jax_rox

Announcement Friday 25th... Actual product to be delivered early 2018 with a bunch of firmware bugs..... Stable firmware release and bugs fixed by sometime in 2019. I joke... But only kinda

Hey - I'm no Blackmagic lover, but even I can see that if you expose your shots properly both cameras are entirely usable. All cameras have their flaws, and let's be real - the Epic is (or was) $30k just for the brain versus the URSA which is what - $6k? (can't keep up with BM's pricing these days) So you'd hope there's going to be a difference. All I'm saying is - despite the fact that REDs have been used on countless high end productions over the past 8 years, it's not like the REDs are flawless. RED have suffered immensely from corrupt files, camera crashes, high amounts of noise (especially early releases of Dragon), and overall unreliability - not to mention overheating and the noisy fan, boot up times on the RED One, buggy firmware releases etc. etc. I once ACd on a RED that had to be re-booted about every 3 hours because it would just shit itself. Then there's the REDs that wouldn't boot up unless you plugged the VF Lemo cable in, pressed the red button, pulled it out, pressed the red button again, and then plugged it back in... You can get great images out of a RED, and many of its bugs have been ironed out over firmware and hardware upgrades... But to suggest that it hasn't had its problems is disingenuous - especially when they've been out in the wild for about 8 years... unlike BM

This is essentially software stabilisation with a lot more information to get you a better image. Steadicams and gimbals are very safe for now. As an aside, I'm not sure if it's this guy or someone else - but this was being pushed on Indiegogo a year or more ago, so the technology is not super new. I remember saying then that the functions are pretty limited. Great, perhaps, for a GoPro shooter, but it's quicker and easier (not to mention much less computer power) to simply stick the camera on a gimbal or steadicam. Now - putting this and the camera on a gimbal or steadicam might be interesting.

I wonder if Sony may be developing their own raw recorder (either by themselves or in conjunction with someone else)? Seems like a lot of profit that they're squandering to other businesses... They built a small recorder for the Z1 cameras so you didn't have to go to tape... I see no reason why they wouldn't be trying to pull back some profits and sell package deals. I wouldn't be too surprised if a future F3 replacement could be bought as a package with a Sony/Zeiss zoom, or prime set - re-housed with manual gears, in addition to a Sony proprietary raw recorder that its also compatible with the F5/55, Fs5, Fs7 etc.

Of course the advanced Canon auto focus only works on EF lenses on a Canon body.... I'm not sure how else you would expect it to work... on PL lenses that are entirely mechanical...?? Let's be real here - there'll be plenty of documentary, event, wedding, etc. shooters going for a C100 or C300 over the Sony purely for the auto focus.

Yeah - sounds like you are talking about RED!

Sony's launch videos are always terrible. Even the F5/55 had awful launch videos. In fact, they were so awful, in addition to some testing I saw that I actively avoided both cameras for as long as possible, until I was offered an F5 when I didn't have the budget for RED or Alexa and figured out that it's really a great camera when you put it to use properly. Clients don't demand Canon colour. I don't know what clients you're working for, but I've never been asked to shoot a TVC but had a Producer tell me that the agency and client want me to shoot Canon for some reason (other than price). Producers want whatever is going to be the cheapest for them Sometimes, they're happy to go Alexa or similar if you can convince them that it's going to be worth it (or it's cinema commercial, or high budget national). I actually prefer to shoot F5, and prefer the look of the F5, over a C300. Many television shows are now shooting F5 or F55. Sony is slowly but surely gaining ground, especially over Canon. You may find it more difficult to grade Sony because you're used to Canon, but professional colourists will take anything you throw at them, and have no issue grading any Sony footage. Arri can charge what they do because they have the best overall camera, and best sensor design, in the market. And yet, they've still had to diversify and offer smaller and lower cost options to compete with other manufacturers. This might be EOSHD but unless Canon really pull their finger out, they may be struggling to compete on the video front in a few years time.

You're either sitting in the first three rows, viewing on a 60ft+ screen - or your brain is just thinking you're seeing a difference when you actually aren't. It has long been accepted that to get 'true' 4k you need to shoot with an 8k sensor - which is the reason the F65 has an 8k sensor. It's another tool for acquisition - many will use it and many won't, much like the RED Weapon vs an Alexa, for example. I can't see 8k delivery taking off for a long time. But 8k acquisition certainly. Considering we were 'acquiring' on film which could be scanned at up to 4-6k+ (depending on who you believe) for many many years, and that we've been shooting 4k on RED since '07, and only recently had 4k TV sets and projectors brought in, I can see some/many productions shooting 8k for 4k delivery.

If this is an A7s with a real camera body, 10-bit, 4k, S-log and a reasonable price, I might buy it immediately. Guess we'll see on the 11th!

