Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Sony a7s  (Read 9870 times)
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276


« on: April 25, 2014, 04:18:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I would think their would be some discussion by now, any thoughts? I think I will be buying this just for the tonal range of shadow and highlight. Rumors of 14-15 stops of dynamic range sound tantalizing. I do not need the low light ability so much but it would be a nice bonus. I do not need 4k either. Excellent 1080p without having a truck full of HMI and Kino to fill the shadows ( mostly outdoor shooting for me ). Anyone else interested? And it may be a great stills camera as well, if you don't need blazing speed autofocus. On that note, perhaps the autofocus during video will work well enough to use like the GH3?
« Last Edit: April 28, 2014, 05:06:11 PM by billy » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2920


« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2014, 10:07:17 AM »
ReplyReply

See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=88774.0
Logged
Zerui
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2014, 04:09:04 AM »
ReplyReply

A filmmaker's perspective suggests that the A7s may be a better choice than the GH4:
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/a-fun-comparison-between-the-sony-a7s-the-panasonic-gh4-and-the-canon-1dc-4k-dslr-cameras/
Goff
Logged
EgillBjarki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2014, 10:52:27 PM »
ReplyReply

A filmmaker's perspective suggests that the A7s may be a better choice than the GH4:
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/a-fun-comparison-between-the-sony-a7s-the-panasonic-gh4-and-the-canon-1dc-4k-dslr-cameras/
Goff

There seems to be a strong "pro GH4" culture in this forum. Personally I feel that the A7S has more to offer me, I have one on preorder.
Logged

Zerui
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2014, 12:46:23 AM »
ReplyReply

See the thread I started "At the end of the rainbow".
There you will discover that the LL videos are now being shot at 4K on two GH4s.
I, too, am attracted by the Sony A7s because its dynamic range and high ISO performance meet the needs of one of my current projects.  I conclude that, as ever, it is a matter if "horses for courses".  I am delaying my 4K purchase until next year, by which time I expect several new horses to have left the stables.
Goff
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2014, 05:09:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Im keen on this camera simply if it makes OK video (aka better than a 5d2/3)

Simply the FF sensor means no re-lensing for me and a decent FOV.

The GH4 needs a 9mm for a wide FOV, which means buying some odd glass (that might be a pain to ND)  and probably a speedbooster.

Of course Im still to be convinced that either the Gh4 or the A7s actually present better images than my FS100!

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
billy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 276


« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2014, 09:15:52 AM »
ReplyReply

There seems to be a strong "pro GH4" culture in this forum. Personally I feel that the A7S has more to offer me, I have one on preorder.

I have sensed that as well. Everything about the GH4 seems great EXCEPT the 'look' of the image it delivers. Looks like video to me. Blown out highlights because of the low DR, etc. I guess it just depends on how u shoot.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2014, 01:15:24 PM »
ReplyReply

There seems to be a strong "pro GH4" culture in this forum. Personally I feel that the A7S has more to offer me, I have one on preorder.

With our studios it's not a gh4 bias, but I have produced really interesting work with the gh3.

As I mentioned I have four 43 bodies and about every m43 lens so it makes sense to go with the gh4 but I held back.

I want to test the A7s, even though it will double my costs to switch out systems.

The upside of the gh4 is
1. the auto and touch screen focus that covers the full frame.
2. The range of decent glass, though the 2.8 zooms are slow for this format.  For a cinema look you really need to be at 1.2 to 1.4 primes on most of the normal range lenses.
3. most peripherals carry over from the gh3.
4. 4k internal recording for a small form factor.
5. Very well thought out ergonomics on the camera

The downside of the gh4.

1. ISO, for heavy grading 800 is probably the high end, 1000 is stretching it for video with heavy noise reduction.
2. the crop factor.  2x is difficult, 2.3 x on the gh4 is brutal.  As you mentioned a 9mm is 23 in ff terms and has huge glass for this camera. Also longer than 200mm equivalent is the top semi fast lens that will autofocus.  Pulling this type of selective focus is not the easiest thing for a gh4 sized crop.  The top is a fF 35mm camera, the bottom a red one with a 35mm at F2.



