C300 Mark II side-by-side A7S II

[independent]

Returned my a7rII for an a7sII but one thing I miss is the amazing autofocus in video mode on the a7rII. I think it's honestly pretty close to the c300II although only with native e-mount lenses. Still impressed with the a7sII video autofocus coming from panasonic bodies that always hunted even after they found focus. I know most don't use this feature, but it's definitely nice to have in a pinch and although the a7sII is a little slower, it does a great job at tracking faces and has a nice smooth transition between focus pulls.

Really? This pretty thorough (and overall negative) review claims that the video autofocus is better on the A7Sii than on the A7Rii. 

"Surprisingly, the auto focus on this camera is incredible. Sony CSC cameras have been laughed at for their poor AF performance, but I have nothing (well, nearly nothing) bad to say about it. The AF on the A7SII outperforms the A7RII, even though it has less AF points. It is snappy, relatively accurate and only ever hunts in severe backlight."

http://liesthrualens.com/sony-a7s-mark-ii-review/

Somebody is wrong...

 

[MattH]

If you shoot magic lantern with 2.35:1 aspect ratio the rolling shutter on the 5DMK3 is under 14ms. I shoot 2.35:1 and crop to 2.39:1 because there's a a couple of dodgy lines at the top and bottom of the frame.

Thats the same skew perceptively as 20ms in 16 by 9.  A slanted lamp post doesn't get less slanted if you chop the top and bottom off the image.  The only exception to this is if you are viewing on a native 2.35:1 screen.  Though 20ms is better than 30ms for sure.

[agolex]

 

http://liesthrualens.com/sony-a7s-mark-ii-review/

Somebody is wrong...

Agreed, just been testing it and A7RII is definitely better on the 90 macro.

General video quality is a totally different story, though. I can't understand how many people find the A7RII as good as the A7SII. The S is much cleaner and nicer IMHO, even in comparison to the R crop. Sony are clearly differentiating and want enthusiasts/pros to buy both.

[tugela]

Hang on a second.

I just realized you're comparing them using a Canon 24-70 f2.8 (presumably the mk2) on the C300mk2 to a Sony FE 24-240 f/3.5-6.3???  That doesn't seem like a fair competition at all.

The auto-focus and the colors would be greatly effected by the differences in the glass for sure. 

Of course it isn't a fair comparison. A 3X zoom will have better performance than a 10X zoom.

You can't match them equally. The a7sII won't autofocus with the Canon lens nearly as well as a native Sony emount lens.

To get around that use a lens that is native to neither camera, with adapters. That would provide a control for the variables introduced by the lenses themselves and provide a more accurate comparison.

[Jimmy]

Tugela... If someone's test (that has cost you nothing) is not to your very specific way... Go rent the cameras and do your own. It's pretty simple.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Thats the same skew perceptively as 20ms in 16 by 9.  A slanted lamp post doesn't get less slanted if you chop the top and bottom off the image.  The only exception to this is if you are viewing on a native 2.35:1 screen.  Though 20ms is better than 30ms for sure.

I don't know how ML raw works. But it might actually be disabling the top/bottom parts of the sensor and allowing a faster readout from less lines. I've seen alex reduce RS with ML. But yes if it's just a crop it doesn't affect rolling shutter artifact intensity. It's identical, subjects get the same skew.

[gelaxstudio]

Not that simple.  On a 5d3 I can get 1000 shots; perhaps 300 on the a7x bodies.  This is because I use a viewfinder/OVF when shooting stills.  Pretty sure the 5d3 will go much longer than 1.5 hours shooting video as well.  Where did you get these numbers?

I used official data from the manufacturers‘ wedsite，all tested in the same standard （CIPA），so I think it is more convincing than personal test ，but you know， I just compare how long they shooting video ，not shooting stills

Actually ,if you carry 6 battaries with a A7SII,it is still weight less than a 5D3 with one battary,and I am not kidding

 

[AaronChicago]

All films you see on tv or blue ray fit that description so it actually isn't as sarcastic as you intended.

The fact is, that in this comparison, the C300 ii has way more of a video look, by far!

