Sony a7 III discussion

[jonpais]

Further thoughts on full frame after shooting m43 for five years.

Buttons. Someone mentioned button placement in the Nikon thread - and two of the most annoying on the a7 III are the menu button, which is inexplicably located to the left of the EVF; and the lens release button, which is tiny and very difficult even with rather slender fingers to reach with the handgrip scrunched so close to the lens mount.

Some buttons might advantageously be placed on the front of the camera: the dilemma being that there isn't much real estate for any. Several G Master lenses do have programmable buttons, though I haven’t used them yet. The camera is probably a nuisance to shoot with gloves on, though this doesn’t really pose much of a problem in Vietnam! I’m sure if Nikon gets it right, their mirrorless will be more popular with people who shoot in harsh environments. 

Sensor dust. Over the years, I’ve heard the online community complain about dust gathering on the sensor. I should preface my remarks by saying that Saigon is one of the filthiest places I’ve ever been; the air quality is poor; there is construction everywhere; and I have to bathe several times a day to get the grime off. Still, in my five years of shooting Panasonic, it never once occurred to me to check the sensor; and since I almost always shoot at f/4 or wider, it was never going to show up anyhow. But checking the a7 III yesterday, I did notice one speck of dust, which was easily dislodged with a puff of air. 

Detail. The amount of detail is staggering, but also extremely unflattering if you’re working with models with anything but perfect complexions. This means having to use extra diffusion with lighting, and perhaps even hiring a stylist to assist with hair and makeup, stuff I never concerned myself with shooting m4/3. 

The Full Frame ‘Look’. I happen to love the full frame look, but have come to realize that unless I’m shooting in the dark, for me, there’s no need to shoot much wider than f/4 or so to get the nice creamy out of focus backgrounds I’m after with the lenses and subjects I regularly shoot. With m43, I rarely shoot at apertures narrower than f/4 and often shoot wide open. 

Autofocus. The AF is insane, and face tracking is almost psychic. Sunday morning, I shot with a model for two hours in the Central Post Office and on Book Street, both of which are teeming with sightseers on the weekend, and every clip was in focus, even at wide-ish apertures, and even when the model was quite far away from the camera.

[Mark Romero 2]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

Further thoughts on full frame after shooting m43 for five years...

Sensor dust. Over the years, I’ve heard the online community complain about dust gathering on the sensor. I should preface my remarks by saying that Saigon is one of the filthiest places I’ve ever been; the air quality is poor; there is construction everywhere; and I have to bathe several times a day to get the grime off. Still, in my five years of shooting Panasonic, it never once occurred to me to check the sensor; and since I almost always shoot at f/4 or wider, it was never going to show up anyhow. But checking the a7 III yesterday, I did notice one speck of dust, which was easily dislodged with a puff of air.

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.

[kye]

3 hours ago, Márcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

I saw an article once saying that Youtube switches to a better codec / bitrate when you upload your video in 4k - except if you are a Youtube Partner, then you always have the best encoding options.

Yep.  Lots of discussion here:

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

I happen to love the full frame look, but have come to realize that unless I’m shooting in the dark, for me, there’s no need to shoot much wider than f/4 or so to get the nice creamy out of focus backgrounds I’m after with the lenses and subjects I regularly shoot.

I did some experiments with my Sigma 18-35 1.8 (which is basically a ~2.5 in FF equivalence) and came to the same conclusion - that F4 on FF would be sufficient.  For me it's just about having a bit more depth and separation to the image.  I shot a test video at 2.5 of my wife and I going for a walk along the beach and DoF was too shallow in almost every shot.

I also had trouble with MF on the not-so-great Canon 700D screen in full sunlight - which having focus peaking will rectify nicely.

[jonpais]

More wholesome a7 III goodness.

Full size screen grabs. ISO 400, around f/3.2. No color correction in post. Shadows pulled down slightly.

I've shot with the GH5, the X-T2 and the a7 III and the Sony is by far my favorite mirrorless camera to date.

1, 2, 3, 4

[kye]

6 minutes ago, jonpais said:

More wholesome a7 III goodness.

Full size screen grabs. ISO 400, around f/3.2. No color correction in post. Shadows pulled down slightly.

I've shot with the GH5, the X-T2 and the a7 III and the Sony is by far my favorite mirrorless camera to date.

