Sony a7 III discussion

[webrunner5]

6 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

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...

Hmm, I think you are onto something there. ?

[Robert Collins]

I heard that people shoot 4K for YouTube because the 4K videos get ranked higher in search

[webrunner5]

Pretty good guide for You Tube. I see no real mention of 4K influencing anything. But they said at the end like 68% of YT videos are HD versus SD on the first page when you search.

https://backlinko.com/youtube-ranking-factors

[kye]

9 hours ago, jonpais said:

4K is really just clean 2K. 

If you're referring to the resolution after debayering, then you're absolutely right.  People say that the 1080 from the C100 is so nice because it's downscaled 4K, and the A7III downscaling 6K to 4K seems to be a feature that isn't spoken about enough.

I find it strange that through this whole conversation about 4K vs 1080 on YT no-one mentioned debayering.  With film you shot at the same 'resolution' as what you delivered in, but digital doesn't do that.  Anyone who wants to see what 4K YT can look like if done correctly should compare it to a video by MKBHD, who shoots 5, 6, or 8K RAW.

and if you think he can't possibly be shooting 8K RAW because it's ridiculous in terms of camera equipment and storage, check this out:

There's a pretty strong technical argument that the A7III should be the C100 of FF mirrorless, because it should have a bunch more resolution in its 4K output than anything that shoots at 4K.  I'm surprised that the pixel peeping people aren't publishing test charts of this.  If I end up with an A7III then I'll do a comparison just for my own curiosity.

[jonpais]

This, from an interview with Arri, published back in 2013 by THR:

Arri's Managing Director: HD Is 'Dumbed Down' to Make 4K Look Good

Arri's managing director Franz Kraus has called into question the industry's inexorable push toward 4K by suggesting that HD content displayed on HD screens at equipment trade shows is not being shown at its optimum quality in order to compare unfavorably with 4K displays.

“What annoys me, more than being asked about whether we are launching a 4K camera, is that at trade shows, HD quality is often being dumbed down, or not presented to its optimum quality, in order to make Ultra HD 4K look good,” Kraus said. “This is a bad trick because consumers will buy 4K displays based on the false expectation that the image is really that superior to HD.”

He argued, “The perception of picture quality has a lot to do with the physical performance of the display. For example, a 2K image displayed on an HD OLED monitor looks incredible because the active light source shows far higher contrast ratios in the picture.”

end quote

Unlike 4K, HDR is actually an even bigger deal, because it yields real improvements in local contrast, dynamic range and color.

 

[jonpais]

 

[kye]

I wouldn't be surprised @jonpais, not even a little bit.

It's the same in the hifi arena with CD vs SACD - you'd go to a demo where they'd be comparing CD with SACD and the SACD would definitely sound better.  You'd look around and people would all be nodding their heads about SACD, but I'd be standing there and thinking "both sound completely awful compared to my CD setup at home - how is this a valid comparison?".

[Mark Romero 2]

On 8/11/2018 at 7:54 PM, kye said:

There's a pretty strong technical argument that the A7III should be the C100 of FF mirrorless, because it should have a bunch more resolution in its 4K output than anything that shoots at 4K.  I'm surprised that the pixel peeping people aren't publishing test charts of this.  If I end up with an A7III then I'll do a comparison just for my own curiosity. 

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

 

[webrunner5]

Yeah for the money just about impossible to beat for all it offers.

[Mark Romero 2]

2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah for the money just about impossible to beat for all it offers.

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...

 

 

[kye]

48 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

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

 

Ah!  Thanks - I think I missed that review.  It sure looks good, even compared to other downsampling cameras!

[Mark Romero 2]

1 minute ago, kye said:

Ah!  Thanks - I think I missed that review.  It sure looks good, even compared to other downsampling cameras! 

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.

[webrunner5]

I am sure probably this new Nikon FF mirrorless will be pretty good, probably great, but it will Not be 2000 bucks, and have all the bells and whistles that Really all work on their first try. They will have all the good stuff in the top end one that cost 3200 dollars or more.  But for the average DSLR shooter it will probably be all they have wanted or needed. It is the Video side of it that is still damn hard to make happen, even for Sony, at the lower price points. We want a C300 mk II for 2000 bucks, in a Sony A7 form factor! Maybe the BM PK4 might damn near be that without DPAF.

But both Canon and Nikon could surprise us.. I would certainly wait for the 23rd LoL.

