UncleBobsPhotography

Unfortunately not true for us Europeans The Exynos version uses a Samsung produced image sensor: https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-Exynos-Galaxy-S20-and-S20-don-t-use-the-same-main-camera-sensor-as-the-Snapdragon-models.455406.0.html I would imagine this to be an advantage to the Xperia 1 II for anyone living in an Exynos region of the world for Samsung. The Snapdragon processor is clearly better than the Exynos processor and the image sensor is probably better too. As far as I know, Sony uses the same hardware world wide.

Great initiative. I would also like to know whether 4k is acheived through supersampling/lineskipping/1-to-1 pixels/cropping. This can be just as informative as max usable ISO since it's often less subjective and affects both noise and moire.

I believe the main problem with a larger sensor is fitting the lens. The S20 Ultra is 8.8 mm thick which is considerably larger than the competition. Making the phone thicker will turn away quite a few consumers. The lens thickness is also the main reason why most tele-cameras on smartphones are so bad. They often just use a smaller sensor but with a similar focal length as the main camera. For marketing it seems better to have 3 cameras even if cropping the main camera will give similar results. The S20 Ultra is one of the few exceptions that use a periscope lens, which in theory could be an improvement.

The S20 Ultra actually has a bigger sensor (1/1.33 instead of 1/1.7), but seems like a failure. The 960 fps on the S20 ultra is even upscaled 480 fps... The S20/S20+ has the same sensor size as the new Sony.

The Z-Cam E2 and E2-M4: Native ISO: 500 / 2500 ( http://www.z-cam.com/e2/ http://www.z-cam.com/e2-m4/) The full frame Z-Cam E2-F6: Dual Native ISO: 400 / 2500 ( http://www.z-cam.com/e2-f6/ )

I am considering Z-Cam E2-series for a new VR rig. I know they also produce dedicated VR cameras, but the ZCam E2 ticks so many boxes: -60fps -high dynamic range (Log/Raw) -high resolution -4:3 aspect ratio (Useful for VR) -sync -ability to adjust interocular distance (By being 2 units instead of 1) My main gripe is that they are physically a bit wide (91mm), which makes the minimum interocular distance quite large. It's also too bad that only the original E2 has the ability to sync.

The specs looks very similar to my Samsung S20+. On paper the S20 has amazing specs, but the only 2 things that have exceeded my expectations have been the manual focus and the 960 fps super-slow-motion. I haven't been able to make the 4k HDR10+/8k/4k60p look good, but the 960 fps has made some effects I can't reproduce on my GH5 and the manual focus actually work just the way I want it to work.

If you're editing in Rec709, I would recommend the Leeming LUT ( https://www.leeminglutpro.com ) At first I thought it was silly paying €15 for a LUT, but those €15 have saved me a lot of headaches.

Lack of lens options is a valid objection, but Voigtländer does have 10.5mm f0.95 lens as long as you don't rely on autofocus. If you love cropping, the GH5 shoots 4992 x 3744 in 10bit... The A7III is obviously a good video-camera, and I would rather call a Pocket4k a side-step than an upgrade. We are arguing that FF is not necessary, not that all FF cameras are bad.

I think you are reading too much into this. I am one of the persons who have been praising the GH5 in this thread, but I have 3 times as many full-frame bodies and probably 3 times as many full-frame lenses as well. Even though one guy had a good shoot with the GX85, I'm pretty sure most of us would prefer full frame for photography. Most of the FF advantages disappear when you get into video, which is why I go FF for photo and use my GH5 for video. If Canon's next mirrorless ticks all the boxes I will probably switch to FF for video as well, but I think it's more likely that the GH6 will be a better video camera.

Is the A7III any better than a GH5s with an f0.95 or f1.2 at slow motion? I doubt it (unless you consider crazy lenses like the Sony FE 400mm F2.8) I am extremely happy with my GH5 and Olympus f1.2 lenses. Sure, it's not perfect, but I don't see any better options for my use available.

I'm very happy with doing a part-time study program in filmmaking. Most of my class mates are already industry professionals but want to have a more creative role, so it has been perfect for networking and I've been able to join several of their projects not related to the class. At the same time it doesn't interfere much with my daily work and lets me build my portfolio efficiently. It also helps that higher education is next to free here. My decision might have been different if I had to pay for it.

When I purchased my monitor a while back I ended up getting the LG 27UK850-W, which seems to have pretty similar specs to the 32UD99 (UHD, HDR10 and 350nits). The USB-C connection has been a bit unreliable for me, but that has been my only complaint. Otherwise very happy with my choice.

EIS could in theory solve the problem by shooting with a much higher framerate and combining several short exposures into one longer stabilized exposure. However, given today's tech, I would much rather have IBIS.

Where did you find the 4:2:2 part? 10 bit 4:2:0 is the new standard with h265 and will be used for everything. The Exynos 9820 processor in the Samsung s10 can record 8k30p or 4k150p. New tech is quite amazing. https://www.androidauthority.com/snapdragon-855-vs-exynos-9820-vs-kirin-980-929775/

Which license are you even talking about? The h.264 license? EDIT: As a good netizen, I commented before I read the article. Having now read the article I noticed that at least the article is about the h.264 license. Whether Mokara is referring to a different license is another matter.

The only other reason I can see for omitting 24p would be to keep the user interface cleaner. It's a quite poor reason, but I can see how UX designers who are not into filmmaking prefer sticking with PAL/NTFS/high framerate recording. Personally I'm more interested in whether it has full sensor readout.

For me, the value of a GoPro is that it's small, robust, waterproof and "fire-and-forget". Modding it with a new mount removes all of those advantages. I guess it would still be the smallest camera with 4k60p at a high bitrate, but for most practical cases, a GH5 would make more sense. Then there is of course the entertainment aspect of doing camera mods.

Thanks for the thorough post, but it makes me wonder, what use cases do you use the modified RX0 and GoPros for? I can't quite see the reason to not just use a camera with the right mount in the first place, but I'm sure you've got good reasons.

I use it on the GH5. My suspicion is that it has trouble with wide angle lenses, but my plan is to just shoot some test charts with each new combination to verify their performance before using it.

It's really worth testing these things with the exact setup you're planning to use. I found my Viltrox speedbooster+Canon L35mm1.4 to be unusably soft, while the speedbooster works great with the Canon 85mm1.8.

My use case for the RX100 would be if I wanted to look as unintrusive as possible. Otherwise I don't really see many advantages for film makers. It also seems like a great family camera for casual holiday photos, but I don't think we are the target audience for that.

Thanks for the tip. I've got some DIY NP-F plates so all I need should be the charger and the right connector. Is there a specific RC-charger you would recommend?

Does anyone know of a charger for NP-F batteries where you can specify the cut-off limit? Either the voltage or %-wise. There is often considerable amount of time between each time I use my NP-F batteries, and the batteries stays much healthier if you only charge them to 80% or 90% instead of 100% of full charge. I am therefore in search for a charger where you can specify the cut-off, and preferably one which can also charge several batteries at the same time at a decent speed.

This looks amazing on paper, but I would imagine it really needs some kind of external power to be usable for video.