1, 2, 3, 4

You're making it hard to wait for the other camera announcements!!

Just think, if this is a hybrid then how good will the pocket 2 look at 4K RAW!!

[jonpais]

 

[Trek of Joy]

7 hours ago, jonpais said:

More wholesome a7 III goodness.

Full size screen grabs. ISO 400, around f/3.2. No color correction in post. Shadows pulled down slightly.

I've shot with the GH5, the X-T2 and the a7 III and the Sony is by far my favorite mirrorless camera to date.

1, 2, 3, 4

Nice.

As far as the lens release, I find it annoying too at times. I always palm the camera with my left hand and hit the button with my middle finger while holding helens with my right hand. Then I flip the camera over so the sensor is facing the ground to try and avoid dust entering while swapping lenses. A few times I've unknowingly bumped the button while carrying the camera and when I went to shoot the lens rotated a bit, scaring the bejeezus out of me. Fortunately I never dropped a lens, but putting the lens release on the grip side with so little space is stupid. 

Vietnam is really dusty, Cambodia and Myanmar were even worse - my rocket blower got a lot of use there and in many other places. My Fuji lenses inhaled a lot of dust. The sensor gel stick came in handy a few times.

Chris

[jonpais]

Thanks for the tip, @Trek of Joy . I just tried it out, it's a little tricky at first, but I'll give it a go again tomorrow morning. Keeping the camera pointed toward the ground is probably a good idea too.

[kye]

On the topic of changing lenses, changing lenses inside a bag can be useful.  

My travel setup is a camera insert at the bottom of a nondescript backpack.  The insert has a padded lid, so there's essentially a little flat surface and room within the top half of the bag where you can you can change lenses.  If the area is touristy (and likely to have thieves around) I wear the backpack on my chest, so changing lenses inside the bag is really easy and convenient.  The bag is open a little for your arms to go in the sides and to see in the top, but it protects from dust relatively well and no-one can see what you're doing so it's not entirely obvious that you have multiple lenses in there either.

[jonpais]

Apart from skin tones, tonal transitions were one of my greatest concerns when switching over to Sony.

Would they be blotchy or smooth? It was really difficult to tell from the YT videos I'd studied.

The GH5's ALL-I 400Mbps 10-bit 4:2:2 files not only consume a ridiculous amount of hard drive space, but surprisingly, they don't necessarily have better tonal transitions than Sony's tiny 8-bit 100Mbps files.

In fact, I find quite the opposite. 

The Sony has better dynamic range, cleaner shadows and less noise overall.

Color is subjective, but I prefer Sony's straight out of the camera. 

Here's an outtake from my last video when the AF went momentarily bonkers and focused on a man in the distance. It's underexposed, but still retains nice color and detail without unsightly smudging. 

more images

[webrunner5]

I can tell you that Canon and Nikon sure as hell have their work cut out to begin to match a Sony A7 mk III, and I think impossible at that price point for either of them. They are not going to do it at 3500 dollars!

[Django]

different opinion from a Red user..

 

[webrunner5]

And the takeaway IS that he doesn't know how to grade Sony SLog files. Eh, not much of a video to be honest.  Next. Is it going to hold up to 14bit Raw Red files, probably not, but I really have never thought Red footage was very Cinematic to start with. I am not a big fan of Red output. If I won the Lotto they are probably the last camera in hell I would buy.

And like i said above, they are not the best camera to buy if you are looking for a FIlmic look. The Original A7s had a better output for that than the newer ones do now.

And I would argue that the Filmic, Cinematic look is dead, dying anyways. Most people that even look at movies, go to them are all younger, and they probably haven't even seen 10 movies shot on Real Film.  They are Used to the Digital look, and think that it is the cats ass. 4K, 6K, 8K stuff is Not going to look like B&W film from the 30's, ain't happening.

And I think with HDR video getting a Film Look will be even More difficult. It is way past film DR wise if done and viewed right. Digital is here to stay, no surprise there.

Damn good article on HDR, by a person that knows a thing or two about video..

https://vmi.tv/training/useful-stuff/HDR_reality_and_monitoring-a_DOP's_Perspective

[jonpais]

@Django He must've gotten a defective camera, because the image looks like it was shot with a ten year-old camcorder. 

