wolf33d

"Top-quality video Full-pixel readout and 50Mbps high bit-rate XAVC S movie recording." ND filter integrated source : sony Full pixel readout and XAVC !!! shit !

:( :( :( :( :( http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-sony-luxemburg-leaks-a7s-and-rx100m3-price-2295-and-849-euro-shipment-in-july/#disqus_thread

Hi, Let's start this topic with a new high ISO test done by Artbenny.

BREAKING NEWS :D According to mirrorless rumor, the A7S price (which will be officially annouced on May 7 as we know) will be no more than 1800USD. Amazing if true !!

100% agry with everything you said. Except that unfortunately sometimes you can't buy lens and body used (for EG A7S, with FE lenses) and will loose a lot after selling it 1 year later. But thats the game.

Get the 2000. Type Glidecam HD 1000 vs 2000 on google and you will get millions of exemples, even with GH3. HD2000 is better because longer, and you are less limited with futur upgrade

Lol thanks. It landed on a rocks and stayed here. Maybe the lucky guy going there get a GoPro 3 for free... Memories...

Of course. Look at my video : at 1:03 : timelapse with Nikon D5200 / at 1:14 timelapse with GH3 I shot and edited this video myself, shot in RAW, processed in Lightroom and LR timelapse. Of course the light is different, but we actually did some test during the other timelapse of the video, and the ones with the GH3 were so poor that I only picked the D5200 ones. I did many test, and even if ISO and sharpness become very good on M43, DR and DoF sucks. When I say DR, I don't mean Dxo result. I mean me taking 2 shots of a sunrise like this : http://500px.com/photo/58968152/golden-gate-by-loup-fsr?from=user_library With the GH3 I get an ugly image as well as the D5200. But with the nikon I manage to get the picture you see above thanks to lightroom. For example the rocks on the left were completely black, the image had no color, and so on. With the GH3 I can't get any good result. More light on the rock = noise and ungly definition and so on. I had those cameras for months and years, and try it yourself. Buy yourself a 5DIII which is rated as shit for DR on DXO, and get a Olympus EM1, take a sunset picture and play with it in Lightroom and be STUNED by the difference. So I keep saying, unless you do macro, M43 SUCKS for my type of photography (portrait & landscape). For portrait it is about DoF but also the look. Compare a portrait done with a Medium format and with a M43, see the look difference appart from deep of field.... People keep saying M43 is great because they convince themselves they have good equipment and because when they take 2 RAWS with 5DIII and EM1 of a watch on their desk they see no difference in a 100% crop, which is true, they don't understand that nobody cares about a 100% crop of their watch, but what we care is what we can get from editing the picture, and here the 5DIII files will give you MUCH more. I listen to those people and got GH3 and EM1, unfortunately ... to see that this is crap for stills. Of course if you shoot jpg or RAW and then adjust white balance and that's it, unless you want extreme DoF then the EM1 is pretty good ;).

I am in the same shit since 2 years. Got 5D2, Pana GH3, Oly EM1, fuji XE1 ... One at a time. Couldn't be happy with any. 5D2 was a pain for travel, poor video. GH3 was amazing for video, but a shit in photo, Oly was better in photo but nothing close to 5D2 and poor video, XE1 was poor in video. I do 50%stills / video. So I taught about 5DIII but : too expensive, no 60fps (I need it absolutely), and big (but this is the minor problem for me). Now the A7S could be the best : good stills, good video (with 60fps) and small body. But there is no lens for it, and the price might be high. Let's see the 7D mark II, could be decent enough in stills (even if not Full Frame) and very good in video + if ML do RAW on it. Apparently kind of a 3D body is planed after summer, with A7R resolution, and 4K, but it will be more expensive than 5D3 so no thanks. then in 2015-2016, 5DIV should be cool. But I don't want to wait all my life. I have no more camera now. The problem is each time you have to invest in some lenses for the system so I would like to pick up the right one ...

Absolutely not. Look at 5DIII Raw footage that look amazingly filmic without any light, grip and tarantino. It is the same when we compare a MF camera for stills and my iPhone, or with a M43 body. Look is definitely not the same. Same apply for video, and FF + Raw is way ahead of what we can get from the GH4. Of course in term of pure sharpness the GH4 is amazing. I am not sure A7S will be that filmic ... lack of raw. canonrumors just said 7D II is on the way with a big focus on video. This + Raw with magic lantern will be great. Best will be 5DIV with 4k, 60fps and RAW with magic lantern. GH4 sucks in stills (compared to full frame, again from the look) and is amazing in video for resolution + 96fps. So I would not buy it even for 1000bucks. Let's be patient :)

The RX 100M3 will finally have a 24-70mm f1.8-2.8 lens and not a 28-100mm and will have lot better video, according to SAR (in his comment SAR_Admin Mod Rawr • an hour ago yes it has a lot better video. More about it as soon as I have the full specs ;) Stay tuned for this superb camera ! And exited to get A7S price, and see if A77II improves video too.

A7S price unveiled on April 30th... (with A77 II and RX100 mk III annoucement) Finally !

Lol, read the first comment in your article ...

Way to expensive "Price is on par with the 5dmk3" with your logic, we would have to pay 10000 dollars for a GH4, or a black magic. Thanks to companies who actually bring the price down and make prof products available for consumer. Canon's logic (see 1DC and so on price) ...... 3200 is way too much. 1999 is the right price for this camera if they want it to compete against GH4.

Lol, I am pretty sure Sony has NO CLUE what the price will be. For sure in term of production cost it is similar to a classic A7. Now it is only about marketing. As andrew said, video pros will prefer the GH4 if they are on a budget, or a real video camera if they have money. This A7S is perfect for people like me who do stills and videos and want great quality of both. But we are consumers and not willing to pay more than 2K. I saw many many post (SAR comments, forums..) of people saying they pay it under 2K, and not if more. 2K is the limit, so the price of this camera should be 1999 maximum (ideally 1699 to match GH4) otherwise Sony FAILS and I F*** them

If it is priced under 2000 it's fine... But at the price they advertised (2500pounds) NO WAY !

if price is true Sony just killed themselves...

Unbelievable ! look at this video with A7S from 6400 to 400 000 ISO !!!! The guy says it produces much cleaner with better DR than Canon C100. Also he will put a comparison 5DIII vs A7S video soon !

"In a practical sense, if you’ve bought a mainstream, 8-bit professional camera, you should be happy. You probably wouldn't notice any difference if it was 10 bit." ...

I have from a french source who saw some samples comparaison with 5DIII that iso 51200 looks perfectly usable and way better than 5DIII and even the D4 http://www.lesnumeriques.com/appareil-photo-numerique/sony-alpha-7s-409-600-iso-video-4k-n33920.html

Don't tell me it will cost 2800$ :/

euuuh in the boat mayble ? where the sky is perfectly exposed as well as the inside of the boat.... Extremely impressive DR here...

BH says it comes with 2 batteries included. :)

+1

Actually price 1699 is not official apparently, so let's wait a bit before being to exited