Leaderboard

As I'm really interested in the a7S, I had a browse around for prices and came across this: http://panamoz.com/index.php/sony-ilce-7s-alpha-7s-a7s-full-frame-cmos-digital-camera-body-only.html They are selling the a7S brand new for only £1339.50 inc.VAT, if paid by bank transfer. This is insane, considering other online stores in the UK are selling for around £2099. Does anybody know anything about this website? Why is it so cheap? Anything suspicious or 100% definitely correct? Thanks!

Hey guys

The price is very similar to DigitalRev -20% http://www.digitalrev.com/product/sony-alpha-a7s-body/MTEwMzQwNQ_A_A   Hong Kong model. PAL / NTSC switchable but a total tax dodge!   Looks legit though.

  Except you know what you are saying is wrong. 5ms worse rolling shutter than the 5D Mark II does not mean you "can't use it for anything"   The creative possibilities of this camera are being put before your very eyes in a very skilful way and all you can do is moan. It's sad!

Wong Kar-Wai films, speaking about Deakins. The first two mainstream films where sDoF was used quite often were Die Hard and Alien3 (though only in 'selected shots'). You are right. sDoF is not typical for cinema.

Wait a minute... To be able to record 25p or 30p in 10bit 4:2:2, it has to be interlaced??? Did I hear that right? If so, that majorly sucks!

The bloggers should really start pushing sony to add 10bit output. Start a petition or something. Sony just can't release a perfect product they always have to artificially limit it in some way to make you have to look at their higher end shit.

I think the ideal is probably to have a sensor larger than S35, where 4K is the central S35 portion, 5 or 6k is your full frame, and smaller crops from the center are capabale of higher frame rates. Then using an amazing compressed raw codec. But wait, That's a Red Epic! Red do get some things right ;) shame the footage just doesn't look as nice as Arri's

I believe your view on a DP's job is oversimplified. Yes, they do care -a lot- about DOF and bokeh, because those are also composition tools. To think they just worry about camera placement and framing is like saying an actor only has to memorize some text. When you shoot a closeup, sometimes you want the character blended in the environment, but many times you want to isolate the face with very shallow DOF to center the attention on his/her expresion. And the bokeh orbs that you see in the background are often lights or elements placed on purpose to serve as defocused background, and have nothing to do with the real background or what you see in the wide shot. For wide shots such as establishing shots (descriptive) deep focus is usually desirable, since you want to show a general impression of the setting and not focus the attention on a specific point. The problem comes when some unseasoned or untrained filmmaker decides to shoot every establishing shot with an 18mm @ T1.5, just to "show off" shallow DOF. The same could be applied to many closeups: you do not always need the background that blurred. DOF is not an aesthetic element that looks "cool", but a narrative element to tell a story. And composition is probably the last thing a DP worries about. Composition is relatively easy. Its rules are common knowledge. Camera placement and lens choice pretty much define it. It has already been agreed in preproduction and any decent camera operator would be able to frame properly. DPs are more concerned with lighting. If you are looking for that cinematic look, you need proper lighting and lenses, and the extra stop of light provided by the Speedbooster becomes irrelevant (though may come in handy in docu).

That depends on the lenses, doesn't it? I switched to m4/3 for photo work and the Panasonic zooms are a treat. I could do with shallower DoF on the wide angles, but that's just about the only thing I'm missing. I think this is where many people are missing the forest for the trees: Sure you can shoot at ISO 400k in an area lit by two candles, but as a long time photographer, I find that this results in crap images. Good images (be it stills or video) need good light. The current crop of sensors can do at least ISO 1600 competently, with ISO 3200 being workable as well. I find I don't really need more than that most of the time. Certain people might need more, like photojournalists, concert photographers, or documentary shooters, but if you can have a say in the lighting, what're you doing chasing after super high ISO cameras?

So FFs have advantage here actually. Some of them have crop mode option in video (like Sony a7S) so you will get exactly what you want: 2 fov-s from 1 lens. But in opposite to smaller sensor + SB: - you don't have to unmount lens and mount SB to change FOV. Just press a button. - you don't have to pay for expensive SB (even worse if you want to use lenses with different mount-s). - you get 2 fov-s even with native lenses (with their advantages: perfect fit, autofocus. IS, size, software in-camera corrections etc.)

