FS7: Would You Buy A Panasonic AU-EVA1?

broughtonfilm said:
Bulls*%t. So much depends on proper mastering of the video. Even things like rendering of motion, texture and some barely tangible things which I would describe as camera's character get greatly affected by post but also choices made on set. No, you can't see through it, especially if you have never shot with the particular camera. I've seen awful videoish crap and breathtaking works coming from every camera.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, was I talking about post production choices? No! I was talking about the influence of ONLINE VIEWING. Made sure to capitalize that this time around so you don't miss it again.

Post production choices are a different story. But since I was talking about camera demos, which manufacturer would be stupid enough not to follow the post production path which makes their camera look best? So if a camera looks like video in a manufacturer's demo, huge chances this is the best it can look. If the rolling shutter is bad, ditto. And so on. I'm not talking about random videos online. I would think a manufacturer's demo would hire professionals and put enough effort in it not to make a post production mistake.

So if I like everything I see in a demo and my problem is only compression and other things that could be related to ONLINE VIEWING, then I will bother checking the camera out in person. If compression and noise is the last of the problems, because the image looks like video, skins are bad, rolling shutter is bad or any other issue not affected by ONLINE VIEWING, then it's a pass for me. If that is because of a manufacturer's bad post production decision, that's on them and their loss. They should know what they are doing. It's their camera.
 
A soft'er film like image can be obtained by the on-camera filtration and film emulation software in post. A $1,000 BMD Pocket cam can look like "film" (albeit 16mm film). Filter choices depend on the director and the DP of each project.
 
DLD said:
A soft'er film like image can be obtained by the on-camera filtration and film emulation software in post. A $1,000 BMD Pocket cam can look like "film" (albeit 16mm film). Filter choices depend on the director and the DP of each project.
Click to expand...

IMO making it softer doesn't make it look like film. The other day I was watching Man of Steel in 4K and it looked sharp and still like film. Because it's film.
 
Sttratos said:
Excuse me, was I talking about post production choices? No! I was talking about the influence of ONLINE VIEWING. Made sure to capitalize that this time around so you don't miss it again.

Post production choices are a different story. But since I was talking about camera demos, which manufacturer would be stupid enough not to follow the post production path which makes their camera look best? So if a camera looks like video in a manufacturer's demo, huge chances this is the best it can look. If the rolling shutter is bad, ditto. And so on. I'm not talking about random videos online. I would think a manufacturer's demo would hire professionals and put enough effort in it not to make a post production mistake.

So if I like everything I see in a demo and my problem is only compression and other things that could be related to ONLINE VIEWING, then I will bother checking the camera out in person. If compression and noise is the last of the problems, because the image looks like video, skins are bad, rolling shutter is bad or any other issue not affected by ONLINE VIEWING, then it's a pass for me. If that is because of a manufacturer's bad post production decision, that's on them and their loss. They should know what they are doing. It's their camera.
Click to expand...

In reality, we are not talking about very obvious camera characteristics but nuances, and it's the nuances that get affected by decisions made on set and in post. How do you define "best it can look" ? It is very relative, some DP's like crisp, saturated images with well defined edges, some like softer, more monochromatic look. This difference in turn often affects perception of sharpness and even rendering of motion (more contrasty edges of objects stuttering in pan more than softer ones, etc). It's a matter of preferences. What you say is almost as if you were one of those people who believe in "the best car in the world" type of thing. I once posted a video shot with FS7 in which I changed a hue of the blues. Video got many likes and people were commenting how the camera was "cinematic" because blues looked like from Alexa, and that it meant the camera's sensor was like Alexa, and that Sony learned the lesson, blah, blah, blah, and that they we sold on the camera. Even when talking about EVA1 particularly, there's a debate over whether noise reduction should have been applied in post or not, some would argue they actually did not make it look "best it can look". There are tens of places in post chain where characteristics of the camera can get changed and unless you at least have a point of reference in form of your own experience with the particular camera, you won't be able to tell if it's the camera or its post that you like / don't like (of course when it's not extreme such as SD video from a security camera). The bigger the capital letters you put in your responses, the more obvious you make it that you don't get it.
 
broughtonfilm said:
In reality, we are not talking about very obvious camera characteristics but nuances, and it's the nuances that get affected by decisions made on set and in post. How do you define "best it can look" ? It is very relative, some DP's like crisp, saturated images with well defined edges, some like softer, more monochromatic look. This difference in turn often affects perception of sharpness and even rendering of motion (more contrasty edges of objects stuttering in pan more than softer ones, etc). It's a matter of preferences. What you say is almost as if you were one of those people who believe in "the best car in the world" type of thing. I once posted a video shot with FS7 in which I changed a hue of the blues. Video got many likes and people were commenting how the camera was "cinematic" because blues looked like from Alexa, and that it meant the camera's sensor was like Alexa, and that Sony learned the lesson, blah, blah, blah, and that they we sold on the camera. Even when talking about EVA1 particularly, there's a debate over whether noise reduction should have been applied in post or not, some would argue they actually did not make it look "best it can look". There are tens of places in post chain where characteristics of the camera can get changed and unless you at least have a point of reference in form of your own experience with the particular camera, you won't be able to tell if it's the camera or its post that you like / don't like (of course when it's not extreme such as SD video from a security camera). The bigger the capital letters you put in your responses, the more obvious you make it that you don't get it.
Click to expand...

