newfoundmass

I get why people love the a6500 but at the end of the day these are deal killers for me and why I went with the GH5 and the G85 for my b-cam: The battery life. Unless you set up some kind of external battery the number of batteries you'll eat through on an entire wedding day is ridiculous. This alone is a huge killer for me. The overheating. This scares the hell out of me, as someone that has never, ever had to worry about a camera overheating. Especially if I'm shooting an outdoor wedding on a hot day. It's probably more of a mental thing for me, but still, I like knowing that I'm not going to have to worry about my camera overheating, needing a break, or even shutting off when I really need it. The record limit. Not an issue if you're not shooting long form, however if you are, the recording limit can become a real pain in the but, especially if you're doing any external audio (which, for a wedding, you should for speeches, the actual wedding itself, etc.) Not a total deal killer but it's just a minor thing I'd prefer not to deal with. The rolling shutter. I don't mind a little rolling shutter but the a6xxx cameras have way too much. On a wedding shoot it's probably not a deal breaker, but overall, for me and my work, it's just too much. The 1080p is truly awful. I know a lot of people might not care because they will always shoot in 4K, but I still shoot regularly in 1080p for some projects and in my opinion it's unusable. The color science is not pleasing at all. Probably the worst out of all the major companies in my opinion. The form factor. This is obviously a much more personal issue, but I HATE the form factor. BLAH. Lens selection. It has gotten better, obviously, but still, it's still limited compared to other cameras and they come at a premium. Again though this is getting better. The menu system. Blah! All the other little issues others have raised. Overall I get the appeal of the low light performance and the auto focus. But they aren't enough for me personally to deal with all the other things that drive me nuts about these cameras. The A7iii does a lot to improve upon these issues, thankfully, and I think Sony will inevitably get better with this series of cameras. But right now they aren't for me.

Conformed might be a better word than compress, but yes.

Diminishing law of returns. While the SmallHD is obviously better is it 3 times the price better? For some maybe, but for others not so much.

Small rig doesn't have something similar?

It's nice to have as much data as possible to work with, but it's one of those things that people have gotten hung up on. It was inevitable with the digital video revolution as technology allowed us to work with footage in ways we weren't able to 20 years ago when I was a 13 year kid learning from the people at the local production company. It's a good thing, obviously, but at the same time people rely on it so much that they kinda forget that you don't NEED it to achieve good results. @webrunner5 is right, look at the C100.

It's 50 mbps over 29.97 fps. The camera has a buffer, so before it compresses it and writes it to the card it is processed so that 120 fps is played in a 29.97 fps file at four times the length. That all happens before any compression occurs, so it's not really 120 fps @ 50 mbps. True 120 fps at 50 mbps would be way too little. This is actually reasonable; variable bit rate only uses the max bit rate when it needs to. Because your clip likely has very little motion and movement, it didn't need to use all 50 mbps for it all to achieve the best quality and could do so instead at an average of 33 mbps, saving you space on your card.

Despite owning it for two years I've never done 120 fps with it, and I don't have it near me right now, but I'm guessing the 120 fps is slowed down in camera, so 50 mbps isn't actually being used for true 120 fps but the slowed down version that plays at 24/30 fps because 50 mbps would definitely be too little for actual 120 fps video. It'd be 1/4 the quality of 30 fps at 50 mbps and 1/2 the quality of 60 fps at 50 mbps.

I've debated chiming in, because the variable ND I use is a low budget option, but I've been using a Tyfoto variable ND after a friend recommended it to me almost a year ago. I've only really seen Nigel Barros review it since I've owned mine, so I'm not sure how well known they are, but I've been pleased with mine. I'm admittedly a sucker for budget gear, though!

How is the build quality? Obviously you can't expect TOO much for the price but I'm really debating trying to sell the A7S to pick up the A5 or the AndyCine.

