riccardocovino

This is quite an incredible camera for an even more incredible price. But I highly doubt that GoPro could ever do a GoCine, for a simple reason: they can have such a low price only because they sell GoPros in the numbers of mobile phones. First GoPro had good specs for the price, but not so incredible as this one. Now that they have a name and a huge market share (before Sony Action cam they were the only ones) they can risk to sell something with a small margin, knowing that numbers will be big. If they make a GoCine potential buyers will be 1/100 or 1/1000 of the casual sports buyers that bought the GoPro for skiing during weekends. With such smaller production quantities and higher specs combined together probably the GoCine would go up in price to something like 1500$, and who would buy a 4k tiny sensor with obvious limitations in hardware and features for such a price?

Let's face the facts: it's a full frame videocamera for 3k. If it was a video dedicated sensor (low megapixel count, pixel binning, 800 iso as base) it would have been a blackmagic with full frame as first post said. BUT.. BMDCC is already an incredible bargain, how could sony put at the same price a hugely greater bargain?! they had to cut on something, and sensor was the only possible thing. we clearly see the option: for 3k you can go for smaller sensor (way smaller, 2.5 crop factor!) with perfect processing, or you can go for full frame beauty with hybrid processing and its obvious limits. up to you the choice: better editing or better bokeh?

Leica is probably the best photography hardware maker, past and recent history show it clearly. By hardware I mean glass, metal, leather, and so on. Leica joined digital photography later than the other companies and has always struggled in filling this particular gap. Everybody who used their Mx serie knows perfectly what I'm talking about. Interface is sluggish and image recording takes ages compared to other brands. Lcds have ridicuolus resolutions and sizes, and sensors have always been inferior ot others (by the way, as many others, they buy them simply because they don't have the know-how and facilities to produce them). Dynamic range and high ISO of their sensors have always limited the spectacular quality of what their lenses captured. No secret M9 had ISO limited to 2500 because it was already awful to be seen, and M8 was even worse, more than 400 meant unusable pics. As a reference I picked from Imaging Resource comparison tool M9 at 2500 and 5DII at 3200, judge by yourself. In conclusion, we all hope the new M to be a killer video tool, but assuming that Leica will have better than others digital processing is at least pretentious and without evidence from past facts.[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/16527/506dbda24e3e4_leica.jpg[/img]

40Mbps in MJPEG 4:2:2 is not so much.. MJPEG All-I requires a much higher bitrate than AVCHD to have same quality. So if we hope for better results we should need something like GH3 72Mbps.

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1348529973' post='19007'] I think a good bit of civil war would fill the time and do us all good. [/quote] No comment

[quote name='hmcindie' timestamp='1348475901' post='18966'] I have the Nex-5n and the 7d and that is 50% bullshit. The nex-5n has slightly less moire/aliasing in 25p mode. When you switch to 50p the aliasing and moire DOUBLES. That is what apparently happens in the A99 too. Did you even watch that clip?? Show me one test by these "different users". Even better, show me ALL THE DOZENS of tests. It's funny how in the forums every half-truth is compounded all the time and soon the truth disappears and you have you people who say "dozens of tests" but can't produce even one. Or the one they produce is done horribly and the other comparison has been deinterlaced or shit like that. Ah...bloggers, love them. [/quote] Your way of talking is quite unpolite and pretentious. You state I don't answer and disappear in the same post where you write the question, and that's quite stupid. I'll answer to your trolling just once now because this is going clearly off-topic and I don't want to bother the other readers with futile arguments. First: why you compare 50P Sony (highly compressed) to 25P in the Canon? That's totally useless, compare 25P top 25P. What we are talking about is sensor's downscaling, not artifacts from compression. 50P takes 28Mbit while 25P takes 24Mbit, so almost the same for double frame rate, that means much higher compression, not faulty sensor downscaling. Sony's 24 Mbit 25P has clearly less aliasing/moirè than Canon's 50Mbit 25P. Second: I have to show you AT LEAST ONE of the tests proving that Sony sensor has less moirè and aliasing than canon's? Here we are: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xx_Nf99jLE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xx_Nf99jLE[/url] [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNwSdqWbNJc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNwSdqWbNJc[/url] [url="http://vimeo.com/46037571"]http://vimeo.com/46037571[/url] [url="http://vimeo.com/28751834"]http://vimeo.com/28751834[/url] Now you can say whatever you want, I will not reply anymore for the sake of the real topic.

[quote name='hmcindie' timestamp='1348418074' post='18952'] Sony has much less than Canon aye? [url="http://fil.io/FL82vTNAM/Sony%20A99%20raw%20photos%20and%20footage"]http://fil.io/FL82vT...tos and footage[/url] This 00023.mts was shot with the A99. Does it look like it has less? Same thing happens with the Nex-5n when in the 50p mode. Horrible moire/aliasing. [/quote] Maybe it wasn't clear, but I stated under 2K $ Sony has less moirè than Canon, in other words Nex-5N and Nex-7 have less than Canon RebelT4i or 7D, and this fact has been shown in dozens of tests by different users.

