Biggest problems with the A7S Ii

I typically don't use a lot of diffusion, & usually prefer weaker strengths. Lately I've been using, listed weakest to strongest, Digital Diffusion FX (1/4 & 1/2), Black Diffusion (1/4 & 1/2), & Black Pro-Mist (1/8 & 1/4). Also like the Holywood Black Magic filters, but do not own them.

If all you wan to do is take the slightest edge off the lens I suggest testing Tiffen's Digital Diffusion FX filters.
 
Voigtlanders are top-glass...you won't find anyone saying anything negative about them besides that they are "heavy" or manual-only (if you consider those two things to be negatives).

17.5mm is my favorite. Built like tanks. Also have de-clicked aperture for smooth pulls. (You can have it click too.)
 
Viscount Omega said:
If these two look identical, it should be easy enough for aps-c users to make the adjustments.

50mm lens set at f/5.6, 1/50s and ISO 1600 on a full frame camera=
31mm lens set at f/3.5, 1/50s and ISO 600 on an APS-C camera

Yet, you hear aps-c users say they want a "full-frame look" over and over again. Year after year. Maybe it's all in their head. Maybe it's harder to achieve the look if the lowest you can go on your lens is f4.
Click to expand...

I think it mainly comes down to the availability of lenses. Your comparison only works because both lenses are stopped down - there's no APS-C equivalent for a 24mm f/1.4, for example.

There is also the fact that most of the best accessible lenses made over the past 20 years (well even the past 50 years) have been made for full frame sensors. Until very recently, most of the ASP-C lenses available from Canon, Nikon, or 3rd party manufacturers were designed to be small, light & inexpensive. If you wanted top quality stills glass, it meant buying full frame lenses and to make the most of those full-frame lenses, you want a full frame sensor. This is primarily why Speedboosters have been such a big hit - not because they give you a "FF look", but because they make all of your FF lenses much more useful on s35 sensors. FF sensors are popular for the same reason.
 
Other than the logistical investment reasons of purchasing and adapting Full Frame glass that can be usable on larger sensor cameras in the future, are there any downsides to having a native M43 lens kit as oppossed to using FF glass adapter?

In terms of image quality, or in the way wider glass renders images?

For example, on GH m43 series if you had the entire Nokton f/.95 line up and preferred to shoot manual focus primes... so a 10.5, 17.5, 25, 42,5 (= 22mm, 35, 50, 85) all extremely fast...

There's no FOV advantage anymore to FF, correct? And with f/.95 there's no aperture loss either, right? (only sensor sensitivity for lowlight?)

So at this point the ONLY distinguishing factors in image become Low Light and DR?

If so, with 12 stops on the GH5 in vlog, and such a robust internal codec, and the ability with grading to really dial in your color look... Is it correct in saying the A7S II would only have about a 1-stop advantage over the GH5, and better lowlight? (I know the exact numbers are debatable for DR, but ballparking this)

If that is the case, all of the benefits of GH5 seem to outweigh in exchange for 1 stop DR, and extreme lowlight which I don't tend to need so badly.
 
^ That makes a lot of sense, but there are two things that require further attention:
* Are those f/0.95 lenses any good when used wide open? Or at least at f/1.4? Because you can get lenses that look great at f/2.8 on FF, and they are way cheaper than those noktons.
* How big is the DR advantage of the Sonys? Compared with GH4+CineLikeD, I measured a 3-stops advantage for the original a7S (link). I asked, on the GH5 thread, how big an improvement V-log-L is in terms of DR on the GH4, but I got no answer. When the GH5 is out, I'll be very interested on this issue.
 
Yes, in mathematical terms, that is essentially correct. Some people will still argue that FF still has some kind of magic happening, though. They'll argue it till the death, so just ignore them and go shoot with whatever sensor size & lens combination you're happy with!
 
filmguy123 said:
Other than the logistical investment reasons of purchasing and adapting Full Frame glass that can be usable on larger sensor cameras in the future, are there any downsides to having a native M43 lens kit as oppossed to using FF glass adapter?

