Dinosaur or T-rex?
I am really pleased to say the video quality of the X Pro 2 is seriously impressive. It’s not 4K but it’s enormously satisfying, sharp and detailed.
What’s great is that now we can finally shoot moving images with Fuji’s superb film-like colour science, without having to worry about image quality.
We head into 2016 with a treasure chest of great cameras but how exactly do the mirrorless and DSLR cameras rank for video?
Last February I made the first EOSHD video quality charts 2014. This was an at-a-glance chart of image quality delivered by every camera I can possibly think. This year I’ve decided only to include the cameras I’ve direct experience of shooting with in my own filmmaking projects, with only a few exceptions such as the Sony F35 and Canon C300. I’ve also removed cameras that have been superseded by very similar ones (such as the GH2 by the G6, sharing the same sensor).
Here are the results…
Slashcam have chart tested the A7S internal recording modes and the results for the regular frame rates 24-30p are incredibly positive.
However it seems that in 60p the camera cannot utilise the full pixel readout of the sensor, which results in a worse image with moire and aliasing.
You can read my take on this below or head over to Slashcam to read the original piece (Google translated)
I decided to get my hands on a Nikon D4S at a local store in Berlin, to see if the much hyped ‘new image processor’ gives a real improvement in video quality. Nikon have made a lot of marketing noises about this ‘HD-SLR’ and video. It’s a camera which according to their management “started out as a small update but became much bigger”. Hmm.
This isn’t a comprehensive review of the D4S, rather it seeks to answer one simple question that Nikon themselves so far have been dodging. Has video got better on it?
This chart is an overall look at the whole spectrum of video and cinema cameras from the Arri Alexa right down to the Fuji X series of stills cameras.