Mark Romero 2

THANKS!!! Looks great.

Do you mean when shooting SLOG? Or with other gammas? Bonus Question: Have you tried Resolve Color Management?

Does an original a7S benefit much from the various EOSHD Pro Color versions? Or from other custom profile settings? If I recall correctly, isn't the original a7S more limited in what can be adjusted in the various picture profiles? Thinking that if I get an a7 III as my main camera, it would probably make sense to get an a7S as a backup / B camera (instead of various APS-C cameras I own like the a5100, a6000, a6500). Thanks in advance.

Gotta ask why you bought one.

Sure, unless you are real lazy like myself ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I tend to crop in post a lot instead of switching to a longer focal length (since the UWA Sony 10-18 is on my APS-C cameras 90% of the time). But yeah, smaller prints and web use, I agree with you, 12MP is PLENTY!!!

Yeah, original a7S plus cheap (dumb) adapters and add Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, Canon FD or other lenses. On the other hand, 12MP might not be enough for stills photography.

I think for us sony shooters, part of the problem was that some of the earlier lenses were considered "dust vacuums." I don't know how much truth there is to this theory that certain zoom lenses were prone to sucking dust out of the air and blowing it on to the sensor. But that is what a lot of people think anyway. Interestingly enough, Sony claims one of the reasons the shutter is open when powered off is because the shutter mechanism is "more delicate" than the sensor. I know a couple of Nikon shooters who WON'T use a little blower on their Nikon bodies because they are afraid of damaging the shutter.

Yeah, I agree. When the a7 III has it's price reduction (whenever that is), it will be selling for around maybe $1,800 (I am guessing). When the new a6700 comes out, it will probably be selling at $1,600 or something (if sony keeps their pricing consistent). Heck, right now at Adorama an a7 II is $100 LESS than an a6500 ($1,100 vs $1,200) As for m43, I imagine they have to keep pushing the envelope. For instance, if GH5 didn't have 4K 60p, or didn't have 10-bit 4K 30, or didn't have that amazing IBIS, what would have been the appropriate price point???

Yeah, I think you are right about that. I could certainly see myself paying $3,200 for a camera that was BRILLIANT at both stills and video, but it is hard to imagine that Nikon is going to come out with a brilliant camera on the first try. The other thing is: What about the D760 (or whatever the D750 successor is called). A (relatively) small DSLR with great stills and video quality would be awesome, as long as it has terrific dynamic range (anything to avoid shooting in slog if I don't have to).

Yeah, I think the thing is for the a7R III it is downsampling and doing some line skipping / binning / electric voodoo. The a6500 is downsampling from 6K similar to the a7 III The GH5 is downsampling from around 5K (???) instead of 6K. BTW: No one is going to ever mistake me for an electrical engineer.

Great. Now the ONLY thing I have to do is practice patience until the 23rd. I heard a rumor somewhere that some camera company somewhere might be coming out with some kind of a mirrorless camera or something as well. Pretty obscure rumor, don't think it has been publicized much so maybe not too many people know about it...

I am not an engineer and can't really understand test charts and MFT scores and the like. But I think that Max Yuryev has a pretty good video demonstrating the amount of details in the a7 III 4K image when compared to the GH5 as well as the a7R III and the a6500. https://youtu.be/eaPmInvxC_A?t=7m47s

Isn't that like a viscous cycle? You eat nachos as big as your ass. Your ass gets bigger. you get bigger nachos, which in turn makes your ass bigger...

Of course it is better!!! More is ALWAYS better.

Yes, I think that is why a few youtubers have switched back from Sony / Panasonic to Canon, either for the M50, the 6D II, or the 1DX II. (Probably more than a few, I just don't follow that many.) I would say if your business model allows for it, the image from 4K rendered at 1080p is really, really nice. My a6000 has pretty nice 1080p (sharper than my D750, lots of people say it is better than, say, an 80D), but it doesn't compare to the 1080p I get from shooting in 4K on the a6500 and rendering to 1080p. But... I haven't tested out whether there is much of a difference when viewing on my phone at, say, 480p, which is what most youtube videos seem to default to on my phone.

Thanks for the input. Yes, and for shooting RE, since the majority of my work (90%) is shooting stills and only 10% video, the a7 III is better in that regard. Not to knock the GH5 for stills, but great dynamic range is real important to my stills workflow.

I don't know about the D600. The D750 is nice. It is soft though. But it is nice. All manual focus, really since live view focus is so bad. Great dynamic range (close to SLOG2 as far as I can tell without having to deal with SLOG). Blown highlights will blow gracefully when compared to the blown highlights of my sony cameras, which are just this side of horrible. Great lenses that are affordable. Since you will be shooting manually on 1080p you don't need the sharpest lenses out there nor the most expensive latest and greatest AF. But you would have to stretch your budget from selling your D600 to get a used D750. If the D750 had sharper video, I would sell my sony cameras and use it instead. But the downsampled 6K to 4K to 1080p timeline of Sony is so nice...

I couldn't help it. His profile photo reminded me of Master Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome: I know, I know, I need therapy...

But... but... but... What you are saying here goes against all forms of logic!!! What about the 30-minute record limit? What about the overheating? What about the tilt-only screen? What about the 8-bit codec? What about the lack of 4K 60p? What about the sharper 1080p on the GH5? What about the micro HD port? What about the waveform monitor on the GH5? What about the Sony color "science"??? Did they fire the twelve-year-old intern who was previously in charge of color science for Sony? This is heresy ? p.s. please don't flame me. I own four sony cameras.

On the other hand, it's great for filming short, stocky talent...

But why??? Not trolling, just STILL trying to decide between them (and yes, I know that by the time I make a decision on whether to buy the GH5 or a7 III, the GH6 and a7 IV will probably be out...) If only we can get @mercer and his cat overlord to switch from Canon to Sony then balance in the universe will have been restored / utterly destroyed...

I don't own EOSHD Pro IV yet, but thinking of buying it (if I get an a7 III). Is there an easy way to reduce the saturation in the red skin tones? The colors do look Canon-like in the examples, but I would prefer less red in the skin tones.

Thanks for posting your thoughts. Hopefully it will be released on something like netflix / amazon prime so that I may watch it.

Thanks for the input. I was looking for something that would work with softboxes / bowens mount modifiers since I mostly shoot stills and have a bunch of strobes with Bowens mount. Right now I just have a couple of Yongnuo LEDs (two 600 panels and a smaller accent light). They seem to be ok. I figured getting a light which can take a softbox would save me the hassle of bringing along an extra light stand and boom arm to hang a scrim in front of the LED panels. On the other hand, I think I can mount the panels on to some heavy duty umbrella holders so that I can use them with some umbrellas instead of having to hang a scrim from a separate stand.

Since I shoot mostly real estate videos, it is all practical / ambient light. No time / budget for setting up lights. Good work, thanks for posting. I do have to ask how a "low budget" production ends up being shot on a Red Epic 6K... I guess your definition of "low budget" is a bit different than mine