E-mount FS700II 4K camcorder?

morgan_moore said:
It seems clear to me that the future value of todays high end cameras will follow the curve of a 2005 high end computer or edit suite or $80k SD beta cam or Phase Digiback. The curve ends at just about nil, but there may be rental profit on that downslide.

What is it with Canon (and any other AF) lenses? They have a good reputation but AFAIK they are total turkeys to make films with?

Anyway lookin forward to more info on this cam :)

S
Click to expand...

The issue is not with the lenses so much as with the AF system. I was shooting stills at a friend's wedding the other day and the AF was driving me nuts after a very short space of time - most of the time it was focussing, admittedly very quickly, on totally the wrong thing. As far as I can tell it seems to seek the nearest object which, when you like some foreground interest, is generally not what I want to be in focus. Or it just went for whatever was in the centre of the frame (and I mean, who the hell frames the subject in the centre?!) I was able to select and AF point but, again, it would oftentimes pick totally the wrong subject. In the end I pulled it off AF and just went focus confirm. For me AF confirm (otherwise known as peaking is a much more useful system)

Video AF is even worse because it is so slow. Phase detect AF is slightly better, but it still has issues selecting the right subject - and that's the basic problem with AF for films - it just doesn't know what it should be aiming at. Face detection is a slight improvement but it still has issues selecting the right face.

Then there seems to be an issue with quality. In my experience all the photographers I know rate the Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses over the Canon/Nikon AFs for image quality (and sharpness) but these are manual focus, so I'm assuming there is something in the design of AF lenses that compromises quality.
 
Colinelves said:
The issue is not with the lenses so much as with the AF system. I was shooting stills at a friend's wedding the other day and the AF was driving me nuts after a very short space of time - most of the time it was focussing, admittedly very quickly, on totally the wrong thing. As far as I can tell it seems to seek the nearest object which, when you like some foreground interest, is generally not what I want to be in focus. Or it just went for whatever was in the centre of the frame (and I mean, who the hell frames the subject in the centre?!) I was able to select and AF point but, again, it would oftentimes pick totally the wrong subject. In the end I pulled it off AF and just went focus confirm. For me AF confirm (otherwise known as peaking is a much more useful system)

Video AF is even worse because it is so slow. Phase detect AF is slightly better, but it still has issues selecting the right subject - and that's the basic problem with AF for films - it just doesn't know what it should be aiming at. Face detection is a slight improvement but it still has issues selecting the right face.

Then there seems to be an issue with quality. In my experience all the photographers I know rate the Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses over the Canon/Nikon AFs for image quality (and sharpness) but these are manual focus, so I'm assuming there is something in the design of AF lenses that compromises quality.
Click to expand...
Personally, auto anything is no good. I don't want auto-exposure because it doesn't always accurately identify what exactly I'm trying to do. Why would I trust auto focus? Even more so with the fact that a shot could (relatively) be boosted/darkened a little bit... a shot that is completely focused incorrectly? You can't fix that.

To address your point about the AF compromising lens quality, I think that's the Tape-CD-Turntable-Radio all-in-one issue. When you pack more stuff into something, you can tend to compromise the quality (at least at comparable price rates). I used to have an acoustic-electric guitar and I can't describe how much nicer my acoustic-only guitar sounds, and they were the same price. The $600 acoustic-electric wasn't a $600 acoustic guitar. It was a $300 acoustic guitar with extra junk packed into it making it more expensive while not necessarily improving the quality.

I think you'd find the same when comparing $1200-1500 manual Zeiss lenses vs $1200-1500 Canon AF lenses.
 
jshbckr said:
Personally, auto anything is no good. I don't want auto-exposure because it doesn't always accurately identify what exactly I'm trying to do. Why would I trust auto focus? Even more so with the fact that a shot could (relatively) be boosted/darkened a little bit... a shot that is completely focused incorrectly? You can't fix that.

To address your point about the AF compromising lens quality, I think that's the Tape-CD-Turntable-Radio all-in-one issue. When you pack more stuff into something, you can tend to compromise the quality (at least at comparable price rates). I used to have an acoustic-electric guitar and I can't describe how much nicer my acoustic-only guitar sounds, and they were the same price. The $600 acoustic-electric wasn't a $600 acoustic guitar. It was a $300 acoustic guitar with extra junk packed into it making it more expensive while not necessarily improving the quality.

I think you'd find the same when comparing $1200-1500 manual Zeiss lenses vs $1200-1500 Canon AF lenses.
Click to expand...

This topic always intrigues me... we're on a video forum, so yeah, I agree with the sentiment that auto anything is no good (except face detection on tracking glide cam/gimbal shots.... that wins hands down)... but it always strikes me as strange since many of the people here come from the DSLR revolution... rather than the ENG/cinema side. Which leads me to believe that they end up doing more photography than they planned (it's what happened with me, making an additional income out of it now, completely by fluke)

For me... I've gotten used to the short throw of my Canon lenses. Took 4 years, but I'm comfortable with them as a single operator (with peaking tho). I also shoot a lot of photography, where the auto-focus is a godsend. For the type of photo-shooting I do, I can't imagine being on manual focus. I can't even imagine being on auto focus on sony cameras... that little thumbstick on the 5D is literally my favourite button ever invented.... i set what i want to focus, boom, sharp every.single.time.

On my A7s.... yeah, I leave it all to manual, even with their OSS AF lenses.... there's just no quick way to do it.

