Viet Bach Bui

Why are we labelling the whole video which comprises of many many shots as natural or unnatural? The colors in some of the scenes were not 100% to my liking but I would say 80% of them look pretty good/natural to my eyes.

My suggestion: keep the 5D2, buy about $300 worth of CF cards, install Magic Lantern, grab a used Tamron 17-50 VC for another $300 and shoot in 3x crop mode. There, you just breathed new life into your 5D2 :)

This guy always post a fake comparison video when a new camera comes out.

If this were an A7S video you would say something about colors or skin tones being off :) But seriously, nice video even though the quality of the grades was a bit uneven. 70% of it looks really nice, the other 30% has this green cast, especially on people's skin.

Could these be the problematic cameras that people have been returning over the past year and BM is trying to rid of them? Where I live people only give a 50% discount on things which a) nobody wants or b) are defective or c) are nearing expiration date.

Looks quite alright to me. If sharpness was my number 1 concern then I would buy the GH4. But to me DR is more important and it seems the A7S delivers in spades in this area.

Let's not jump to conclusions here. Many of us don't know what the base ISO of 3200 in slog2 means and whether the base ISO going up is a good or bad thing. The FS700 got an upgrade earlier that changed the slog2 base ISO from 640 to 2000 that was supposed to greatly improve its low light performance.

DxO results are in! ISO score takes the top spot as expected. What is unexpected is DR at low ISO. Perhaps the other cameras enjoy a bigger DR boost (as well as color depth boost) from downsizing to 8MP? But it's the usual story at DxO, using only DR at the lowest ISO in their scoring. This is of more relevance to me:

The 7D has 5184 horizontal pixels so if you use a crop with x pixels wide then the crop factor is 5184/x (ie if it's 1920 pixel wide then the crop factor is 5184/1920=2.7).

The crop factor is roughly 1.6 x 2.7 = 4.32. The exact crop factor depends on how many horizontal pixels you use.

One possible explanation: DxO resize all images to 8mp for their tests, while DPReview show 100% crops which put the 36mp of the D800 at a disadvantage.

Not saying the GH4 isn't impressive (it is), but the DR advantage is only up until ISO 300 or so. After that the 5D3 pulls way ahead.

The crop factor is (5616 : 1728) = 3.25 for 16:9 video.

"At 26mm it slows a fraction to f2.9, then to f3 at 30mm, f3.5 at 57mm and finally to f4 at 175mm all the way to 400mm" Found this on dpreview.

It's not 100% certain but if it was weather-sealed Panasonic would have advertised it, don't you think? Panasonic also does not advertise the FZ1000 as having a magnesium alloy body, while the RX10 does. On top of that the FZ1000 has only 1 command dial while the RX10 has 2 on top of having an aperture ring on the lens. Even if the lens on the RX10 doesn't cost more to make the build is still premium compared to the FZ1000. And yeah, it's a $400 difference.

The constant f2.8 and weather sealing must account for a large part of that $500 too.

I'm having the same dilemma but right now I'm leaning towards the 5D3 because: - While the ML software may not be the most stable there is the 5D3 is a much more reliable piece of hardware than the BMPCC is. I would take the occasional dropped frames over high probability of bad pixels, easily broken HDMI ports and other technical issues. - I do quite a bit of still photography so the cost difference isn't all that much between having the 5D3 for both video and stills vs a BMPCC and a still camera. - The 5D3 is weather proof. I would be reluctant to take the BMPCC out on the beaches for long. - It seems I will have an easier time managing the colors from the 5D3 RAWs. I believe I'm not good enough to grade the BPMCC footages. - And finally, those really wide shots with relatively thin DOF I have seen from the 5D3 got me hooked!

At first you may be wowed by the tiny size of the GM1 (like I was with the RX100) but over time you will probably grow tired of the smallness and long for a bigger camera (it was great coming back to the NEX-6 afterward). Having a really small camera may psychologically restricts your freedom in choosing lens because it just doesn't feel right putting big or even medium-sized lens in front of it.

I don't own either camera but that doesn't mean I cannot call someone out for making outrageous claim such as a 2-3 stop shadow recovery advantage of the GX7. You don't have to prove anything but neither does someone who says they are a Martian. Wait, were you talking about still or video when you mentioned the serious banding issue and 2-3 stops difference in shadow? I thought you were talking about still so I asked for RAWs. If it was about video then forget it, jpegs and clips can be easily manipulated. I'll just wait until a cheap GX7 pops up where I live and make my own judgment.

If you own both cameras then please post RAW files of the same scene demonstrating the serious banding issue and better yet, the 1 vs 3-4 stops difference in shadow recovery. Otherwise, with the superlatives and exaggerations used, you sound like a fanboy/hater bashing the A6000 purely basing on spec sheets and what you have been reading on the web

To be honest I think you haven't given your A6000 enough time yet. Some cameras only unleash their full power after a few tweaks here and a few settings there. So far you only gave us snap shots, not full videos to look at, and even with those snap shots I am not reaching the same conclusions as you did. On the other hand, I don't find some of the A6000 videos as great as others say (the Avene one, for example). "Foaming at the mouth" seems offensive to me because it conjures up an image of a batshit crazy person with a mouthful of frothing saliva or worse, of a rabid animal. But then again I'm not a native English speaker so I made have taken it a little too literally haha.

@Inazuma: you're probably foaming a little at the mouth, too (a very offensive thing to say, btw) from all the praises that you don't think the A6000 deserve. I get it, you think the A6000 is inferior to your GX7, and have said so repeatedly. You don't have to pop in every time someone says the A6000 is great. As for me, I'm not swaying to one side or another until I see a well controlled test comparing the A6000 with the others.

Found this from SonyAlphaRumors. Not sure if this is a more accurate representation than the previous tests, but it doesn't look bad at all.

That is quite a strange argument you have put forth, jcs. It is the same as saying there is no portability disadvantage in carrying camera A which is four times as big as camera B since you can put it in the hands of someone four times as big. The previous statement is mathematically correct but what are the odds of there being someone that huge? The keyword here is availability. The situation is the same with focal reducers. Mathematically, FF sensors can benefit from focal reducers too. But nobody consider this possibility an advantage of FF, why? Because the Medium Format or whatever type of lens big enough for FF focal reducers aren't easy to come by. So both the FF sensors' size advantage and the mirrorless crop sensors' focal reduction advantage all come down to availability.

Found this video on vimeo, sorry if it is the work of a member here.