mike_tee_vee

Regarding focus point hacks, is there any way to implement: 1) control the size of the AF focus box in video mode, and 2) be able to view the AF focus box as it tracks subjects in continuous focus (or face detect) in video mode? (similar to the GH4)

I still don't understand Sony's crusade against touchscreens. Yes, you can do pull focus with button scrolling, but why not have a touchscreen for focus point selection in addition to buttons? Every other manufacturer seems to be implementing touchscreens, so I'm not sure what Sony's business case against them is.

The lack of touch screen is unforgiveable. For all the people that moan that pros don't need a touch screen in models like the A7 and RX series, seeing Dan Chung's News Shooter touch screen demo clearly illustrates the focus pulling-like capabilities a touch screen offers. What's the point of having state-of-the-art PDAF without having easy access to focus point selection?

I'm not sure why DP Review takes so long to review cameras. The A7S was announced at the beginning of April 2014. I don't see this review (11 months later) changing anyone's mind over whether or not to buy an A7S. Much of the content on their review can be found elsewhere on the web, and was more timely. The opinions of bloggers like Andrew carry much more weight in my opinion, as his voice represent the insights of what a filmmaker has access to NOW, as opposed to what's in the queue at a camera review site.

People have been begging Olympus for variable frame rates and a better codec for years. Users have put up with these short comings simply because the 5-axis IBIS was not offered anywhere else. With this new release from Sony, there's very little reason to stick with Olympus for video.

I'm hesitant to purchase a Nikon DSLR for many of the same reasons that handcuff Canon. While Nikon has made strides in image quality, it doesn't check enough boxes for me, and the lens mount can be limiting. Of the contenders: Lens mount adaptability: GH4, A7S, any mirrorless EVF: any mirrorless Extreme low-light: A7S Internal 4k: GH4 XLR: GH4, A7S 5 axis IBIS: E-M1 These are the factors that matter to me, and a DSLR doesn't really cut the mustard anymore.

How does the crop mode work on the Alpha 7 series? Presumably the cameras crop to a Super 35 size when an APS-C sized E-mount lens is attached. When a full-frame lens is attached, does the camera give the option to apply the same crop factor similar to the lossless ETC teleconverter option on the GH3?

Dean, how do you find the high ISO image quality? What's the highest ISO the camera can shoot in video mode? One thing I wish the GH3 had was auto ISO in Manual exposure mode. i.e. fix the exposure at 1/50s and F2.0, but let the camera choose the ISO

I haven't found a satisfactory way to accomplish this. Most methods introduce a studder, particularly on panning shots. Olympus really needs to wake up on the frame rate issue, just as Canon did when the 5D mk II only had 30p.

Any chance of the RX10 having a 1:1 lossless teleconvert mode similar to the GH2 and GH3?  The zoom range would be incredible if this was implemented.

Any chance a firmware (either official or "hack") could bring out 24p video?   Otherwise, I'll save my $1,399.

Agreed.  it smells of desperation.  Almost as messy as the deep price cuts on the Nikon V1. 

dpreview.com has some samples straight from the card.  They have some steadicam type samples.   I only wish the OM-D had native 24p.  Any tips on the best method to convert 30p to 24p?

I've been wondering the same thing.  I've been shooting in Aperture mode with auto ISO, and hoping that the camera is using 1/50 shutter speed to match the framerate.

Please let this die a quick death.  Nikon fans on NikonRumors are calling it a triumph for the native lens mount, but every spec on this camera is an insult to the end user.  If one needs an ENG style camcorder body with an interchangeable mount, the Sony EA50 looks much more compelling for much less money (albiet only 1080p).

  The problem is that Canon wants to make too much money.  The accountants and marketing people want to maximize profits by targeting the masses.  By doing this, you stiffle the creativity of the engineers.    One must wonder if the Canon engineers purposely left breadcrumbs in the firmware code in hopes of having the full fruits of their labor discovered.

What kind of render times can we expect for After Effects to render a 1 min DNG timeline?

  This is more of a game changer than the Laforet Movi!

How would this compare to the output of the FS700?  According to ProVideoCoalition, the FS700 has 13 to 14 stops of dynamic range, similar low light to the FS100, and 800-1000 lines of resolution.

Is the card controller in anything older than a 5D III (i.e. 600D, 5DII, etc) fast enough to write at 1000x? In Rob Galbraith's compact flash recording tests, many of these cameras do not show any increased writing performance when going from a 30MB/s card to a 45MB/s card.

I've shot stills with both the 5DII and D800, and for my purposes the difference in image quality isn't as obvious as the DxO rankings.  While not class-leading, the still images from Canon cameras are still competent.  Even the original 5D still has a nice "look" to it's images.  Video, on the other hand, is a sick joke.   It's too bad there aren't any benchmarks for video performance.  A camera like the VG900 would probably score high on DxO's sensor ranking, but it doesn't really tell us about the video quality.

I have a feeling that Canon and the gang are purposefully creating products that are less than ideal in order for us to make repeated subsequent purchases.  The American car industry would factor in "planned obsolecense" in their car designs to force consumers to upgrade their cars.  I have a feeling that EVERY manufacturer is toying with us.  They are like a drug dealer that gives you just a small enough hit to become addicted, and come back begging for more.

Nikon have a habit of doing things almost as half baked as Canon.  With "limitations" like inability to adjust aperture while filming, 29.97 on HDMI out (D5200), and the tiny buffers of the V1 and V2, Nikon are in good company with Canon, Sony, and even Panasonic.

For the low-budget film maker, the Pocket Cinema Camera is a "game changer."   If you're a GH2 user looking for much more DR and detail in the shadows, I can't see the GH3 bringing much new to the table in terms of image quality.  By comparison, the GH3 is looking like Panasonic's 5D mk III: an expensive incremental update that, while competent in its own right, fails to fundamentally change the industry to the same degree as its predecessor.

Is the GH3 still relevant?