3. Only two versions of 4k compression..  Uncompressed to a external device, or highly compressed in camera.  Both offer their own challenges.
You have to work an uncompressed project to really understand the size.
4.  I looks like a little 5d3.   Not that that is the most important, but it's not a looker.
5. to get xlr sound in, on two channels even in scratch form requires the yagh device that's the cost of the camera, or a third party convertor.
6. Once again 2.3x is a heavy crop and I'd be very surprised if Panasonic doesn't offer some kind of bridge camera between the gh4 and the $60,000 varicam with a super 35mm or aps C format.
7. if you pull back to allow for edl stabilization your crop is even more severe.

The A7s
1. It's not out so who knows.
2. Lenses are roughly 1.5 to twice the price of the gh4 and zooms will be front heavy for devices like hand held stabilizers and drones.
3. No touch screen focus., which until you've tried it, you won't know what your missing.
4. It seems a little rushed to market and accessories from Sony are to come, always to come.
5.  The $2,000 Shogun to get to 420 4k is going to put the price double the gh4.  Actually across the board fully kitted out your double the gh4 in price.
6. Higher iso is great for certain situations.  Makes night shooting with small leds a breeze.
7.  I think this is also a bridge camera.  

For some reason, even at much higher costs, I didn't lose any sleep over buying our REDs.   I knew they were professional and would last a long time, even with the X sensor because really who is going to beat my door down for 6k footage?

Buying these small electronic cameras just sends me crazy because something is always held back, waiting for the next 18 month change.
I feel like I'm sort of being played and if I learn one more menu system of a camera I'm going to have to build a flip chart.

I personally feel apsc or super 35mm (whatever that is) is probably the perfect motion format, but given that, we're still kind of working off old film format thought.

The gh4 could be thought of as a digital super 16 but the file doesn't look like super 16 film.   The A7s is probably too large but motion picture film cameras were most constructed due to costs of film.    If film was never an issue I really wonder if 35mm film cameras would not have run a horizintal ff still 35mm size, verses running the film vertical.

Everybody talks about 24 fps like it's a holy grail, but I've shot and edited 24 and 30 fps and it doesn't seem to be much difference, other than smoothness of titles and horizontal scrolling.
What gives a cinema look is quality of production, lenses, format and grading, much more than  fps.



IMO

BC

P.S.  If you have a good story, and good production values and are shooting for yourself in a closed loop and/or you are your own client, then you can use almost any camera.
lately or at least for the last two years, I've heard time and again for large projects, blowback if you say your shooting with a dslr, regardless of the dslr.

It's not that they're bad, that covers a lot of territory, but well paying client's expect professional production, including cameras.   They might or might not know the difference between a REd or Alexa, or an F55 but they assume professional cameras bring with it professional results and in some way they are right.

The things is we shoot so different today and it's not unusual for us to use the gh3's, two to three REDs, even a go pro from time to time and though  I own, renting or owning makes not difference to a client, as long as they feel they get the level of production they desire.

Actually the rule is to offer more than they anticipate.

But at the end of the day, it's all about the final story and how it's presented.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 02:32:12 PM by bcooter » Logged

bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2014, 07:32:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I have sensed that as well. Everything about the GH4 seems great EXCEPT the 'look' of the image it delivers. Looks like video to me. Blown out highlights because of the low DR, etc. I guess it just depends on how u shoot.

The GH4 can do a fine job on image quality right out of the box.  What your are seeing are pathetic attempts to achieve a "film look" by turning down the GH4 "parameters" to ridiculous minimums that produce a data-deficient .mp4, and then essentially trying to "grade" the poor data-starved file to resemble some bizarre concept of what "film" looks like.

Before digital, the only way to get that look was to make a badly timed print from an internegative struck from an old release print stored on the top of somebody's water heater for 20 years.  I have to assume a lot of film newbies have never seen a good 35mm film print properly projected.  Which looks pretty much like what you get with the GH4 with the parameters set to factory defaults.

And screw 24FPS. I spent a lot of my career making effects cameras simulate 300 degree shutters, just to make 24FPS motion suck less than it really does.

The fact that there is no serious committee promoting 60FPS as the digital standard speaks poorly for the industry.  It looks so cool on the screen, and most existing digital projectors at the multi-plexes can handle it.