[Django]

@webrunner5 we must have different definitions of filmic/cinematic. and FYI Mission Impossible Fallout, Ready PLayer One (latest Spielberg) & Star Wars Last Jedi.. all 2018 blockbusters aimed at younger audiences and just to name a few were all shot on Real Film.

@jonpais highly doubt his camera is defective.

[webrunner5]

We do have different ideas.  I like Arri output. And there Has Never been a Star Wars movie that looked for a shit when it comes to a Cine look to it, from the Original Sony ENG cameras till now with the Reds.

And a Arri Panavision was used on the http://www.arri.com/news/news/the-last-jedi-steve-yedlin-asc-on-skypanels/

"Production shot for several months at Pinewood Studios in London, with additional locations in Ireland, Croatia and Bolivia. Compared to THE FORCE AWAKENS, the number of sets and lighting schemes were far greater on THE LAST JEDI. Yedlin shot the movie in a combination of four formats: primarily anamorphic 35mm but also spherical 35mm, spherical and anamorphic ARRI ALEXA cameras from Panavision, IMAX 15-perf 65mm film, as well as the ALEXA 65 from ARRI Rental. His first ARRI ALEXA feature was the 2012 GIRL MOST LIKELY."

Oh no doubt some films, very few now, are shot using all kinds of different cameras, from Go Pros to BMPCC. They use what works and what is more economical. All these new movies use tons of VFX stuff, Surely you can't do that with a Film camera? And geez half of a Mission Impossible has to be VFX stuff?

[Django]

@webrunner5 Not sure what you're arguing about, I'm just stating you facts. The last Jedi was primarily shot in 35/65mm on Kodak film & Arri Alexa/Alexa65.

edit: I see you modified your post with the correct info but still not sure what you are refering to with "from the Original Sony ENG cameras till now with Reds.." ?

[webrunner5]

Should have said a lot now, now a very few. The Star War movies have always been shot with  by today's stands with a sub standard digital camera for parts of it. I know why he did it. He Had to because of some of the VFX parts, and the cost of film doing them. The Sony HDW F900 was used on Episode  II. Great camera at the time for a digital one, but no way as good as film.

But in a ground breaking movie like Star Wars was you have to do what you have to do.

[Django]

By "he" i assume you mean George Lucas. And by "The Star Wars movies" i assume you are referring to the Prequel Trilogy. FYI the original trilogy each had different directors and was obviously shot on film during the 70s/80s. Episode 1 from the prequel trilogy was shot on 35mm in 1999 with some digital scenes, and Episode II is pretty much the first hollywood film shot digitally. It's quite well known Lucas pioneered digital cinematography in the early 2000's with the HDW F900. Not sure what you'd have had him shoot on, not like there was a gazillion 24fps high-end digital cameras back then. Finally Episode 7,  was shot on 65mm film by JJ Abrams and Episode VIII by Rian Johnson on various formats as stated previously including 35mm/65mm. So you see it is hard to dump all Star Wars films together.. 

Sorry for the OT

[jonpais]

I shared my latest video and some screengrabs with a filmmaker friend who shoots with the GH5s, asking for his opinion about the tonal transitions, color, noise, detail and highlight roll off.

I did not ask him to evaluate nonsense like ISO 100,000, or any other such pointless rubbish cluttering the Internet.

He said the shots felt like they needed some shadow adjustment, not the extreme shadows, but around the 20-25% luma mark or so; that colour felt a bit magenta overall; and that noise and detail looked good, as did highlight rolloff.

In other words, his evaluation of the image quality aligned perfectly with my own.

He guessed I was using the HLG profile, perhaps because he knows that’s what I shoot on the GH5, perhaps because the results looked so good - I can’t be sure. In fact, I was shooting PP1, Cinema2!

Anyhow, that’s coming from a person known for being extremely finnicky about image quality. And he was evaluating images straight out of the camera, with no adjustment in post aside from dragging down the shadow wheel!

Discussions about the film look are a rabbit hole. In many ways, the sensor in the a7 III itself outperforms those of many cinema cameras out on the market today, and the meagre 8-bit files look much better than some more robust ones - one downside being that they can’t withstand extreme grading. 

The point being, the a7 III would make a great camera for budget filmmaking or as a B camera - just as filmmakers have been doing with earlier a7* cameras for years.