Sony A7RV - October 26th

They only had a specific number of people in the boardroom drawing little pieces of 'paper features' out of a hat, and that one unfortunately didn't get picked.

Now common sense from the consumer side would lead us to believe it should have been added when 3-4 other Sony cameras for less money have it, but papers out of a hat is a very proven model that's best for business.
 
Can’t believe they went with 4:2:0 for 8K! Didn’t they learn their lesson with the A1? They could have at least offered a 4:2:2 or RAW option for external recording but maybe this will
be a firmware fix later on like with the A1 but by then there will probably be more interesting video options. For stills, I’m sure this is a killer option like the previous model but it’s still funny to think that the Nikon Z9 with Sony E adapter would still be the best all around “Sony” camera right now.
 
It does have RAW output, but not 8K - but either does the a1. Most cameras, when using H.265, are 4:2:0. (The a1, for $6500, will likely standalone there, for now.)

Although they have to leave something for the higher-priced cams, 4K/120p shouldn't have been one of the features. (The typical cropping or binning or something else is usually enough.)
 
NorBro said:
Yeah, def niche - but not sure why everyone keeps bothering with the outputs.
Click to expand...

It's one of those "tests to be conducted later". For those who want to record ProRes Raw or BRaw to an SSD or CFexpress A cards. The in-camera pixel-bin appears to be decent quality but an external recording might require external/post processing. Or a crop. Or a combination of the two.

PS. This seems like a setup for A1II with the new processor and higher quality video features. RV is a real hybrid.
 
Every time I wonder if I made a mistake by going Canon RF and if I should have went Sony a new model comes out where Canon still has some advantages. I see the R5 as a much better camera right now. Internal 10bit 8k or even internal raw 8k. Price wise I’m now better off adding a R5 to my R6 and filling in whatever gaps I feel the R6 currently has for video which is not a lot.

Thanks Sony for making this easier for me. I don’t even really care about 3rd party lenses anymore. I’m starting to prefer all native manufacturer lenses anyway. I doubt I will buy a 3rd party lens ever again unless it’s a cinema lens.
 
All of these new releases are boring as hell; same product over and over, just recycled a bit differently.

The new AF sounds cool but at some point you don't need anymore AF unless you want the camera to completely take over for you. Just being able to hold a face for a shallow interview or a simple gimbal walk is enough for 90% with what's already available.

Resolution upgrades are fine, that's natural in the business, but all of them are already so sharp with their modern pixels and counts. You can take 10 different models from the last 2-3 years and I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference anymore (even with the slight color changes).
___

I understand tho...it's like what else are they supposed to do besides improve upon quirky features like AF and IBIS?

Apparently no one can figure out how to capture more dynamic range for the last 10 years, or barely, so there is really nothing left that's exciting besides high-framerates at high-resolutions which always take some kind of crisis to finally come around to.
 
NorBro said:
All of these new releases are boring as hell; same product over and over, just recycled a bit differently.
Click to expand...

I am not too familiar with Sony's product line but as far I see it's the only camera with high resolution for stills that is really suitable for video.
 
Clermond said:
I am not too familiar with Sony's product line but as far I see it's the only camera with high resolution for stills that is really suitable for video.
Click to expand...

A handful of them have been suitable for video and stills depending on the year and what we weren't offered yet. I stopped upgrading stills cameras somewhere around 2012, but if one is narrowing down to only a Sony 60+ MP body with some nice video features then def. Your only other choice would be an a1 for almost twice as much (and 50 MP instead).
 
purely as HR stills camera -- this is Sony finally implementing all the components of a properly designed body (and fully maturing as a platform imo) that I have been looking for to switch. It basically hits every single thing I wanted to see, wondering if the forthcoming Z7III will offer better overall value...but I seriously doubt it. I've been putting it off for a long time but probably gonna have to sell everything and move entirely to Sony. This + A7SIII/FX3 (or FX60) would be a pretty killer combo and I would be under one system which is of course what makes the most sense.

I have two really nice sharp copies of the Sigma 14-24 2.8 & 150-600 5/6.3 in L mount. If you were me would you pay for the $1k for the mount conversion?
 
I feel like most people eventually end up with Sony these days. They have way too much going for them from every direction.

Personally, absolutely would not pay for the mount conversion and would get native beautiful Sony glass to work with their AF. [But I imagine you would have an excruciating time trying to sell the L-mount glass.]
 
NorBro said:
I feel like most people eventually end up with Sony these days. They have way too much going for them from every direction.

Personally, absolutely would not pay for the mount conversion and would get native beautiful Sony glass to work with their AF. [But I imagine you would have an excruciating time trying to sell the L-mount glass.]
Click to expand...

