dustylense
Veteran
It's not even worth a try for AF with the metabones. Which is why I bought the 24-70 FE. Had to have at least one native lens. I was so impressed with the stills of of the A7s I went out and bought the A7r too.
Why I'm Keeping the Sony A7S
- Thread starter eddavid
- Start date
ectobuilder
Veteran
I just wrapped up filming/photographing a 3-day basketball outdoor tournament. And for day 3, for stills, I set the 70D to [19-point auto selection] instead of [zone AF] AND put the shutter way higher than the previous day to 1/4000 and the images appear much more sharper than the day before. Easily matching the A7S, and it did so at 7fps instead of 2.5fps.
So as an FYI the 70D is a very capable sports camera! But I'm still suprised at the A7S capability for photographing sports given its slow 2.5fps (can do 5fps with no AF in between frames) and Contrast Detection. Note that the silent shutter on the A7S did photos very well during the basketball tournament also.
EDIT (I just examined the rest of the test footage so here are my other observations).
One thing the 70D absolutely destroyed the A7S in was AF when recording video. The 70D with its dual pixel phase detection is the most invaluable feature of any camera I've seen. Putting it head to head with the A7S taught me that acquiring focus on command with no hunting and reliably is more important than a super clean, high iso image such as the A7S. For this reason, for my purposes anyways, I would go with the 70D over the A7S unless it gets super dark.
I noticed during video recording with AF turned on, the A7S doesn't really hunt but has super slow AF or it will get stuck not focusing. I think the engineers, to deal with the lack of phase detection, programmed the A7S to NOT FOCUS in place of HUNTING. In other words, in situations where the Contrast Detection would have hunted, the A7S instead delays the focus until it is sure which direction to drive the focus mechanism on the lens.
The A7S does have a quirk over the 70D however: When recording video, the [AF-ON] function only works when you are in [AF-C Mode], there is no [AF-S Mode] when recording video like on the 70D. The [AF ON] feature implemented on the 70D allows you to drive focus by holding down a button, once you release the button the focusing system does not continue to drive focus. On the A7S however because you need to be in [AF-C Mode], when you release the [AF-ON] button, the A7S will continue to drive focus until you turn off [AF-C Mode] and put it into [MANUAL FOCUS]. This feature was very annoying on the A7S. On top of that, the [AF-ON] feature of the A7S has lots of hunting whereas the 70D has minimal hunting (it hunts only when the lens starts near the minimal focus point or infinity AND your field of view starts completely out of focus). The C300's hybrid AF solves this issue.
I just hope whatever Canon brings out next will be like the 70D (with the hybrid AF) but with the A7S low light and video centric features (i.e. you can magnify the image as you are recording). That would be the killer camera to go for.
So as an FYI the 70D is a very capable sports camera! But I'm still suprised at the A7S capability for photographing sports given its slow 2.5fps (can do 5fps with no AF in between frames) and Contrast Detection. Note that the silent shutter on the A7S did photos very well during the basketball tournament also.
EDIT (I just examined the rest of the test footage so here are my other observations).
One thing the 70D absolutely destroyed the A7S in was AF when recording video. The 70D with its dual pixel phase detection is the most invaluable feature of any camera I've seen. Putting it head to head with the A7S taught me that acquiring focus on command with no hunting and reliably is more important than a super clean, high iso image such as the A7S. For this reason, for my purposes anyways, I would go with the 70D over the A7S unless it gets super dark.
I noticed during video recording with AF turned on, the A7S doesn't really hunt but has super slow AF or it will get stuck not focusing. I think the engineers, to deal with the lack of phase detection, programmed the A7S to NOT FOCUS in place of HUNTING. In other words, in situations where the Contrast Detection would have hunted, the A7S instead delays the focus until it is sure which direction to drive the focus mechanism on the lens.
The A7S does have a quirk over the 70D however: When recording video, the [AF-ON] function only works when you are in [AF-C Mode], there is no [AF-S Mode] when recording video like on the 70D. The [AF ON] feature implemented on the 70D allows you to drive focus by holding down a button, once you release the button the focusing system does not continue to drive focus. On the A7S however because you need to be in [AF-C Mode], when you release the [AF-ON] button, the A7S will continue to drive focus until you turn off [AF-C Mode] and put it into [MANUAL FOCUS]. This feature was very annoying on the A7S. On top of that, the [AF-ON] feature of the A7S has lots of hunting whereas the 70D has minimal hunting (it hunts only when the lens starts near the minimal focus point or infinity AND your field of view starts completely out of focus). The C300's hybrid AF solves this issue.
