Leaderboard

Another re-edit : I realized, I stopped taking pictures almost completely, and instead use only framegrabs...The quality is simply outstanding, and quite honestly, the gap between photo and video has become so thin, its barely noticeable.

So this is absolutely not a scientific test, but I was curious how the A7Rii would hold up to my 1DC, which I believe gives a wonderful cinematic image, especially when filming people. Chalk it up to Canon's color science, a great sensor, 4:2:2 color, whatever -- but at current used prices I think the 1DC is a steal (and it takes amazing stills) That said, it's also getting long in the tooth, and the A7Rii was an attractive potential upgrade, especially with 42mp stills, IBIS, and small body that makes gimbal work manageable. But I wondered how it would fare image-wise, especially when it comes to skin tones. I didn't want to use S-Log2 or C-Log, since I don't have any experience grading S-Log2 and I know it can be a challenge, especially on the 8-bit codec. So I shot my 1DC in the neutral profile with sharpness and saturation down, which is what I normally do when not using C-Log. I did my best to match it on the A7Rii -- Andrew's EOSHD Flat settings (Cine4, Black levels up, Detail down, Saturation down a bit) come quite close actually, but I used Pro gamma as Cinema gamma just made the reds look off. Again, this is by no means a scientific or extensive test, and I did very little grading (no LUT, just a single color correction layer in FCPx). And I'm sure someone could do a better job matching the shots, but this at least gives you a sense of the general differences. My big question was whether I could easily get an image out of the A7Rii that could compete with the 1DC without a ton of post work. Both cameras are using the same white balance, ISO, and aperture, although the crop factor is slightly different due to APS-H vs APS-C. I used a Canon 50mm/1.2 on both cameras, and both are handheld with no loupe to stabilize, making it easy to tell which camera is which due to Sony's IBIS. Although I did a number of tests, here's a quick comparison for those interested. This is 4k scaled down to 1080p to make it easier to share: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2135/1DC-A7Rii-Test.mov Here's a frame grab from FCPx that's higher-res (1DC is zoomed slightly to match so will look less sharp when viewed at full res): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2135/1DC-A7Rii.jpg My personal opinion thus far: The A7Rii can indeed put out a beautiful image when filming people, although it's still not quite as gorgeous as the 1DC. This could be because the 1DC is slightly softer (maybe due to the low-pass filter, so perhaps the A7Sii could be better) and the A7Rii sensor detail just doesn't benefit skin (most photographers end up smoothing skin a bit, I imagine), or due to color, or maybe I just need to spend more time tweaking Sony's insane number of settings. It seems like the 1DC has smoother highlight roll-off, and just gives a touch of softness that benefits people, making it *feel* a bit better to me, even if it's technically inferior. That said, it's close (some might prefer the A7Rii look). And with the A7Rii I gain a lot of great video features the 1DC does not have. Don't know if I'm quite yet ready to retire my Canon and go all in on Sony... but it's tempting and I will be keeping an eye on FS5 firmware updates. Curious to hear from anyone else who has worked with the A7Rii or A7Sii when it comes to filming people.

I also want to like this new generation of Sony cameras. Ever since magic lantern blew the lid off canon DSLRs by enabling RAW, I've been expecting an HD/2K camera to come along that offers similar quality in proper shape at a decent price. Instead its all 4K smoke and mirrors, delivered with flaky, pain in the ass codecs.

I currently have the 50 1.2 AIS and a 50 1.8 AF-d, and 55 2.8 macro I've owned the older 50 1.4 S in the past. 1.8 and 2 are really pretty much the same thing. All of them are pretty sharp at f/2. the 1.4 I had was pretty dreamy wide open and got sharp around 2.8 or so if I recall. The 1.8 I have is sharp wide open and about the same at 2.8. The 1.2 is very good wide open and really sharp closed down. the 55 2.8 macro is just next level, edge to edge sharpness throughout it's aperture settings. Unrelated to the 50s, but I bought a 20mm 2.8 AIS the other week and man is it nice. It's already one of my favorite nikon lenses

That was discussed just a few weeks ago to some length here in the forum: The outcome: turn all "features" off. Funnily my s/o's sister said she thinks it looks way better with the sharpening, saturation and motion smoothing cranked up. Seems the "film look" will probably die out in a few generations.

