer to FF than FF was to MFT. If there is market demand, which is debatable considering FF still has a lot of hype and many haven't moved from MFT or S35 to it yet, it could be that MF 'arrives' in a few years. mercer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.