independent

This looks like a great camera to pick up B-Roll, cramped locations, run/gun, especially when you can't fit/get/get away with a focus puller. Or even a Director's viewfinder; the sensor size is close enough to all the other close-enough cinema 35mm. Great for DP, scouting locations too. Some of you have ridiculous expectations. It's a $1K camera. Obviously it's going to involve compromises. Those drawbacks might not work for your project, but that's on you if you somehow expected a perfect camera for $1K. "How could it not have X, how could it not have Y" ... because these aren't professional cinema cameras. It's a consumer camera that has some pro features. Don't get it backwards. If it isn't your perfect camera out-of-box, and you're not willing to tinker with it or work around it's issues, then get one that does. But the 4K quality, low-light and usable video autofocus will give it a place in the market. I certainly am looking to add it to my bag. There are only three other cameras who have all those features: Canon C300 ii ($16K), the upcoming Canon 1DXII ($6K), and the Sony A7Rii ($3K). And those cameras have their own issues. It's valuable to talk about the limitations, no question. But the pissing and moaning? Lord. Nobody's forcing you to do anything. There will probably be some talented folks who will shoot a feature film with just this, and it'll look great, because they'll know how to work around its limitations. Ever since the Canon 5K Mark II came out, there's been a terrific growth of indie filmmaking, because people are willing to manipulate these non-pro video machines to effectively tell stories. And big ups to people who actually shot with this...a lot of great, usable footage. Exciting.

Actually you could look at it the other way around...for 1K, you pretty much get the best of the video features of the A7R2, minus the stabilization. That being said, the A7RII seems to still best all around camera for the most complete set of features, on paper.

I saw it on 70mm here in NYC and was disappointed. Not because it was 70mm, but because the film was essentially a stage play. Like Reservoir dogs; most of the movie was in one location: the cabin. 70mm for a single interior location? Was it cinematic? Sure, in a specific retrospective way, or nostalgic, which is his general style anyways. But what did it accomplish? Would it have been less cinematic had it been shot on 35mm or Alexa, Red? No, it still would have looked like a great cinema movie... and perhaps the smaller format would have been even more effective for the (small) story. ROOM was shot by Danny Cohen on the Red, and it looked great, cinematic but also right for the story. I think the digital sensor allowed for a very clean capture with mostly natural light, practicals. The clean capture and dynamic range made the movie transparent and immersive. It also brought you into the room, to feel the space, or the lack of, and empathize with the characters. Cinematic, in the best way, and moving beyond what filmic can give us. The point being: cinematic is a real term, which encompasses filmic, in fact successfully mimicked it, but is now capturing visuals that exceeds it. And that's exciting - to have a larger palatte, instead of being overly nostalgic about a great (but limited) medium.

Cinematic isn't a misnomer at all. In all my posts, I make this distinction myself, between the terms cinematic and filmic, because cinematic today has moved beyond what film can achieve. And I don't believe "cinematic" it's a dumb word at all. In fact, it's an exciting, dynamic concept that is changing and evolving with technology and creative vision. Cinematic won't look the same 10 years from now. But it is useful as an idea and a term. Filmic, on the other hand, is a specific term within the broad idea of cinematic, and I believe the OP was referring to "filmic" when he said "cinematic," which for the most part, might have been fairly interchangeable from a visual standpoint until recently. But I think it was worth making that distinction in this thread, to distinguish those terms, because we're seeing further separation moving forward. As an aside, there is another part of this conversation that involves a different point, on color science. I don't believe the "Sony color" is necessarily less "cinematic" than other camera's out-of-the-box colors, because on a technical level, those are decisions to be made in the production and post-production, and decisions regarding the aesthetic of the direction, story, genre. The point being, Sony's out-of-the-box colors can be appropriate for certain genres and story, which can be fairly "cinematic," a look that would be reasonably be consistent with theater-release features. It could also be manipulated for other genres, which could also look cinematic. The point being, Sony color isn't necessarily not "cinematic." First of all, you're missing the point again. I said it's unlikely TWD chose16mm because it looked cinematic. Some poster had said the TWD wouldn't shoot on the Red Epic. Which may or may not be true, for whatever their reasons, but I doubt that their decision was made because they believe the Red Epic looks less cinematic than 16mm.

Yeah, but you're missing the point; are they choosing cameras based on what looks the most "cinematic" or what's right for the story, the production, etc.? I'm not sure what the point about Walking Dead is - why wouldn't you shoot it on Red Epic? Would it be less "cinematic" than 16mm? It's one thing if they decide upon a certain aesthetic. But what's the likelihood that they all sat down and picked 16mm film because it looked the most "cinematic"?

