Sony A7R IV / A7S III / A9 II to feature 8K video, as new 60MP and 36MP full frame sensor specs leak

[webrunner5]

23 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's hard to have a debate with someone who takes everything personally.

 

It is somewhat personal. I have lived twice as long as you have. I have seen and done probably twice as much stuff as you. You will also if you live to be 72 and are lucky. Just because what I have, and you have doesn't make it, Oh it is the best, I get that. I have been around the block as they say.

There are a few on here, a very few, me included that think most of this new stuff is more of a sort of a joke CS wise and a step backwards I think. But that doesn't make me wrong because I am going to please me, not you, and vice versa. I don't Hate Canon, I have owned probably 20 of them over the years film and digital. Some made me some damn good money. Original 5D particularity.

If You are going to make a living from this stuff, sure you want to look like a Arri Alexa dropped into your lap. But that is a Very few on here that Need that to happen. Most on here Need to have their stuff look more like a OG BMPCC, the original C100, a original A7s. I really don't want to see a Pat Boone face look, and I doubt many others on here do either, you included.

And yeah I am not a big fan of the Philip Bloom look either. Way too repetitive, but I can see why, he reviews a lot of cameras and people want to see how they all compare. It is probably the only true way to do it like it or not.

I don't really want to argue with anyone on here. I just want people to think outside of the box. Cookie Cutter stuff is a dime a dozen. There are other ways, other avenues to go with, not the Sheeple way a lot do. You will never stand out, and that is what this stuff is all about.

[Andrew Reid]

Yes it's all subjective and even changes over time. I have gone through phases. Often preferring warm looks, then back to wanting to see strong blues and greens again. It also depends on the piece, the mood you're trying to do obviously.

The job of the camera is to keep the effort down and get out of the way. I don't want to have to be correcting some green cast under someone's chin, when I could be doing SO MUCH MORE with my time.

[webrunner5]

21 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

You're talking a right load of cobblers.

The A7R II was a massive leap for video. It came along at a time when the A7S was only shooting 1080p internal and the Nikon D750 the same. The NX1, GH4 and 1D C were the only other games in town for 4K video.

 

It was really Only good in crop mode. Hardly ground breaking considering you paid out the ass for a FF camera, sort of like the Canon EOS-R  is. History repeats itself.

[Mokara]

12 hours ago, Castorp said:

The “you can make any colour from raw” argument doesn’t make  sense.

For example it is easier to edit a raw file from a Nikon Df than a raw file from a Nikon Z6 because the former has better colour raw files (jpegs different story).

Colour starting point matters. 

No, it does not, not in the sense that a person could tell the difference. As long as you are collecting data with enough dynamic range at a particular wavelength (which is what the slightly different colored filters do) any difference in the final image from a visual perspective is entirely due to the skill of the person working with the raw file.

[Emanuel]

28 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Nope it's a hybrid camera. Otherwise it wouldn't have S-LOG2, S-LOG3, knee, black level, gamma curve, colour mode, XAVC-S, S&Q, 4K, Super 35mm mode, timecode, HDMI, slow-mo 120fps, proxy recording, IBIS, video eye AF and be marketed towards video users.

Quite a lot of video focus for JUST A STILLS CAMERA.

But... Sony has video cameras for sale.

This camera company is the same I met as client in the early 90s. Technology changed, not business policies as I heard then directly from some VP of Sony Europe a couple of decades later... : -)

[Mokara]

42 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

No the thread is not about photography. It's about a hybrid of both. Just like the A7R IV is a hybrid camera. Video is very important on it. It's not a Nikon Df.

Sony has decided to sit back and consolidate their sales.

The A7 III killed the A7R III sales. They need a new model to justify the $3500 again.

Problem is they haven't been very creative with it, simple as that really.

Bringing Eye AF in from the cheap A6400 is useful but how is it ground-breaking flagship stuff?

61 megapixels? Nobody asked for that.

If you find a use for it instead of 42 megapixel let me know

The expectation was that this camera would at least be better than a $1300 Fuji X-T3 for video.

