Viscount Omega

Yep. I can almost hear them discussing it in a meeting. "What about Takumi's work on the LA-EA4's implementation?" "I'm glad you brought that up. I have an idea to boost our e-mount inventory sales." 🤑 💵 There are about 400 A-Mount zooms and primes from different companies out there that are affected by this. It feels like a slap in the face from Sony.

I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere but if you have some vintage A-Mount lenses (Minolta, etc..) and you plan to shoot stills or video with the A7S III, the auto-focus will not work anymore with the LA-EA4 adapter. It seems Sony disabled it. And the new LA-EA5 can only do stills--not video. This forces customers to buy e-mount lenses if they want auto-focus with their video.

Color is the obvious difference. I don't debate that. But I can grade anything in S-log3. I just think there's something tricky going on with the amount of info gathered. Like I said, 600 Mb/s , right? Same codec? Right? Doesn't look the same to me.

I can think of a lot of stuff that ruin an image. You think it's the noise reduction on the A7SIII vs. the FX-9? C'mon out and say it.

Well, yeah. But that has been worked on for years and continues to evolve. Noise reduction is only part of the equation.

What is "NR"?

Hey, I'm just drinking Yuengling and doing shots of Cinnamon Fireballs now and then. Whatever trip you're on, have a good one. 🤣

Trying to decide between this and the FX9. Forget the sound. That's done externally anyway. They both shoot at H.264/XAVC S-I 4:2:2 10-Bit UHD 4K (3840 x 2160) at 23.976p/25p/29.97p/50p/59.94p [240 to 600 Mb/s] 600 Mb/s. So, same as FX-9. What is the difference between 600 Mb/s on an A7SIII and an FX-9? So, 7K for Venice color? Don't care about slow motion. Not one bit. Rolling shutter IS an issue. Image stabilization. Yeah, that's a factor but not a deal-breaker. Why do I like the FX-9 footage better in the videos I've seen? 600 Mb/s is 600 Mb/s, am I right? Or is Sony crippling the cameras so as to not compete with their other products? Sort of like Intel would cripple Celeron chips vs. Pentium chips.

I'm sorry Andrew but I'm going to have to report you to the authorities. Your article is misleading in that it features a young, attractive Caucasian woman that does not fully reflect the diversity of Manchester. You should know better. Be more inclusive next time. Get the Manchester Experience. Live it. Learn it. Love it. https://www.manchester.ac.uk/study/experience/

"The other adapter I will be trying in the full review is the Sony A mount range, both for full frame Alpha glass – of which there are some rather nice ones, indeed some of my favourite of all time, and the superbly cinematic Minolta AF range." I also think they have a distinctly cinematic quality. It's nice to hear I'm not the only one who thinks that. Ya know, when you mention the word "Minolta" some cinematographers are like, "What are you crazy?" Fuck them. LOL.

It's not even worth it to argue. It's like that guy is still talking about sensor sizes, DOF and equivalence from 5 years ago. It's like me against the world so when I say "Fuck this", I mean I'm going to stop reading this thread. It's like being lectured to by a homeless guy drenched in his own urine. Your Aunt Sally can't tell the difference between formats anyway.

Do I have to go back to square one with someone like you? It's like trying to talk to a fucking grad student who thinks gov't creates jobs. Fuck this.

Eh, more stills. How 'bout an animated .gif or a 3D pie chart? Doesn't look like anything special I couldn't replicate (close enough) with my A7SII using regular full-frame vintage lenses. (of course certain people will howl that "all formats are the same" after I said that). That said, your distance from your subject in the previous video "Michaela" exploits the "look" very well. I defy anyone in the "all formats are the same" camp to match the perspective you had there and replicate what you did there with their Iphone. I've been shooting terabytes of full-frame stuff for a couple of years and nothing I have done can match the medium format perspective you have in that video. Btw, you look like Charles Manson. People should not trust you with their children.

That's because you're not using a larger lens circle. When you put a full-frame 35mm lens on an APS-C camera you're not using a full-frame lens the way it was intended. You're only using the center section of glass in the lens.

I'm being a little sarcastic here (maybe not hard enough for some people). As if a little thing like "lens aberrations" could account for what I (and others) are seeing. Anyway, still waiting for an answer. p.s. sorry you were offended by the "vignetting" comments earlier but I did think it was funny and insane. Still do.