Not my video but some of the best A6000 footage I have seen yet. I'm convinced they left XAVC S codec out of this camera purposely "just my theory". It would have been too much camera for the asking price. Very organic image, I did spot moire on one of the guys shirt but hell the images still look quite good.

The Pocket camera looks great . Best buy around.

I'd rather take ProRes home from my Shogun than MJPEG from my 1D C internally so the internal 4K recording is of no advantage to me.   That's just me :) I cannot use the LCD on the 1D C for focus or exposure in 4K, it needs a monitor with peaking, zoom, zebra etc. So does the A7S yet I have 4K over that HDMI. Huge advantage in my book!   I can understand totally the need to justify a purchase that costs in the region of $12,000 and delivers such a lovely image but when it comes to functionality and the A7S comparison I'm only pointing out the facts!

first not fake GH4 vs a7S:

Have not used the A7s yet, but I have used the 1D C. Yes, it's heavy, cumbersome, and does not have peaking/zebras…and file sizes are huge. However, the image (Canon Log) is stunning. I've seen it on 75 foot screens in Hollywood. It's brilliant with very little color correction needed. The 1D C image will hold up 50 years from now. It's really that good. No exaggeration. A lot of 'regular' people in the audience thought they were watching a film that had been shot on 35mm film. We can bitch about the price of the cam $ all we want, but the puppy delivers the goods when you view it. Somehow Canon engineers sold their souls to the devil. They're just the best at color science. (skin tones/that 'x' factor) Period. It's voodoo man. That being sad, Andrew is correct, the A7s is lighter, has more video functions, and will be much easier to use. Better in low light, yes, although I shot 12,800 on buddy's short film on the 1D C and it looked amazing. (with minor noise reduction). The image from A7s will not look as good as the 1D C right out of the gate. It will require much more post work. The 1D C is all built like a tank (you can shoot with it in a hurricane) and is the best stills camera that has ever been made (still is). Over 80% of photogs at the Olympics were using it. (or the 1D X). The Super 35 mode on 1D C looks ZERO difference from the Canon C300. Try and figure that on a side to side test. Impossible. If the 1D C had been sold for $5 grand out of the gate, every indie filmmaker would already own one. (indie films from last 2 years would look better) And they would not have complained at all. The price is what soured the community on the 1D C, not the image. If you shoot at least 50% stills for a living, or you shoot films with a small crew, than the 1D C is still your best bet for DSLR video. If you are budget strapped, are basically a 1 man show, than of course the A7 s will work - even though the rolling shutter is the worst I think I've ever seen from any cam. I will say this: Canon is absolutely ridiculous for not putting basic video functions on the 1D C from its inception, however. You can bet the 1D C part 2 will have that - and will still have that 'voodoo'. My 2 cents.

Awesome song and nice video of it, enjoyed watching that :)

They do "Who said it to be so? Let the sword resolve it! Contest! And God be the judge!" (which means we want side-by-side footage :) )

It's very good now. You need to put in a few blank adjustment layers before you send it through, for convenience, plus it's best to switch off other grading and effects first too as they slow Speedgrade down. Other than that, once you get over the first couple of hours learning hump, it's smooth sailing. Beats rendering IMHO

For anyone with Premiere CC, Speedgrade CC makes a lot of sense! Just send the sequence, then it comes back with an LUT which renders very quickly... non-destructive and very fast

Had a go with my newly aquired GH4 today. Took a short trip to local cemetery in bleeding harsh noon sunlight. Everything shot with the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 Ai-s and ND. Shot in 4K and cropped to 2K in AE. Graded with a lut only. Used James Millers settings with minor adjustments. Aspect set to 1:2.40 for the infamous "movie/film-aspect ratio". Sorry for only still images taken from the edit. Have not been able to render out yet, but wanted to share what I consider a fantastic value-for-money camera. I think it captures wonderful images I can't wait to explore it more.