It is $3500 after all.

2015 called and it wants its 8bit and frame rates back.

As long as the lens is resolving close enough to that level, higher pixels are useful. For a start it allows you to crop if necessary and not worry about the image falling apart. If it was not useful then people would not be interested in the pixel shift technology then right? But they are, which means there is a demand for even higher pixel counts. Perhaps not for you, but then this would not be the camera for you.

This is primarily a specialist stills camera for portraits and landscapes. It can shoot video but it is not a specialist video camera. If that is what you want, then there are other more suitable options for that application.

[Andrew Reid]

2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

It is somewhat personal. I have lived twice as long as you have. I have seen and done probably twice as much stuff as you.

We have both been alive for the same number of years since the A7R II came out. Unless you have lived two simultaneous parallel lives in an alternative universe where all the facts are different and the A7R II shot rubbish video

I bought both the A7R II and a7R III for video... Full frame image wasn't too shabby at all.

It was one of the cameras that strived at the forefront of technology to do BOTH stills and video to the MAX.

And now Sony has decided to hold it back and just tweak it... rather than push forward with the stuff it badly needs to stay competitive with Fuji and Panasonic's hybrid cameras... Like proper colour film profiles, 10bit, ND, etc.

The X-T3 is also a camera massively aimed at stills people, but look at the video mode... amazing.

3 minutes ago, Mokara said:

No, it does not, not in the sense that a person could tell the difference. As long as you are collecting data with enough dynamic range at a particular wavelength (which is what the slightly different colored filters do) any difference in the final image from a visual perspective is entirely due to the skill of the person working with the raw file.

The skill of the person costs time.

Often it also costs money.

And on top of all that, even more often it is a fucking pain in the ass.

People who are skilled at grading don't suddenly have 200 hours in 1 day to spend on a bunch of RAW files from a Sony A7S II.

@Mattias Burling has said as much again and again, he wants the camera to minimise his effort so he can do simple grades with a big impact.

If you're implying that only post matters, you're also kinda saying RAW data and all sensors are equal... Well it isn't. They have different characteristics.

The default settings matter.

The white balance system matters.

The colour filter array matters.

The readout matters.

The onboard chip A/D matters.

The calibration and imaging pipeline matters.

The Adobe Camera Raw presets matter, for each individual camera.

RAW capture doesn't end when the light wavelength hits the sensor!

 

Just now, Mokara said:

As long as the lens is resolving close enough to that level, higher pixels are useful. For a start it allows you to crop if necessary and not worry about the image falling apart.

Yeah, I buy a full frame sensor to crop.... NOT!

I just love that small sensor look so much from my 61 megapixel A7R!

I can't live without 61 megapixel... Gotta crop ALL THE TIME

Who needs a zoom when you can crop to 1/2.3" sensor size!?

100MB per file isn't big enough, I want 2TB raw stills and 2000TB SD cards that take 2 weeks to open!

Just now, Mokara said:

If it was not useful then people would not be interested in the pixel shift technology then right? But they are, which means there is a demand for even higher pixel counts. Perhaps not for you, but then this would not be the camera for you.

I've nothing against pixel shift.

I'm just a guy who has difficulty telling the difference at normal viewing distances of 24 megapixel versus 50+ megapixel when I am not zoomed in at 100% on a tiny window of the overall image.

But yes, 240 megapixel... Bring it on

Just now, Mokara said:

This is primarily a specialist stills camera for portraits and landscapes. It can shoot video but it is not a specialist video camera. If that is what you want, then there are other more suitable options for that application.

Yes that much is clear. You sound a bit like a Sony exec. They clearly have decided the cutting edge hybrid video/stills focus of 2015 had to be watered down, otherwise they couldn't sell us 3 separate bodies. One for video. One for stills. And one that did neither well, but looks kinda cute.

Segmentation is the name of the game when it comes to profit.

Sony are the new Canon.

