Sony RX10 with 24-200mm constant f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor !
- Thread starter joe1946
- Start date
Humm am I missing something here? I thought Sony's 1" sensor had a 2.27x crop?
Like a 55-450mm range, no?
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
I don't understand what goes on in the Sony idea room. They put ND's in a stills camera form and leave them out on the EA50 because it would hurt stills performance (according to a Sony Rep). Sometimes i swear they just put camera functions on a dart board and throw darts to see what it will have.
2.7x crop in 3:2 Still Photo mode. Other format ratios will have different crop factors.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
To get all those different equivalent focal lengths depending on image aspect ratio, they must be using the diagonal to calculate the crop factor. I never do that: I use the most restrictive axis, usually horizontal.
If I use a FF camera with a 50mm lens, it is 50mm equivalent no matter how I crop my image. Be it 3:2 or 16:9 or 2.40:1, it's always "the look of a 50mm on this FF medium". Yes, I know it's not always the same, I will probably want to use a wider lens for 2.40:1 than for 3:2, but using the diagonal doesn't give me useful information at all.
So, it's a 2.7x crop, and the lens is equivalent to a 24-200mm. And you may lose somethig at the top and bottom if you use a different aspect ratio.
If I use a FF camera with a 50mm lens, it is 50mm equivalent no matter how I crop my image. Be it 3:2 or 16:9 or 2.40:1, it's always "the look of a 50mm on this FF medium". Yes, I know it's not always the same, I will probably want to use a wider lens for 2.40:1 than for 3:2, but using the diagonal doesn't give me useful information at all.
So, it's a 2.7x crop, and the lens is equivalent to a 24-200mm. And you may lose somethig at the top and bottom if you use a different aspect ratio.
Is this then essentially a 8.9-74mm lens (FF equiv) on a sensor that magnifies it by 2.7? (24mm FF equiv seems fairly wide for a small crop sensor, which is a good thing if corners are sharp and no vignetting, etc....)
The 24-200 is an equivalent measure, actual is 8.8-73.3. @Jimagine...Thanks mate.
Last edited:
They obviously had a lot of good ideas on the dart board for this round.
Roberto Suarez
Active member
doubt if it's fake 'cause in one of his videos...he's actually holding the camera !
Roberto Suarez
Active member
Yes, of course, my mistake
I would. It's crap! Just like the RX100 that it basically is, only it doesn't have the excuse of being just a pocket cam. This is just another pill to swallow guys. Lets face it, video on all sony still cams sucks. They just aren't going to undermine the fs700.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I can't watch the video right now, but two comments on video from Sony stills cameras:
* Video from my NEX-5N is recorded as 0-109% range. When you load it into premiere or AE, it clips everything above 100% and looks horrible. If you add some 16-235 levels to bring down the white point, highlights looks a lot better. Like, worlds apart.
* In any case, the distribution of DR as it comes is very much biased towards the shadows: I measured 3 stops above, 6.5 with very little noise below (there's another stop or two more, but noisy). Underexposing a stop or two is not a bad idea if you need to protect some highlights and you can afford to shoot ISO 100.
Somebody still learning how the camera works would screw up big time.
* Video from my NEX-5N is recorded as 0-109% range. When you load it into premiere or AE, it clips everything above 100% and looks horrible. If you add some 16-235 levels to bring down the white point, highlights looks a lot better. Like, worlds apart.
* In any case, the distribution of DR as it comes is very much biased towards the shadows: I measured 3 stops above, 6.5 with very little noise below (there's another stop or two more, but noisy). Underexposing a stop or two is not a bad idea if you need to protect some highlights and you can afford to shoot ISO 100.
Somebody still learning how the camera works would screw up big time.
Roberto Suarez
Active member
Well, that makes a lot of sense, considering also the shaky cam and the whatever subject. I would love to see a cam test footage of an interview, medium shot and three point lights
however badly it was shot the dynamic range is just awful
Darren Levine
Veteran
you clearly have a very limited knowledge of the finer points of video quality and what determines it
thats quite an assumption..
there doesnt seem to be any other videos around except those yet so yes, its too early to say for sure, but theres already 8 pages of peoples pre judgements here, so why shouldn't someone comment on the first example of what the camera is possibly capable of.. the first evidence shows ... awful dynamic range..
I understand your point Samuel, but when you have a chance to see the videos youll unfortunately see not only crushed highlights but simultaneously crushed highlights, blacks and mids..
there doesnt seem to be any other videos around except those yet so yes, its too early to say for sure, but theres already 8 pages of peoples pre judgements here, so why shouldn't someone comment on the first example of what the camera is possibly capable of.. the first evidence shows ... awful dynamic range..
I understand your point Samuel, but when you have a chance to see the videos youll unfortunately see not only crushed highlights but simultaneously crushed highlights, blacks and mids..
I put this down to operator incompetance, and will wait to see what other filmmakers can produce.
The RX10 is not going to replace a Blackmagic Cine camera, or even the Canon C100, but it might turn out to be a great little HD Handy-cam, especially if the lens turns out to be parfocal.