MattH

You might be able to use a teleconverter (the oposite of a speed booster). Although you would have to check it worked with a lens this wide as they are obviously mainly used to extend the range of long lenses. And you will lose a stop of exposure with a 1.4 extender.

This was a good idea, but I wish it could have been shorter by having a faster camera move. And get rid of those anoying smiley bits in the middle. I ended up turning off hd because of the masive amounts of data and skipping through. I wish I'd just watched the last 2 minutes. The a7s cant cave been set to slog wich is a shame because that is one of the cameras I would be most interested in seeing tested fairly.

Well you could consider selling your 18-35 or keeping it for later and getting some other full frame glass. Or if you really want to use the 18-35 the A7r ii will probably be better for you: Aps-c mode is 4k dowsampled from a full apsc sensor readout. For this you would want something like the metabones e-mount to ef adapter (not speedbooster).

Indeed. In fact, I suggest that the following video be the official response of this forum to Red:

They know where they can shove their raven or their big red epic weapon then.

Yeah, it's the accessories that are the killer. $6000 gets your attention as perhaps being attainable, but then its an extra $4000 for a 120gb ssd, a touch screen and a handle. They are taking the piss! This is the first time I've ever paid red any real attention. Do you have to use their ssd? or could you just get the 'brain' and provide everything else yourself?

No. In specs on paper it crushes it. in HD: 10 bit 4.2.2 vs 8 bit 4.2.0 in 4k: 8 bit 4.2.0 vs nothing. But your question, which was clearly actually a statement, is correct. The specs may not necessarily translate into a better image. The C100 with wide dynamic profile may give a nicer look out of camera than 10 bit slog, graded and converted finally to 4.2.0. But I'd say theres more flexability there with the FS5 to either get a better image or a worse image. I think it makes sense to think of the FS5 as a professional HD camera with a consumer 4k bonus. A bit expensive for me though. TV production is this things market.

I doubt it. He probably just slapped on a lut. He seems in denial that it's even teal/cyan and orange on annother forum. Which is never tastefull in my subjective opinion. If the colour tinge was dialled down, everything would be hunky dory.

I always thought it was an appealing camera and this makes it seem even more appealing. But I guess it isn't quite sexy enough for most of the enthusiasts that frequent this type of forum (myself included).

Half life mf!

Nothing major to add except to say that it would be two and a third stops difference.

Wow! I have no idea what any of that shit means.

Maybe. We'll have to wait and see. Of course, the RX10 ii has to read out 17 mexapixels in a full 16:9 scan. The A7S ii only has to do 10 megapixels at most. 8.3 if it does a native QHD crop.

We don't know that it will overheat in that time, if at all. We do know that it will stop at 30 minutes because of the tax limitation. Though for over 3000 euros you think some of that would go towards paying a video camera duty.

lol, yeah because readout is dependent only on the sensor. Everyone on this forum knows more than most of the people they have working at those show booths. If the second fact is correct then it completely contradicts sonys own press release. Copied from here http://***URL removed***/articles/3339099295/sony-a7s-ii-shoots-up-to-iso-409-600: "In a first for the α7 series, the α7S II can record 120fps at 100Mbps[vii] with full pixel readout without pixel binning in full frame format which can be edited into wonderful 4x/5x slow motion footage[viii] in Full HD." If the press release is correct then the camera can do a full pixel readout in 8.33ms (1000/120). And I dont see why they would slow it down when recording 4k.

Because its not global shutter. So it still has some flaw. Plus the vast magority of people won't know what 8.3 milliseconds readout means or whether it is good. Higher numbers usually mean better, which is why I think they phrased it as 120 times a second. Another thing is that the just-released A7r ii has abysmal rolling shutter, so probably best all round just to not mention it. I may turn out to be wrong, but I like to be optimistic. I think that was just a really bad jerky slide move. But of course its not global shutter so there will always be some micro jitter when that happens.

Anyone else feel like this was too much information to take in all at once today? I had to take a break. Some questions that spring to mind: (havent checked thoroughly for answers) 1. What is the readout speed? It it the same as the GH4 due to being limited by the sensor, or is faster due to different processing/cooling. 2. Is the 4k and QHD native crop like it is in the GH4? I would assume it is, but what about HD, is that also a crop, or the QHD downscaled, or the full sensor downscaled? 3 Is the mini SSD proprietary? Shooting 4k raw is going to need some extra media.

It does have less rolling shutter. Full pixel readout at 120fps means a readout time of 8.3 milliseconds max. The A7S was about 30ms.

I would say shoot day shots 25p so they are ready to edit. Then with shots involving electric lights shoot 30p. Convert it to 24p. This will do a 3:2 pulldown. Then conform the 24p clips to your 25p timeline. Others may have other suggestions.

Waves always look bad. So much moving stuff to confuse and overwork the compression. I think normal things will look quite good. 120fps at 1080p full readout is pretty novel actually. Obviously if you want 4k slow motion you need to get an 7S7 or URSA. No stills cam does it.

Andrew, there is a small typo in the article. You write: "I think those who bought an FS7 or A7S II might be thinking". You obviously mean A7r ii.

Yes. The Mini Ursa 4k is just a Mini Ursa. The Mini Ursa 4.6k is has the new sensor. This is important to realise because unlike the full size ursa you cannot change the sensor afterwards. They do look quite small in these pictures which is reassuring. (Oh and who thinks this is to help stave off attention for whatever sony Is about to release tomorow?)

1.3317 is correct if you are comparing video modes. I suppose in this case (even though it will give the same result) it makes sense to compare the 16/9 diagonal of the gh3 with full frame 3/2 diagonal. Which (with the 0.64 speedbooster) actually gives 1.395 crop. This in theory makes it easier to test on the dog picture here: https://witonosfreestyle.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/hands-on-review-on-sigma-18-35mm-1-8-dc-hsm/ You measure the diagonal on your screen, divide it by 1.395. You can then see if that fits within the circle of confusion. Strangely, in the dog picture, the 'circle' seems to have a greater diameter on the diagonal than it does horizontally. So either the lens hood is on or the lens has an ellipse of confusion. If you are talking about 4:3 stills coverage then yes the relevant crop is 1.28 and so you will get vignetting with stills. Obviously requiring either a slight zoom-in or a crop.

The short answer it will just fit without vignetting. The GH3 with the 0.64 speed booster will give you an effective crop of 1.3317. If you google sigma 18-35 full frame you will get examples that show you the full image circle. like here for example: https://witonosfreestyle.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/hands-on-review-on-sigma-18-35mm-1-8-dc-hsm/ By measuring that image on your screen you can work out where a 16:9 1.3317 crop image would go. By my measurements it just fits without vignetting Of course, you will be getting a lot of light fall off wide open. (note the difference between fall-off and vignetting). I cant guarantee it will work, of course, but I would bet £50 on it.

I don't know about game changer, but they certainly have promise. How good they are will depend on many things. eg: How sharp they are at the borders wide openContrast wide openVignetting (supposed to be low)colour fringing (supposed to be low)Little to no breathing (unlikely given its designed for stills)The vc being useful for video (not too still that you cant move the camera without it jerking)Good length of focus travelNot fly by wire focus (Couldn't be bothered to check if it is. Probably isn't)One thing I'm wondering is why they didn't just bring out a 40mm. 35mm and 45mm are so close it wont seem like there is any point getting both, and it will be difficult to chose between them. If you see any good reviews please link to them, I could only find announcement articles.