The jerky motion could be caused by lens stabilization, especially since you say it's not dependent on shutter speed. As for the sharpening, that is kinda the normal behaviour of simple spatial sharpening. If you take a blurry picture and apply x amount of sharpening, the effect seems to be small. Take a sharp picture and apply same sharpening and the effect seems very strong. Therefore the jerky motion + sharpening will accentuate the jerkiness even more.

This crippling of cameras capabilities on purpose is getting really ridiculous and insulting. We know how much of a scam it really is since the 2009 mark II is 14 bit raw capable thanks to magic lantern, - The gh2 capable of much higher quality compressions thanks to the hack. - The sony F5 internal 4k capability with a simple line change edit in the config text file. I'm under the impression we have come to a point in camera technology where the entry line cameras are fully capable of producing at least 4:2:2 color, possibly at 10bit depth and definitively with higher quality compressions. Problem is with this level of image quality the enormous price jump of the high end cameras would be hard to justify even with raw formats. They just have to mess up the cheaper ones somehow. Since blackmagic strategy is to offer the most features at the best price to compete with the market, and they don't have such a crowded product line to have to apply this product segmentation garbage I believe they are a good comparison: Ursa mini $4,995 Sony fs5 $5,599.00 ProRes XQ 4:4:4 - 250 MB/s XAVC Long 4:2:0 - 100Mb/s with macro blocking nightmare It's 2016, you pay 5'600usd for macroblocked 4:2:0 8 bit. Come on now.

Even the GH4 has an ALL-I codec at 200Mbit/s... and that's $1400. $1400 vs $5600 The less you pay, the better the codec?! Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, $1000 and under. 10bit ProRes and internal Cinema DNG raw! Indeed, c'mon Sony!!

to quote Ricky Gervais... "It's better to create something that others criticise than to create nothing & criticise others".

Nice write up. And please, this is in no way a "defense", Im happy people don't like it. Thats why I could get is so cheap But a few thoughts as answers to why I, even though I knew everything Ebrahim says before buying it, still went ahead. All clips in my video are ISO +800 pushed. Doesn't look noisy to me.The number of stops depends on what you compare to. I have decided to rate the BMCC at 13. Which means the XC10 has 12. And the R1 has in my experience more than the Canon. I will do a side by side with the BMCC. But what Ive seen so far makes me guess 13. Anyway, will know tomorrow.Power isn't a problem for me. Its like any other camera to me and the way I shot.The codec is what finally made me buy it. I takes up almost no space/quality, is super easy to work with and I just like it.The fan is very quite. Feels nice compared to the noisy BMCC.ND, again, business as usua (ursa mini includedl.Regarding the URSA mini 4K, I didn't want it since its lower DR, not what I consider "filmic", twice as expensive, no red code and I just don't se it when a BMPC4K can be had for so much less. After the URSA 4.6K is out I suspect I can pick up a BMPC4K for just over 1K. And of course the no above iso400 zone.And here is what it all as usual comes down to. Taste. I agree, the F35 has more mojo. But I definitely put the R1 in the top together with the f35, Bolex, Ikonoskop and... ... Don't really know any more. To me the R1 is the most filmic of all Reds so far. The BMCC has its color/DR but the Moire and the "digitalish" sharpening thing that happens in debayer is often needed to be fought imo. The URSA mini 4K needs a difusion so bad its crazy. To give an example. As I write this my girlfriend started watching my Bluray copy of "The Hurt Locker". Its shot on the same 16mm Fuji stock I have sitting n my freezer. This image is to me the absolute bench mark. It is what I consider "best". The super sharp NX1, BMPC4K, any of the Sonys, you name it, can't touch it. Its the utopia. Not even 35mm looks as good imo. So you can imagine why the R1 is a better choice for me. (only time I didn't like the image in Hurt Locker so far was the massive moire from the digital Phantom during the first high speed footage. Where up at the Sniper scene now. Intense stuff... Love the long canon zoom lenses they used also. Thats why I shoot long on the BMPCC. Drifting of topic here....) Also reason number 1 in my top 5 list was simply that its "fun" and "cool" Again not ment as a defense or argument, just my thoughts. Im well aware that Ebrahim only speaks for himself and know as well as I do that every single camera has flaws, deal brakers and major let downs... depending on who you ask. A heavy camera to one is stable to another. A GoPro kicks the Alexas ass for diving but falls short for feature. Both of them gets smashed by the Phantom in the slow department. The list can go on forever. /M

