teddoman

ProColor 4.0 is out, but it's not really advertised very well on EOSHD. It'd be easy to not notice it. I just downloaded it. But I guess it's not a Pro Log version.

If you can sell directly to a buyer on FM or EOSHD or another online board that has a buy and sell forum, that's your best option for getting the most money. If you're in need of a dealer trade in, you'll take a hit on price (you pay for the service through the low trade in price).

Interesting theory about picture profiles conflicting with electronic shutter. On the A7R ii, I noticed that the in camera HDR mode doesn't work with a picture profile enabled or with electronic shutter enabled. Then, on the A9, in camera HDR does work with electronic shutter enabled but obviously there's no potential conflict with picture profiles since they are non-existent. I wish Sony would just default to a different setting when there's a conflict, or allow you to select a fallback setting in the event of a conflict. It's a real pain having to switch 3 menu settings on a regular basis. To me, A9 video seems positioned as high quality video for photographers only. There's no full frame 4K PDAF photo/video combo option in the Sony lineup right now. Do full frame 4K videographers want combo bodies with more MP and PDAF, like an A9S (with fps crippled on the photography side), or another refinement of low MP CDAF S bodies great for low light? Do videographers buy the S bodies for low light or for full sensor full frame 4K? A lot of videographers also seemed to be happy buying an R PDAF combo body over an S body.

If you look at lenses on the Sigma website, you can sort for lenses by MC-11 compatible, it's one of the sort criteria. I think there are also lists out there too. This new Sigma 14-24 in Canon mount is MC-11 compatible and under focus specs it says "full time manual - yes" which kind of sort of suggests it's not FBW

I watched Mark's GH4/Shogun HDR video on my Pixel 2 while watching the video simultaneously on my regular desktop screen. The Pixel 2 seemed contrastier and glossy, while my desktop monitor seemed more matte and lower contrast. The wood on the windows seemed glossy and shiny on the Pixel 2, for example. If it's reflecting some light source in the room, perhaps those are the specular highlights getting brighter? I don't know if other differences in these screens explains my perception or if it's this support for HDR functionality.

Interesting that the lens manufacturers don't have a specific designation for FBW lenses. You have to know that Canon STM lenses are all FBW, for example, but there isn't a separate designation for FBW vs non-FBW lenses. Apparently the Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art is not a FBW lens, so perhaps it's not totally true that all Sigma lenses are FBW. It shows up on the list of MC-11 compatible lenses (Canon mount)

I use a card that I keep in my wallet (so I always have it with me)

The only A9 numbers (in video) I've seen are in a review by Imaging Resource which puts the readout speed at 1/40 - 1/75.

Do you recall if he measured the readout speed for the A9 in video?

Yes the scaffolding shot is from the 4K comparison video. Worth noting that this image compares A9 full sensor 4K to A7R3 Super 35 4K. It'd be interesting to see a direct comparison of S35 on both cameras.

Interesting. On the A9 I can see both of those settings, both in movie mode and in M mode, on the main shooting screen with the M in the upper left corner.

The focus racks in Andrew's video seem a bit on the abrupt side. The focus rack on the Metabones/Canon 35 1.4 L video seemed a little smoother. Andrew's video is close up, so that probably makes the transitions more noticeable. In the Metabones/Canon 35 video, he's not shooting very close to his wife. Also possible that the AF tracking sensitivity and AF drive speed settings have an impact on focus racks using Sigma and Metabones adapters. If so, might have affected these 2 videos.

I noticed that too, but I think that was user error by the reviewer. Maybe the A9 shot is not in focus? Both are being oversampled. Hard to think of a reason why full readout of 24 mpix (A9 FF resolution) would give you a mushier image than full readout of 18 mpix (the super 35 sensor area of the R III).

There's finally a side-to-side comparison of the 4K of the two cameras now. Slight edge to the A9 on video AF over the A7R III is apparent, though it's not a particularly challenging test for sure.

Great explainer. Helpful primer on photographic data. You should be a teacher, if you aren't one already.