BasiliskFilm

or, as someone else has pointed out, defocus. The A7S (or A7Sii) would give you the best result, with gapless 4K full frame. Stick a long f2.8 lens on that and focus on the people and the screens should be out of focus. The A7Rii would probably be cleaner in S35 crop, as FF mode involves line skipping of some sort. S35 will increase your DOF, but stick a speed-booster and f2.8 lens on and your backgrounds will again be thrown out of focus. The smaller sensors on the other cams will make defocusing more difficult.

Moire will arise when you try and project one grid of pixels onto another grid the doesn't quite match up. Gaps between the photo sites on the camera sensor will make this worse, and if you use a DSLR or similar that bins pixels from a high res sensor to create an HD image, then the moire will go crazy. Some of the more "gap-less" options are A7S series - where the readout is 1 to 1 with very little gap between photo sites, or a camera which oversamples a 6K image down to 4K - such as the A6300 (which will probably not be suitable for long takes with overheating issues) or A7Rii in crop mode which does a similar 6k to 4k trick.

Welcome to 2008. You would have thought they could have done a 2x2 binning, then at least you have an above HD image to downsample. At least Sony seems to be doing the maths when designing sensors to get slightly better sizes for video - an 8K sensor in the A7Rii gives a cleaner binning option to get full frame 4K, which may not be 100% moire free because of the gaps between photo sites, but can look great. Plus 6K sensors (or APS-C crop areas) that allow full pixel readout for 4K, resorting to a 3K binned image downsamped for slow motion HD.

The verdict from users seems to be coming through that this might be the best tool so far for mirrorless cameras in the affordable price range. Maybe not so much if you are shooting with a DSLR, but given that you can get a Sony a5000 with lens for £279, you might as well get a dedicated camera for gimbal shooting if you normally shoot with something bigger, looking at the money you save with this gimbal over anything else that is as reliable.

Just an idea - if the weight is stressing your wrist, then you could try an orthopaedic wrist brace (which supports a broken wrist), or even a whole arm brace. Some small steadicams have a proprietary brace that wraps round your arm to distribute the weight upwards, but no doubt more expensive than an orthopaedic option

I am liking the apparent ease of swinging this thing from low to high; a monitor attached to the handle might cause problems.

Obviously you get more pixels with the A7Rii, but would you argue that a speed boosted lens on ASP-C is noticeably lower quality at a given pixel count than the same lens on full frame? Just interested in your opinion, as I can probably only afford to get the A6300 with some sort of focal reducer anyway. What is interesting for video is the flexiblity you now get with primes; my nikkor 50mm f1.2 lens can now function on the A6300 as (35mm equiv): 50mm f1.2 (boosted) 75mm f1.8 (unboosted) 100mm f2.4 (digital zoom) ... all at true 4K. Gone are the days when you needed six or seven primes to shoot video.

Or save a wedge and use the A6300? I suppose you get the sensor stabilisation with the A7 series.

Good thing about shooting low light, from an overheating point of view, is that the camera is rarely in direct sunlight.

Another time it might be useful to do in post is if you are speed ramping clips shot at high frame rates. If you shoot at 120 fps, you are going to have quite a fast shutter speed, so when you play back at actual speed in a 24fps timeline, it will look quite juddery You can use MB software to simulate a 180 degree shutter in these situations.

Couple of thoughts. Smoothly moving objects on simple backgrounds should be fine. Super fast action with overlapping motion, or lots of particles of fragments, and you might have problems with images "tearing" Also remember that this is processor intensive stuff. A fast new machine with 1080 footage might be fine for a few short clips, but you wouldn't want to do a whole movie at 4K with an old machine. If you have any shots where you are adding visual effects or shooting on green screen, then there are good reasons for shooting sharp and adding motion blurring to your final composited image

Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison of the various lenses available for this camera from the point of view of the quality of the stabilization? I have plenty of decent MF lenses for more cinematic shots, with or without speed-boosting, but hand-holding these small cameras without in-body stabilisation is a nightmare. Obviously a gimbal would be a good idea, but you can never have too much stabilisation.