Magic Lantern raw, 16mm film, RED One, Sony F35... What do they all have in common? They are all a pain in the ass! All fantastic yes. But definitely a pain in the ass. Magic Lantern fills up your 64GB card in 12 minutes. Sometimes it just stops in the middle of a shot. 16mm film is hardly a day to day practicality for most people. The RED One takes as long to boot as it does to go through your brick of a battery! Sony F35, don't even get me started on that hulking beast!! ---- What I would like is a bullet proof reliable camera which shoots with an image similar to Magic Lantern raw on the 5D Mark II but 10:1 compressed raw, runs on a small battery for hours and has a codec as easy to work with as the Red cameras. Blackmagic are likely to get there one day but not just yet. Then I want that putting in a C100 II or FS5 style body, with variable ND and the 5 axis IBIS from the A7S II. Give it the low light chops to match. Then we can finally at long last say... NO MORE PAIN IN THE ASS!!

I bet its just 1080p 60FPS

Funny. I agree with you!!

The auto variable ND is the one feature of this camera that seems to live up to the hype, it is killer and I use it all the time. On the other hand, with S-Log having a base ISO of 3200, it's almost required. Also, when I compared the FS5 to the RX10ii, I was referring to the basic image pipeline. Both cameras have almost identical bit rates, frame rates, resolutions and were released within a similar time frame. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same processing hardware. Yes, the RX10ii uses XAVC-S and not XAVC-L but the technical differences between them are few, mainly a different wrapper (mp4) and higher compression with S. and both use a LongGOP compression scheme. Basically, XAVC-S is just a crippled version of XAVC-L. As far as the FS5 goes, the good news is that Sony seems to have included a 150mbps bit rate for 8-bit 4:2:2 UHD in the LongGOP standard, so it's possible that it's just a matter of turning it on in firmware. Also, according to a year old paper, they have two more LongGOP UHD modes to be implemented in the "future". Specifically, 140mbps and 200mbps for 10-bit 4:2:2 UHD. http://www.xavc-info.org/xavc/share/data/XAVC_Naming_per_OperatingPoints.pdf

And now another quick shot Again the 5D2 supremely film-like but I really do think the FS5 edges this one for mood. You can bring the shadows up A LOT in S-LOG 3 without noise being a problem. Ignore differences in DOF, I don't have my Speed Booster with me. 5D2 Magic Lantern 14bit RAW at 24p, ISO 200 - 35mm F2.0 (1856 x 1004 upscaled to 3840 x 2160) Sony FS5 SLOG 3 8bit at 25p, ISO 3200 - 24mm F2.8 (3840 x 2160)

Funny, I have the inverse problem. Clients complain that Vimeo is too slow. Even with a fast connection, HD is still very inconsistent.

Old thread, but thought I'd mention that I got this in the mail today. Hoping to test it a little more tomorrow. First impressions are that it's solid. Holds a GH4 with 12-35 lens no problem. The motor is a little noisy but that's about the only downside I've seen.