[Mark Romero 2]

3 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I am sure probably this new Nikon FF mirrorless will be pretty good, probably great, but it will Not be 2000 bucks, and have all the bells and whistles that Really all work on their first try. They will have all the good stuff in the top end one that cost 3200 dollars or more.  But for the average DSLR shooter it will probably be all they have wanted or needed. It is the Video side of it that is still damn hard to make happen, even for Sony, at the lower price points. We want a C300 mk II for 2000 bucks, in a Sony A7 form factor! Maybe the BM PK4 might damn near be that without DPAF.

But both Canon and Nikon could surprise us.. I would certainly wait for the 23rd LoL.

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).

[webrunner5]

4 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

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).

I guess the D760 will be the 2000 dollar A7 mk III competition in Nikon's mirrorless body style. I doubt it will be a DSLR version?? I am not sure about the D500, could go either way. I think Only the D850, D5 will survive as DSLRs for a few more years?

Same with Canon, 5D mk IV, 1Dx mkII only DSLR's left. I would surely think the 6D mkII and the 80D will be Mirrorless or just go away completely, especially the 6D mk II.

I don't see a market for ANY APSC cameras down the road years from now. Why bother? With the crop mode on the A7's it is a waste of time to make a dedicated camera that Only does that. I thnk Fuji might have to change, but I think m4/3, 1" is safe for awhile. Not everyone wants or can afford FF stuff.

[Mark Romero 2]

6 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't see a market for ANY APSC cameras down the road years from now. Why bother? With the crop mode on the A7's it is a waste of time to make a dedicated camera that Only does that. I thnk Fuji might have to change, but I think m4/3, 1" is safe for awhile. Not everyone wants or can afford FF stuff.

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???

[webrunner5]

I think Panasonic and Olympus both shot themselves in the foot with the pricing of the GH5, GH5s , and Oly with the EM1 mk II. That is crazy money for a m4/3 camera. Especially with the Sony A7 mk III now and the BM PK4 coming out. They have done screwed up as they say. The Genie is out of the bottle and no way to put it back in.

And now Canon and Nikon both are going to have to have a FF mirrorless in the 2000 dollar range, and not some piece of crap one either. There really isn't a whole lot the A7 mk III can't do that even Nikon or Canon will have on their top end ones. What the hell is left out that the average person needs other than high MP for photos. And that is really over rated in this day and age anyways. Nobody prints anymore anyways.

From Imaging - Resource

"Sony A7 III Print Quality

Excellent, high-quality prints up to at least 30 x 40 inches up to ISO 800; Very good prints up to 13 x 19 inches at ISO 6400; Usable 5 x 7 inch print at ISO 51,200."

Hell that is a print as big as most peoples LCD TV!

[Robert Collins]

22 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I think Panasonic and Olympus both shot themselves in the foot with the pricing of the GH5, GH5s , and Oly with the EM1 mk II. That is crazy money for a m4/3 camera. Especially with the Sony A7 mk III now and the BM PK4 coming out. They have done screwed up as they say. The Genie is out of the bottle and no way to put it back in.

And now Canon and Nikon both are going to have to have a FF mirrorless in the 2000 dollar range, and not some piece of crap one either. There really isn't a whole lot the A7 mk III can't do that even Nikon or Canon will have on their top end ones. What the hell is left out that the average person needs other than high MP for photos. And that is really over rated in this day and age anyways. Nobody prints anymore anyways.

From Imaging - Resource

"Sony A7 III Print Quality

Excellent, high-quality prints up to at least 30 x 40 inches up to ISO 800; Very good prints up to 13 x 19 inches at ISO 6400; Usable 5 x 7 inch print at ISO 51,200."

Hell that is a print as big as most peoples LCD TV!

The big advantage of a high resolution sensor is that it gives you a lot of flexibility to crop. Essentially with an A7riii you have 42mp FF, 18mp APS-C and 11mp M43 all wrapped up in one. Makes your lenses very versatile.

[Inazuma]

7 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think Panasonic and Olympus both shot themselves in the foot with the pricing of the GH5, GH5s , and Oly with the EM1 mk II. That is crazy money for a m4/3 camera. Especially with the Sony A7 mk III now and the BM PK4 coming out. They have done screwed up as they say. The Genie is out of the bottle and no way to put it back in.

Totally disagree. The GH5 is possibly the best value proposition video camera out there. Its overpriced and oversized for an m43 photography camera but that's why they have the GX and other lines. 

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

On 8/11/2018 at 9:54 PM, Robert Collins said:

I heard that people shoot 4K for YouTube because the 4K videos get ranked higher in search

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.