Leaderboard

The S5 and S1 are fantastic for everything other than AF compared to Canon and Sony. So it depends on your priorities.

Cinematch might be something that can help you, given it has profiles for all these cameras. It might be able to get you closer than Lumetri.

Thanks for the advice, for next time though.

I shoot on both Canon & Sony systems. It's a tough call and does come down to personal preference. I favour Canon for camera ergonomics, UI, AF (both in stills & video), colours (especially skin tones). Lens wise, I find EF glass has more mojo (I just love my 35mm F1.4 L & 50mm F1.2 L). But I also love my Zeiss Batis primes that are more compact. RF has some amazing glass also, and even the affordable STM line is really good (I think I'll go for the 24mm & 85mm STM next). Lenses is really what ties you to a system so don't underestimate that aspect! Now specifically when comparing A7S3 to R5, well R5 does have 45MP stills, 8K, oversampled 4K & internal RAW. A7S3 has non oversampled 4K, only 12MP stills & a lot of NR at high ISO.. but better DR & less RS. The lowlight used to be where A7S series killed it but that's not the case with A7S3 since it is in fact a 48MP quad bayer sensor. Also the 1:1 4K doesn't allow super35 crop or focus breathing compensation. Bummer. 4K120p I dunno, it looks great on the R5 but haven't A/B it with A7S3. I think with 1.6 R5 wins on overall specs but if you really need that extra DR, super low RS & better 4K120p then it might tilt you over. Both I think are mirrorless workhorses. Sony colours have become much much better than in previous generations but I still find myself spending way more time in Resolve adjusting footage than with Canon where I pretty much can just slap a custom LUT and it looks simply amazing. Especially skin tones. To me this is a MAJOR advantage for Canon.

Here's a test I did some time ago, downscaling an 8K clip to various resolutions then putting them on the same 4K timeline and uploading in 4K. The shot at the end puts them all side-by-side for direct comparison. There are differences, but even pixel peeing, they're pretty minimal. If you're watching something rather than talking tech or doing tests, then it doesn't matter, plus if you add a bit of sharpening to a lower resolution file then it can easily make up small differences. You're right that YT in 4K looks much higher quality than YT in 1080p, but it's a bitrate thing rather than resolution.

I've owned both over the last two years and the Sony wins for me due to the consistency across frame rates (Canon image line skips when in higher frame rates), the full sized HDMI and its better battery life. I don't particularly love Sony colours in general but the A7SIII image is really flexible and has loads of dynamic range. I wouldn't necessarily choose to shoot the Sony for narrative work but for the corporate work I generally do it is really capable and has been rock solid so far. I choose the A7SIII over the FX3 mainly due to the EVF, I recently bought an FX3 handle for cheap on Ebay and use it on the A7SIII when needed. You can buy an adapter from small rig and it works well.

This is just speculation on my part, but I'm guessing that he might be using one of those distribution companies that works as a middle man between the creator and the retailer. On Amazon, at least, there isn't a lot of (maybe none?) 4K content that isn't a major studio release or an Amazon original. I just don't think they're interested in having most independent/low budget content in 4K and consider it a waste of resources. While most filmmakers would probably disagree that their films aren't worthy of being in 4K, when you look at all of the stuff on there and you look at it from their perspective, does no budget found footage horror film #25679 really need to be available in 4K? Probably not. Besides, 2K is the standard for DCPs isn't it? I do think it poses a bigger question though: is "4K" streaming, at least as it stands now, really necessary? When I watch 4K blu-rays the image is stunning on my television. You can genuinely see a significant difference between 1080p and 4K. The gap though narrows significantly when you compare 1080p and 4K streaming, to the point where I downgraded my Netflix account (before eventually closing it) because the difference was so minimal. Don't even get me started on comparing streaming 4K to a 4K disc. When it comes to streaming I don't think it's the resolution that makes it better, but the better bitrates. I think you'd get essentially the same results if they used the same bitrates on a 1080p stream as they do for a 4K stream. My 4K uploads to YouTube I think look better in 4K for that reason, too, not because of the added resolution. Maybe I'll upscale a 1080p version of a video to 4K and compare it to the source 4K version to see if there's much of a difference after YouTube finishes with them? Either way, the streaming 4K version still looks inferior to 1080p blu-rays I've made for clients.

I wouldn't be surprised if no-name content gets second class treatment to save on storage. I heard often (i.e. don't know by evidence) that big YouTube channels get better compression than small ones. From a business perspective it makes sense. No need for super high quality cat videos that 3 people will see, better give some more performance/storage/bandwidth/whatever to MKBHD or MrBeast where millions will watch it. I'm not saying their content is better, I'm just saying from a business perspective you focus on the "product" that is in demand. Perspective: I used to be Product Manager for a not-in-demand product in an industrial area 🥲

I know you shoot both video and photo so your needs are very specific but when I shoot wedding videos (solo) I have 2 approaches. 1. Zoom. In my case the S1 with the 24-105. it gets everything done apart from real low light. I have a couple of 1.8 primes to deal with that. Still means changing lenses 2. Film everything on 1 prime. I have done this a few times with a 35 and have really enjoyed the experience and result. It means moving around a bit more but with lighter gear and makes you think your shots more. Maybe not for every wedding but when it works it’s very liberating.

To be fair, I don’t think the main demographic of this camera would require DCI standards. Nobody aiming for cinema release would be using this camera. Much better options. This is for influencers.

Well, I am crushed, I have nothing to contribute. I guess I will go back to kicking my wife and beating the dog, Oh I have that backwards! Cya. 🥺