I just hope whatever Canon brings out next will be like the 70D (with the hybrid AF) but with the A7S low light and video centric features (i.e. you can magnify the image as you are recording). That would be the killer camera to go for.
Last edited:
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Not that I have much intention to do so but it occurs to me that the A7S would make a pretty great camera for a set photographer, given the silent shutter (no blimp needed) and the high ISO capabilities, which would allow for a fast shutter speed even on sets that are lit to a low level for today's sensitive cameras.
Was watching a photographer fiddle with a blimp on set the other day and thinking the same thing. Even if the A7S has poor autofocus compared with dSLRs, it's certain to be a lot better than the awkwardness of using a blimp.
squig
Veteran
After 3 days with mine I can say it's a GREAT little camera for film and photography. I've been testing it up against the 5D MK3 raw and I think the Sony colours are much more natural and have more depth. The 8bit S-log to prores4444 is even outclassing the 5D DNG files in the grade. The shots out of the A7s look great after applying an s-curve and I find myself spending a lot of time trying to get the 5D to look anywhere near as good. The A7s has a bit more dynamic range too.
I really like the size and weight of the A7s, it reminds of my FM2, I always thought the 5D's where a bit too heavy but the A7s with vintage primes is the closest thing to a 35mm SLR yet. The video it produces in S-log isn't far behind the stills which again is amazing for 8bit. 4k will be even better. The only thing that really pisses me off is the full frame rolling shutter but at least there's the option to shoot in APS-C mode and cut the rolling shutter down to under 20ms (just below 5d MK3 RS).
I've gotta do a lot more testing but if the A7s keeps wiping the floor with the 5D the 5D will be paying for a Shogun.
I really like the size and weight of the A7s, it reminds of my FM2, I always thought the 5D's where a bit too heavy but the A7s with vintage primes is the closest thing to a 35mm SLR yet. The video it produces in S-log isn't far behind the stills which again is amazing for 8bit. 4k will be even better. The only thing that really pisses me off is the full frame rolling shutter but at least there's the option to shoot in APS-C mode and cut the rolling shutter down to under 20ms (just below 5d MK3 RS).
I've gotta do a lot more testing but if the A7s keeps wiping the floor with the 5D the 5D will be paying for a Shogun.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I will take that as a bit of an overstatement, but in any case it's a very good sign that you would say such a thing. So much for the "anything 8-bit is useless" meme. The proof is in the pudding, and I haven't experienced any 8-bit-related issues in the files I've played with.
squig
Veteran
I'll let you know for sure once I've played with it enough but so far the 8bit files have held up well, sure they're a bit fragile but there's less needed to be done to them so it kinda evens out. The 5D files just need more work to look as good as the A7s and I'm not feeling like there's any advantage to having the 14bit files. The wider colour gamut and extra dynamic range compensates for the 8bit. Plus remember I've only been recording to prores4444 which is really solid, card's coming tomorrow.
cpc
Well-known member
I have to disagree with Squig. I haven't seen any video (or stills from a video) coming from the a7s that feels as smooth and rich in gradation as proper 5dm3 raw footage.
Not sure what you mean with wide gamut compensating for 8-bit?
BTW, anyone know what the pro, cinema and movie color modes designate? Rec709/sRGB with some tweaking colors around inside the space?
Not sure what you mean with wide gamut compensating for 8-bit?
BTW, anyone know what the pro, cinema and movie color modes designate? Rec709/sRGB with some tweaking colors around inside the space?
Samuel H
Major Contributor
The 8-bit color space in the a7s can't possibly give you smoother or richer gradation than the 14-bit linear 5D3+RAW files. I *guess* what he means is that the gradation is good enough even with only 8 bits to work with, and that other related qualities of the image (color accuracy and tonality) are actually better on the a7s, so much so that he seems to be liking the a7s images better.
squig
Veteran
Have a look at that C100 vs A7s clip on vimeo. The A7s has MUCH richer greens. Once you go beyond Adobe RGB it's mostly greens. The A7s has a wider gamut than the 5D. The 5D just can't match it. I heard a lot of nature photographers are ditching their Canons and Nikons for Sony for the colours. The last DSLR I had with colours that I really liked was the D90. The D5200 was good too but the A7s with S-Log feels like raw.
