The D600 Really is Out (and Shipping)!

squig said:
I think aliasing is going to be a problem with the 60p 720p, besides the days of suffering 720p 60p are over. The A99 makes more sense: 1080p 60p, same sensor, and HDMI 422 out for another $700. The big question is whether you can dial in a prolost profile. The A99 can't take as many lenses but there's still a lot of lens options. And then there's the GH3 to consider, lower DR but plenty resolution.

I had a look at some 3200 and 6400 ISO jpegs at imaging resource, the MKIII still has the edge in high ISO noise reduction and sharpness (talking stills here but NR is applied in video mode)

I've seen more moire in vimeo downloads than I can tolerate, I'm hoping the A99 has a more video friendly OLPF or has a better downscaling/pixel binning process than Nikon.
Click to expand...


Yep, we are kind of spoiled for choices these days :) The A99 sounds really nice, and I love the innovations that Sony is bringing with 60p and optional XLR connections etc, but the Alpha mount makes it kind of a tough sell for those of us with a video lens collection based on Nikon or Canon lenses. Early whispers are also saying it seems to have quite a lot of aliasing and moire, but I´m not so sure I trust the source on that completely.
Also Nikon is pretty damned good at finetuning these Sony sensors at least for stills, so sharing the same sensor does not necessarily mean the same image quality.

As for the GH-3, I think we are looking at apples and oranges when comparing it to a full frame camera because of the huge difference in sensor size. I really like the GH-3 and hope I can buy one at some point, but they produce radically different looks to my eyes at least.
 
Well... let us know if you test one out Kholi ;) ....

You know, it is a bummer that it's looking like the gh3 won't have 4:2:2 output, but I think the 4:2:0 of yesterday is not the the 4:2:0 of today. I think it's much like codecs: the implementation of the codec matters a great deal. I think there was some speculation about whether the Avisynth solution to get 4:2:2 from the gh2 was actually a true signal, but even if it was, I think the hacks had got so good that it didn't matter.

Really, the theoretical advantage of 4:2:2: over 4:2:0 is supposed to be better color and a better image for grading (and keying). But it'd be really interesting to compare how well say, a d600 uncompressed out grades relative to a high bit rate gh2 hack (for example).
 
I personally think that this camera looks quite good. In terms of pure image quality, I don't know if the Sony A99 is a better camera if you are not going to shoot a lot of slow motion. I am a little disappointed that Nikon did not implement it, because every point and shoot will have it next year and that is the only downside of this camera. If ever the moire/aliasing is really a problem (Which it does not seem at all even what some people say), you can be sure that we will see a mosaic filter for it. Add an external recorder and you have 422 220 mbit prores/dnxhd with super DR full frame camera.

Until now, the Sony A99 videos have been very ugly to say the least. I have seen everything from moire/aliasing/contrasty low DR images. Now it could be operator error but even the promo video are bad. The second thing is that with the slt mirror you are loosing at least 1/3 stop, so low light should normally be lower quality. Now as it is not raw, Sony could have implemented some NR that could perhaps make up for it. Some people prefer cleaner softer image as the 5d3, but perhaps as a photographer I just hate it. I am use to apply NR in post and preserve detail much better than in camera NR that tend to smooth everything and you have much less control. Another thing is the lens mount which is very restrictive compared to the Nikon one. The last thing is price. With a $ 700 difference, you can have a D600 with a hyperdeck shuttle for high bit-rate recording and mosaic filter if need be.

My only grip is the gh3 new pricing. It could have been the best A/B cam at about $ 1000. Everyone from a Nikon D600 to BMC to Canon C100, could have bought it without any problem for at least 1080p at 60 fps for slow motion. Now at $ 1300 body only it is a bit costly. Perhaps I am exaggerating here, will have to see the final camera, but at a lower price point it would have been much more popular even to people that don't have a M43 system.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top