(Just not when it comes to colour science)

[Emanuel]

Well, if all camera shooters would love the yellow, we'd end too gray in the end (E : -)

 

[Andrew Reid]

Taste is a broad spectrum.

Let's have a poll.

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/34918-which-colour-science-do-you-like-the-most/

[Mokara]

3 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

We have both been alive for the same number of years since the A7R II came out. Unless you have lived two simultaneous parallel lives in an alternative universe where all the facts are different and the A7R II shot rubbish video

I bought both the A7R II and a7R III for video... Full frame image wasn't too shabby at all.

It was one of the cameras that strived at the forefront of technology to do BOTH stills and video to the MAX.

And now Sony has decided to hold it back and just tweak it... rather than push forward with the stuff it badly needs to stay competitive with Fuji and Panasonic's hybrid cameras... Like proper colour film profiles, 10bit, ND, etc.

The X-T3 is also a camera massively aimed at stills people, but look at the video mode... amazing.

The skill of the person costs time.

Often it also costs money.

And on top of all that, even more often it is a fucking pain in the ass.

People who are skilled at grading don't suddenly have 200 hours in 1 day to spend on a bunch of RAW files from a Sony A7S II.

@Mattias Burling has said as much again and again, he wants the camera to minimise his effort so he can do simple grades with a big impact.

If you're implying that only post matters, you're also kinda saying RAW data and all sensors are equal... Well it isn't. They have different characteristics.

The default settings matter.

The white balance system matters.

The colour filter array matters.

The readout matters.

The onboard chip A/D matters.

The calibration and imaging pipeline matters.

The Adobe Camera Raw presets matter, for each individual camera.

RAW capture doesn't end when the light wavelength hits the sensor!

 

Well, this is a camera for professionals or serious amateurs who, one would assume, know what they are doing. It is not intended for snapshots. If they are shooting in jpeg, then probably some other camera is better for them. Once you have the look you want figured out, you apply that to your images. It is not a problem with modern software. That is the whole idea behind image processing software being a digital darkroom. A real photographer does not (and never did, even in the age of analog media) go down to the local 711 to get their photographs developed. They do it themselves or they hire a specialist to do it for them.

The differences in the filters are really subtle. As I said, you would need spectroscopy to see the real difference (and I am not referring to actual wavelengths here). I guarantee there is absolutely no fucking way you are going to be able to eyeball it. The specific wavelengths chosen are irrelevant, as long as the ones chosen cover enough of the visible spectrum and the filters have enough dynamic range to reconstitute a true color. The wavelengths chosen by individual manufacturers typically cover slightly different wavelengths, but all have enough dynamic range to properly constitute the proper color. There will be slight inherent differences, but you are not going to be able to tell that using your eyes.

The real problem comes in when people who are used to dealing with one cameras raw try to apply the same corrections to a different camera, and of course they end up with messed up colors. But that is simply because they don't know what they are doing. It does NOT mean that one camera got it right and the other did not. It is a user problem.

Adobe camera raw presets are generated by Adobe, not Sony. If you have an issue with those, take it up with Adobe.

[Andrew Reid]

You can select Sony's camera presets in ACR as well. These are worse than the Adobe ones.

We are not talking about JPEGs here, mainly RAW.

Here is what the A7S II looks like after several hours of effort.

CAMERA DEFAULT IN ADOBE:

PAINFUL HARD WORK:

CAMERA DEFAULT IN ADOBE:

PAINFUL HARD WORK:

Conclusion---

If you like painful hard work, buy a Sony.

[liork]

You must be Van Gogh to love Sony!

[Emanuel]

...and you have your LUTs : ) Pretty honest coming from you Andrew  Some other would take advantage of such opportunity to offer them.

[Andrew Reid]

Is Van Gogh where Sony got their green-grey-yellow facial shadow tones from?

On the Camera Portrait setting in Adobe Camera Raw, the raw file gives the impression she's standing next to a just-out of frame Slimer.

[nickname]

2 hours ago, Palpet said:

Strange. Philip Bloom shoots almost exclusively on Sony cameras and I never once thought the colours in his videos was horrible.