Take GH4, make it full frame, add 4K 60, name it GH5 - i'll take three

It's awesome! Awhile ago I had the much older nikkor 20mm 3.5 UD, and the copy I had was a bit yellowed and soft. The 20 2.8 AIS is much sharper wide open and a perfect color match for all the other Nikon AIS stuff I have. It fills a huge hole in my line up and makes me wish I had bought one sooner If you find a one, grab it!

I read this with one really long sigh... Well, in my head, doing that for real would probably be dangerous. it was just so predictable, I mean I didn't want it to be true, the Sony spec sheet was, as usual, amazing; I can't remember a camera of theirs that hasn't made me eventually hate it because of bugs though. all this progress and I'm still using a bloody C100. It works, grades easy in hi-dr mode (sort of semi log) and the footage flies on a laptop. I actually WANT to find something even better... But I don't like too many compromises I hope one day Sony do bring us a camera that he no bugs, a great or even passable codec and has their usual lower-than-Canon price points, but until then... I Gotta keep using what works... so sad

I think it is normal that you lost details in motion - it should be more obvious if you have so much detailed image as produces NX1.

Could you post an example of the jerky motion?

Imo the f35 is the best digital look out there.

All three great cameras, just a bit pricy compared to the R1 (all more than twice the cost if bought new in Sweden, and no used once out yet). And also I would probably never choose the Aja or Mini 4K over a dirt cheap fully rigged bmpc4k (same image). Which by the way will seriosly drop soon. The Kinemini seems cool but I hear very mixed things, so one should as you say, look deep. An me personally, if I had that kind of money, F35 all the way

This is a pretty good example of what happens in the real world. 6 years later...

The best 1080p export settings for YT (Adobe Pr)? - link: http://maisemassa.com/2015/10/13/the-best-1080p-export-settings-for-youtube-with-adobe-premiere-pro-or-an-overkill/

Not as carefully matched or shot as jcs' test (handheld, natural light only), but here's a quick comparison without extensive grading of the A7Rii and 1DC when it comes to skin tones: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/18887-a7rii-skin-tones-1dc-quick-compare/

Agree top looks more like Sony color, bottom looks more like Canon. Additionally, bottom has shallower DOF; full frame vs Super 35. Shooting a live person is the real test- skintones are the toughest to get right. Here I matched the C300 II to the A7S II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ulmgc_a39Q The Canon looked great with little work needed, it took a lot more to get the A7S II to match the Canon (still not perfect, but close enough for a test. C300 II has much more detail). That's the point people are making about Canon/ARRI/Red Dragon-(or later): when time is money, the tools which provide the best quality in the least amount of time will be used, even when the tools cost a bit more up front. Over time, the cost is much less due to less time in post. For hobbyists who only shoot tests, for fun, family, etc., this point doesn't really matter: initial cost is more important. Sony is indeed getting better with color, however Canon is still ahead (as is ARRI and Red), especially in challenging light (multiple and/or gapped spectrum sources). The best way to see this is to shoot with both cameras on the same shoots in the same conditions. The C300 II currently has the best skintones + autofocus of any camera at any price. Would love to see ARRI/Red come out with an even better autofocus/assisted-manual focus system.

Nice to have one less thing to think about during a shoot. ISO? Ah don't care. Very liberating It's why the FS5 is nicer to use than the A7S II. You just stick it in S-LOG at the base ISO of 3200 and 1/50, then use the variable ND filter for all your exposure adjustments. One control suits all.

Honestly, I think film cameras are easier to shoot with than with the RED. I've never been particularly enamored when using one, as it's a fussy thing. That slow boot up is so frustrating. But, at that price, I'd buy it if I was going to make a certain type of short narrative film or a feature. Because the thing demands light, it does force one to be more considerate. I mean, you really have a narrow range of ISO. That can be a plus, depending on what you're trying to do.

