Best 1080p HD image quality native - D810 vs A7s vs 1D X -

[lafilm]

What DSLR/Mirrorless cam has the best image quality in 1080p HD video?

 

D810 vs A7s vs 1D X - these are the 3 best performers. 

 

6 months ago, Philip Bloom says the 2 yr old Canon 1D X "is better and more film like than the D800/5D3" (sharper/less aliasing/film look)

 

Today, 8/6/14, Phillip Bloom states in his new Sony A7s review, that the A7s has "The best 1080p HD video he has ever seen".

 

However, Bloom has not tested the brand new Nikon D810, which some people (D800 users) are saying is actually quite a bit sharper and has less moire/aliasing than the older D810. (plus a host of other video friendly features). Bloom did, however, rave about the D810 video I have posted below. 

 

The GH4 is 4K native so I have excluded it.

 

I'm talking straight out of the camera for 1080p HD acquisition only. 

 

Forgot about price. They all 3 are DSLR/Mirrorless.

 

If all 3 of them were FREE, and you could only use one, which cam would you pick? And why? Are they all too close to tell? Or - is there a definite image quality difference?

 

Please view in 1080p -

 

Canon 1D X -  

 

Nikon D810 - 

 

Sony A7s -  

[Guest]

I'd pick the 1DX, sell it straight away and buy a C100 and Ninja Star with the money.

[lafilm]

Haha..Matt, you must be psychic. I actually said to myself as I posted this that someone will say exactly what you did! 

 

Obviously. there are people who still love the C100 (it's hard to argue it, I admit)…can't live without those ND's and XLR's, eh? ;)

 

However, for the DSLR users out there, which image between the three still photo cams do you find superior for video?

[jcs]

Of those three videos, the D810 example show the best color, resolution, and skintones. The 1DX looks soft (similar to Mark III) and color is OK, and the A7S color isn't pleasing (however this could be personal preference of the editor) is a bit noisy.

 

Hard to compare when each video is very different- lighting, time of day, subject, different editors etc. Hadn't looked at the D810 much before: it's pretty nice (I also find auto-ISO useful (available on A7S too).

[Guest]

As I've said before, the D810 seems to have fairly prominent aliasing (not seen in video above, which was made for Nikon). That's not something I could live with in 2014.

 

There's no way I would spend £5000 on a DSLR for filmmaking, so the 1DX is out. Personally I wouldn't even pay that for a 1DC.

 

That leaves the A7S, which I thought I was going to love but from the footage I've seen it really isn't doing it for me in daylight at all. Yes, because of the colours.

 

I prefer the GH4 overall. I'm not really sure why you've excluded it just because it's 4K. All you have to do is drop the footage in a 1080 timeline  like any other HD footage.

 

I choose the GH4 with a Metabones Speed Booster and a Ninja Star to capture pre-downscaled 4K as 10bit 422 prores 1080.

[Julian]

Do people actually use the 1D X for video?

[noone]

I am a complete amateur and the A7s is the only one I want of those three (works best with my existing FD lenses and I already have an ordinary A7).

 

Those all look to be very different in terms of lighting and rigs and expense ETC.

 

Would be much more interesting to see them all done the three ways.      How would they all go for instance in the lighting the A7s is in?

 

First seems technical and precise, second seems to have had no expense spared while the last it seems they have a camera so lets shoot.

[Husah]

Three different video shot in different conditions, lighting, graded totally differently doesn't prove anything how the image quality compares to each other.

 

DPReview now does studio still shot taken from video.  That will really show how D810 does in capturing detail and moire compared to others.  

[Husah]

A7s in camera HD is cleaner than GH4 with no aliasing while GH4 has aliasing 

 

http://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=panasonic_dmcgh4&attr29_1=sony_a7s&attr72_0=1080&attr72_1=1080&normalization=full&widget=131&x=-0.007043369183988043&y=-0.012898684010922203

[hmcindie]

A7s in camera HD is cleaner than GH4 with no aliasing while GH4 has aliasing 

 

http://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=panasonic_dmcgh4&attr29_1=sony_a7s&attr72_0=1080&attr72_1=1080&normalization=full&widget=131&x=-0.007043369183988043&y=-0.012898684010922203

 

I wonder how some of these silly people *cough Matt James Smith cough* will explain how the colors look so similar in well done tests where both cameras shoot the exact same scene with similar color profiles.

 

According to Matt the A7s should look effing horrible. It doesn't. It looks great. Skintones look to be about 99,5% the same as in the GH4 (so funny). 

[Guest]

I wonder how some of these silly people *cough Matt James Smith cough* will explain how the colors look so similar in well done tests where both cameras shoot the exact same scene with similar color profiles.

 

According to Matt the A7s should look effing horrible. It doesn't. It looks great. Skintones look to be about 99,5% the same as in the GH4 (so funny). 

 

What are you talking about? I said the colours don't do it for me. I didn't say they were "effing" anything.

 

Am I entitled to my own opinion? Your very scientific 99.5% assertion is an opinion too. Your opinion. 

 

Why don't you keep it civil and try to be a bit more tolerant?

[Guest]

A7s in camera HD is cleaner than GH4 with no aliasing while GH4 has aliasing 

 

http://***URL removed***/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr29_0=panasonic_dmcgh4&attr29_1=sony_a7s&attr72_0=1080&attr72_1=1080&normalization=full&widget=131&x=-0.007043369183988043&y=-0.012898684010922203

 

 That's the GH4 in 1080 mode. 4K has no aliasing.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

These dpreview grabs are excellent. I hope they expand the database. 

Look at how significantly different cameras are seeing the exact same colours: The Nikon D3300 vs Sony a7S


Nikon:


Sony


Nikon


Sony


Nikon


Sony


Nikon


Sony


Nikon


Sony


______


Could these differences in handling each colour be the reason why we find Nikon colours more pleasing? 

[Nikkor]

Who knows what kind of picture style or processing they were using. And they are probably using different WB (the nikon has magenta tint)

[Guest]

I agree that a lot depends on profile and WB. You can clearly see that the A7s is technically far superior to the D3300 in every way. The colours are more "naturalistic" too. But when not pixel peeping - when looked at from an aesthetic point of view - the A7S colours in this example do not come to life or "sing" like the Nikon's. To me there is something lifeless about them. 

[Damphousse]

 

 

D810 vs A7s vs 1D X - these are the 3 best performers. 

 

 

Odd list.

 

 

6 months ago, Philip Bloom says the 2 yr old Canon 1D X "is better and more film like than the D800/5D3" (sharper/less aliasing/film look)

 

 

Maybe he said that... maybe he didn't.  Andrew has produced a ranking that can be found here.

 

5D3 is substantially cheaper and according to Andrew it's image quality is similar to the 1D X... until you go into beast mode.  Then the 5D3's raw image quality leaps ahead.

 

So no.  I would not buy a 1D X and effectively cut myself off from the possibility of raw.

 

I don't know what the moire/aliasing situation is with the D810.

 

 

 

 

Today, 8/6/14, Phillip Bloom states in his new Sony A7s review, that the A7s has "The best 1080p HD video he has ever seen".

 

 

I don't know.  His full statement was more nuanced than that.  He definitely said it is THE low light camera.  But he also went on at length about the rolling shutter.  He said this is not a camera for fast action like sports.  So if you want to shoot your kid's football game you will need another camera.

 

As always each camera is a bag of trade offs.  Personally I like full frame cameras with working native lenses.  So Canon has a big edge with me.  Canon has the largest native lens line up and excellent in lens IS.

 

The sony A7s is intriguing.  The low light factor really opens up possibilities for those of us who shoot mostly with available light.

 

I think you need to do a lot of research and figure out what exactly you want to do with the camera.  The a7s is interesting to an amateur because of the shoot in any light ability.  But we amateurs are also notorious for not always having external stabilization and shooting hand held.  That doesn't seem like a good idea with aht a7s... unless you go into APS-C mode.

[Prefabsprout]

I agree that a lot depends on profile and WB. You can clearly see that the A7s is technically far superior to the D3300 in every way. The colours are more "naturalistic" too. But when not pixel peeping - when looked at from an aesthetic point of view - the A7S colours in this example do not come to life or "sing" like the Nikon's. To me there is something lifeless about them. 

 

I agree..havent seen any A7s footage that have the colour like Nikons..even my A6000 has more natural colours than A7s

[lafilm]

Thanks for all the feedback and opinions -

 

Yes, people use the Canon 1D X for video. One of the coolest (no pun intended) is here:

 

 

However, Damphousse;

 

This is for you. If P. Bloom did not make those statements, I would not have said so. Those are quotes - you need to do your own research and re-watch his new video on the A7s….watch from 34:27 sec to 34:49 seconds::

 

P. BLOOM - "I think (A7s) it's probably the nicest looking full-frame image I've seen".

 

As far as his opinion on the Canon, please go back and read his thoughts on the Canon 1D X on his personal blog::

 

P. BLOOM - "As a stills camera, it is second to none. Video wise, the video is much better than the Mk3, it’s better than the D800". "I had the Canon C300 with me, but I wanted a different look for the rest. What I didn’t expect was how much I actually preferred the 1DX’s image for this type of filming to the C300. It just seems…more filmic. Hard to put my finger on what it is…I love my C300 more than any other camera I own and use it for everything, but the look of the 1DX was so organic I was just blown away. The low light performance is also better than the Mk3, very close to the C300 standards".

 

Also, these three cams were picked because they offer the best Native Full Frame/DSLR/Mirrorless image - (no GH4/43rds and 4K native).

 

And yes, I agree with most that somehow the Nikon D810's colors are just kick-ass right out of the gate.

[lafilm]

This answers some questions - 

 

The new Fstoppers review,

 

Watch beginning at 12:15 sec if you want to see the video comparison between D810 - D800 - 5D3 - and  the $8,000 Sony F700!! -

 

[Michael1]

The a7s is interesting to an amateur because of the shoot in any light ability.  But we amateurs are also notorious for not always having external stabilization and shooting hand held.  That doesn't seem like a good idea with aht a7s... unless you go into APS-C mode.

I also think the a7S is out for an amateur, because most amateurs do not have the time or skill to fix the colors.  In fact, even though the pros are excited by the a7S, it doesn't seem like they have a handle on fixing the colors either, at least for daytime shots.  The Nikon colors are good right out of the box.

 

Michael