Look at this rubbish
Not quite right but not bad considering how far I stretched it. There's a bit of banding on the wall but that's just bad lighting, bad exposure, and bad white balance. Can't expect miracles from any camera.
squig
Veteran
If Resolve had a really nice debayer then maybe, maybe I could make the 5D look better but the colours still suck. The ACR debayer is much better but I'm still getting better results working on the A7s s-curve. The raw files have better gradation but I have to stretch them that much further to get the look. Much more testing to be done.
cpc
Well-known member
Its good that the A7S is working for you.
Let me try to illustrate what I mean with a few pictures (as always, open in a new tab/window for full size).
These are from a Resolve 10 debayered 5dm3 raw project with some basic CC (and no NR).
There is substance in skin which I just don't see in 8-bit s-log2 footage. S-log2 can certainly look nice, but mostly has this thin look and feel which I usually get from underexposed and pushed images (both film and digital). Some overexposure is certainly helping 8-bit s-log2 deliver healthier skin though (as your example above also demonstrates).
Edit:
A note about the greens.
Don't know about the A7S but I've been shooting a Nex-6 for an year and a half and I don't particularly like the greens. Too bright, too clean. Too digital, one might say. But easy to move around in post, so no big deal. FWIW, Canon cameras seem to have them a bit more subdued, and also dirtier (more filmic).
Let me try to illustrate what I mean with a few pictures (as always, open in a new tab/window for full size).
These are from a Resolve 10 debayered 5dm3 raw project with some basic CC (and no NR).
There is substance in skin which I just don't see in 8-bit s-log2 footage. S-log2 can certainly look nice, but mostly has this thin look and feel which I usually get from underexposed and pushed images (both film and digital). Some overexposure is certainly helping 8-bit s-log2 deliver healthier skin though (as your example above also demonstrates).
Edit:
A note about the greens.
Don't know about the A7S but I've been shooting a Nex-6 for an year and a half and I don't particularly like the greens. Too bright, too clean. Too digital, one might say. But easy to move around in post, so no big deal. FWIW, Canon cameras seem to have them a bit more subdued, and also dirtier (more filmic).
Last edited:
photochris
Well-known member
It makes sense that AF-S doesn't work when shooting video since the shutter is disabled. When set to MF, you can use the button in the AF/MF switch for push-button AF, even when recording. If there's lots of contrast its quick, if not well... But what you're really up against is the limitations without phase detection and a mirror, the A7s is never going to touch the AF of even a low end a DSLR. Just get a parfocal zoom and hone your manual focusing skills. :laugh:
cyork
Well-known member
cpc, those look fantastic. The bottom one looks a little pushed in the skin but that middle shot is wow (the light works well in that shot). I don't have anything shot to match but yeah, working for good skin on the A7s has been tougher coming from the BMCC world for me.
Shaded, sunset light but the I tried to mimic the overall saturation levels in your shots. I don't know, I haven't had a chance to put any pretty people in flattering scenes with awesomo light with this cam yet. I think noise reduction would help smooth out the overall look but heck, I like grain in my shots so it'd be interesting to see grained footage from both wit the same scene and light.
Shaded, sunset light but the I tried to mimic the overall saturation levels in your shots. I don't know, I haven't had a chance to put any pretty people in flattering scenes with awesomo light with this cam yet. I think noise reduction would help smooth out the overall look but heck, I like grain in my shots so it'd be interesting to see grained footage from both wit the same scene and light.
Last edited:
Its good that the A7S is working for you.
Let me try to illustrate what I mean with a few pictures (as always, open in a new tab/window for full size).
These are from a Resolve 10 debayered 5dm3 raw project with some basic CC (and no NR).
There is substance in skin which I just don't see in 8-bit s-log2 footage. S-log2 can certainly look nice, but mostly has this thin look and feel which I usually get from underexposed and pushed images (both film and digital). Some overexposure is certainly helping 8-bit s-log2 deliver healthier skin though (as your example above also demonstrates).
Edit:
A note about the greens.
Don't know about the A7S but I've been shooting a Nex-6 for an year and a half and I don't particularly like the greens. Too bright, too clean. Too digital, one might say. But easy to move around in post, so no big deal. FWIW, Canon cameras seem to have them a bit more subdued, and also dirtier (more filmic).
There's certainly a very prominent depth to cinemaDNG that I actually don't see in other RAW formats, and you definitely aren't getting it with the A7S no matter which way you grab the footage. I think the 8-bit's good, these stills help to illustrate what the differences are for those of us familiar with shooting various formats.