In drama, whatever emotion that comes across at 24FPS, comes across with twice the urgency at higher frames rates, if one is only willing to discard ridiculous video-phobic prejudices.  60FPS removes the quaint patina of it's-not-quite-real that comes from 24FPS, and with directors up to task can hit you over the head with not merely visceral experiences never before possible on the dramatic screen, but with subtle dramatic ones filtered not through some archaic technical patina, but directly from the sharply seen human reality of the actors.  I have seen dramatic demonstrations at high frame rates, and to be honest it's can be discomforting in ways "normal" cinema is not.  An angry, highly realistic looking character projecting straight at the viewer in first person mode is damned frightening.  Maybe that's it: high frame rates work better in first person mode.

But no, we will continue to wallow at 24FPS because that's what we grew up with at the Bijou.  Cripes.  Let's burn down the film schools.

Sorry for the hot-buttons.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2014, 07:34:49 PM by bill t. » Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2014, 02:20:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I think 24fps is a legacy notion and the "cinematic" look comes from more than a frame rate.   The ability to gently throw focus, expert lighting that has continuity, sound, excellent grading do a lot more for the look of a film than a slower frame rate.

I shoot at 24fps if a client requires the master footage in that format, but when we work closed loop through our studios I go to 30 fps because moving horizontal titles and just the overall look of the project seems nicer to me.  

What I don't like is pulling focus from nose to horizon.  To me that has a video look, not the fps.

I think we're in the infancy of motion production and frame formats are becoming less important than the capibility of a camera.

Early this morning I read about an indie short where they shot with the black magic cinema camera.    It produced an excellent file, but the focus screen issues, overheating and dropping the ssd, to me we're crazy.

I'd lose my mind over those issues, though like all artists the writher/director/editor/colorists (it was an indie production), loved the look of the footage so much he still raved about the camera and that is one thing I can understand.

I still use our RED 1's over any camera I own, including the Scarlet.   I might upgrade the Scarlet to an Epic Dragon, but I'll bet if I do, I still use the R1's for 90% of our shooting because I love the look of that camera.

I guess all of this comes down to personal preference, but we all know if the sag rules allowed for TV production with film cameras without extra charge (vs aftra that doesn't charge higher rates) most dp's would still be fighting to shoot film, (most dp's still do.)

So in regards to the A7 and it's comparison of the gh4, they both have a place, both come down to personal preference, but if one has a huge advantage over the other in look and usability, the fps and format are the last two things anyone will care about.

At this stage I think the A7 is almost a must buy or at least try, given it's high iso for night shooting.



IMO

BC
« Last Edit: June 04, 2014, 02:23:29 PM by bcooter » Logged

EgillBjarki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2014, 09:12:15 PM »
ReplyReply

bcooter and bill t. bring up good points. Personal preference and how certain tools fit into the workflow are key.

You can still make a pretty decent video production with a 5D Mark II. Even better with MIII, but these cameras do not compare those that shoot raw video. I am very excited about the A7s, it will give me allot more options, even with all it's short comings, detailed here above.
Logged

bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2014, 09:08:12 PM »
ReplyReply


You can still make a pretty decent video production with a 5D Mark II. Even better with MIII, but these cameras do not compare those that shoot raw video. I am very excited about the A7s, it will give me allot more options, even with all it's short comings, detailed here above.

Your right.   A show like Wilfred is shot entirely with D800s.  Don't know why because when you get into this form factor I'm not quite sure where the savings, or the workflow matter, except for probably higher iso.


Right now motion capture is in the wild west, but unlike stills there are more formats and unlike stills you have to deal with frequencies, fps, a lot of stuff you just don't think about with a still image.

The A7s should have the features of the gh4 and if it did, well, I think it would have really rocked the motion world, but right now we're still in the upgrade cycle for smaller cameras.

Larger cameras like the Arri and RED tend to last longer because they've pretty much thought of everything for higher end production.

Everyone, including me compares the A7s to the gh4 or a lot of other small cameras, but honestly they do different things in a different way and both would be worth having if your work, crew, budget is varied.

IMO

BC
Logged

chrisgibbs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2014, 10:22:49 PM »
ReplyReply

On a side note, I really like your still from the ballet studio, a beautiful ballerina and student -- priceless expression!

