SRV1981

Any downside buying a zve1 or a6700 used versus new? Or in general? Used lens seems really easy to do but bodies feels a little nerve wracking.

This makes sense - I was seeing the wide-ranging zoom as an all-purpose outdoor lens for travel, sports, etc. I'd worry the 17-70 may not have the reach for sports, general outdoor video. But I will check the Tamron for sports. Fair point as well That is good I was thinking you could have the 18-_____ for all-purpose video and then use a 20-24 fast prime for low light and indoor shots?

Anyone have experience with mid-level zooms with good range? Curious what a good EDC zoom would be for video/photo on ASP-C bodies for Sony. On BH I'm seeing: 18-105 (f4), 18-135 (3.5-5.6)

Yea I get it. my brain was thinking - all things being equal, if you put the fx3 sensor in a an environment with the A7IV - which of the 2 would have 1. better DR 2. more accurate color 3. better ISO performance 4. and which image do you prefer a blend of objective and subjective all things being equal

Thanks guys. I guess I’m naive and assumed we could discuss what sensor produces a nicer image based on some data and experience. It seems for here, I’m wrong. Thanks anyway!

Agree, they don’t know - which is okay. I was just curious as per the original question. I don’t understand the technical specs of images and know some folks here are so wanted to see if anyone has investigated the original question………….

For polite discourse, I’m going to disagree respectfully. Does one sensor produce better highlights? Shadows? ISO performance? Color accuracy? Absolutely yes. Which one you prefer of the two is subjective. for example, I’ve always like Fuji and canon straight out of the box standard profiles due to more pink or magenta tones. I still have yet to see anyone answer which sensor has the better numbers for objective or their preference for sensor subjectively.

So you don’t think there’s an objective answer as to which sensor produces a better image? They’re different sensors, same manufacturer so the image is similar but it’s *not* the same. And if it’s not the same, I feel there’s both subjective and objective information within which to decide what image is more pleasing. From there it could be determined why some feel one sensor is producing a nicer image than the other. Not once, has this been addressed or answered. Maybe nobody here has compared or considered this but im not sure anyone’s really answered the simple question. simple: which image is better (your view) complex: why is it better

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm seems a7iv may have better DR in lower ISO and they’re even in higher

I’m just generally curious and interested in the topic. Currently using an iPhone 14 and Ricoh GriiiX may dip into mirrorless for video and so find the topic fascinating

That may be it - camcorders have been replaced by phones

Been wondering about this for years! Why not bring the sensor of modern mirrorless to camcorder bodies.

Thanks for the knowledge - so how would you advise someone considering a camera - video first photo second when the a7c2 sports the a7iv sensor and the zve1 sports the fx3 sensor?

I’ll check, thanks! RS doesn’t affect me for what I do or care about and DR is more important to me. am I seeing better noise in A7iv sensor here?

So how do we go about answering this when comparing the a7iv sensor (a7c2) versus the fx3 sensor (a7s3/zve1)

Thanks it seems the A7iv has more viewable DR than fx3 due to A7iv being 7k and fx3 is 4k but has internal noise reduction that can’t be bypassed

As title asks - which is better of the two? I can’t find good tests comparing. Many of the new bodies sport these two sensors so I’d be curious which one produces the superior image for video.

Is that Ken?

This nails my thinking precisely but too amateur to articulate. I’m trying to find examples on YT and whatever I do find I see no difference between 8-10 unless you’re heavy grading log. So if you’re doing that then I can see overheating being a concern but if you’re not doing much grading shoot 8 bit with burned in LUT? What camera did you shoot? I don’t see really any difference

Heard a discussion that if you’re filming and baking a LUT internally and aren’t going to do much grading (ie Davinci etc) in post, that internal recording 8bit won’t produce degradation compared to 10 bit. is this accurate? If so, does that mean filming the same clip in 4:2:0 would also not affect the final image? scenario would be to prevent overheating in smaller bodies, extend space on SD cards etc. thanks for any info

Have you considered a Ricoh gr3x

Looks cool seems odd

Interesting takes

That’s fair but the thread is regarding x100vi and jpg is one of the main reasons this camera has been hyped. People buy it for travel and casual use - so the option to get film like images through emulations baked in is the main sell from my vantage point. still curious if Luts can be used on photos for Sony - if so, that would make it an easy decision

this guy gets really nice jpgs on a Sony, which rivals Fuji emulations. curious if others have done this here and also if Sony allows LUT uploads to be baked into photos like they do for video. I know Panasonic does this.