The other thing I like about these stills? No Film Convert. THey look great as is, and you wouldn't have to hand them off to someone and tell them to find Impulz or FC or something like that. Not that I have an issue with FC or Impulz (I really like FC actually, when applied appropriately) but that just isn't something I feel can be relied on ... unless you're just doing work for yourself.
Anyway, just my thoughts. A7S 8-bit's pretty good, so's the 4K out for what it all is.
cyork
Well-known member
No Filmconvert on that last still I posted. Not saying it's as rich as a Cinema DNG or even graded well but it is straight up 3 way. The only way to really know if we're not just puffing smoke out our asses is a blind test anyway . Given the choice, I'd choose the bajillion colors over the million colors, especially if the clients can tell 
Last edited:
cpc- I agree that 14-bit 5D3 RAW is still the best overall look for the money. Canon's color science, (very) especially for skintones, has not been matched by anyone else (ARRI exceeds it ). We use the 5D3, FS700, GH4, and A7S. Each camera has strengths and features not offered by the others. Top features: 5D3: color, FS700: slomo, GH4: 4K in-camera, A7S: low-light/DR.
We tend to shoot a lot with new gear during the honeymoon period. Once that wears off we use the gear that works best for the situation.
). We use the 5D3, FS700, GH4, and A7S. Each camera has strengths and features not offered by the others. Top features: 5D3: color, FS700: slomo, GH4: 4K in-camera, A7S: low-light/DR.We tend to shoot a lot with new gear during the honeymoon period. Once that wears off we use the gear that works best for the situation.
No Filmconvert on that last still I posted. Not saying it's as rich as a Cinema DNG or even graded well but it is straight up 3 way. The only way to really know if we're not just puffing smoke out our asses is a blind test anyway . Given the choice, I'd choose the bajillion colors over the million colors, especially if the clients can tell
Hey Cyork,
Was taking forever to formulate a response to CPC so I didn't see your post until after. Wasn't referring to your still. Just a general thought since FC and Impulz were part of the A7S conversation.
I'd be okay with a double blind, and would be willing to bet as long as there wat'nt any foolery going on, I could pick 5D3, BMD, and A7S apart without scratching my head. =P Especially in motion.
cpc- I agree that 14-bit 5D3 RAW is still the best overall look for the money. Canon's color science, (very) especially for skintones, has not been matched by anyone else (ARRI exceeds it
We tend to shoot a lot with new gear during the honeymoon period. Once that wears off we use the gear that works best for the situation.
Indeeddddddddd although I disagree about Color Science. I'm much more on board with BMD, and I actually think the F35 beats out Alexa for color.
cyork
Well-known member
Wasn't sure but thought I would clarify in any case. I'm not going saying 8bit is going to come close to the color potential of 10bit raw but for certain looks, it's likely few people with spot the difference, especially for web deliveries. The MKIII stuff looks great and I'd be looking to use that on just about any fashion based ad work, maybe outdoor companies for that punchy smoothed over look it brings. The A7s will be an A cam on cheaper gigs and B cam for certain shots on large budget shoots. Heck, the MKIII isn't that different in price, so it might be another tool in the kit sooner or later.
I guess, what I'm getting at is that I see a lot of people delivering projects shot on really high end cams that have to be soaking up their budgets when they could have dressed up a cheaper but competent camera and still impressed. If the clients are savvy, I can see that being harder to get away with but for a lot of them, would they notice the difference? Probably not. Could it still look amazing and put some of those expenses into other places (perhaps the pockets of the crew)? I think so. Pretty excited about these budget cams as they really put a much larger spotlight on the talent in control of the cameras. You can spend 40k on a body or 4k and that would say nothing about talent, storytelling, concept, light shaping or anything else.
In other words, money isn't keeping talent out of the game and it sure is nice to lug less stuff around to get great shots!
I guess, what I'm getting at is that I see a lot of people delivering projects shot on really high end cams that have to be soaking up their budgets when they could have dressed up a cheaper but competent camera and still impressed. If the clients are savvy, I can see that being harder to get away with but for a lot of them, would they notice the difference? Probably not. Could it still look amazing and put some of those expenses into other places (perhaps the pockets of the crew)? I think so. Pretty excited about these budget cams as they really put a much larger spotlight on the talent in control of the cameras. You can spend 40k on a body or 4k and that would say nothing about talent, storytelling, concept, light shaping or anything else.
In other words, money isn't keeping talent out of the game and it sure is nice to lug less stuff around to get great shots!