In terms of image quality, or in the way wider glass renders images?

For example, on GH m43 series if you had the entire Nokton f/.95 line up and preferred to shoot manual focus primes... so a 10.5, 17.5, 25, 42,5 (= 22mm, 35, 50, 85) all extremely fast...

There's no FOV advantage anymore to FF, correct? And with f/.95 there's no aperture loss either, right? (only sensor sensitivity for lowlight?)

So at this point the ONLY distinguishing factors in image become Low Light and DR?

If so, with 12 stops on the GH5 in vlog, and such a robust internal codec, and the ability with grading to really dial in your color look... Is it correct in saying the A7S II would only have about a 1-stop advantage over the GH5, and better lowlight? (I know the exact numbers are debatable for DR, but ballparking this)

If that is the case, all of the benefits of GH5 seem to outweigh in exchange for 1 stop DR, and extreme lowlight which I don't tend to need so badly.
Click to expand...

What you are talking about in practice does not work. Yes you could shoot only on f0.95 m43 lenses, but then you'd be limited to only one set of primes that have very questionable quality wide open. Those f0.95 lenses are terrible wide open, horrible coma and astimatism and softness wide open and still quite expensive. And that's only to get equivalent to an FF35 F2.0 look, which is quite shallow and light sensitive, but hardly all FF35 is capable of given you can get FF zooms that are that fast, not to mention primes that are 1-2 stops faster than that, and with far better optical quality than what is available at those specs for m43.

Find me a lens that will give you the FF35 24mm f1.4 look on m43, it doesn't exist, and even the options that might get close to an F35 24mm f2.0 on m43 look have horrible optical downsides.

One of the greatest upsides of FF35 is the decades it has had as the most popular format in the lens market, meaning the quality, price, specs, and variety of options is pretty unbeatable compared to any other lens format. Other formats have a lot of catching up to do, APS-C is improving as is m43 but they have a lot of catching up to do.
 
Last edited:
The Noktons get a bit dreamy when used wide-open, but clear up when closed down to a stop, or two.

Haven't used the 10.5mm, but a colleague does, & he finds that even stopped down the edges are never that sharp.
 
Bern Caughey said:
The Noktons get a bit dreamy when used wide-open, but clear up when closed down to a stop, or two.

Haven't used the 10.5mm, but a colleague does, & he finds that even stopped down the edges are never that sharp.
Click to expand...

Well to quote one review of the 10.5mm:
"The coma correction is dramatically bad – the coma level of the lens is simply huge. You can notice it not only at the maximum relative aperture but also after stopping down by 1-2 EV."

Frankly to me, a super fast lens with bad coma wide open might as well be a very slow lens. Coma is one of the few lens aberrations that just looks horrible no matter what and there is no excuse for. Pretty much any other aberration could be justified as an interesting lens character for a "vintage" or "dreamy" look. What's worse is coma is most visible in night exteriors and high contrast low light images which are pretty much the primary purpose of an F0.95 lens.
 
If you wanted top quality stills glass, it meant buying full frame lenses and to make the most of those full-frame lenses, you want a full frame sensor.
Click to expand...

Could it be that the FF "look" comes from using the whole FF lens on a FF sensor, rather than just a small rectangle cropped out of the center of the glass?

Maybe the look could come from using all of a larger chunk of glass.

And in the case of an aps-c sensor using all of an aps-c lens, the smaller piece of glass might have a subtle difference vs. the larger.

Sort of like 2 microphones--one is a small diaphragm condenser, the other is large diaphragm. They both can capture 50 Hz-20,000 kHz but they sound different.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, I ask all this because I too can spot a difference in the larger sensor look and it's more than just good framing, composition, lighting, and settings. There is often a greater detail with less sharpness, smoother roll offs, etc. I don't know.

But I also know when pushed to its limit the GH can really look spectacular, even if 85% of the stuff out there looks mediocre.

