Sony A7SIII = $3500, 10-bit 4K120p internal, 16-bit 4K60p RAW out
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
ahalpert
Major Contributor
So strange- I tested that link when I reposted it but now it's dead.
I only saved one clip from that bunch of unedited footage, but I have put it on Google drive if anyone is interested - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H7W9NtuuBobl9rno67YwheQeX5OOujCF/view?usp=drivesdk
Bassman2003
Veteran
ozmorphasis
Well-known member
I can't quite warm up to the motion in any of these examples. It looks very video to me, and not just in the HFR shots. I wonder what that is. I can see it being used to great success for nature/nat geo type material, but pretty much everything that involves a person in the shot looks unflattering in terms of motion. Detail and color are not bad at all of course. There is also a smoothness/plasticky look to the textures that looks like noise reduction, but I'd have to play with it myself in a bunch of different iso settings and environments to have a strong opinion on how much I could work with that.
Biggest issue with the image so far is the motion.
Biggest issue with the image so far is the motion.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Norbro, Yes, for the most part. I am not always looking for cinema type looks but just solid images. I color correct a lot in post and push & pull images quite a bit, so I am not opposed to LUTs. I know that non-LOG shooting is not cool but I did not see a lot of difference in Brandon's video to dismiss the standard settings. Having said this, I do not know the color accuracy of the standard settings. I would love to have a color matrix or some way to paint the picture profiles more than is offered. But it is nice to know the camera looks pleasing at its core.
The motion has been my big hangup for this camera or often Sony in general. I did not see as much of an issue with Brandon's footage as in others though.
The motion has been my big hangup for this camera or often Sony in general. I did not see as much of an issue with Brandon's footage as in others though.
NorBro
Major Contributor
All of the other settings/profiles/styles would be great if the dynamic range was there.
That is the main reason people use the LOGs (besides crazy colorists) because honestly who else would deal with a gray LOG workflow if you had the same highlight handling in a profile that already had great contrast and beautiful colors.
The answer is no one.
But point a non-LOG setting at some strong light and it's a complete white blob versus what you'd capture with S-Log2/3. That's the big difference and is well worth it. (And there's also HLG for consideration.)
But indoors with no strong lighting, mixed environments/windows, you don't need dynamic range, IMO...especially for work in which people would never notice a difference.
(And there is a color matrix available to dial in a tint into the white balance and some other controls for saturation and other settings.)
That is the main reason people use the LOGs (besides crazy colorists) because honestly who else would deal with a gray LOG workflow if you had the same highlight handling in a profile that already had great contrast and beautiful colors.
The answer is no one.
But point a non-LOG setting at some strong light and it's a complete white blob versus what you'd capture with S-Log2/3. That's the big difference and is well worth it. (And there's also HLG for consideration.)
But indoors with no strong lighting, mixed environments/windows, you don't need dynamic range, IMO...especially for work in which people would never notice a difference.
(And there is a color matrix available to dial in a tint into the white balance and some other controls for saturation and other settings.)
Bassman2003
Veteran
I agree. I know all about the stated benefits of the LOG workflow. But, I guess they were not that glaring in the side by sides of Brandon's review. My interest is that the difference did not show to be that large. 10bit and some post work will get the two pretty close. It is nice that both will be viable options.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Yeah, when you watch clips of the standard profiles not being challenged or stressed, the results will be practically identical. This can include filming in golden hours, using ND, filming in shade, avoiding reflective surfaces, etc.
But open up these blinds and show a "side-by-side" and you will see a big difference. LOG will blowout too but much more detail will be captured (instead of a white blob).
But open up these blinds and show a "side-by-side" and you will see a big difference. LOG will blowout too but much more detail will be captured (instead of a white blob).
Bassman2003
Veteran
In theory, but the side by side shows fairly equal highlights but actually more exposure in the low mids and lows on the standard profile. Not totally conclusive but at least showing that the S-LOG3 is not killing it.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I mean...the results above are expected, man.
That scene has zero dynamic range challenging it. (We also don't know the exposure details.)
But look at the top right...white blob is starting and more pronounced in the standard (you can see a bit more branch detail on the left).
But challenge the profile more and you will see a difference, I promise you. I only commented on it this far because I had a feeling you really didn't understand, and you were trusting this video too much.
It's not my personal opinion; it's how it works. I have seen the differences in dozens and dozens of cameras. With my own eyes, not on YouTube.
That scene has zero dynamic range challenging it. (We also don't know the exposure details.)
But look at the top right...white blob is starting and more pronounced in the standard (you can see a bit more branch detail on the left).
But challenge the profile more and you will see a difference, I promise you. I only commented on it this far because I had a feeling you really didn't understand, and you were trusting this video too much.
It's not my personal opinion; it's how it works. I have seen the differences in dozens and dozens of cameras. With my own eyes, not on YouTube.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Although there are dozens of videos online truly showing the differences in real world productions, I just now made my own test to show you an example of a harsh scenario to exacerbate the limited DR you have on standard profiles.
Pocket 4K, f/2.8, ISO 400...left the white towel in the foreground to show the DOF stayed the same (no exposure changes). A random LED pointed at the products. Filmed seconds apart.
A VIDEO profile (aka standard) vs. FILM (aka S-LOG2/3).
It's of course a different camera, but the results will undoubtedly be the same when challenged. (And the same/similar when not.)
Pocket 4K, f/2.8, ISO 400...left the white towel in the foreground to show the DOF stayed the same (no exposure changes). A random LED pointed at the products. Filmed seconds apart.
A VIDEO profile (aka standard) vs. FILM (aka S-LOG2/3).
It's of course a different camera, but the results will undoubtedly be the same when challenged. (And the same/similar when not.)
Bassman2003
Veteran
I am not disagreeing with you. I just noticed how good the standard profile was looking in his footage. As a shooter that used the camera for two months and is capable of shooting S-LOG the entire time, he chose to say the standard profile was his choice. I think that is a good sign.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Brandon Li is using his own setup for "standard", which is not standard at all: he sets highlights to min, shadows to max, and DRO to max. I'm not so surprised this gets close to slog DR, but my past experience with max DRO wasn't that nice (on the -very old- NEX-5N it was an adaptative setting that can create weird results in some situaitons; I stopped using it on the a7S, which had slog)
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Any time you have practical lights in frame will exceed the DR of a contrasty profile. And they're all over the place
ahalpert
Major Contributor
So who is ordering one?
I pre-ordered one on launch day and so far have had no reason to change my mind. The features and strengths of the camera are nearly perfect for how I'll use it. The finer points of IQ versus other cameras are irrelevant to me if those cameras are missing the features/form factor of this small AF camera in the first place
Bassman2003
Veteran
Samuel, I would expect us all to setup the camera to suit our goals. The main thing is if the camera responds. If a non-LOG mode can come close to a LOG mode in terms of performance & color accuracy, that is a good thing.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
Lights in those cases are okay; no one's going to go insane making sure every light bulb in the room isn't overexposed.
Same with your thoughts on the sun...you will have to let it go some days, lol.
Bassman2003
Veteran
So who is ordering one?
I am closer! I love the Canon colors and the still capabilities but I really like having and XLR unit to interface with the camera (as the Panny GH series has). No, it is not as good as a dedicated recorder, but it is very convenient and good enough quality. So the Sony having this is a huge plus for me. If Canon chose to utilize their hot shoe XLR unit I would lean towards the R5. But they probably won't. I want an all around workhorse camera for handheld, gimbal as well as tripod produced stuff to replace my GH5. Wish I could stay in the same brand for lenses which makes me wish for the Canon. Complex decisions unless you just want to buy everything!