It does show limited ambition, but the pool of competing full frame cameras is still quite small, (if you prefer full frame). None do 4K out the box. Sony only have really clean HD on the more expensive A7S. Canon FF video looks less than completely sharp at 1080p, certainly at 60p. This also makes an excellent stills/video hybrid especially if you already have Nikon glass. If you are happy with crop frame, or satisfied with SpeedBooster type adaptors, then the field certainly opens right up.

Haven't seen rolling shutter tests yet? So far the footage looks good, but not really challenging. Would be good to know how it stacks up against the competitors (beating the A7S in this respect shouldn't be difficult!)

True, though if they can get a decent image HD image out of a 24 MP sensor, it should be possible in theory to get a good one out of a 12 MP crop from the same sensor. In fact a 2/3 crop gives you ~4k horizontal resolution. Ideal for producing a ~2K video image you would have thought?

Shame about APS-C mode. Handy to have digital zoom if you are shooting with a limited range of primes. Can't add the option with speed booster on a DLSR either

I agree the 810 film showed as much detail as pretty much any other HD footage I have seen. Need to see some deep focus shots of detailed subjects to see if the 750 is as good. But even more impressive (especially if using the internal codec) the 810 footage seemed to be 60p, without compromising detail and cleanness.

The BTS was remarkably uninformative… but it looks like you are right about the internal codec, in which case that is a very nice image for 1080p60, very little degradation of detail. If the D750 is as good (still to be seen) then it might be a pretty good value option for those who don't need 4K (with the Shogun as a rental option for when you need uncompressed).

Good point. The Canadian D810 video looks like it was mostly shot at 60p. Also looks like they used outboard recording. Did they have a Shogun? If they used internal recording then I am impressed with the codec.

Proper 1080p would at least be something, and the 60 fps over-cranking looks pretty good. At least an Atomos recorder gives you an improved display for video (peaking, zebras etc), as well as bypassing the internal codec, without costing a fortune. And if it doesn't have the A7S rolling shutter, that is also a plus.

Nikon seems a bit half hearted about promoting video capabilities (maybe because much of the capability arises from piggybacking off Sony technology?) If they now have the best DSLR/video hybrids, after all these years, why are they not shouting about it? Maybe because the story has moved to mirrorless?

Different resolution sensor, hence different way of sampling to end up with a 1080p image. As neither of them have whole sensor readout (that I have heard) different compromises will be involved, and almost certainly detectable differences in image quality. Someone needs to do a side-by-side to show how significant the difference is.

What about the D750? Certainly seems to be way better than the D600/610. Cleaner and more stable (couldn't see artefacts or rolling shutter) Unfortunately it still looks like 720p scaled up rather than 4K scaled down. There seems to be a fundamental problem with 24 MP sensors. Is it because a 36 MP sensor is almost exactly 4x HD horizontal resolution? Is the D810 getting a 4K image by line skipping, then subsampling that to get a reasonably clean HD. Do the same on a 24 MP and the maths are not as favourable. The making of looks sharper - is it shot on the D810?

D810 looking good. As good as any full frame footage I have seen this side of the A7S, though the internal codec seems to be being bypassed? Curious to see if it holds up as well as Sony's XAVC. Still would rather have a tilting screen and a EVF for video; fixed back screen is a pain, even with a loupe. What about rolling shutter? Is the D750 this good?

Canon as a company exists in silos. DSLR and Video divisions go their merry ways with little cooperation. The fact that the 5D II broke new ground for video was almost a happy accident. I imagine at least 95% of their customers for DSLRs are stills shooters (who see video as a nice extra), so don't expect them to break new ground in video any time soon. If they were proactive they might lure in new users, but another 1% market share means a lot less to Canon than it does to Sony or Panasonic. If Nikon are making moves in the right direction, it is probably piggybacking off Sony's improved sensor technologies.