Regarding the Nokton f/.95 perhaps answer that question for me in this way:

If I am not after matching Full Frame depth of field, but rather S35, that is only a one stop difference. So using the voigtlander glass at f/1.4 and f/2.0 gives me 2-2.8 on S35, which is generally about as shallow as you really want to unless you have a very specific reason to get super blurry. I don't think its THAT relevant (even if its true) to compare to "getting the F1.4 FF look". Point is noted, but I can't imagine shooting much cinematic content on a FF sensor below f/2.8 or even f/3.5 for that matter!

So assuming I'm after matching the S35 look at f/2-f/4, would the Noktons match that perfectly in terms of DOF and FOV?

Re: dynamic range, DXO rated the raw sensor output of GH4 as only .5 stops below A7S, so I do assume with newer excellent internal codec and the newer generation sensor it may only be a stop or so behind A7s, though likely 2 stops behind a C300/FS7. Panasonic is claiming 12 stops with vlog, we will see how that actually plays out.
 
Choose the camera with the least amount of rolling shutter.
Nothing says DSLR more than jello.
Corporate means "solid". This is the value which they as clients most want to transmit.
Internal stabilization will help with the A7SII. But it is still there.

The GH5 does not exist, until it does.
So making a decision now with that as an option is not an option.
There will be plenty to workaround when it first hits, including firmware updates that come much later.

The FS7 or C300 are solid and known in the corporate world.
The version II of the C100 or C300 both have dual pixel. This is also invaluable for one man bands.
Personally, I would move up to either of the latter and invest in a used Movi. They are cheap as chips right now.

From a corporate client point of view, this looks like a respectable step up.
 
The thing is, I ask all this because I too can spot a difference in the larger sensor look and it's more than just good framing, composition, lighting, and settings. There is often a greater detail with less sharpness, smoother roll offs, etc. I don't know.
Click to expand...

I'm not good at technical writing because I don't know all the terms but I thought of this example of the difference between large and small sensors and their respective lenses:

Set up 2 cameras outside to take a picture of a 50 foot tall tree and use a 24mm FF lens and FF sensor, then take the same picture with a 16mm APS-C lens and APS-C sensor in the same position. The framing should look identical.

If you could see the image from the side, draw an imaginary line from the top of the tree to the top of the larger sensor and a line from the base of the tree to the bottom of the sensor.

Now do the same thing with the APS-C image. The angle of convergence to the sensor is sharper in the APS-C image because it's smaller. The lines are closer to parallel with the larger sensor.

It's a small difference in the comparative size of the sensors but it's magnified over distance. I think this accounts for what I am seeing in comparing the two formats. I've owned 3 Sony APS-C cameras and now 2 full frame cameras. Something seems compressed or squeezed in the APS-C format.

Or maybe I'm crazy. I dunno.
 
Last edited:
I have a product branding shoot coming up which I have full control on, and I want to invest everything into gear.
Click to expand...

I forgot the original purpose of your thread... If you need this camera for professional-looking corporate work and have the cash, I would get something with a true 10 bit codec like the FS7. Now worries about banding and the rolling shutter would be minimized with Super 35 vs. FF.

I think full frame would be more of an artistic choice for things like amateur filmmaking. Your clients probably couldn't tell the difference between formats anyway.

My dream camera is the A7S III with internal 10 bit.
 
Omega, I do feel like you are on to something. It's more than just lens choice or FOV - it can be minimized depending on who is shooting and the style, but M43 vs Full Frame quite simply looks compressed much of the time. Even at the same FOV. It's a very difficult thing to describe, but somehow even with the same framing subjects just seem to sit and render differently in larger format. Maybe I am crazy too. It's interesting because the technical or mathematical side doesn't seem to explain it right but I and a number of others can also seem to spot it... as if everything was captured bigger and better and richer, with a different relationship to light, and then zoomed down to fit the screen... almost a more 3 dimensional look to the images... rather than a flatter sort of cropped in look. And no, I am talking FOV and DOF all being equivalent.