Cheers,
Chris
Logged

EgillBjarki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2014, 05:11:05 AM »
ReplyReply

A few screenshots from Canon 5DMIII with Canon 24-70mm vs. Sony A7S with Tamron 24-70mm, both exposed for highlights.

To make this a bit more fair, I did not shoot Slog2 with the A7s, just a flat general profile (picture profile 6). My Canon is set to a recommend flatter profile, both received a very conservative grading in FCPX. I am sure the difference will not be as significant in a ideally exposed (letting the highlights blow out) and lid scene, I wanted to present both cameras with a very challenging scene.

I just got it yesterday, not sure if I will make any further comparisons. The main thing for me was to get a feel for Sony's profiles and how it compares to Canons abilities.

Being very familiar with Canon and having used it with good results in all of my previous video work, I mainly made this comparison for my self. It was a pure afterthought to present and share this here on the forum, I do relies how limiting these are, but decided to share them anyway, not allot of A7S footage out there.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 05:15:09 AM by EgillBjarki » Logged

deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 725


« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2014, 06:59:33 PM »
ReplyReply

What are the downsides for shooting at maximum frame rate on the Nikon D800 and editing in FCP? Are the file sizes larger and more problematic to edit pieces say 15-20 minutes long? Does camera movement become more noticeable?  Please forgive the ignorance. I've only started doing this recently.

John



I think 24fps is a legacy notion and the "cinematic" look comes from more than a frame rate.   The ability to gently throw focus, expert lighting that has continuity, sound, excellent grading do a lot more for the look of a film than a slower frame rate.

I shoot at 24fps if a client requires the master footage in that format, but when we work closed loop through our studios I go to 30 fps because moving horizontal titles and just the overall look of the project seems nicer to me.  

What I don't like is pulling focus from nose to horizon.  To me that has a video look, not the fps.

I think we're in the infancy of motion production and frame formats are becoming less important than the capibility of a camera.

Early this morning I read about an indie short where they shot with the black magic cinema camera.    It produced an excellent file, but the focus screen issues, overheating and dropping the ssd, to me we're crazy.

I'd lose my mind over those issues, though like all artists the writher/director/editor/colorists (it was an indie production), loved the look of the footage so much he still raved about the camera and that is one thing I can understand.

I still use our RED 1's over any camera I own, including the Scarlet.   I might upgrade the Scarlet to an Epic Dragon, but I'll bet if I do, I still use the R1's for 90% of our shooting because I love the look of that camera.

I guess all of this comes down to personal preference, but we all know if the sag rules allowed for TV production with film cameras without extra charge (vs aftra that doesn't charge higher rates) most dp's would still be fighting to shoot film, (most dp's still do.)

So in regards to the A7 and it's comparison of the gh4, they both have a place, both come down to personal preference, but if one has a huge advantage over the other in look and usability, the fps and format are the last two things anyone will care about.

At this stage I think the A7 is almost a must buy or at least try, given it's high iso for night shooting.



IMO

BC
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2221


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2014, 12:59:06 PM »
ReplyReply

What are the downsides for shooting at maximum frame rate on the Nikon D800 and editing in FCP? Are the file sizes larger and more problematic to edit pieces say 15-20 minutes long? Does camera movement become more noticeable?  Please forgive the ignorance. I've only started doing this recently.

John




This is really a general cinematography thread - most stuff is delivered at 24/25/30 FPS shooting at that FPS looks right, generally one shoots at higher frame rates to then slow the footage in post to make slow motion. eg 50p on a 25p timeline is 50% slomo

While one may think (and some do) that a film with a high framrate would look more realistic generally that is not considered to be the case - film runs at 24FPS and looks 'filmic' stuff at higher framerates eg 50 tends to look very 'video'

One of the big films was recently made at 48FPS (hobbit?) - some thought it looked good others felt strongly that it looked like crap.

Personally in the UK I use 25fps as it is 50% of 50hz and wont flicker under electric lights..

-

If you film at a high frame rate an merge the images to get a slow you can imaging it looks odd.

Another reason not to film at high frame rates (with some cameras) is that the compression per frame can be higher rendering the images softer.