I don't get it? I could basically just copy and paste my last reply to you here. Because you went on about the same thing which I had already replied to. It is almost like you are not reading. But OK. I will take another crack at explaining it.

I already said post choices matter. I also said if the manufacturer makes post choices which make their own camera look bad in their demo it's their own fault. They deserve to be judged on that.

It looks like you think I'm trying to define some standard here. Of course it's personal. Basically if you like what you see buy it. If you don't then don't buy it. I said as much in my post. But if you don't like it and want to lie to yourself that the problem is the manufacturer, the DP or somebody else didn't do the jobs they got paid for to show their camera at its best, then be my guest. Don't like it and still buy it. Doesn't make any sense to me but it's your money.

Of course post choices and on set choices play a role in the look. But if they are making choices that make it look bad again it's their fault. Little nuances again should be filtered by professionals. But noisy footage is not a nuance. Blown out highlight is not a nuance. Bad rolling shutter is not a nuance. Plastic skin is not a nuance. If it's there, what makes more sense to think? That the manufacturer didn't care and didn't try to show their camera at its best, risking their sales? Or that they tried as hard as they could and this is the best the camera can do?

Define "best it can look" ? Is a noisy image not the best it can look? So why put that out? I could go on and on about several attributes with the same logic. In the end the manufacturer watches it before putting it out. If you think the manufacturer would go like, well the camera can do better but lets still send this one demo out, then I'm at a loss for your logic. And if they actually do that they deserve to get slammed IMO.

A good example is Dig, the F55 demo. If you liked that and bought a F55 based on that you were not disappointed. If you didn't like that and still bought a F55 you would probably be disappointed. Because Dig is the best the F55 can look. It's a very accurate representation of the F55 look and capabilities. You can add grain, film convert or go as far as they did on Vinyl to try to change it, like 2%. But that is just putting lipstick on it. Dig is the F55. It was on vimeo and youtube too. Didn't change a thing. It is very accurate of the plain F55. I used the camera on several occasions. Different lenses, workflows etc. Same. The plain camera is what counts.

About the all captions, don't get offended by it. You were the one who tried bringing the level down when you started your post with calling my opinion BS. I at least didn't appeal to that type of thing.

If the above didn't clarify my points I can't explain it better. So there is nothing left to tell you.
 
Last edited:
Sttratos said:
IMO making it softer doesn't make it look like film. The other day I was watching Man of Steel in 4K and it looked sharp and still like film. Because it's film.
Click to expand...

And "Gone Girl" looked like it was shot on Red. Because it was. And because someone liked the Red look. (that someone being the director of the film)

BTW, "Dig' was shot on Venice (is it OK not to CAP everything?). And it did look closer to film.

Of course, according to Steve Yedlin, any Raw footage can be made to look like film.

Oh and I didn't like the Vinyl look at all But I doubt that F55 was at fault here.
 
DLD said:
And "Gone Girl" looked like it was shot on Red. Because it was. And because someone liked the Red look. (that someone being the director of the film)

BTW, "Dig' was shot on Venice (is it OK not to CAP everything?). And it did look closer to film.

Of course, according to Steve Yedlin, any Raw footage can be made to look like film.

Oh and I didn't like the Vinyl look at all But I doubt that F55 was at fault here.
Click to expand...

I just meant that soft doesn't make it look like film for me.

Dig was shot on the F55. It was the F55 official demo. The Dig was the Venice demo. :)
 
I do like that they've put TC *and* genlock into such a small (and "cheap") package! That is one of the big downsides of all the competition: C100/C200/FS5/FS700/FS7/LS300/etc
 
Just returning my loaner EVA1 today and will be writing a few impression-type reviews both for print and on-line. Without preempting my articles, I think the camera has a lot going for it at the price point. Probably more than a C200 at the same price. Nice size. 10 bit 4:2:2 recording. VLog matches Varicam models so it could be used along with its big cousins. Fills a gap between GH5 and VaricamLT. I particularly like the "home" display on the EVF which gives all the settings like the side LCD of some of the big boys and girls. And the fact that with the touch screen it becomes easy to change settings without wading through menus. If monitoring with external monitor, just leave that VF screen on "home". Nice images. RAW will be coming with future update. More observations coming.
 
icarusfilm said:
Im not seeing anything I wouldn’t be seeing with an fs7.
Click to expand...

