Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 140
  1. Collapse Details
    #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    847
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
    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)
    The lens is actually a constant f1.9. Having looked at the Z280 the lens appears to maintain close to or very close to constant aperture throughout it's range.

    With regards to the benefits of HEVC H.265 vis a vis AVC H.264. On an 8700k overclocked to 5Ghz with a tweaked BIOS with a GTX1080Ti card and using the NVIDIA NVENC profiles I'm finding the following. The 4K HEVC H.265 takes about 25% longer to render an than H.264 using the same type of 4K/UHD profiles. On playback the H.265 at 4K/UHD 24/25p requires about 40-42% of CPU on all cores and about 15% of the 1080Ti's GPU. On the other hand H.264 4K/UHD at 24/25p is using 18-20% of CPU and around 10% GPU. The interesting thing is if rendering using any of the Nvidia profiles, i.e. H.265 and H.264 both at 4k 25p the H.265 files are on average about 1-2% LARGER! Something I didn't expect. Visually on a 10-bit monitor I can see no difference. Based on the results I'm finding I'm in absolutely no rush to go down the H.265 route at this point in time. Obviously my view may change when I get my hands on some Canon H.265 files. Most of the network newsrooms I know still prefer good old MPEG-2 50Mbps XDCam so a ways to go yet for both H.264 and H.265. For them any space saving considerations come well and truly second to fast turn capability of a well established MPEG-2 newsroom workflow.

    Chris Young


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #52
    Senior Member Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Posts
    1,385
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by cyvideo View Post
    The lens is actually a constant f1.9. Having looked at the Z280 the lens appears to maintain close to or very close to constant aperture throughout it's range.
    I've seen a few people say that, but just go to the B&H page for the Z280 and you'll see pages of people disputing it. I think the confusion stems from the fact that the onscreen display always shows f/1.9 even when zoomed in all of the way and people just take that for face value. In Simon Wyndham's review of the camera, he states "I haven't been able to confirm the precise drop off, but at most I would say it falls to f/2.8, just like the previous EX cameras." All of this seems to be complete guesswork so you could be absolutely right. But you'd think they would make a big deal about a constant f/1.9 lens - especially compared to their competitor which is several stops slower - and it isn't really touted anywhere. Also, even you are stating "it appears to maintain close or very close to constant aperture throughout its range." Well which is it - constant, or "appears to be close?" :P

    Quote Originally Posted by cyvideo View Post
    The 4K HEVC H.265 takes about 25% longer to render an than H.264 using the same type of 4K/UHD profiles. On playback the H.265 at 4K/UHD 24/25p requires about 40-42% of CPU on all cores and about 15% of the 1080Ti's GPU. On the other hand H.264 4K/UHD at 24/25p is using 18-20% of CPU and around 10% GPU.
    Which is more important - having more than 3x the storage available for the same duration of footage, or waiting 25% longer to render the H.265 clips? There is no right answer. It's great that the networks have unlimited storage at their fingertips, but 600 Mb/s adds up quickly if you're a one man band and shooting frequently - and that means additional $$$.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyvideo View Post
    Most of the network newsrooms I know still prefer good old MPEG-2 50Mbps XDCam so a ways to go yet for both H.264 and H.265.
    I worked on a special show for Jeopardy! last week and they're still running interlaced everything... I think I started to break out in hives from all the scan lines. ;) Obviously for broadcast this is a forced requirement, but I feel extremely fortunate that most of my work is out of that space and we are free to push ahead with evolving standards. MPEG-2 is not of interest to me at all unless a client demands it... in which case, I suppose it is good to have. But if I could order a cheaper camera that didn't have the feature, I absolutely would. It's time to push ahead, especially with a forward-thinking, 4K device.
    Last edited by Haakon; 09-26-2018 at 11:49 PM.
    you + are = you're.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,875
    Default
    I tested a C200 yesterday.

    I think my takeaway is that it is very usable in fully stripped back mode (eyepiece only) - yet could build to being a full cine camera with raw and exotic lenses.

    I think this right now..
    C200 + some shi_t_ty 18-xx lens, plus a 50 1.8 in the back pocket could be far better than the 705.

    The short form of the C200 made it way nicer to hold than a XF305 (which I guess is of a similar form to the 705) - cradling the C200 and using it like a MF camera just 'worked' - I can just tuck it into my body

    I guess the crappy codec is good enough for more run around jobs.

    S


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #54
    Senior Member Jaime Valles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,108
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
    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.
    AMEN to all of this. I agree 100%. I'm looking closely at both cameras as well, and will be waiting for reviews to come out, as well as renting them to test them out. That's really the only way to know which one works best for my needs.

    Quote Originally Posted by morgan_moore View Post
    I tested a C200 yesterday.

    I think my takeaway is that it is very usable in fully stripped back mode (eyepiece only) - yet could build to being a full cine camera with raw and exotic lenses.

    I think this right now..
    C200 + some shi_t_ty 18-xx lens, plus a 50 1.8 in the back pocket could be far better than the 705.