The device you want exists in the K1M. It just requires a little bit of extra work for it to attach. Sony have already given you 2 more options than any other DSLR manufacturer! And you complain because one of the options is a little brittle, and you can't use the device that attaches via a small area of electric contact points as a second handle..?

Sony implementing a menu system that's easy to understand and makes sense from a user perspective WOULD be groundbreaking!!! They tried to hard to go the Alexa-style menu route with the F5/55 and failed so, so miserably

That's why I went with the K1M and a rig. More versatile, and better construction. Not sure how else you would like Sony to have gone about doing this - especially considering the K1M and K2M are designed to work across a range of products, not just one camera in particular. Everything is a compromise. The only way you're getting around compromise is by spending thousands of dollars on high end specific gear, and even then it's a compromise of not being as compact.

This whole thread seems to me to be another case of people talking about an issue that they haven't experienced themselves, because they'd rather talk around and around about something that has little to no consequence to them, rather than go out and actually shoot landscapes. Take the A7rII out and shoot some landscapes. Don't take some awful, 'I've never even held an SLR before' photos off the internet and proclaim 'See! I TOLD you'. Why not go out and take some real-world test shots, with real-world conditions and then come back and say 'well the A7rII has this issue, but here's how I fixed it' OR 'any ideas how to fix this?' Instead, there's a bunch of crappy photos posted and a small number of people saying 'well if inexperienced newbies can't get good quality, then it just isn't worth buying' and disparaging any and everyone who posts saying 'hey, look at these photos - you actually CAN get great landscapes out of an A7rII' by saying 'yeah well that person probably doesn't know what they're talking about' Sometimes I wonder if people here are negative for the sake of being negative. I also wonder if you have any product that is 110% perfect?

The GH4 is much deeper and heftier (having used both cameras), doesn't have room taken up inside its body for IBIS, and it's sensor is less than half the size. If the Sony A7rII had a 4/3" sensor, I'm sure it would be a lot easier to implement more features - or at least keep it from overheating at 4k. I actually don't care about what it technically has or doesn't have. I've used all the cameras mentioned here, and I can tell you that the Blackmagic is the worst of all of them for overheating. I was forced to attempt to shoot a doco with the pocket as production wouldn't spring for anything else, and we needed a number of cameras. Apart from it being the totally wrong form factor for shooting when not on a tripod... The thing would heat up insanely. So it is marginally bigger. I still don't really get this one - Sony made a design decision based on how big they want their screen to be, where they want it, and decided they didn't want even a small amount of extra bulk, or alternately even a small reduction in screen size. I just don't understand how this is a 'big problem'. The screen tilts instead of flipping out - if that feature is THE killer feature you need to have, then this camera isn't for you..? Except that's an amalgamation of features from a number of different camera companies. There isn't a single camera in even a similar price range that offers 10-bit 4k HDMI out, internal 4k 8-bit 4:2:0, Dual-pixel AF, super battery life, uncompressed raw stills, colour science as good as Canon (another thing I don't understand), on-sensor stabilisation as good as an Olympus and the ergonomics of a GH4 - all with a full frame sensor. You can say 'I wish the IBIS was as good as Olympus,' you can say 'I wish the colour science was as great as Canon,' you can say 'I wish the battery life was better,' you can say 'I wish it had 10-bit.' You can say all those things seperately. You can't say 'this camera is awful/nowhere near as good as it could be because Canon has better colour science, better AF, and better battery life, Olympus has better IBIS, the GH4 has 4k that doesn't overheat and the Blackmagic has internal 10-bit ProRes, so why is it that the Sony doesn't have every single one of these features??' Especially when most of the cameras you're talking about have sensors that are less than half the size, in bodies that are just as big, if not bigger than that of the a7rII (with the exception of the Blackmagic - but again, its battery life is awful, heats up a lot, its sensor is tiny and it doesn't do 4k). Are you seriously suggesting that there shouldn't be a camera on the market at the moment because none of them are perfect? Therefore, if a camera isn't perfect (or at least perfect to your specifications), then there's no point in making any cameras until it's physically possible to do so? Or are you suggesting that Sony should make a camera that fulfills all your expectations and specifications, but is a big black box that doesn't have vast market appeal because it's ugly, big and heavy...? It's funny how some people forget that camera manufacturers aren't making cameras specifically for YOU I just looked on the Sony store website and the major features listed before internal 4k were: -42.4 megapixel backlit sensor (keep in mind that the Sony website lists this as 'Digital E-mount 42.4 Mega Pixel Camera Body' rather than '4k internal Camera body') -Fast Hybrid AF system with 399-point wide focal plane phase-detection AF coverage for sharp focus -5-axis image stabilisation reduces blur for stills and movies - making every shot crystal clear -Experience high sensitivity of up to ISO 102400*3 with low-noise performance and wide dynamic range EVen on the Sony Digital Imagine global website, it lists these before internal 4k: -New back-illuminated full-frame CMOS sensor -High-speed BIONZ XTMimage processing engine -All FE lenses maximize resolution I appreciate for you that the headline feature may be internal 4k, but for Sony, it's big feature #5 in a long list. It's not all that long ago that Canon cameras crapped out in the same way simply recording HD. My T2i which was bought for the sole purpose of shooting video would overheat pretty easily. In certain conditions, it would start overheating before it reached it's 12 minute limit, especially if it had been on for a little while. That's HD! And everyone praised Canon for how great they were, and how great the video was, and how the overheating and time limit was annoying, but you could work around it and it was worth working around. Now Sony brings out internal 4k with incredible quality, Slog in XAVC-s, coupled with everything else that this camera offers and it's some sort of travesty because under certain conditions, the camera sometimes overheats when shooting 4k. Please. Not that long ago, many people including myself were suggesting it was going to be unlikely that Sony would even have internal 4k in the first place in this camera. If it's really that much of a killer, wait til the A7sII

