Sony A7sii vs Ursa Mini 4K Lowlight

I'm not sure how much use this test is as a 'low light test'? Did you get a chance to push the ISOs and on static scenes to see the noise and type of noise?

It's like taking a ferrari and a ford and driving them both at 30mph. For low light you need to push the ISOs to compare.

Also workflow is a key issue the Ursa is RAW which should give a big advantage to getting the most out.

Then there's range. With the moon shot ideally you should clip when you can still see detail in the moon, then raise the shadows to see how much detail each camera can hold across the range.

Do you have any sample RAW files with high ISO performance? That's the one area of the Ursa that concerns. And i assume this is the 4k URSA not the 4.6k?

cheers
Paul
 
I actually wanted to see how the Ursa Mini 4k handled around the same settings. We all know that the sony a7sII beats the Ursa Mini 4k in lowlight but It was more important for me to show people how the ursa mini 4k did at max ISO and aperture.
 
Jim Ritscher said:
Hmmm. What were the setups, lenses, and ISO in both cases? Without such information, it's not a real test.
Click to expand...

Sorry if my tone was a little snippy, but I get frustrated when people do tests and don’t list complete set ups, which make the tests titillating but not ultimately useful. No it’s not in the video. You seem to be trying to prove that the Mini is as good in low light as the A7Sii, and I find that hard to believe. What picture profiles were you using on the A7Sii and on the Mini?
The Ferrari and Ford contrast was funny, and seems apt.
 
nice test, but just can't get past the ursa mini looking so much richer and filmic than the a7s ii. Just so pleasing and organic looking over the a7s
 
theillestmc12 said:
I actually wanted to see how the Ursa Mini 4k handled around the same settings. We all know that the sony a7sII beats the Ursa Mini 4k in lowlight but It was more important for me to show people how the ursa mini 4k did at max ISO and aperture.
Click to expand...

I understand that but that's not really a low light test though.

I'm just saying that if you're lucky enough to have both side by side it would be useful to tell how far can you push the ursa before it becomes too noisy, compared to the current king of low light.

I've always felt that ISO performance is the ursa's biggest issue, i'm keen on the 4.6k version but would need to be happy with that side first

cheers
Paul
 
No doubt the Ursa has a wonderful image. I too have some light sensitivity question marks before I would buy one. I don't need 'see in the dark sensitivity', just very clean up to ISO 1600. The 4.6 might be able to deliver on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top