Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 140
  1. Collapse Details
    #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,875
    Default
    Morgan can keep his FS7.

    I only said HFR can be engaged quickly and easily on the FS7 - I hope the same is true for the Canon... which, as described, is designed for quick and easy use.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #42
    Senior Member Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Posts
    1,385
    Default
    Well you also said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    I think this could do some funk with a grade, added grain and some 239 bars. Similar FOV and DOF to S16 maybe. And for interviews pair it with my GH4 and 50 1.2

    Im defo going to take it for a test run.. at which point Ill stick the the FS7.


    I'm somewhat just giving you a hard time, but the point is it isn't a camera intended to be slapped with 239 bars and film grain. In some ways I wish they didn't even include log. Of course it CAN be used as a narrative storytelling device, but there are much better (and cheaper) cameras for that. And when you start making comparisons to those kinds of cameras, of course it falls flat... because that's not what it's designed for.

    Apparently a lot of Canon fanboys are up in arms because the C200 only does 4:2:0 8-bit MP4 and 4:2:2 10-bit H.265 sure sounds a whole lot sexier on paper. But the XF705 will never be the camera they want it to be. It's awesome that you can throw a 16mm lens on the FS7 and get that super wide, passenger seat shot. But at the same time, you can't do a constant, slow push all the way to 15x (and beyond) no matter what you put on it. There are definitely people who need that. And that's okay... it's a good thing to have choices. Sadly, there is no perfect camera for every situation... there never has been and I don't think the manufacturers would let us have it even if such a thing could be created. :P
    you + are = you're.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,875
    Default
    Well Ive spent the summer covering 'cool' 'yoof' events. similar to this shot the year before https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=tyj1mjNu9FI

    The desired look from the client is grainy S16 style funk - instagram in motion. (mainly slow motion!)

    Lugging my FS7 vlocks and huge zooms around, missing shots because I had the wrong lens, and nailing my back.. the look I described, in a XF705 style package is entirely relevant.
    Last edited by morgan_moore; 09-24-2018 at 06:04 AM.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #44
    Senior Member Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Posts
    1,385
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    The desired look from the client is grainy S16 style funk - instagram in motion. (mainly slow motion!)

    Lugging my FS7 vlocks and huge zooms around, missing shots because I had the wrong lens, and nailing my back.. the look I described, in a XF705 style package is entirely relevant.
    Well, yeah... that's why those cameras suck (from an ergonomic point of view).

    Still, I think for the kind of promos you're doing (or at least the example you shared), shallow DoF lends itself to a cool, 'yoof' aesthetic a lot more than a 305 would. Heck, ungraded log is almost a trendy instagram filter in itself. Of course this is all subjective and like I said previously, you can use any of these cameras in whatever way you want. But I do think most people are of the opinion that certain types of gear are more suited to specific shooting situations than others.

    That said, you can keep the grain and I'll even hand over the interlacing feature on the 705 if I ever get one of these things (apparently somebody out there still uses that, too).
    you + are = you're.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,875
    Default
    Well im thinking the 1in sensor, might give little enough DOF for the client not to baulk - a worthy trade off for a better back, I think it would be more 'cinematic' than my 1/3in EX1 which at 35mbs doesnt handle a funk grade too well.
    Last edited by morgan_moore; 09-24-2018 at 06:38 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    847
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
    That is until you realize the 280 uses the same lens that was found on the PXW-X200 (where it was previously marked as a "Fujinon HD lens" - they've scratched that part off for this model). Makes you wonder if it's capable of even resolving anything close to 4K.
    I don't think this comment is truly accurate going by available able information. Both Fujinon and Sony are claiming to the lens to be a true 4k bit of glass. In fact if Doug Jensen reads this he may be able to comment further on the Z280 lens. After Doug spoke to Sony engineers at NAB he posted this comment elsewhere. Doug if you are reading I hope you don't mind me quoting you but for the sake of accuracy I think its desirable to do so.

    Quote:

    "I don't know about the PMW-200, but the Japanese engineers at NAB (who I was working for) told me directly that the lens on the Z280 is the same one as the PXW-X200. Apparently the X200's lens was developed as a 4K lens (even though that camera is only HD) because they already knew the 4K-capable Z280 would be following soon and it was easier to have them both use the same lens."


    So I believe it to be a 4k lens. If Doug or anyone has more information to hand I think some of us would be happy to hear it.

    Chris Young

    Fuji 4k 17x.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,875
    Default
    Ive rarely met a lens that doesn't out-resolve a compressed codec.

    Of course the larger the chip the less L/mm the lens needs to resolve, 1in being far less challenging than 1/3

    S


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #48
    Senior Member Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Posts
    1,385
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    Ive rarely met a lens that doesn't out-resolve a compressed codec.

    Of course the larger the chip the less L/mm the lens needs to resolve, 1in being far less challenging than 1/3

    S
    Well that's two things the Canon has going for it, then; a more efficient codec and a larger sensor. Then again the Sony chips don't have to be debayered so maybe it's all a wash. The XF400 footage I've seen looks awfully soft to me (granted I've only seen online clips), but it wouldn't surprise me if the Sony is sharper.