Film, Alexa, Red... They can all look thin after numerous compressions. The A7Sii is just extremely thin all around, from start to finish. I really wanted to like it but it's not a great camera at 8 bit via S Log 2/3.

It's not a softness or resolution issue. It's a brittle codec.

[squig]

It's not a softness or resolution issue. It's a brittle codec.

After a year with the A7s and 5DMK3 raw I concur; 8bit is a gyp. I spend at least twice as long working with the Sony files to make them look half as good as the ML raw. I'm only holding onto it to shoot production stills. The A7sII does look a little better but for twice the resale value of an A7s I'll pass. Got my eye on the Blackmagic Micro Cinema camera.

[bengrubb]

Interesting test; thanks. Does the Sony's auto focus only work with native Sony glass?

[joema]

Not that simple.  On a 5d3 I can get 1000 shots; perhaps 300 on the a7x bodies.  This is because I use a viewfinder/OVF when shooting stills.  Pretty sure the 5d3 will go much longer than 1.5 hours shooting video as well.  Where did you get these numbers?

His numbers are roughly correct. The 5D3 might go a little longer than 1.5 hr, but not much.  My documentary group uses the 5D3 and A7RII. If you keep the 5D3 "spun up" in video mode you have to replace the battery several times per day. For the A7RII we use the battery grip, which is almost required (from a handling standpoint) when using longer lenses. Configured this way and used similarly for video, there is little operational difference between the two in battery life. Even though you may be changing two batteries in the A7RII, you have to stop and service both cameras at about the same frequency. The A7RII batteries are smaller and lighter so they don't take up any more space or weight than the spare batteries for the 5D3.

Also we use a Zacuto EVF Pro on the 5D3, which has its own Canon battery. The A7RII does not require this. The Zacuto battery lasts longer than the 5D3 battery but still must be changed at about 1/2 that frequency, so that's another battery required to produce equivalent functionality to the A7RII.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

@@jcs could you please send me SOOF C300II C-LOG2 vs A7SII S-LOG2/3 Tiff grabs? No grading or web/vimeo compression. I want to see how they grade, lumaand chroma and noise texture. 

By the way I see you used Color Matrix: EOS Standard which on the old C300 was my least favourite colour science. It's agreed upon that it produces the most colour accuracy but loses the distinct Canon colour science. 

[TheRenaissanceMan]

@@jcs could you please send me SOOF C300II C-LOG2 vs A7SII S-LOG2/3 Tiff grabs? No grading or web/vimeo compression. I want to see how they grade, lumaand chroma and noise texture. 

By the way I see you used Color Matrix: EOS Standard which on the old C300 was my least favourite colour science. It's agreed upon that it produces the most colour accuracy but loses the distinct Canon colour science. 

That's why it's my favorite. ^_^

[jcs]

Ebrahim- I'll see what I can do regarding uploading ungraded CLog2/Slog2 tifs.

Squig- the A7S II's color science is much improved over the A7S- probably worth a comparison with 5D3 RAW (while perhaps not as good, perhaps good enough to save time/space vs. ML RAW, and can provide nice quality 60- and 120fps (cropped)).

Here's an A7S II RAW still shot at AFM in Santa Monica yesterday (processed with Adobe Camera RAW in Photoshop, typical touch up work but no color adjustments to fix skintones). Camera was mostly set up for video (1/50s, etc.), lit with a video light: nice DR allowed recovery of background, which would normally be blown out white.

Regarding C300 II settings: I hooked the camera up to a Samsung HDTV and tweaked settings until skintones looked good (same way I set up the A7S II). It was cool that the side-by-side results ended up fairly easy to match in post.

[independent]

Any chance of getting a test video to compare the two? 

Steve Huff also described the a7sii autofocus as the "best in the a7 line." But I'm assuming he meant stills, not for continuous autofocus in video. Still, that's odd, because as you said, the phase detect of the A7Rii. 

Maybe Huff's comments were in the context low light...

I'd like to see a continuous autofocus comparison between the a7r ii and the a7s ii, same native lens, in good light and in low light. 

I've seen only one comparison so far, it was in low-light, and it seemed the a7rii tracking better but hunted in and out. The a7sii tracked slower but smoother, but no hunting.