So it's really a question that sort of splinters depending on what you use it for... if you want to have only one set of lenses, and shoot photography... autofocus is how you go. If you do very little photography and mostly video, go for the better manual glass.
 
I think the think is to do what an old post guy told me years ago... back in the days when a film composer cost 40k... if you can't pay it off in a year or a year and a half... don't buy it... I think its pretty much the same thing in the digital world... glass is the only thing that is pretty much staying the same...
 
What is quite amazing how well they manage to keep secret about their cameras - you know about them just maybe two weeks before launch. Look at the opposite: photo cameras. Months before and we already know almost everything (or at least a lot).
 
jshbckr said:
Personally, auto anything is no good. I don't want auto-exposure because it doesn't always accurately identify what exactly I'm trying to do. Why would I trust auto focus? Even more so with the fact that a shot could (relatively) be boosted/darkened a little bit... a shot that is completely focused incorrectly? You can't fix that.

To address your point about the AF compromising lens quality, I think that's the Tape-CD-Turntable-Radio all-in-one issue. When you pack more stuff into something, you can tend to compromise the quality (at least at comparable price rates). I used to have an acoustic-electric guitar and I can't describe how much nicer my acoustic-only guitar sounds, and they were the same price. The $600 acoustic-electric wasn't a $600 acoustic guitar. It was a $300 acoustic guitar with extra junk packed into it making it more expensive while not necessarily improving the quality.

I think you'd find the same when comparing $1200-1500 manual Zeiss lenses vs $1200-1500 Canon AF lenses.
Click to expand...

The need for AF, especially "supersonic" contemporary AF, does put certain pressures on lens design (can't move a big group of elements around quickly enough).

But in my mind, the linkage between MF and quality is more fundamentally due to market needs. AF lenses tend to be designed to appeal to the mass market, so they prioritize mass market criteria, AF speed and accuracy, portability, zoom range, resolution, and increasingly bokeh (which I've never cared for much--I'm okay as long as it's not distracting).
 
Demistate said:
As long as XQD is about the same size as CF, I'll welcome the change.
Click to expand...

The XQD cards are a bit wider than SD, and thicker (even a bit thicker than CF). I found them to be a nice balance between the two - a bit smaller than CF, but far more rugged than SD and even a bit of an edge over CF in that regard.

They are a bit expensive - but not too bad considering they perform at around the same level as SXS cards at less than 1/3 the price.
 
I wonder if this cam will be full frame? A7s with onboard recorder and ND in effect.

The S35 heads wont like it but it will work with the new Sony 28-135 lens not to mention legacy stills glass.

--
As for AF, well I think obviousy it is coming - the c300 is gen 1 and full of flaws (still awesome to use and 85 on a Movi!) gen 2 or 3 will be a must have for 4k IMO - a threat to legacy cine lenses investment IMO.

Personally I have 2 sets of lenses - MF for filming and AF for stills, only my 14/2.8 and 400 2.8 are used for both.

S
 
morgan_moore said:
As for AF, well I think obviousy it is coming - the c300 is gen 1 and full of flaws (still awesome to use and 85 on a Movi!) gen 2 or 3 will be a must have for 4k IMO - a threat to legacy cine lenses investment IMO.
Click to expand...

How can a AF decide, which part of the frame is the most important for you? AF is usable in the manner of one push AF or for run'n gun situation where you just need somebodys face to be in focus.

I never used auto exposure as I never used AF so far, even for documentaries. AF is a plus but will never revolutionize cinema. I use the same AF lenses for video and photography and barely
use AF for stills, too. In the end it always depends on your needs and the kind of work you're doing but me personally I won't let a computer decide about exposure and focus...

This new XAVC 4k camera will have AF in the manner the FS700 has, including better face detection maybe. That's it in my opinion.

The biggest thing with this new camera will be 4k in XAVC and big sensor (S35) size. So basicly we'll loose AVCHD (yay!), the famous brick design and gain resolution...
 
Also, in that teaser, they couldn't be bothered to white balance? Or hell, color correct?

Took me about 5 seconds:
Screenshot on 2014-09-05 at 01_10_15.jpg
http://d.pr/i/A3Y

I'm getting much more upset than I should be about a teaser.

It's just that when you make and sell cameras, at least hire someone who knows how to use the damn thing.
 
Last edited:
hahaha...so true...learn to use the tools you are selling...that is the least they could do...I agree 100%


jshbckr said:
Also, in that teaser, they couldn't be bothered to white balance? Or hell, color correct?

Took me about 5 seconds:
View attachment 90922
http://d.pr/i/A3Y

I'm getting much more upset than I should be about a teaser.

It's just that when you make and sell cameras, at least hire someone who knows how to use the damn thing.
Click to expand...
 
That was one of the worst teasers and embarrassing for Sony. I don't get it why they don't just announce that on X day we'll have a new camera to show aimed at these customers. End of story.
 
I guess they wanted a 'warm friendly look' personally I think the terrible lighting and awful highlight on the head is what looks awful (ironically enough it looks like it was shot on a 5D!)

I also don't think I'm interested in a camera marketed at 'YouTubers' whatever they are (are they the ones that make all those cat videos?)

"I want a camera that's easy to use" "I want a camera that's really light".

Really?! I want a camera that can shoot nice images. I don't care so much about how heavy or hard it is to use because I'm not seven. Or maybe it's because I'm a professional film maker and not a 'YouTuber'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top