I'm not demeaning the role of cameras or differences between them, just that certain cameras do not necessarily look more "cinematic" than others, for a variety of reasons that I had stated. Agreed, everything is really important, including the camera, but not solely the camera. The issue is, what makes something cinematic? I haven't seen hail caesar, but Deakins was quoted as saying he didn't think shooting with an alexa or film would have made a difference. And that wasn't a glib comment - alexa dominates the industry because it looks filmic. And you might have loved it because you like that look, period. To you, it may reflect that golden age of film, which would also be appropriate for the period look of that film. Lots of reasons why film was a great choice - and why alexa would probably have been too (and the lighting, grading, movement, direction, production design, etc.). And on the other hand, Revenant would have looked less "cinematic" had it been shot on film, because our expectations of cinematic are changing, expanding, and evolving. So digital is increasing the scope of a cinematic look. That's true, because the reality is that they are the highest quality digital cameras. They have more flexibility as well. They also are responsible for transforming the movie industry (Sony has some role here too) from film to digital, largely in part because they've been able to emulate the look of film. But that's not to say that other cheaper cameras can't look cinematic. For one, they've been making their way into feature films, including Hollywood blockbusters. For another, they're getting better with technology, which is why we're even having this conversation about these cheap, little cameras. "The camera matters" is indeed stating the obvious, but that's not the point here. The question "what makes things cinematic" I think is a more important and relevant question, because I don't think one look (nor one camera) is necessarily more "cinematic" than another. Today, even film isn't more cinematic than digital.

Lighting, grading, and lenses make a huge difference (often in that order). I think most cinematographers when surveyed cite lighting as the biggest factor in cinematography, rather than the camera. As far as complaints about Sony color, a lot of Hollywood thrillers/horrors intentionally have that "Sony" look, graded more towards green and yellow. None of their skin tones look "rich" or "beautiful." David Fincher's films look pretty Sony. Even House of Cards looks Sony. And Fincher has shot a lot of RED, or exclusively RED for the past decade. Roger Deakins shot Prisoners, which is somewhat similar, and that was shot on the Alexa. When I saw Lone Survivor, I honestly thought it was shot on Canon dslrs or C-series. It looked cheap, and way punchy, like Act of Valor, and I hated the look for the dark material/story...and it was shot on RED too. So if the color is an intentional decision, then Sony's colors may not necessarily be less cinematic. Sure, many people do like Canon's out-of-the-box color. Even if you're grading C-log, it certainly takes less effort if the punchy vibrant color is the look you're going for. But subject matters too. If we're talking doing as little as possible beyond image capture, then there are more cinematic cameras depending on the project. Romantic comedy? Canon would work. Thriller? Why not Sony. To be fair, motion cadence is harder to cover up. The dslrs/h brid cams struggle with this. I think smooth camera movements help alleviate the motion cadence issue. Slow-motion almost always has better motion cadence - and I think this is because it eliminates the micro jitters in real time that look video (unnatural). Aliasing is another. So soften the image a little (lenses or desharp) and limit shaky cam, and I think that would help motion cadence. Just a theory. But really, almost everything is a compromise, isn't it? Including the Alexa, which is price. You have to find what works for you or your project. But we all have our hierarchy of preferences. I sold my Red when I saw how noisy it was in low light... compared to the blackmagic cinema camera 2.5K, which looked a lot more cinematic at 1600 ISO. And blackmagic has a nice cinematic image, but if your focus puller isn't very good, maybe you're missing focus, hunting, or having to stop down. And then maybe that dual pixel Canon is nailing rack focusing and shallow depth of focus, is starting to look far more cinematic. And then, maybe your lighting budget is cut, and you have to shoot fast, in very low light. None of those will look more cinematic than the A7Sii in that context. Lastly, "Cinematic" is a complex, fluid term with a lot of variables and different contexts, but when you say cinematic, you mean what's shown in movie theaters historically and culturally. Which has been film, until recently. Cinematic has evolved over the years. Black and white was cinematic until technicolor. Which looked cinematic until film color improved and improved. Until it peaked, then you have all these disruptive looks and fragmentation, 16mm in the 60s, grittier exploitation films in the 70s, home video's influence in the 90s, with blair witch project and paranormal activity. I think Alexa is popular for being that transition (digital emulation of film), but the reality is that film is no longer the capture medium. When it was revealed Skyfall was being shot in 35mm, nobody really noticed or cared. But with HDR, 3D and future technologies, and even more fragmentation, cinematic is changing. And in the end, what's the point? Serve the story, in an appropriate (and hopefully creative) way. As great as the cinematography was for Revenant (reminiscent of the New World, also shot by Lubezki), it wasn't as fresh and exciting to me as the cinematography for Victoria. Shot on a C300 with a single lens. The best cinematic look is the result of the right tool, not the perfect one, and skills, experience, and hard work. And a good team. I think that's a factor too. No camera can deliver cinema. Roger Deakins claims he could care less about the camera, he'd shoot on anything, he'd make an iPhone image look cinematic. And I believe him, because he's mastered lighting, framing, lensing, movement. He almost always works with good directors and postproduction teams too, which helps cohere all the elements of filmmaking.