Yup, if only the perfect all in one could be invented soon. Maybe CES 2016 In the meantime, If anybody that haven't experienced Red Raw, here is a clip. Its 4.5K in R28. So pretty big compared to the smaller HD files. And imo pretty cool for the highest compression. You can use Resolve but if you have Final Cut I sugest installing the free plugin from Reds web page. Then you will find the raw settings under the info tab of the clip on your timeline. I have so far used that for correcting or just switching the Raw to Log. The graded with what ever like Color Finalle, etc. http://www.filedropper.com/a165c0190101j8rdc

I think the image looks great. You don't buy a Red One because you want to shoot in lowlight, above 800 ISO. And at that price, Mattias could shoot one side job with it and it would pay for the camera. But I assume he has other plans.

At least (until things change) you are not the only one. I suspect the problem with YouTube is that their goal is to service all platforms at all connection speeds at all times. Consistent high quality playback is always the trade off until the whole world has sufficient affordable bandwidth to support HD/4K streams on billions of devices. Just as they do, I suspect some people will then complain that they can't view 16k HDR video on our watches. Current Codec developments can only improve web video presentation so much, the ultimate fix is with speed of connection and its lowering of cost for mass implementation. I'm old enough to remember in 1999 having to wait 30mins+ for a 480x320 QuickTime download of the Phantom Menace trailer on an average speed dial-up modem. 6 years before YouTube even existed - so don't forget how good we have it now, back then there was no macro blocking...it was massive blocking.

Is there a warp stabilizer going on in some of the shots, or is that rolling shutter, or am I just too tired and not seeing things straight? Anyway, awesome test. I just bought the Tokina 28-70, and expect good results from it. Will post when it arrives and I get the chance to actually test.

I Bought one and sold one last year camera is awesome all the shooting options but he forgot to mention that it take up to 96 seconds for it to power up it eats batteries power for breakfast no to mention space on HD. i know camera is a professional and PL mount now you need Pl lenses in my case i cant rent every time i like to shoot or experiment i got family to feed I was thinking i can get use my Yashica lenses well on top of 10k i spend on camera i was looking for another $2350 for 2 mounts that will enable me to use my yashica lenses pretty much anything for that camera from a screw to extra battery or is above 500 dollars. And lets not forget the weight of the camera. Felling that i got from the camera that i head for entire 2 months is that its a 2 man job to operate i was always asking my wife to hold this hold that. Then i went to shoot outside charge the batteries got a Zeiss Compact Prime 35mm 300$ a day by the time camera power up one batteries was half gone i got 22 min of shooting and 36 minutes in standby mode. Then wanted to buy bigger battery but 450 US dollars that is 620 Canadian it just adds up. And lets not foget you nedto to spend some money on a HD space for your computer or a brand new computers since you are working with red raw its fine to play with one file or one shoot but wen you start editing short films or music videos in 4.5k or even HD it cost money. So what did i buy with 10k a color correcting station (something like in that pic) beefy computer BMPCC, lights, glidecam400 kowa B&H davinci resolve. My main goal is the learning the art. I know that MX shoot nice pictures but if i cant view those images properly on a dedicated monitor or grade them and see what i am doing wrong i might as well get a grading station and BMPCC which shoots raw and i can see exactly what i am doing with color and scopes. BMPCC is not MX but its dam close when it comes to image and what you can do with it. But if everything goes according to plan next year purchase will be red scarlet camera they go for for abut 7k to 10k. but still i am jealous that he has red mx its a great camera for right person just not for me

How can you say this without doing a side-by-side comparison of both cameras under exactly the same conditions? Sometimes a camera will seem pretty good by itself, but when compared side-by-side to other cameras, things like color and skintones become very apparent- the results may surprise you.

Right. To clarify, seeing as how Brian is here, the Speed Booster does not degrade the quality of the lens. The problem is that the 85mm f/1.2 is a terrible performer to begin with until you stop it down to f/2-2.8. It's more of a special-purpose portrait lens than an all-purpose short tele.