Thanks. Your explanation seems to focus strictly on distance to explain perspective and ignores the huge difference in lens image circle sizes between the two formats in the comparison. Are you saying that difference is irrelevant in regards to perspective? That it has no impact on perspective in the comparison? Does it have any impact on anything then? I was under the impression that perspective was also the way objects appeared spatially and that's why I initially agreed with the DP's assessment--it seemed to jibe with my real-world experience--especially the bit about the sense of peripheral vision being different. Maybe that was simply lens aberrations. I don't know.

Well, anyone could chime in, I don't care. I'm looking for a rebuttal or counter-argument against this explanation. (I didn't write it, btw. It's from a DP in another forum). Here, I'll copy/paste it again: "Say you shot with a 24mm APS-C at f/4 and 36mm full-frame at f/6.3 both focused at 10 feet. The lenses / formats would produce a very similar horizontal and vertical field of view. The depth of field would also be very similar. Would these images be nearly identical? What would account for any differences?" "The perspective will not be the same. The angles may match but your relationship (the cameras relationship) to the angle will not be the same. That is to say, if you picture a wedge representing your field of view, in the full-frame scenario you will be further inside of the wedge than in the APS-C format. In the APS-C format you will be closer to the 'point' of the wedge. Therefore the sense of peripheral vision will not be the same. Some would argue that this is why full-frame looks more natural or realistic than APS-C."

Can we just wish it into the cornfield? LOL. (Twilight Zone reference)

Cha-ching! But what are your comments on the following theory? "Say you shot with a 24mm APS-C at f/4 and 36mm full-frame at f/6.3 both focused at 10 feet. The lenses / formats would produce a very similar horizontal and vertical field of view. The depth of field would also be very similar. Would these images be nearly identical? What would account for any differences?" "The perspective will not be the same. The angles may match but your relationship (the cameras relationship) to the angle will not be the same. That is to say, if you picture a wedge representing your field of view, in the full-frame scenario you will be further inside of the wedge than in the APS-C format. In the APS-C format you will be closer to the 'point' of the wedge. Therefore the sense of peripheral vision will not be the same. Some would argue that this is why full-frame looks more natural or realistic than APS-C."

Oh, hell no. I think depth of field and sensors are irrelevant. I don't deny lens artifacts may contribute to a certain "look" but I don't think they are the "main thing". The problem, I think, is trying to quantify a subtle difference in perspective between 2 formats. Hence, you have people constantly using vague words like "look" and "feel".

I guess that settles it then. (this from a guy who declared, "If the image circle is smaller or larger you get less or more vignetting, respectively, for a given format.") LMFAO.

"No, that's not possible. The only thing that influences perspective is subject distance." Because you declare it so? "If the image circle is smaller or larger you get less or more vignetting, respectively, for a given format." LOL. Just LOL. Yeah, that's all it is. F-----g preposterous. "Perspective doesn't change, not even if you add an anamorphic adapter. You're probably misunderstanding the term "perspective" - it has to do with the spatial relationship between objects in the scene." That's exactly what I mean--the spatial relationship between objects. "It can only be altered by moving objects, or moving the camera." I'm arguing it's different even in two static shots between different formats. The angle of view might be the same, but the camera's relationship to the angle is not.

Not if I'm shooting on film. The point is that you can have two camera set-ups in the same position with the same field of view and two different focal lengths and two different perspectives. This is due to the different-sized lens image circles (or ovals in the case of anamorphic).

Are you talking about field of view or perspective? Two different things. Because in a comparison between 2 formats, perspective depends on focal length and image circle size (sensor size is irrelevant for the comparison, it's just a method of capture.)

Equivalence and matching depth of field using a simple formula was never in dispute with me. Of course the math works out. It's like saying 3+4+3=10 and 2+5+3=10 and here's a computerized 3D pie chart to prove it. Pure unmitigated genius, I say! I can look around my room right now and shoot 20 shots in 10 minutes that could fool even myself as to whether they are full-frame or APS-C if I so choose. It's so easy if you pick close-ups or flat backgrounds or clutter up the frame with no perspective in the middle. I just think depth of field is irrelevant to the "look" certain people are seeing between formats. I think it has to do with a slight shift in perspective from the different-sized lens image circles.