Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 116
  1. Collapse Details
    #21
    Senior Member hoju's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    174
    Default
    Heat is obviously an issue in the A7 bodies. I don’t think Sony is purposely not adding in 10 bit video or 4k60. Those tiny bodies simply can’t dissipate the heat that level of video creates.

    They did remove rhe 30 minute limitation, so that’s one hurdle they were able to conquer with some improvements to the thermals.

    If I were Sony:

    - I’d leave the A9 as-is. It’s still unsurpassed for what it does.

    - I’d kill the A7S line.

    - I’d bring out the A9S. The bigger body could hopefully handle the increased thermal load of high bitrate, frame rate and resolution video, have better IBiS, and better i/o ports and handling.

    But I’m not Sony, so...


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    347
    Default
    A7RIII is the best still camera I've ever had but I don't care to much about its video recording as I rather use FS5/FS7 for that. The R series is about resolution and just get the standard Sony video recording options so the me at least the R cameras is not meant to be a working video tool. But for stills they're great.

    Looking at my other still camera X-T3 it's way better equipped with video features and lesser in the stills part compared to A7RIII.

    The way I see it, still cameras used for both stills and video is always a compromise and we can't have it all.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #23
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    9,785
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by markfpv View Post
    hmmm.. well I'm interested in this camera (still waiting on final specs however). As someone who does video but also some stills work - the Pixel Shift Multi Shooting mode caught my attention right after the slog capabilities in video. While 10 bit would be nice - we all know 8 bit can look just dandy.
    My C200 which also has woefully under spec regular video, is also 8-bit XF-AVC, and I agree, under most circumstances (other than gradient lighting patterns, contrast patterns, horizons and skies where you see all of that glorious banding), 8-bit makes perfectly fine looking video. Of course, with the C200, I now rarely shoot XF-AVC, only RAW as the cards have become so cheap and 12-bit is so much better. What concerns me much more is the data rate on this new $3,500.00 Sony. 100Mbps?! My c200 records UHD at 160Mbps and I find it even a little skimpy if I push the grade at all. I shoot my Fuji XT-3 at 200Mbps (long form) and 400Mbps (shorter form) and that data rate is right where it should be for UHD. 100Mbps is a joke for a semi-professional mirrorless video camera, that's like a Go Pro or my iPhone when using Filmic Pro. They honestly should have made it a stills only camera, 100Mbps in 2019 on a $3,500.00 camera is an embarrassment.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


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

  4. Collapse Details
    #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    4,505
    Default
    TBH I already feel like I won the lottery with the impending S1H finally giving me vlog, 10-bit 4k 6p internal, IBIS, panasonic UI, and a camera that slots into a workflow with GHx cameras and the overall very good but imperfect EVA1.

    I used to stress about switching to Sony, and follow these announcements with more careful consideration, but we're hardly for want anymore. Too many good options with minimal compromises now to consider a camera like this for video work. Any minor benefits it might give are outweighed by other impracticalities. It won't be long of a wait until another model gives anyone still discontented exactly what they want, things have been moving super fast.

    I understand it is AF that is throwing most people for a loop but my sense is that if you wait it out with existing gear until next year there will be a combination of new models and new firmware updates that alleviate most of the existing analysis paralysis. I'm actually glad I haven't "tasted and seen" yet with AF until Panasonic has a good implementation, or until Sony steps up their game to match Panny in a number of ways, or until Canon gets more competitive against the new wave of heat. A short season of "ignorance is bliss" - sometimes it pays to not be an early adopter!


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,061
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    My C200 which also has woefully under spec regular video, is also 8-bit XF-AVC, and I agree, under most circumstances (other than gradient lighting patterns, contrast patterns, horizons and skies where you see all of that glorious banding), 8-bit makes perfectly fine looking video. Of course, with the C200, I now rarely shoot XF-AVC, only RAW as the cards have become so cheap and 12-bit is so much better. What concerns me much more is the data rate on this new $3,500.00 Sony. 100Mbps?! My c200 records UHD at 160Mbps and I find it even a little skimpy if I push the grade at all. I shoot my Fuji XT-3 at 200Mbps (long form) and 400Mbps (shorter form) and that data rate is right where it should be for UHD. 100Mbps is a joke for a semi-professional mirrorless video camera, that's like a Go Pro or my iPhone when using Filmic Pro. They honestly should have made it a stills only camera, 100Mbps in 2019 on a $3,500.00 camera is an embarrassment.
    I don't think anyone would disagree, but that number comes from an industry-standard suggested calculation of providing the consumer 28-35mbps for 1080p (which you'd multiple by 4).

    Whether it's 100 with Sony or 144 with Nikon or 150 with Canon (in the lower-quality setting on the EOS R), they are all providing you the bare minimum consumer data rate for these particular stills cameras that shoot video.

    _____

    Personally, I don't think it matters if it's 100 or 200. If one says he or she cannot see a difference between 200 and 400 then this matters even less.

    If I could request anything, it would be to have a data rate of around 500mbps. ProRes 422 is where you will be cut off by many productions and that data rate (UHD 4K/24p) is 471mbps. (Some will only accept HQ, which is of course higher.)

    Canon has forever offered Motion JPEG at 500mbps and I once read an article that they thought this was a bare minimum for DCI 4K acquisition.

    So for a stills camera that's first and foremost designed to shoot stills this is what we get. 8-bit. 100mbps.

    Once they get the 10-bit going on the a7SIII or a9II or whatever, they will hopefully introduce new numbers.


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

  6. Collapse Details
    #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,061
    Default
    Just pure hateful targeting, downvoting...for no reason. lol


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

  7. Collapse Details
    #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,061
    Default
    a7RIV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyEuPg6GXdU (2019)

    a7RII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmLgLAIX028 (2015 camera...although the video is from 2017 because of the lenses used)

    Both by Sony...at some point the improvement in visual quality gets very difficult to see.


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

  8. Collapse Details
    #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,496
    Default
    Looking at this camera makes me think the camera makers know the end is near and they are stretching. The megapixel race is very long in the tooth. 61Mpx - who cares? Sony has tied itself to a small body and it might prove to be a hinderance for high end sales but at this stage in the game does it matter what size your barrel is when you are all streaming towards the waterfall?

    Panasonic saw a weak point in the big three and that is video or more specifically 10bit video. Panasonic has the engineering to pull of the heat requirements and the larger body size. Sony has the smaller body size and great AF. Canon and Nikon are well defined with stills and are trying to be present in mirrorless with smallish bodies and decent but not total pro specs so far. The way I see it, the ground is all laid out for the next few generations. Personally, I would not be surprised if Sony held off on the 10bit stuff for a while longer. Is there even a chance Canon would put anything 10bit in a stills camera? I thought not... So why would it be out of character for Sony to do this?

    $600 for the XLR unit? Is it even 24bit? That is outrageous. Color fidelity and DR are what is most important these days along with color depth and bit rate for video. We have pixels coming out of our ears with many cameras but sadly it is tough to market around DR.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,061
    Default
    What's really surprising is that Sony hasn't at least offered a model that can provide 10-bit externally while Canon and even Nikon both have.


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

  10. Collapse Details
    #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,785
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    What's really surprising is that Sony hasn't at least offered a model that can provide 10-bit externally while Canon and even Nikon both have.
    I was going to write this ... but without the "surprising" part. The lack of 10-bit, external or otherwise, was a gimme. And none of this is incidental or due to heat, weather sealing or lack of a suitable processor.

    PS. Fuji has a $10,000 GFX 100 with 100 MPX. A $3,500 RIV can stitch together 16 images for 240 MPX. Digital tech is an amazing thing.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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
  •