S
 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 01:00:50 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2014, 12:09:34 PM »
ReplyReply



Personally in the UK I use 25fps as it is 50% of 50hz and wont flicker under electric lights..

S
 

Back to the A7s, for me it's the camera I want to buy, but I'm always stopped for some reason.  I looked at one the other day for an upcoming project, actually am trying to get one large camera/lens case for stills and video and the if the A7s worked for me, I'd go that direction by adding an a7R.

Then the specs.  If you buy an A7s in the states or Japan it's ntsc only, 24p which means European practical lights will flicker, if you buy in Europe (for a higher price) you can select pal or ntsc.

Then I tried the autofocus on the A7s and it was less than my gh3's so I went with a Canon 70d.

The 70d is a world camera with pal and ntsc frame rates, has the best autofocus I've seen, which is slightly better than my gh3's an aps c sensor which I think is the perfect filming format and obviously works with all my Canon still lenses including one of my RED's that I've set with a Canon mount.

So for a grand I bought an 70d instead of $2,500 for an A7s.

Now by the time I add a sound recorder, a cage and a few other bits, the 70 d doubled in price but it's still under the A7s in price, with the only real liability is the 70d won't ever go 4k.

Someday I think the A7 line will be up to true pro level, but today it's still hobbled and I'm not sure what the reason is.

IMO

BC









« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 12:11:39 PM by bcooter » Logged

Hywel
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 31, 2014, 06:32:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi bcooter,

  Yeh, the A7S isn't for me. No on-board 4K and no autofocus worth a damn (I don't know what native lenses might be like but even metabones say the AF performance not usable with adapted EF glass). I might get one for available light stills when the price comes down a bit. 

  I'm looking at the 70D or GH4, having just ordered a gimbal rig. I'm going to fly my RED when I have enough people around that someone can remote focus, but could really do with something for solo shoots.

  Have you tried GH3 and 70D on a steadicam or gimbal rigs? How flexible is the AF? Do they have usable face/eye detection or reasonable ability to slap a good sized autofocus box off-centre? Did you get good stuff and enjoy shooting that way? Or were they a huge pain in the ass to get anything out of?

  I saw a test of the Canon C100 AF and it looked promising, but having the AF box confined to the centre would be too limiting. The same size box at the one third and two third points would probably do me just fine... especially if face/eye detect is available as an alternative. 

  I've been having lots of fun with my iPhone 5 on a cheap gimbal mount: there are advantages to lots of depth of field from a tiny sensor! With the FILMIC PRO app I can record 50 Mbps 25p on it and it intercuts surprisingly well with the RED so long as everything is dynamic.

  But I could really do with something in between the two- more dynamic range than the iPhone, better autofocus than the RED....

  Anyone else got any experience with this use case? (Solo operator, steadicam/gimbal, autofocus?)

  Cheers, Hywel.
Logged
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1164


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 31, 2014, 12:58:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Hywel, I agree.

My a7s came into the store yesterday, but I cancelled the order.

instead I bought a 70d and on a whim the blackmagic pocket camera.

The A7s like all A7 cameras is so close to being "right", but . . .

On board 4k, a better codec, higher bitrate and decent autofocus or touch screen focus and a module to good sound preamps would make it more useable.

(Nobody should underestimate autofocus on video if it's implemented well and reliable and I'll take a higher bitrate over resolution any day.).......

The 70D and GH3 have the best autofocus I've used and like all things what scene works well with one is challenging with the other, but right now I'd say the 70d is very good for autofocus if you plan the settings well.

The only downside (short of it only being 2k) is it's intentionally hobbled by silly things like if you go hdmi out, the camera screen blanks out, which is needed to adjust focus and there is no headphone jack, which isn't a deal breaker in the fact we use a tascam attached to a small
wooden camera cage.

In regards to using a stabilizer, we've tested a few, right now I'm waiting for a few new releases as I would like a gimbal that can take a scarlet/epic as well as a dslr.

The Ronin and Defy are probably the best buy, though usually out of stock.  A ronin is about 3 grand, a small defy about $2600, though was told the next defy will hold up to 10 lbs and come in at $2,900 so I'm waiting as I believe all
the stabilizers will either drop in price or come in with new models.