You can easily rig a DSLR for your shoulder, but you can't make an Arri or shoulder cam the size of a dslr. There will almost always be this tension...bigger cameras will be better and more expensive. Smaller cameras will come with some technical limitations but be cheaper and more flexible. These arguments have been around since the 5DII came out.

Actually it's the autofocus / face tracking that's really the selling point. If it's good, you get more usable shots. At the end of the day, dynamic range, 10-bit color, 4K, all that stuff is wonderful, but if the shot isn't in focus, then those matter much less. At the end of the day, for most formats, lighting, framing, focus, camera movement all matter much more to cinematography. Imho. Controllable and accurate autofocus will really open up creative possibilities and much more efficient shooting. Blocking matters less, actors are freed up from hitting marks, fewer takes due to missed shots, etc. Event, doc, sports video too. What would be a great video would be AF comparison between the 1DX II, A7R II, and the C300 II, in less-controlled shooting conditions.

I wonder how the continuous autofocus / facetracking compares to the Sony A7RII.

Any chance of getting a test video to compare the two? Steve Huff also described the a7sii autofocus as the "best in the a7 line." But I'm assuming he meant stills, not for continuous autofocus in video. Still, that's odd, because as you said, the phase detect of the A7Rii. Maybe Huff's comments were in the context low light... I'd like to see a continuous autofocus comparison between the a7r ii and the a7s ii, same native lens, in good light and in low light. I've seen only one comparison so far, it was in low-light, and it seemed the a7rii tracking better but hunted in and out. The a7sii tracked slower but smoother, but no hunting.

Really? This pretty thorough (and overall negative) review claims that the video autofocus is better on the A7Sii than on the A7Rii. "Surprisingly, the auto focus on this camera is incredible. Sony CSC cameras have been laughed at for their poor AF performance, but I have nothing (well, nearly nothing) bad to say about it. The AF on the A7SII outperforms the A7RII, even though it has less AF points. It is snappy, relatively accurate and only ever hunts in severe backlight." http://liesthrualens.com/sony-a7s-mark-ii-review/ Somebody is wrong...

To clarify, did it work on "every" lens or the Canon lenses that you've listed? Second, are you sure that all 5-axis are engaged (yaw, pitch, roll, X, Y)? I think what causes confusion is the statement the stabilization system works for all lenses. That may be partially true, in the sense that 3 out of 5-axis may be engaged, but that doesn't mean that all 5 are. This site quotes Mark Weir as making some unclear comments about it : http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/12/17/comparison-olympus-sonys-5-axis-stabilization-work/#.VicvKbwyeRs According to the site, entering the focal length into the camera provides pitch and yaw. Roll stabilization is always available - lens agnostic. Based on the process of elimination, it seems that X and Y stabilization needs focal distance - that's the information that can't be manually inputed into the lens. This isn't absolutely clear though. Second, it's not clear if focal distance is communicated electronically via adapters like metabones - whether at all, or more importantly, accurately. If it's being communicated but incorrectly because of the middleman adapter, then it'll be lost in translation. In the article above, they recommend turning image stabilization off in canon lenses. What complicates this further? These comments were made about the A7II, not A7S II. So it's uncertain how much those comments apply now. I think clarity on this issue makes a big difference... it can be a determining factor on what lenses to use for certain shots, and it can have a major impact on your cinematography.

Can somebody with the a7s ii confirm 5-axis stabilization with 3rd party lenses, for both manual (Nikon F) as well as adapted electronic (e.g. Canon + metabones) ? There's some conflicting info out there, and b&h's site says 5-axis stabilization works on all lenses.