The GH4 has a sensor that is less than half the size of the A7 line, and the Blackmagic's is even smaller. In addition, the GH4's body is a lot bigger than the Sony, and the Blackmagic starts overheating after only 5-7 minutes of continuous shooting (in ProRes 1080p, let alone 17 minute mark of 4K that the a7rii tends to get to). Neither the Blackmagic or GH4 have on-sensor stabilisation. The E-m5 II actually has more space taken up on the left side for the hinge. I love how people criticise manufacturers on here because they didn't take a competing camera from a different manufacturer and simply put all the features they want in it. OH, and without taking 5 minutes to stop and actually think about the physics of it. You complain because the A7rII is packing so much into such a tiny package that you can only shoot continuously for about 17+ minutes at 4k before it overheats - and then complain because it doesn't do more.

I guess I meant they sold well - but it was definitely a prosumer-type camera. Despite its strengths, it never took hold in the same way that the RED Scarlet or Canon C300 did. You could sell yourself onto a job with a RED, and even a C300. It was a lot harder to sell yourself onto a job with an F3 (at least without a lengthy explanation of why it was just as good). For some reason, I doubt this. I'm not particularly sure why, it's just a feeling I have. If I could get an F5 for $1500 I would buy it this second.

The Slog upgrade was initially a paid upgrade, and upgraded it to Slog 4:4:4. Then, Sony decided they'd throw in Slog for free to value-add to a camera that was seeing dwindling sales (and lets face it, was never seeing sales on the same level of RED or Canon). The free Slog upgrade was limited to 4:2:2. So - yes, it gets incredibly confusing attempting to decipher it all. That being said, I'd take a $1200 F3 with 4:2:2 over a $4k one with 4:4:4. The difference is just not enough to be worth over $2k on this camera. I would rather put the money into a recorder that can get me the 10-bit out.

I don't feel I'm getting defensive - I just think this forum is quick to jump to the most ridiculous conclusions about products, and completely rule out products based on one, single, unscientific 'test' done by someone who is likely a newbie. That RED Dragon footage I saw that was insanely noisy, had blown-out highlights, crushed dynamic range, terrible skin tones etc. Instead of saying 'wow, how terrible is the RED Dragon, I'm never going to use it, it's a weak camera with terrible colours, and dynamic range and awful low-light ability' - I watched footage from others and did my own tests and came to the conclusion that you can get really beautiful looking images out of the RED Dragon, and that awful footage I saw was simply user error. I've seen 5D stills that are awful. I could have said 'man the 5D is just a terrible camera to use for portraits, obviously.' Of course, we all know that to be untrue - the 5D is a great stills camera. I'm not going to judge it based on a small number of people who aren't photographers, or don't know how to use it or expose their photos. No camera is perfect, and learning more about how they perform in certain situations is always good, and allows you to find strategies to compensate - but let's get some perspective here. And lets do our own tests before jumping to random conclusions. As I've said many times - people here talk at length about how 'awful' the colours from the A7s is. I'm yet to have the same issues. I do have some issues sometimes when skin is under-exposed, but overall I don't get anything like the issues that many seem to have here. By doing my own tests, I've figured out what I can get out of the camera, and how to compensate for other things in order to get great images. I didn't look at posts from people who were only using the camera for the first time and couldn't expose their images properly to base my decision on purchasing it.

It's what I call a terrible image taken by someone who is a self-confessed newbie. I've seen some absolutely horrendous images from Canon and Nikon cameras taken by newbies. I've seen some absolutely horrendous RED Dragon footage, which was shot by someone who was a total newbie (I mean just awful). I'm not sure what the skill level of the operator has to do with how a particular camera performs. If you're looking for a point and shoot camera that gives you great looking stuff without the need for any knowledge or technique, there are plenty available.

I imagine if this is true, it will come in a new, separate, rival product rather than the A7sII

Looks, picture profiles, LUTs and Log. For those who were recently talking about understanding log and how it works etc. Here's a pretty good article from newsshooter that breaks it down http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/07/27/looks-picture-profiles-luts-and-log-why-when-and-how-you-should-use-them/

I disagree. Shoot this on IMAX film and it would look similar, especially once you downscaled to put it on YouTube (the grain would be very, very fine). Although, I'd probably go ahead and say the focus wouldn't be as perfect if shot on IMAX film these days (just look at Interstellar)! IMO, something looking video vs film is partly to do with dynamic range - as film has amazing dynamic range and contains much more information in the highlights than shadows - as evidenced by the fact that it's general practice to over-expose film by up to a full stop. It's also about colours as unlike a bayer pattern sensor that cuts up your sensor into 1/3d blue, 1/3d green, 1/3d red, you're getting full resolution of each colour channel. In addition, the 'noise' (or grain) is not colourful, and much less distracting. They're perhaps minor things, but it adds up to a 'noticeable' difference, even if you can't necessarily put your finger on what that difference is. I also think a lot of the time people confuse lack of production value with looking video. If I pull out an Alexa, whack a cheap lens on it, set the exposure somewhere that looks okay, frame up some average looking shot on an average looking day and then only put a REC709 LUT on it and upload to YouTube or whatever, it might even look nice but I bet you wouldn't pick Alexa if I asked you what I shot it on. It would still look somewhat 'video-ey'. If I light my scene, after testing the Alexa for what I think is acceptable usable DR, test ISO settings to get me the exact result I want - light creatively, get a professional Production Designer in to dress the set appropriately, get a costume designer in to design the costumes, beg the rental company for a good deal on nice lenses, and then send it off to be professionally sound designed and mixed, suddenly my film is looking a lot more like 'film' than 'video'. But the motion cadences, highlight fall off, etc etc. was all developed to be that way because of the way that film handled such things, and how we were used to it. If film had never existed, digital would probably have never even attempted 24p - in fact, we'd probably be very used to watching things at 48fps with that motion cadence (like The Hobbit tried). If we never had film as a benchmark - if film never existed, would we have put time and effort into developing large sensor cameras? We may never have had experienced shallow depth of field in the same way, or had large dynamic range to view on screen. So is there a particular reason that we would ever have developed past 1/3 or 2/3" 3-chip arrays - especially as a 3-chip prism produces better colour than a single bayer pattern sensor (you have one chip for each colour, versus one sensor sliced up in a way that eventually makes 1/3rd of the sensor for each colour). We may never have seen wider dynamic range as pertinent, or important to video cameras. Indeed, the whole idea of a 'cinematic' look is one that involves being captured on celluloid film. This idea we have of what 'cinematic' looks like is developed from what film looks like on screen. So by definition, having a cinematic look, in the way you describe it, is to look as much like film as possible - of course in addition to the production design, costume design, sound design, direction etc. etc.

I'm not sure that is their strategy! The A7rII is a lot more expensive than the A7r was, and is almost $1,000 more than the A7s was new! I'm wondering if perhaps their plan is not of obsolescence per say, but to bolster their offerings - if you have the money for the best video, you can get the (forthcoming) A7sII. If you only need 1080p, you can get the A7s. If you care only about stills, the original A7r is fine. If you're looking for something entry level, then the original A7 is cheap and still a great camera. On the Sony store online, you can still purchase the A7 brand new, and you can still purchase the A7r new. Looking at the way the prices are structured, it suggests to me that maybe this is less about making their current range of cameras totally obsolete, and more about bolstering their range. Someone who now owns an A7s and is looking for the best possible video IQ in this budget range and form factor, might go ahead and buy an A7rII. Many won't. Many will be happy with their A7s. Many who were tossing up between jumping into Sony and not, now can buy an A7s for $1700 and get themselves into the Sony ecosystem of lenses, accessories, etc.

Yeah, I mean there's no way you can tell a good story when you've got minimal amounts of banding, is there...? An update to the A7s will happen. I would wager that it will be an A7sII - I doubt it's going to be a new product that updates/replaces it. I imagine the A7sII will have an extra two stops of sensitivity, allowing for ISO 1.6million, and/or 720 @ 240p / 1080 @ 120p / 4k @ 60p. Plenty extra, and in no real way competing with the FS7..

Exactly - the Phantom Miro is what - $45k? it only records 1080p, has a limited dynamic range compared to any other camera at that price point, is rated at 640 ISO, ideally needs a data umbilical to a computer to function properly, can only record 3 seconds at a time at max fps, and that must be triggered 'after the fact'... and that still seems to have found a market - so I imagine this will too.