The best being the movi, but one of the most difficult to learn and set up.

If it was in stock the new Ronin at $2600 to $2900 will hold up to 16 lbs, but it's not available and well I'll wait.

Autofocus on the stabilizers is just like hand held in that some work well, some don't, but tracking a walking person with a stabilizer for me is easiest with the 70d, for a static camera shot and face detecting, tracing a moving person with the gh3 is very good.

Once again, it's all in the scene and the settings.

FWIW I didn't buy the gh4 because of the 4k crop factor.   2x is tough to throw focus for a cinematic look, 2.3x is brutal . .. that's one of the reasons I added a 70d as I believe aps c is the perfect movie format because there is less jello and skewing than full frame like the A7s and
since I have one our our REDs set up with a Canon mount, the 70 slips right into production well.

Also an aps c crop allows for more selective focus.

The pocket camera, I bought for two reasons.  It's small and kind of stealthy for projects where permitting is tough for large cameras and crew, the file is film like and closely matches our REDS and the REDs are still the main cameras for our productions.

The bmpc has it's issues, is not a go to camera for everything, burns through 5 batteries a day, but the proress file is excellent.

In regards to stabilizers, I'd wait and rent because I think everyone believes there is going to be a big drop in prices and newer models are going to have easier setup.

IMO

BC



Hi bcooter,

  Yeh, the A7S isn't for me. No on-board 4K and no autofocus worth a damn (I don't know what native lenses might be like but even metabones say the AF performance not usable with adapted EF glass). I might get one for available light stills when the price comes down a bit. 

  I'm looking at the 70D or GH4, having just ordered a gimbal rig. I'm going to fly my RED when I have enough people around that someone can remote focus, but could really do with something for solo shoots.

  Have you tried GH3 and 70D on a steadicam or gimbal rigs? How flexible is the AF? Do they have usable face/eye detection or reasonable ability to slap a good sized autofocus box off-centre? Did you get good stuff and enjoy shooting that way? Or were they a huge pain in the ass to get anything out of?

  I saw a test of the Canon C100 AF and it looked promising, but having the AF box confined to the centre would be too limiting. The same size box at the one third and two third points would probably do me just fine... especially if face/eye detect is available as an alternative. 

  I've been having lots of fun with my iPhone 5 on a cheap gimbal mount: there are advantages to lots of depth of field from a tiny sensor! With the FILMIC PRO app I can record 50 Mbps 25p on it and it intercuts surprisingly well with the RED so long as everything is dynamic.

  But I could really do with something in between the two- more dynamic range than the iPhone, better autofocus than the RED....

  Anyone else got any experience with this use case? (Solo operator, steadicam/gimbal, autofocus?)

  Cheers, Hywel.

Logged

Hywel
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 31, 2014, 02:07:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi BC,

  Many thanks, that's very useful!

  Just played with a friends' shiny new 70D and am now very tempted.

  The autofocus is very good. Maybe Canon will add it to a 4K 7D Mark II this September. (Yeh, right).

 I ordered a Ronin knowing it won't be in stock for a while because it can take my Scarlet. The B-cam can live on it for regular shoots where the RED is on sticks, or I can rig the RED on it for a day when I know everything is going to be in motion.

  I know I should probably rent a gimbal rig first but having recently moved to mid-Wales that would be such a rigmarole that for 2100 I'll just buy it, try it, run around the woods with it and if it isn't fit for purpose I'll sell it.

  I'm kicking myself for missing the ultra-cheap BM Pocket Camera deal. Like having an interchangeable lens GoPro shooting ProRes (at GoPro prices). Never mind!

  I don't mind the GH4's crop factor particularly, because it is definitely going to be a B-cam and greater depth of field from a smaller sensor is actually an advantage. In my style of shooting the jump in depth of field isn't so noticeable when the shots are all moving. Having more depth of field will help if the autofocus decides to focus on a bra strap instead of the near eyeball, too, which is a pain in the ass on the RED run and gun at f/2.8 with a middling cheap lens even with focus peaking and a human pulling focus.

  I was surprised how well the RED intercut with iPhone on a gimbal or GoPro: when the shots are moving purposefully the continuity of motion across edits hides a lot of sins.

  Cheers, Hywel.

   
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad