FS700/ 5D MKIII/ F3 ISO Battle

To be honest, all these Iso comparisons and tests are starting to sicken me. Yes, it's nice to have nice or no grain once you hit the high numbers, but that is in my oppinion the very least. Things that count more should be color space and how it handles moire / jello, cause honestly, I would always try to shoot as close to correctly exposed as possible with regards to effects used afterwards.
 
legrevedotcom said:
To be honest, all these Iso comparisons and tests are starting to sicken me.
Click to expand...

I don't understand these comments. Nor do I understand all these "slowmo test are boring me!" stuff. This is a technical forum is it not? I love these tests! Only from these tests would I realize that the FS700 has the same kind off shadow noise as the Sony Nex-5n. I hate that aspect of it and hope production versions would be free of it.

Would I know that without these tests? No.
 
As I said in the other thread, it´s no problem that the 700 is more noisy at high ISOs than the F3/FS100, but it´s a problem that it seems to be a lot (!) noiser at low ISOs too. Judging from this video you could not use it for any low key (not lowlight) shots without denoising.
 
It's part of the nature of high-resolution sensors as far as I can tell. You see it Red footage, you see it in 7D footage (and stills), you see it in the vast majority of cameras with high pixel counts.

I think it plays a large part in the reason people are so in love with Alexa footage (and SLOGged F3 to a lesser extent). They look clean and natural, and you don't see the digitalness that video noise tends to convey.

Now it's a problem that can be easily solved by throwing more light at the sensor, but that isn't always easy.
 
Yeah, but then at least they should give us ISO 160, 320 for low noise shooting...
The Canon C300 has 8 megapixels, too and has very low noise.
 
Seems like people gets different results. On Philip Bloom low light candle tests, he said to his eye, he could not tell any difference in noise between the FS100 and FS700 in low light or normal light. He was expecting the FS700 to be worse due to the 4K sensor, but he could not tell the difference. I wonder if PB used a different profile?

On the FS700 test, I did find the noise on the lower ISO to be not so good though. I hope this is a profile issue, but who knows, could just be wishful thinking.
 
I think it's funny that the obscenely high and clean ISOs of the FS100 have now become the datum and anything less than that is a bit of a disappointment.

Don't like any of the skin tone colours in those clips, they range from mildly unwell to been dead two days...

I'm ever so glad he grew in some Slo-mo for good measure....wouldn't be a FS700 clip without it!
 
It could be that the prototypes were better. I totally believe what PB and Frank said but this new video is a production model. Maybe they were not able to get the same picture quality into the production model. Maybe it was too good and would have cannibalised the F3.
 
I think from a marketing standpoint, making the Beta model better than the actual production model would be a total fail. Why? Because when you issue a beta model, people at the very least, expect the production model to be as good, if not better than the production model. For Sony to downgrade the lowlight abilities and increase the noise in the final model would really hurt their credibility IMO. Plus, it makes no sense if in Blooms testes, the FS100 and 700 were the same, why would then make the final version of the FS700 worse than the less expensive FS100?

But who knows. After dealing with Canon for the last few years, I've realized that camera manufactures (mainly Canon) are a shifty, greedy bunch. Sony seems to be taking the high road though with the FS700, and I hope they prove me right.

At the very least, the better colors, less sensor reflections and better highlights on the FS700 are worth it for a bit more noise. That is, unless they made it worse in the Final model :)
 
FelixGER said:
It could be that the prototypes were better. I totally believe what PB and Frank said but this new video is a production model. Maybe they were not able to get the same picture quality into the production model. Maybe it was too good and would have cannibalised the F3.
Click to expand...

I don't know what cinegamma 2 is like on the FS700 but if you're strapped for light then the obvious answer is a less contrasty gamma curve and less gain/iso in the real world.
 
I don´t know but I hope it´s a profile problem.

He specifically states: From my observations the FS700 struggled the most out the 3 cameras. It tended to produce the most noise. I think once you start going over about 1600 ISO you have to watch out for noise that may start to appear in your footage that could cause it to be unusable.

We all know that does not sound like the FS100 at all! ISO 1600 or 9 dB gain never produced unusable images with the 100.
 
Admit One said:
But take a look at the white stencil writing on his shirt just above the bottom of the frame on the Sony's. Sensor reflection or overexposed spill?

Cheers.
Click to expand...

Yeah, could be.

On the Abel Cine side by side candle tests, the sensor reflections on the FS700 was leagues better than the FS100. On the same series of tests, Andy remarked that in terms of noise, it was very similar between the 2 cameras.

But who knows. I guess we'll just have to see when the masses get the cameras. I'm sure there will be a flood of tests.
 
Why not just wait until a lot more people have more samples of the final production FS700 and are able to do a greater variety of controlled tests?

I wouldn't get all in a knot - or come to any permanent conclusions (and esp. not start spreading this information) - until that's the case. This is ONE VIDEO.

Sheesh. We see this happening now on this board with EVERY SINGLE CAMERA released...
 
@Felix - you cant lower sensor sensitivity below the native sensitivity.

@Gene: yes, there are differences in noise behavior at different PPs.
How much noise you get, is mainly influenced by Black Level, Black Gamma, Gamma and even the color depth settings.
That is true to the FS100 and 700.

Frank
 
gene_can_sing said:
Seems like people gets different results. On Philip Bloom low light candle tests, he said to his eye, he could not tell any difference in noise between the FS100 and FS700 in low light or normal light. He was expecting the FS700 to be worse due to the 4K sensor, but he could not tell the difference. I wonder if PB used a different profile?

On the FS700 test, I did find the noise on the lower ISO to be not so good though. I hope this is a profile issue, but who knows, could just be wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I believe Philip Bloom said he did notice more noise on the FS700 but not as much as he had originally thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top