I actually prefer Sigma lenses and have plans to buy the new 20mm 1.4 this year (and pretty clearly looking to be the e mount version). Some of the GM lenses are really well done, but still don't like several of the options. I would go native on their next generation FF PZ video-centric lenses that are obviously coming.
 
NorBro said:
... Apparently no one can figure out how to capture more dynamic range for the last 10 years, or barely, so there is really nothing left that's exciting besides high-framerates at high-resolutions which always take some kind of crisis to finally come around to.
Click to expand...

If you do get 15 stops in stills, what will you watch them on?

As to the rest, as I've been saying - the law of diminishing returns. 8K over 6K, 60 MPX over 45, faster AF by a zillionth of a millisecond. They're playing on the very margins of the human brain.

PS. On the other hand, pre-orders for the electric Hummer with its 1,000 HP motors are in arrears for a couple of years and may not be filled until 2024. And that's a $80,000-$120,000 truck ... pardon, luxury vehicle. In a fully competitive market. Where A7RV would have had 100 MPX and 10K Raw.
 
DLD said:
If you do get 15 stops in stills, what will you watch them on?
Click to expand...

Stills? No stills. Video.

But it's almost never just for watching (although the new generation or anyone interested in HDR workflows and specific devices might be interested in only that).

For everyone else we always wanted more dynamic range for the grading, for the under and over, for the living room and corporate windows to have a little less white blobs when blown out.

I've been shooting the same tests in the same area with dozens and dozens of cameras over the years and every one of them all blew out the windows on a bright sunny day almost exactly the same yet the ARRI Alexa blew it out less to be that much more pleasing, more noticeable. The minor improvements in DR are visually drastic.

And the more dynamic range we have the more we can flex and crush our images and still retain detail in those certain areas.
 
NorBro said:
All of these new releases are boring as hell; same product over and over, just recycled a bit differently.

The new AF sounds cool but at some point you don't need anymore AF unless you want the camera to completely take over for you. Just being able to hold a face for a shallow interview or a simple gimbal walk is enough for 90% with what's already available.

Resolution upgrades are fine, that's natural in the business, but all of them are already so sharp with their modern pixels and counts. You can take 10 different models from the last 2-3 years and I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference anymore (even with the slight color changes).
___

I understand tho...it's like what else are they supposed to do besides improve upon quirky features like AF and IBIS?

Apparently no one can figure out how to capture more dynamic range for the last 10 years, or barely, so there is really nothing left that's exciting besides high-framerates at high-resolutions which always take some kind of crisis to finally come around to.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if Sony continued to improve the quality of their cameras image-wise. By that I don’t mean resolution or anything like that, but aesthetically. Their red channel improvements are clear from the FS to FX line and in the new mirrorless cameras, but the Sony over-sharpened “video” look and colors still don’t look as pleasing IMO compared to the Komodo or even some Blackmagic cameras. I still love my Sony cams for the simple reason that they allow me to GET the shots I want while a Red would still be starting up or having to be black balanced…
 
Sharpness is the #1 deciding separator for our cameras. I vividly remember someone else constantly saying this many years ago but I was too young, too inexperienced to process the thought.

I don't know what is happening with these cameras, and how simple it may or may not be - but the ARRIs, REDs, Blackmagics do not look like Sony or Canon mirrorless'. Even the C200 and the C70 look different than the R5 or R5 C...softer, more pleasing.

But as far as black balancing, all cameras need it. Cinema cameras like the REDs and the C200 allow you to black balance them manually while Blackmagic took after ARRI and those do it upon starting up. Although I do hear you, I wouldn't use black balancing or starting up as any excuse. You only have to black balance them once if you want to (manually) and rarely is anyone in a situation - who uses these cameras - where something is happening and they have to quickly turn the camera on and grab the shots (meaning the cameras are always on and on standby ready to go). Plus the boot times are not as crazy these days.

Anyone who knows me knows how much I absolutely fought tooth and nail and defended the mirrorless' for so long because they were (and still are) the most easiest cameras to operate for how I like to work, but these days I pretty much torture myself by using the exact opposite systems (huge, heavy, slow, manual focus) because I've really grown to hate the over-sharpened video look from all of them.

It's too modern, too YouTube.

I'm finally old! :nads:
 
I will let others with more technical expertise offer details (or corrections) but I believe I read that the current dynamic range of CMOS sensors (which, as NorBro notes, hasn't changed much in ~10 years) is already at or near the theoretical limits of the materials.

ARRI has been getting around this limit with their dual-gain approach but pretty much everyone else is still in the 12-13 stop ballpark, when measured objectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top