I see a lot.
Individual white balance. Dual ISO. Beautiful colors out of the box. Small footprint. ProRes recording without the XAVC chunk. Maybe even RAW. I was playing a lot with FS7 custom settings and honestly I found no settings which was getting even close to GH5 Cinelike-D out of the camera.

Downside is EF mount. What a stupid idea. The should have put an E-mount on. E-mount is has the widest s35 native lens rangle plus almost every other lens with adapter or speed booster. But no, they made the same mistake as BMD and chose the mount with the longest flange.

edit
There is no 16-100 run and gun lens, not even a 18-70 with acceptable manual focus.

Yes there is one. Sorry for not having on the radar: Canon 18-80 t4.4
 
Last edited:
I mean the fs7 in Cine Ei. A few years ago Log was a hard sell but today most people accept it. Even German broadcasters that are notoriously 10-20 years behind the curve get it. So the whole “out of the box” isiue is getting less important. I agree about the features being better and I want to pull the trigger but the mount is an issue and all put together makes it a mixed bag. Meanwhile the fs7 is a known camera everywhere you go people know what to do with it etc.

Clermond said:
I see a lot.
Individual white balance. Dual ISO. Beautiful colors out of the box. Small footprint. ProRes recording without the XAVC chunk. Maybe even RAW. I was playing a lot with FS7 custom settings and honestly I found no settings which was getting even close to GH5 Cinelike-D out of the camera.

Downside is EF mount. What a stupid idea. The should have put an E-mount on. E-mount is has the widest s35 native lens rangle plus almost every other lens with adapter or speed booster. But no, they made the same mistake as BMD and chose the mount with the longest flange. There is no 16-100 run and gun lens, not even a 18-70 with acceptable manual focus.
Click to expand...
 
Clermond said:
Downside is EF mount. What a stupid idea. The should have put an E-mount on. E-mount is has the widest s35 native lens rangle plus almost every other lens with adapter or speed booster. But no, they made the same mistake as BMD and chose the mount with the longest flange. There is no 16-100 run and gun lens, not even a 18-70 with acceptable manual focus.
Click to expand...



The spring lock E-Mount is too flimsy to support big lenses. The twist lock type used on the FS7 II is much stronger, but still not the greatest.

The Sony FZ mount is a true professional mount and much stronger. It can act as a universal mount for almost anything from PL to Nikon F, Canon and older mounts like BNCR with the proper adapter. It even has electronic connectors for Cooke and Arri lenses.
 
+1 I agree the E-Mount is more suited to a mirrorless stills cam but as long as the bigger glass is well supported via a rail setup up your are pretty safe. I've done a lot of shooting with B4-S16 with 22 x Canon ENG glass and well supported it hasn't been an issue. Anything like a 70-200 or heavier I always have supported. I won't transport an FS7 with a lens on it any longer. Unless it was maybe a 10-18 or something tiny like that.

I know of one FS7 that had a bang in transit and when the Pelican case was opened the lens, a Sigma 24-105 Art had snapped off leaving just the mount sitting in the Metabones Speed Booster. In this case the Speed Booster hadn't been supported. Upon closer inspection it showed that the impact and leverage the lens and Metabones received was sufficiently violent enough that it actually bent the Front Assy section-2 of the FS7. This front assy only came as a complete assembly part including the sensor block as they are already pre back-spaced / back focused at the factory. Some $3,000.00 plus is what it cost to fix it. In fact it's frightening to see how much flex there is if you have Sony's 18-110 unsupported. Give the lens hood a little jiggle up and down and just watch that mount flex away!!

FS7 Front Assy.JPG

I see there is a used FS7 front assy/ sensor assy up on eBay at the moment and I would hazard a guess that the same sort of thing may have happened to it as happened to my colleagues camera.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-FS7-m...880014?hash=item1c9ccec1ce:g:zd8AAOSw-wJaSUZn

Chris Young.
 
Last edited:
icarusfilm said:
I mean the fs7 in Cine Ei. A few years ago Log was a hard sell but today most people accept it. Even German broadcasters that are notoriously 10-20 years behind the curve get it. So the whole “out of the box” isiue is getting less important. I agree about the features being better and I want to pull the trigger but the mount is an issue and all put together makes it a mixed bag. Meanwhile the fs7 is a known camera everywhere you go people know what to do with it etc.
Click to expand...

I am speaking only about my personal experience. I have assignments where I need a fast edit and don't want to fiddle in post with log editing. With EI1000 I start with exposure compensation then with white balance then I polish colors. With the GH5 I can skip part 1 and 2 and part 3 is very little. I didn't find a custom setting that's close to the GH5 colors. That's why the FS7 stayed in the bag for some jobs. Off course it's not suitable when you need to impress a client with a "professional" camera.
 
Last edited:
.. it has become very quiet about the EVA-1 and German dealers are sending offers with cash back (420€ net) and inferno bundle (6,300€net). After that short time of release I would see it as a sign that there are some issues to get into the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top