    I've heard the bit about the PXW-X200 lens being a 4K lens, but let's be real - this is a lens/sensor/processing system that's being delivered in its entirety for $7K. I don't think anyone is expecting $50K lens performance from a camcorder. That said, if it truly was designed for 4K from the beginning, that could only help. I'm still skeptical (lots of people say lots of things), but I definitely plan to pit these two cameras head to head when everything is actually available. If the Sony gives me a better picture, I will gladly eat crow. I have no dog in this race... I'm just trying to update my fleet of XF305s before 8K becomes mainstream and I have to do this all over again (half kidding).
    you + are = you're.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #49
    Senior Member Jaime Valles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,108
    Default
    To me, the Canon XF705 has more going for it than the Sony Z280:

    * 1" sensor (shallower depth of field than 1/2" sensors)
    * H.265 (much more efficient codec)
    * Dual SD card slots (much cheaper than SxS cards)
    * Much wider angle lens (25.5mm vs 30.3mm)
    * Canon's renowned DPAF (we'll see how good Sony's face tracking works)

    Unless the image quality of the Z280 blows away the XF705, I'm pretty sure I'd rather get the Canon.
    Jaime VallÚs
    AJV Media
    Video, Photography & Graphic Design: www.ajvmedia.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #50
    Senior Member Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Posts
    1,385
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaime Valles View Post
    To me, the Canon XF705 has more going for it than the Sony Z280:

    * 1" sensor (shallower depth of field than 1/2" sensors)
    * H.265 (much more efficient codec)
    * Dual SD card slots (much cheaper than SxS cards)
    * Much wider angle lens (25.5mm vs 30.3mm)
    * Canon's renowned DPAF (we'll see how good Sony's face tracking works)

    Unless the image quality of the Z280 blows away the XF705, I'm pretty sure I'd rather get the Canon.
    I agree that on paper, the Canon does have a lot going for it. I'm in the market for several of these cameras and it will likely either be the XF705 or Z280, so my eyes and ears are wide open. That said, there are definitely strengths to both.

    Depth of field isn't going to be drastically different between the two and it's a double-edged sword anyway. The shallower the DoF, the more critical the focus - and these cameras are designed for broadcast/sports/live events where the focal plane is in constant shift. Also, keep in mind that the Canon has a rather slow f/4.5 lens while the Sony is somewhere in the neighborhood of f/2.8 (nobody can seem to agree on what the actual number is) - but that translates into a couple of stops faster performance (which means shallower depth of field). The cameras will end up looking similar. Neither one is going to give you that creamy bokeh of full frame (nor are these tools designed for that), so I don't think that's a point to hammer on. Then again, you can't get a 17x zoom for your full frame camera either - and if you can't the shot you need, the f/stop is irrelevant.

    I agree with you that H.265 is very appealing. Again, it remains to be seen how well the Canon resolves its image, but it definitely would have been nice to see that in the Sony. It's frustrating to feel like 2-3 years down the line Sony may have a similar version but with a stronger codec; I don't have enough budget to replace my fleet that often.

    I also agree that SD is way more attractive than SxS or whatever... that's probably the biggest advantage I see for Canon between the two cameras. It's a massive financial difference when dealing with several units.

    Wide angle is subjective and for the work I do (live events), 30mm is fine. I'm not shooting in cars or small rooms where having extra FoV is critical. If I was, I'd probably shoot with a full frame camera and use a 16-35 or the like. 25mm isn't ultra wide either, but it's definitely a big deal if it makes the difference between being able to get your shot or not. I actually need reach for the projects I do - getting great closeups on a stage from the back of a venue or a podium in a theater, for instance - and the Sony is better here by a good bit. Not only is the range itself favored toward the telephoto end but it's got longer zoom capability overall (17x vs. 15x). That translates to a full frame equivalent of 515mm vs. 382mm - a not insignificant difference. Whereas the media is probably the biggest plus for the Canon in my eyes, the lens is by far the biggest plus for the Sony - and that could tip the scales for me.

    DPAF is great in their dSLR range, but I have watched XF400 videos and a number of people have reported poor performance in low light situations. To that end, Sony's face detection is a lot more mature in their line of mirrorless cameras and one can only assume they have brought similar technology to their video cameras as well. I really like that you can choose a face with the joystick and have it "lock on" for the remainder of the shot; even with my a7RII that isn't a possibility (it's fantastic at finding and focusing on faces but if there are multiple targets in the shot it will bounce between them sporadically with no user input).

    We are really trying to push to become fully 4K in every step of our chain and if either camera can't deliver decent resolution then there isn't much point in upgrading. We went through this a long time ago with the HVX200; the sensor wasn't even native 1920x1080 and the footage was literally upscaled to make an "HD" signal. That's like taking a 2MP image in Photoshop, blowing it up to 16MP dimensions and calling it a "16MP image." Yes, both of these cameras will output 3840x2160, but how much do they actually resolve? Here's another area where Canon's 1" sensor sounds better on paper, but remember that it's natively 3840x2160 to begin with and still needs to be debayered - your actual color resolution is going to be markedly less. The Sony on the other hand uses *three* 1/2" sensors, maintaining full color resolution for the entire image. That is important if you aren't oversampling the data. Granted the pixel pitch will be smaller as well, but we probably wouldn't have a 17x zoom without it so you just have to pick your battles where you want them.

    I think both cameras look like decent tech and are finally delivering decent options in this space which have been sorely lacking for a long time. It took Canon nearly a DECADE to make a successor to the XF305; an eternity in this space. I'm certainly not waiting around that long for their next one. Sony seems to update more frequently, but I haven't really cared for any of their other options up until this point either, so it's nice to have some reasonable choices again. It will all come down to testing for me, as specs are just specs and if performance isn't there (from either camera), then the choice becomes much easier.
    Last edited by Haakon; 09-26-2018 at 08:43 PM.
    you + are = you're.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •