Page 2 of 110 FirstFirst 1234561252102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 1100
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    11,045
    Default
    After shooting with it for a month, I wrote a decent sized article about the FX9.
    https://www.hdvideopro.com/gear/came...cinema-camera/

    It wasn't made to compete with the C500 MKII. The no internal RAW didn't surprise me and I don't think the FX9 buyer gives a crap
    about RAW. The no 6K recording did surprise me a bit but then again, to me, 6K recording is a handicap, not a desirable feature.
    My years shooting 1080 with native 4K cameras like the C100 MKI and 300 MKI gave me a lot of respect for downsampling video. The FX9 4K looks great.

    If I was in the market for a new camera (Thank God I'm not!), it would undoubtedly be the C300 MKIII over the FX9. The C300 MKIII checks every box for me, I think it's
    in it's own way, a better value proposition than the C500 MKII or the FX9. But that's just me. And if I was being given them, I would be thrilled with either the C500 MKII
    or the FX9, I really like them both. But if I was writing the check, C300 MKIII all the way.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,491
    Default
    Wow great review puredrifting. I was drooling by the end of it.

    I mean, the reality is that the FX9/C500mk2/C300mk3 are all crazy great cameras.

    Sony finally has great SOOC colors. The variable eND and dual ISO sound like amazingly flexible tools.

    It's just those little things - slight crop on FF 60fps, no internal RAW - that advantage the Canon. (Though the Sonys have always had the advantage of "EVF" built on and more shoulder-mount friendly.)

    But I've read FX9 buyers complaining about no internal RAW on dvxuser so I know that someone misses it.

    No chance that the A7SIII will have eND. That would be amazing. But the SOOC colors, the great AF, the awesome low-light performance...

    I think it's going to be really hard for them to get me to upgrade again after I buy into the current generation of cameras


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,491
    Default
    Just read this EVF resolution comparison online and I'm left with questions...

    Does the A7SIII need such a high-res EVF (especially with only 2K resolution imaging piping in)? What is the opportunity cost of the EVF? Where are they saving money elsewhere to put in a more expensive EVF? And are they doing it just to claim a "most" somewhere over canon because canon trumps them on all the other specs? (And as an aside, I like a good EVF but I rarely use them on the mirrorless body)

    "Here’s a comparison of how some of the current model full-frame mirrorless cameras stack up.

    Sony A7S III – Expected 9.11 million pixels
    Panasonic S1 – 5.76 million pixels
    Panasonic S1R – 5.76 million pixels
    Panasonic S1H – 5.76 million pixels
    Sony A7R IV – 5.76 million pixels
    Canon EOS R5 – Expected ~5 million pixels
    Canon EOS R6 – Expected ~5 million pixels
    Canon EOS R – 3.69 million pixels
    Nikon Z6 – 3.69 million pixels
    Nikon Z7 – 3.69 million pixels
    Sony A9 II – 3.69 million pixels
    Canon EOS RP – 2.36 million pixels
    Sony A7 III – 2.36 million pixels
    Sony A7S II – 2.36 million pixels
    Sigma fp – No EVF, but it has an addon to turn the 2.1 million pixel LCD into one.

    9.11 million pixels would be a big step up, even from the 5.76 million pixel Panasonic’s and Sony A7R IV. And compared to the 2.36 million pixel found in the A7S II, there would just be no comparison at all."


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    145
    Default
    I believe it is 9.44 million dots ... 4 per pixel in Sony RGB implementation per the past.

    Still going to be a great EVF.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,813
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by docmoore View Post
    I believe it is 9.44 million dots ... 4 per pixel in Sony RGB implementation per the past.

    Still going to be a great EVF.
    Which would equate to exactly 2.36 million pixels, like the A7s II and A7 III.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,491
    Default
    Now I'm confused.

    Yes, it's dots and not pixels. But the other cameras should be listed in dots and not pixels as well.

    So how do they compare, in fact?


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,491
    Default
    Here we go. It's 3 dots per pixel, not 4. The A7Riv EVF has but 5.7 million dots.

    The A7SIII will, in fact, kick the butt of the previous Sony EVFs:
    PSX_20200704_191230.jpg
    Last edited by ahalpert; 07-04-2020 at 04:17 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member scorsesefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    1,870
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    After shooting with it for a month, I wrote a decent sized article about the FX9.
    https://www.hdvideopro.com/gear/came...cinema-camera/

    It wasn't made to compete with the C500 MKII. The no internal RAW didn't surprise me and I don't think the FX9 buyer gives a crap
    about RAW. The no 6K recording did surprise me a bit but then again, to me, 6K recording is a handicap, not a desirable feature.
    My years shooting 1080 with native 4K cameras like the C100 MKI and 300 MKI gave me a lot of respect for downsampling video. The FX9 4K looks great.

    If I was in the market for a new camera (Thank God I'm not!), it would undoubtedly be the C300 MKIII over the FX9. The C300 MKIII checks every box for me, I think it's
    in it's own way, a better value proposition than the C500 MKII or the FX9. But that's just me. And if I was being given them, I would be thrilled with either the C500 MKII
    or the FX9, I really like them both. But if I was writing the check, C300 MKIII all the way.
    Nice review, Dan. Your frame grabs look great... In your opinion is the FX9's color science significantly better than the FS7's?


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    145
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Here we go. It's 3 dots per pixel, not 4. The A7Riv EVF has but 5.7 million dots.

    The A7SIII will, in fact, kick the butt of the previous Sony EVFs:
    PSX_20200704_191230.jpg
    Well perhaps ... but the graphic you display shows pixels .... not dots ... so 9.44/3 dots/pixel ... may be 3.15 pixels.

    Sony has always put low display EVFs on the S series ... to keep the frame rate high.

    Anyone's guess at this point ... may be close to the a7R III from your graphic.

    Not that it is that important ... most doing video rely on the LCD or an external monitor ... without waveforms, false color, it will be hard
    to monitor exposure ... hopefully they will give magnification during filming or so enhanced way to guage focus. Peaking for 4K is too inaccurate.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,491
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by docmoore View Post
    Well perhaps ... but the graphic you display shows pixels .... not dots ... so 9.44/3 dots/pixel ... may be 3.15 pixels.
    The graphic I display is inaccurately labeled. It should read dots, not pixels. And the resolution is listed in the lower section where you can see it is less than QXGA for all of the previous Sonys.

    I agree it is not THE key feature. But as I predicted, it is already sparking headlines like, from Petapixel: "Sony A7SIII to have world's best EVF"

    Let the marketing mindgames begin!

    "What, do you want 8K RAW that you'll never use? Or the world's. Best. EVF. Ever."

    Lol


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 110 FirstFirst 1234561252102 ... 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
  •