That monitor really has gotten rave reviews from everyone. The skeptic in me though always hates it when everyone releases reviews around the same time, indicating they all got their free shipment for review at around the same time, ha ha.

It was one person shooting like 12 musicians moving around in a disorganized manner, in not ideal conditions, while trying to feature every one of them. Ya'll have really high expectations given the circumstances. ? Looking at his portfolio, the guy that shot it has done work for Adidas and ASICS in Germany, as well as music videos, so he seems to be doing pretty good for himself

I thought it was pretty well shot considering it was one person in very poor / uncontrolled conditions.

It's funny, because they absolutely can achieve this, but you really have to be skeptical until they actually do it. They need to not only be competitive feature wise but price wise too, and expecting that feels really naive.

The Lilliput A7S has some latency but most monitors using hdmi do, don't they? I can't think of one that doesn't that I've used, though some are worse than others. I'm guessing their 5 inch is similar but manageable. For nailing focus, exposure, framing, playback for a client, etc. these budget monitors are well worth it, in my opinion. If I get 3+ years out of a monitor, that cost me $150, that does everything I need it to do then I'm happy. My personal opinion is, while it's great that a lot of these monitors are built to last even longer, the way technology is constantly evolving and moving forward it's hard to justify spending tons of money on it when there's a good chance it'll be obsolete before long. I say this as someone that has an Atomos Ninja 2 I bought in 2014 that become pretty obsolete pretty quickly as the 4k era came rushing in. I'd be lucky to get $175 for it on eBay, so I just use it now as a recorder for old footage I'm transferring.

I've used the Lilliput A7S and it's gotten the job done for me. I can't vouch for the A5 but if it's the same monitor but at 5 inches it should be pretty good!

Zhiyun-Tech Crane-M 3-Axis Handheld Gimbal Stabilizer https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1296818-REG $199 for the next 24 hours

Not that interested

I mean they really shouldn't need feedback on that footage, given its flaws should be quite apparent. What has the reaction in their Facebook group been? Did they explain why they needed to denoise footage shot in broad daylight? It's supposed to start shipping next month right?

I mean, there aren't a lot of options to tick all of boxes the OPs wants. I'm gonna guess though that they'd like to shoot 4k video for longer than 5 minutes... Most people here do, even if they're doing narrative work. The LX10 seems like a great option for them, though.

It's kind of cliché but you only get to make one first impression. I'm guessing this is why, for instance, we haven't seen any Pocket 4K footage. It really did them no favors releasing this, even IF they improve the quality before release. Just putting the camera on a tripod in public and hitting record isn't really a great way to feature the camera's capabilities. It's lazy. And why are they uploading 120 fps video to YouTube? Ha ha.

The FZ300 was only one of the options I gave and was only using that as an example. I'd take the smaller censor and mic input over a 5 minute limit to 4K recording and terrible battery life though. Replace the FZ300 with the LX10. Or the other Panasonic point and shoots available. They at least aren't handicapped by a ridiculous recording limit and battery life.

That they have to denoise footage shot in broad daylight doesn't set off alarms for some people? I dunno, if the camera can output better footage than this I'm not sure why they'd even release this footage which is, too put it mildly, underwhelming.

Here in the States I notice more reporters using phones to shoot video, though cameras are still more common for ENG work, at least from my experience and from talking to friends that work for local stations here in Vermont. They really have come a long way but I don't know that the day will ever come when they are good enough for real narrative work. At least good enough to use over a real camera. The censor size will always hold it back, I think.

@tweak any thoughts? ?

It has a 5 minute recording limit in 4K, poor battery life, awful Sony menus, and overheats. I wouldn't recommend it at all unless you're absolutely never going to record over 5 minutes in 4K. You can get more for significantly less money from most of the Panasonic compact offerings. The FZ300 for instance has 5 axis IBIS, a 25-600mm lens with constant f/2.8 aperture, plus a mic jack. And it's over half the price of the RX100V; he could buy two of them and still have money left over.