    The short form of the C200 made it way nicer to hold than a XF305 (which I guess is of a similar form to the 705) - cradling the C200 and using it like a MF camera just 'worked' - I can just tuck it into my body

    I guess the crappy codec is good enough for more run around jobs.

    S
    The C200 is a great cinema camera, but for event shooting (theatrical production, sports, run & gun) it's not nearly as convenient as the Canon XF705 or Sony Z280. I use a C100 with a crappy 18-135mm power zoom lens, and it's fine, but I'd LOVE to have a 15x or 17x servo zoom lens. That's something the C200 (or any S35 camera) can't deliver.
    Jaime VallÚs
    AJV Media
    Video, Photography & Graphic Design: www.ajvmedia.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,875
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaime Valles View Post



    The C200 is a great cinema camera, but for event shooting (theatrical production, sports, run & gun) it's not nearly as convenient as the Canon XF705 or Sony Z280. I use a C100 with a crappy 18-135mm power zoom lens, and it's fine, but I'd LOVE to have a 15x or 17x servo zoom lens. That's something the C200 (or any S35 camera) can't deliver.


    For sure - each has its place.

    But my experience of having the C200 in my hand was kind of impressive - I just liked the big eyecup and internal EVF - Ive not really used the C100 - it has a lower res EVF - maybe this is a tipping point - I dont know

    Im a complete snob on many camera related tiems and I know if something feels OK - the C200 feels OK.

    It would seem that for my jobs Id prefer a crappy 18-xxx with the backup of a 50 1.8 and of course the full EF lens set (we have 15mm to 400 2.8 in our office) when required.

    It would seem a crappy zoom is OK if the AF is OK, its maual focussing with a crappy zoom that I really really hate

    Overall the 305 (similar geometry to the 705) just felt too long for holding like a hasselblad - holding the EVF to the eye I just felt amateur.

    And a usable EVF is a big deal if you are out in the sun, really big deal - my FS7 sports a DP502 with a huge black box on it so I can see - a massive lump

    S


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,406
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaime Valles View Post
    I use a C100 with a crappy 18-135mm power zoom lens, and it's fine, but I'd LOVE to have a 15x or 17x servo zoom lens. That's something the C200 (or any S35 camera) can't deliver.
    You can get close but it will cost a pretty penny:

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ..._8_9_with.html

    This one is the best you're going to get as far as a servo with decent coverage for a semi-reasonable Canon price:

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...cine_zoom.html

    ---

    But the fixed lenses for those certain applications do make everything so much easier.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #57
    Senior Member Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Posts
    1,385
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    This one is the best you're going to get as far as a servo with decent coverage for a semi-reasonable Canon price:

    https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...cine_zoom.html
    That's actually a great example for comparison. That lens costs more than half of the XF-705, is still the same slow f/4.5, and is only a 2.8x optical zoom. Yes, that's right. Now it's easy to see why a $7K camera with integrated 15x+ servo zoom - even at f/4.5 - isn't really THAT bad of a deal after all.

    Even that 20x S35mm lens, which seems like a dream, is a T/8.9!! If f/4.5 makes the dSLR kiddies cry, imagine what they would say about that. And it costs $70,000!
    you + are = you're.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,875
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaime Valles View Post
    (C200) (theatrical production, sports, run & gun) it's not nearly as convenient as the Canon XF705 or Sony Z280.
    Im still thinking on this.

    I think for sure for 'live' production a servo zoom is king of the hill - say a panel discussion and you widen off for a question and then push in on the answerer.

    For 'to edit' productions, I dont know, RnG is my speciality and having a camera like the Z280 which is no good inside a car (vs a C200 and 10-24), or maybe both XF750 and Z280 which cannot go in the dark (vs a C200+50 1.8) and cant do an artistic interview (vs a C200 and 50 1.8) then the freedom of lens changes vs a servo comes into play

    I feel being locked into the single lens is for me a downer, when 18-80 (to aspire to cost wise), or 18-xx (cheap) are available.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    847
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
    but at most I would say it falls to f/2.8, just like the previous EX cameras." All of this seems to be complete guesswork so you could be absolutely right. But you'd think they would make a big deal about a constant f/1.9 lens - especially compared to their competitor which is several stops slower - and it isn't really touted anywhere. Also, even you are stating "it appears to maintain close or very close to constant aperture throughout its range." Well which is it - constant, or "appears to be close?" :P


    Which is more important - having more than 3x the storage available for the same duration of footage, or waiting 25% longer to render the H.265 clips? There is no right answer. It's great that the networks have unlimited storage at their fingertips, but 600 Mb/s adds up quickly if you're a one man band and shooting frequently - and that means additional $$$.


    I worked on a special show for Jeopardy! last week and they're still running interlaced everything... I think I started to break out in hives from all the scan lines. ;) Obviously for broadcast this is a forced requirement, but I feel extremely fortunate that most of my work is out of that space and we are free to push ahead with evolving standards. MPEG-2 is not of interest to me at all unless a client demands it... in which case, I suppose it is good to have. But if I could order a cheaper camera that didn't have the feature, I absolutely would. It's time to push ahead, especially with a forward-thinking, 4K device.
    Next time I grab a Z280 I will stick it on a WFM and measure the light loss across the 17x. All I've done so far is put it up against an 18x 2/3" B4 HD lens on a split screen when comparing camera colors and image quality and noticed that it had less ramping than the 18 x HD. There is no doubt it is f1.9 at the wide end as the iris ring is engraved f1.9. I have never tried the Z280 lens in full auto iris mode as that is where you will see any viewfinder indicator start to alter if there is any ramping as you zoom. As I said the most accurate way to measure the ramp is to measure it electronically and the best way to do that is on a WFM.