I do. He slaps a film convert preset on them that makes all colors orange and thinks it looks cinematic in slow motion. Well, it doesn't and it looks awful. 

[webrunner5]

He Used to have a Sony F55. He sold it I think. No clue what he uses now?

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

Nope it's a hybrid camera. Otherwise it wouldn't have S-LOG2, S-LOG3, knee, black level, gamma curve, colour mode, XAVC-S, S&Q, 4K, Super 35mm mode, timecode, HDMI, slow-mo 120fps, proxy recording, IBIS, video eye AF and be marketed towards video users.

Quite a lot of video focus for JUST A STILLS CAMERA.

Geeezus wept.

Yes the alarming thing is the lack of A7S3 in 2019, after 2015 brought us the prior model, 4 NABs have passed with Diddy shit.

It is a hybrid camera but I don't know why anyone would buy it for hybrid use when you can just buy an A73. Higher pixel count isn't really useful for video. The A7R3 is a nice camera, but why would you get it over the A73? There is the overheating issue on the A73 of course.

[nathlas]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

 

61 megapixels? Nobody asked for that.

If you find a use for it instead of 42 megapixel let me know

I can think only one.

 

 Battle against upcoming Canon R Pro (high mp model)that  is rumored to have more than 60mp

[Skip77]

3 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Well it is out of my Budget as they say, but sure leaning toward Video I would wait the the Panasonic S1H. But if I was into photography I would get the A7 mk IV. Why not , way cheaper than any sort of MF camera is overall cost wise, and most are not by Any means FF MF. Not counting now that Sony has just about any kind of lens you need now, and they all have the latest tech.

I think the silent shutter is a bigger deal than most people think, at least to what I like to do photography wise. It is not a groundbreaking camera Video wise for sure, but the eye focus in video, now that can be really pretty huge.

You seem to push Sony for photography but you called that out as the shits and that no one does that. That the EOSHD was for videographers. It's ok I'm just trying to remember your comments about photography and say the Nikon Z6. 

CS in photography is mega important in everyones book. Sony is good or great at PR and you seem to have jump in all the way. PR is great and other companies are lacking at it but Sony PR has become paying YouTube influencers to promote half truths while flat out lying about Nikon and Canon so Joe public sways his opinion just based on a talking Sony You Tube review. 

Sony pushed it's gamma and curves way up past the point of colors being unbalanced all for the purpose of controlling low light and de-noising it's image. 

Doesn't silent shutter introduce rolling shutter for photography? 

Video AF tracking works great on Canon and Nikon and EYE AF for video is another gimmick. Are you telling me your focus when using video is so locked on that we need EYE AF for video? C'mon.  

AF video tracking has been solid for a while except for the GH5.  

36 minutes ago, nickname said:

I do. He slaps a film convert preset on them that makes all colors orange and thinks it looks cinematic in slow motion. Well, it doesn't and it looks awful. 

This.

 

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

There are a few on here, a very few, me included that think most of this new stuff is more of a sort of a joke CS wise and a step backwards I think. 

If the new stuff is a joke CS wise then why are you tying your horse to Sony? 

[Emanuel]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

We have both been alive for the same number of years since the A7R II came out. Unless you have lived two simultaneous parallel lives in an alternative universe where all the facts are different and the A7R II shot rubbish video

I bought both the A7R II and a7R III for video... Full frame image wasn't too shabby at all.

It was one of the cameras that strived at the forefront of technology to do BOTH stills and video to the MAX.

And now Sony has decided to hold it back and just tweak it... rather than push forward with the stuff it badly needs to stay competitive with Fuji and Panasonic's hybrid cameras... Like proper colour film profiles, 10bit, ND, etc.

(...)

I've nothing against pixel shift.

I'm just a guy who has difficulty telling the difference at normal viewing distances of 24 megapixel versus 50+ megapixel when I am not zoomed in at 100% on a tiny window of the overall image.

But yes, 240 megapixel... Bring it on

Without mention those useful ergonomics... no more no less : )