Yup, maybe I am crazy! One thing is for sure though, I'm not gear bashing or trying to justify my expensive gear (clearly!). I own M43, have shot on S35/FF, and am considering another M43...

Agreed on the solid corporate look of showing up with a Movi and FS7/C300. I will say just a couple quick notes on that which is why I have so many questions on if its really worth it for me:

I have shot on a Ronin and FS100 and found it exhausting in less than an hour. It's big, its bulky, and that's just AT the shoot - add into that transport for a one mand band... Also, associated costs go up EVERYWHERE. Heavier camera = heavier duty tripods and support rigs. More expensive batteries and chargers. Etc.

And then all cost aside, cost of shooting. Seriously, that stuff can be freaking heavy and cumbersome to work with without a crew. If the images are really that much better I agree it's worth it, but that's sort of what I am trying to get at: if the only actual difference outside of my "imagined" S35/FF look is 1-2 stops more dynanic range and all else is close to equal if I'm not shooting extreme lowlight with only practical light, the GH5 is sort of a dream machine when you consider the robust internal codec, IBIS, ease of use of menus, long lasting battery, cheap support gear ($20 batteries that last 4 hours and weigh peanuts, a $650 zhiyun crane, light weight tripods, etc.).

I ask in the Sony forum because my assumption is many here have moved away from a smaller format, but its been surprising to me to hear how many people seem rather unconvinced in the end of the benefits of the A7S or even FS7/C300 over a properly kitted and properly shot GH camera...
 
Viscount Omega said:
My dream camera is the A7S III with internal 10 bit.
Click to expand...

With the same DR as the FS7. And add 4k 60fps if you're feeling generous.

@filmguy123: I'm on the same boat regarding big vs small cameras, but it's not so common. Lots of people complain about the ergonomics of these hybrid little monsters, and prefer a bigger body with XLR, built-in ND, lots of buttons, etc. I understand that, but wouldn't want it either: I'm fine with external audio when I need it, the ergonomics seem to be no problem *for me* once I configure everything to my test and get used to the layout, and built-in ND is AWESOME but not worth switching to much bigger and heavier support gear, let alone price of the camera itself (the image can justify that, but in terms of ergonomics I'll jump through the hoops to save $$$$).
Then again, I shoot once or twice every month. If you're shooting day in and day out, your needs may be different, and if that's the case then your tools should too.
 
Sensor size does not creat look, but the relationship between sensor size and lens fov and stop does.

As mentioned above mainly this revolves around what is easy/cheap to buy from the FF stills back catalogue

For example a 24/2.8 is easy to buy and gives on FF a wide shot with fair narrow DOF

Getting that FOV and DOF is not easy for MFT as you need something like a 12/1.4 but if you have one the look is the same.

I used to shoot Huuuge sensor hasselblad and after sied to side testing realised I could completely replicate the look using the FF35 format.

S
 
Sensor size does not creat look, but the relationship between sensor size and lens fov and stop does.

As mentioned above mainly this revolves around what is easy/cheap to buy from the FF stills back catalogue

For example a 24/2.8 is easy to buy and gives on FF a wide shot with fair narrow DOF

Getting that FOV and DOF is not easy for MFT as you need something like a 12/1.4 but if you have one the look is the same.

I used to shoot Huuuge sensor hasselblad and after sied to side testing realised I could completely replicate the look using the FF35 format.
Click to expand...

You're talking about replicating depth of field with different lens/sensor combinations--which is one thing--but I think depth of field is irrelevant in the full frame vs. APS-C comparison I was making above. It wouldn't matter what the depth of field was--it wouldn't change anything.
 
Viscount Omega said:
Could it be that the FF "look" comes from using the whole FF lens on a FF sensor, rather than just a small rectangle cropped out of the center of the glass?
Click to expand...

Not really. You could get the same image from s35 if you created a lens that was completely equivalent in terms of FOV of F-stop. My point was simply that most of the time the equivalent lens does not exist, at least amongst the current crop of stills glass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top