I have both 5D3 and the Sony A7s. Sorry but you did a big mistake, A7s is way better then 5D3 which is useless when you have seen the imsge from the Sony.
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.
I shot some video yesterday at a friend's photo shoot.
I put my 7D Mark II on a tripod and pointed it at the subjects, with the continuous auto-focus enabled. It started the day at ISO 800, f/4.0, 1/50th.
I hand-held my brand new Sony A7s. Towards the end of the day, it was at ISO 3200, f/3.5, 1/50th.
The video from the Sony is gorgeous and detailed, even at ISO 3200. Beautiful colors, and incredible detail.
The video from the 7D Mark II is terrible, even at ISO 800. It looks soft, washed out, and altogether bad.
We know from the Magic Lantern experience that these Canon DSLRs can capture outstanding video, but that the image processors ruin it. So I would assume that the 7D Mark II is capable of wonderful things.
But I'm pretty much done with Canon for video. I have officially switched to Sony.
Same here, bought A7s, its night and day difference in video quality
And even if I went with a Sony body (looking at A7S for video) I'm not ditching Canon glass. No way. God Bless Metabones.I got an a7s for video (mostly school plays), and had my first chance to use it last week.
It is literally unbelievable how good it is. I recorded some auditions at ISO 1000, F/4.0, 1/50th, and the image quality is outstanding. I used the Metabones adapter version IV, the Canon 70-200mm II IS, and the Canon 1.4x extender.
Simultaneously, I had my new 7D2 going at similar settings. The constant auto-focus is great, but the picture is mushier.
I love the a7s for video.
Just downloaded latest version eu3.0.1x-installer.dmg and it works on yosemite on my Macbook Pro
This is kinda schisophrenic, to put some of settings in manual mode to auto mode, and then still with manual mode wanting other settings to compensate for this mixture. You really don´t know what you want, right?
You can do what you want in AV or TV modes. With manual, you are in charge, you have nothing to compensate, and if they allowed some glitch or stupid customers request of auto ISO at manual mode, than it will be everything messed up.
Couldn't disagree more. M mode with Auto ISO is like aperture and shutter priority. I select the DoF I need and the necessary shutter speed to stop (or show) motion, and I get a metered exposure in rapidly changing light. Being able to apply EC to bias the metering is plus.
The only major thing I've noticed about the 9.5 release is that PRIME has gotten a little slower. I don't know if they've been able to pull out a bit more quality, but it does seem slower than it was when they first released it. I'm happy to wait for it given the results, of course.
Let me/us know if you discover anything or read about changes in the PRIME output. Or is there already some tutorial available when PRIME makes sense?
I tried it with a DxO trial version back then and discovered that it takes 15min to process a 20mp file on my laptop so I didn't have the time to experiment with it. In hindsight, the output didn't seem to be always that superior to Lightroom/ACR *if* not going for 100% output resolution, but downsizing and sharpening a bit. PRIME is certainly overkill for your average iso3200 shot. It might be better for extremely noisy shots like iso 12800 underexposed - it's just that I don't do these anyway.
For some of my shots, PRIME turned out to be rather mushy, my preference in these cases would be to keep a little "nice" 6D noise in LR as it looks better to me. Probably the same reason mpeg4 asp videos sometimes look better than mpeg4 avc with stronger deblocking.
At f/1.2 focus accuracy is only going to be so accurate.
That´s the main point. If you are looking to get the f1.2 lenses, you should have the best available AF, to cope with the very shallow DOF. And if you can´t afford the 1DX, then 5DIII is next in line.
^^ This. AF point accuracy is determined by the 'baseline' - an f/2.8 line is more accurate than an f/4 line, which is in turn more accurate than an f/5.6 line. If your subject happens to be near the center of the frame, the 5DIII has five f/2.8 cross-type, dual-orientation points there, the 6D has...one f/2.8 single orientation line (and a less accurate f/5.6 cross). If your subject is near a rule-of-thirds intersection, the 5DIII has a cross-type dual-orientation point with an f/4 line and an f/5.6 line, and the 6D has...no AF point at all near the rule-of-thirds intersection (the closest AF point is an f/5.6 single-orientation line), and not having an AF point on your subject means focus-recompose, and that means backfocus at f/1.2.There's not that much difference. The 5D3 is not a much better camera, where image quality is concerned. In fact it's less better.
I don't consider a misfocused shot to have better image quality than a properly focused shot. There's more to capturing an image than the sensor (and the difference between the image sensors is less than the difference between the AF sensors).