March 01, 2015, 06:49:26 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - NormanBates

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
And this is what's usually called a dealbreaker
NAB 2014 Sony A7S Rolling Shutter Test

How prevalent is the ability (hardware and software) to edit 4K video?

Nearly any modern computer with a decent graphics card can do it, and using free software too (Resolve).
In any case, the relevant question is: who should care about 4K? And my answer is: nearly nobody. Your eyes can't see the difference, at least not at a realistic eye-to-screen distance.

It looks like the A7s will be my next camera, and I'm not getting the external recorder needed for 4K. I'm getting it for the big sensor, the clean image, the DR, and the codec.
I think of it as a really tiny camera that can give me a slightly better image than a C100, with a bigger sensor, better EVF and higher fps, for less than half the price.

(counting on price and DR to be as expected; those could still go wrong)

The A7s is great, even without internal 4K.
The footage they have released looks awesome.
Like, this was recoreded internally:

It's basically like a C100, with better DR and with a much better EVF, but without XLR or internal NDs, at less than half the price.

For video, judging by those first clips, it is clearly better than any of the following: 700D, 70D, 7D, 6D, 5D3, 1DX, 1DC, C100, and also C300 if you spend $400 on an external recorder. Make that $2K for a Shogun recorder, and it's heads and shoulders above anything Canon has, except for the C500.

Go here to see what video shooters think about it:
I'd say it's at least 80% favorable comments.

As someone who has not shot any video on my DSLRs, can someone explain to me the value in spending 4k on a 50mm zeiss lens to mount on a DSLR that is going to down sample the image to 2 mega pixels?

I shot this quick test four years ago:

It's a CZJ Pancolar 50mm f/1.8, which is not soft at all, and you can see how much sharper video is when you close it down than when it is wide open. And that's on a T2i, soft and crappy by today's standards. Anyone shooting with a BlackMagic, or with a C100, FS700, etc, needs a sharp lens just as much as a photographer does.

For a wider test with lots of different lenses, go here:

What's different is the kind of sharpness that we videographers need: we need good acutance, and good resolution is less important. But you'll usually find them both in the same lenses.

So: if the Sigma 50mm Art is as good as the 35mm Art, it will sell very well to videographers.
The only thing keeping me from buying these is that they are electronic lenses: there's no way to control aperture from the lens itself, so it will only work as long as I'm using a camera with a compatible mount. I make a point of buying glass that will be with me for decades, not years (my lens set is vintage Leitz for the Leica-R mount: it works on nearly anything, including Nikon F, Canon EF and M, Sony A and E, Pentax K, m43... so whoever sells the best camera gets my money, I just need to buy a new set of adapters and I'm good to go).

EOS Bodies / Re: Hardware Hack for EOS Cameras Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: March 01, 2014, 03:30:06 AM »
I also believe this won't happen, but there's a slim chance of it being true: Canon uses off-sensor ADCs, and maybe someone has found a way to replace those with less-noisy ones, while working within exactly the same specs that the processor is made to work with. Really, really unlikely. But it could happen, and a sensor swap would not be needed.

EOS Bodies / Re: Hardware Hack for EOS Cameras Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:04:08 PM »
Give the 5D3 the same DR of the D800, while retaining the ability to shoot RAW video through Magic Lantern, and I'll get one in a heartbeat.

No "take mediocre pictures" option? You guys are always leaving me out...

If you're going to compare which camera will give you shallower DoF, you have to do it for a given FoV. It makes no sense to compare different pictures (say, a portrait and a medium shot).

If you had to take a portrait, and could use different cameras, what would DoF be like on each of them? Well, it depends on sensor size and f-stop. Period.
The following options will give you exactly the same picture, in terms of FoV, DoF, exposure
* 50mm lens set at f/5.6, 1/50s and ISO 1600 on a full frame camera
* 31mm lens set at f/3.5, 1/50s and ISO 600 on an APS-C camera
In all three cases, field of view, depth of field and exposure will be absolutely identical. And also compression, face distortion because of perspective, size of out-of-focus highlights... The images will be basically identical, except for whatever differences in sharpness and detail the different sensors and lenses introduce.

Proof here:

EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 30, 2013, 02:55:24 AM »
Canon fanboys are so much fun... I bet they'd be defending their phone as a superior way of taking images if they had spent $4K on the system  8)

So sad...

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Camera for keen 9 year old.
« on: August 18, 2013, 07:27:05 PM »
Second hand DSLR. Even the oldest ones or the lowest-end will be much better for learning than anything with a small sensor.

forgive the naive question....this is for video purposes only correct? or their still applications for this as well?

Definitely useful for stills, provided the loss of resolution isn't an issue for your needs.

Since the trolls have already gotten in before the lock, can you wow us with the loss-of-resolution specifics?  That way it can be ignored and people can continue to argue :)

The loss of resolution comes because you're reading odd line-pairs at one ISO (say, 100) and even line-pairs at another ISO (say, 400), and then you have to combine both fields to get your final image. If the image only had highlights and shadows in it, you'd be losing half your vertical resolution; if there are some midtones, the loss will be less than that.

And since images in ISO 100 and 400 have slightly different color and noise characteristics, you have to meet at the lower-quality of them both (so, color may be a bit worse, as mentioned above), and this makes mixing both images not trivial (the processing involved to avoid horizontal artifacts does generate some IQ loss).

Still mindblowingly awesome, if you ask me. Looking great, and improving very fast.

If you want DR on a small and light package with wide FoV and a sharp image, and care about price too, then you're probably looking for a NEX7 or NEX-5R with the sigma 19mm f/2.8. Surprisingly powerful little combo.

Lenses / Re: EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS STM Not Coming to the USA
« on: July 13, 2013, 02:24:22 PM »
^ Hehe that was funny  ;D

This not-for-the-US stance makes me rethink what I believe the recent EOS-M sale to mean: it may not be in order to make room for the next model, it may be in order to kill the M line and keep selling it only in Japan, where mirrorless is king. We'll see...

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 08, 2013, 04:43:29 AM »
The easiest way to think of what a speedbooster does to your sensor size and focal length is the following:

When you don't use a speedbooster, you constantly multiply your focal lengths by 1.6 to get the "equivalent focal length". With a speedbooster that is no longer necessary.


So, when I use a 50mm on my NEX-5N with a speedbooster, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 200, I get an image with the same field of view, depth of field, and exposure, as I'd get with that same 50mm on a 5D3, set at f/1.4 and with ISO 400.
There, no more math. It becomes a FF camera, end of story.

Lenses / Re: AFMA - Is is really necessary?
« on: June 20, 2013, 03:25:51 AM »
My opinion:

You don't need AFMA if:
* your camera is not reflex (m43 and nex cameras don't have AFMA because they don't need it)
* your lenses don't have AF or you don't plan to use it (don't laugh, that's my personal case)
* you're not going to shoot faster than f/2.8 on APS-C or f/4 on FF

In every other case, AFMA is the one single biggest feature a camera can have. For me, it trumps everything. Even if you're starting out photography, you'll probably grow beyond "I don't need AFMA" in 6 to 12 months. I've seen it before: totally new to photography, buy a 60D with a few lenses, including a 50mm f/1.8 II, six months later sell it and get a second-hand 50D, because of AFMA. Much happier user now.

Some people may just have been lucky with their camera-lens combination. Sending lenses back until you get one that suits your body may be an option for some. For everybody else, lack of AFMA will most probably ruin most fast-aperture pictures.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33