The moirè/aliasing issue is quite evident. ALl other manufacturers haven't found a way to eliminate it in sub 2k$ products (Althought Sony has much less than Canon). If they let it in such a big event like Photokina, with official launch, I don't think they are going to solve it with firmware. Sensor has a big role in this thing, and clearly GH2 sensor was good for pixel binning while GH3 one (Sony?) not. So, now we have a good mirrorless camera, with lots of features, but it's no more something unique in the market. With GH2 you could trade sensor's small size and related problems (noise, crop factor) with clean, crisp, almost RED-like detailed image. Now, we have a DSLR like all the others, it has good dynamic range (I guess like - and no more - Canon, Sony, Olympus and Nikon), it has moirè and aliasing problems, it has the smallest sensor of the bang (together with Olympus). If I am an APS-C user, I see not so many reasons to change the wagon anymore, while I was clearly tempted by the GH2 and even more by the idea of an improvement of it if without steps backwards.

Thanks for the interview, very interesting. It seems it's really a Sony sensor. If you have chance again, please consider asking about aliasing/moirè. In the end that's what made the difference from GH2 to the rest of the world. If aliasing and moirè are back than.. Canon has better lenses, Nex has better dynamic range, both have better crop factor..

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1347961787' post='18429'] The footage still looks soft especially in lower light levels. I would think this could be on par with a canon mark3 [/quote] It also shows some aliasing issues, and that cannot be a porblem of vimeo compression.

Definetly NOT multi aspect sensor :( [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/16527/50582f865b9ec_sensor_comparison.jpg[/img]

Sensor size is still a bit unclear to me. Someone states it's multi apsect, someone else no. Panasonic on previous GH put it in clear evidence as a unique feature, now.. nothing.. so I guess it's not.

It seems they solved all main issues (except rolling shutter). Clean, detailed, with good range and no banding images. 72 all-i is really good, beyond competition's more expensive products. What really I don't understand is why half of the short movies with a minimum of storyline end up in a guy running for a girl. It's hard to belive that Bruce Logan didn't realize he was doing something seen so many times in the DSLR world since Reverie. It seems technology is filling the gap but plot... so many times is poor. Short movies could be excellent for puzzling stories well told in a handful of minutes, and a good one can really help the promotion message behind it.

mmhh I don't understand why the pre-order price seems to be good news: 4999 punds is 7900 dollars, almost exactly the announced price.

A smart move by Canon, loyal followers will be happy to have a PRO camera without having to pay 15k$. But in terms of specs the comparison with the FS700 is embarassing: for the same price we have 240fps, 4k-capable body and universal mount. No way it can win over it, even if it has a slightly better image quality (Sony AVCHD codec is known to be the best one anyway..)

Come on guys, don't start futile discussions. I think that everybody can agree that the best tool is the one that gives you more possibilities. Here we are talking about TECH SPECS, not personal tastes. If we go down to personal tastes everybody is right and there's no point in it. Having soft image doesn't allow you to have sharp ones if you want them, that's clear to everybody. the same if you have noise on high iso it doesn't allow you to color correct the shot nicely. talking about personal taste about soft or sharp, noisy or clean, flat or vivid images is simply out of topic. my 2 cents

The point is that you can color correct GH2 shots to look more canon-ish, meanwhile you cannot add detail to Mk3 footage. I think that's what makes Andrew think that GH2 is still better all-round camera. Anyway, that Nex-7 image seems much more washed than it should be. My 5n has more detail.

FS700 can be a real competitor, althought we have to see real resolution, dynamic range, noise, etc... What I don't really understand is why people in such comparisons never put RED Scarlet in the arena: 4K RAW is that bad?!? A base kit with canon mount is priced as a C300, and if I can spend 8-9k for Sony FS100 probably I can afford also a 13k RED Scarlet Kit. On the paper 4K RAW (and high speed frame rates at FullHD) is better than anything else, so what's wrong with it?

really? in this review there's no vignetting at all! [url=http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/08/19/testing-the-noktor-50-f0-95-for-sony-e-mount-with-the-new-nex-c3/]http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/08/19/testing-the-noktor-50-f0-95-for-sony-e-mount-with-the-new-nex-c3/[/url]

back to the topic.. I always wondered how primes below F1 can be mathematically explained. You say that from nominal F0.92 to real T0.95 there's a slight loss, ok, but it remains a loss on an "extra" light that shouldn't exist. There must be an explanation, but nobody here seems to be a lens engineer who can solve this mistery. Anyway, I don't get the point of this lens, especially for Emount users: SLR already sells a 50mm F0.95 with continuos aperture at 1000$, who should buy at 3000 almost the same lens?! I don't think focus ring size can justify a triple price..