    The importance of of having three times more card storage? As you say no right answer. I shoot every week using an FS7 amongst other cameras. The FS7 in PAL UHD produces a 500Mbps data stream. This equates to about 25 mins per 128GB card. Last Weds I rolled 210 minutes, 3.5 hours. So that rolled into my ninth 128GB XQD card. I carry 12 128s in the camera bag so I have never had an issue... yet! Back in the days of shooting SP Beta with 20 and 30 min tapes at around $30-40 a tape you were often carrying up to $800 worth of tape with you on a daily basis. Tapes that rarely ever got used a second time, a major $$$ drain. Re price, as a professional you need to invest the necessary $$$s required for you to carry out your craft. Believe me cards today are far cheaper than the old tape flow so I'm somewhat bemused at people saying cards represent so many $$$$s. In the long run at least your cards can get used over and over again. With modern cards capacities even at 500/600Mbps storage is not a major issue. To be honest for many jobs I would rather use more smaller 64GB cards. 256GB cards scare me somewhat as I would hate to confront the issue of a 256GB data loss. Touch wood I've never lost anything off an XQD... so far. There again on mission critical work I parallel record ProRes with a Shogun Inferno. Back to codecs. Currently I have not one client who will give me even $1 for an H.265 file. H.265 far from being off my radar though hence me running through numerous exercises with it.

    Unfortunately the biggest consumer of vision is the 24/7 fifty-two week cycle of the TV networks. Many of us work in that area so yes the need for the old 50/60i signal is still a major requirement as you have discovered with your Jeopardy experience. In other words if you work across a wide range of areas, sport, doco, corporate, learning and factual life style programs etc you need to be able to address a wide range of demand for both interlace and progressive, HD to 4K, MPEG-2 to ProRes to XAVC or whatever codec the client calls for. Is MPEG-2 good to have? Yes for some of us very much so. Some clients still like interlace 50Mbps XDCam on discs. For that reason I still keep a three CCD XDCam HD camera. Obviously you do not have a broadcast client workflow that requires MPEG-2 so it's no interest to you. I feel sure if you had two/three days a week of decent paid shooting where MPEG-2 was the requirement I think your interest in MPEG-2 may just be piqued somewhat.

    Chris Young
    Last edited by cyvideo; 09-28-2018 at 04:32 AM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #60
    Senior Member Haakon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ventura, CA
    Posts
    1,385
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by cyvideo View Post
    Next time I grab a Z280 I will stick it on a WFM and measure the light loss across the 17x.
    That would be fantastic. Please note I am not discounting you, it just seems that nobody has done a technical test regarding this yet and Sony doesn't seem to be jumping at the bit to tell us. I would love some concrete clarification as I don't have a Z280 available to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyvideo View Post
    Re price, as a professional you need to invest the necessary $$$s required for you to carry out your craft.
    Sure. But even "expensive" is relative and different for every person. I don't wish to get into a back and forth over who is a bigger professional, what amount of money someone should have to spend if they're serious about image acquisition, etc. My only point was that like money, time is a finite resource and some may find one more valuable than the other. For instance, if I can render a project overnight, it doesn't really matter if it takes 5 hours or 7 hours. In that case, the extra ~30% render time doesn't affect my project but needing to buy double the hard drive space would. That's all. I don't think either camera in the discussion is objectively better on this front, rather it will vary from person to person and even project to project.

    Quote Originally Posted by cyvideo View Post
    Unfortunately the biggest consumer of vision is the 24/7 fifty-two week cycle of the TV networks.
    Perhaps, but that's rapidly changing and there is a mammoth amount of non-television video production taking place as well (and I think that's more where these cameras are aimed - at least when it comes down to the individual owner/operator).

    When it comes to "sport, doco, corporate, learning and factual lifestyle programs," I do all of this and more and VERY rarely has a client demanded a particular codec. Unless it's going to air to broadcast, absolutely nobody requests interlaced footage. Even 4K is still a bit of an odd request, but it will definitely become increasingly commonplace and that's why I'm giving these cameras a serious look. It's apparent that we work in different spaces, but no matter who buys the camera it's great to have options. I'm not lamenting Sony for including an MPEG-2 codec in the camera. I was just saying that personally if I could save money by foregoing it, I would. Everyone has different needs and priorities. I guess I just feel like these cameras are more "prosumer" than the kind of user you're talking about. When you say XDCam, I picture 2/3" shoulder mount network gear. Most wedding shooters or freelance documentary creators aren't running around with that.
    Last edited by Haakon; 09-28-2018 at 05:29 AM.
    you + are = you're.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... 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
  •