JDThomas: Curious as to why a comparison wasn't run with a D3s. By all accounts the best low-light sensor out there with the added bonus that it has the same resolution. And probably the same sensor with nothing more than processing tweaks.
If you don't understand and don't care about full sensor readout benefits for video, then you shouldn't be calling it "2007" tech as it's not.
InTheMist: What full-frame cameras natively record 4K video?
Only A7s does 4K but to external recorder (which won't be shipping till Sept).
A7s does full sensor read out so it's 1080P video quality should (in theory) be better than average FF cameras
None yet, but there could be a bunch at Photokina (16-21 September 2014)
TheBaldEagle: I wish/hope that the new high ends Nikon Cameras (like D810) have at least 4K video output (even in APS-C crop size) for other recorders in order to compete well with Sony Alpha 7S and others 4K capable cameras because 4K is the future (next several years) for high end video!
Dream on. It's 2014 and 1080p over-the-air broadcasts still do not exist. All major networks use either 720p60 or 1080i
It took years to leave SD completely
4K adaption is still 5 to 10 years away (almost all movies -- except a couple, even played in theaters, even if shot in 4K on Red, were eventually done in 2K). So it's not even theaters yet -- we are still 5 to 10 years away.
8K you are looking at 20 years
I won't be losing any sleep over buying 8K cameras
Just because Sony wants you to buy their 4K TVs and cameras doesn't mean it has any practical use outside of cropping ability.
"D810's 36.3MP CMOS sensor has by far the greatest pixel count of any non medium format DSLR currently on the market, "
Really? Was this copied and pasted from 2 years old review?
This statement is not true, dude. As D800 has same pixel count.
"by far the greatest pixel count of any non medium format DSLR currently on the current"
Flat out false as two years old D800 has same pixel count
vFunct: The flat picture control should be useful for Videographers by keeping the entire dynamic range within the video file.
Right now deep blacks and highlights generally are cut off and can't be recovered via exposure adjustments like you would in a Raw file.
A flat picture profile keeps all the dynamic range within the output format, and post-processing of the video files for color grading should give the desired output results.
It is as close as you can get to a Raw file format without actually outputting raw.
You do lose color resolution, since the entire dynamic range has to be placed within the 8 or 10 or 12 bit color space of the output video file format.
Other manufacturers also offer flat video file output color spaces that keeps the entire dynamic range in the video file, such as Sony S-Log.
S-Log2 does more than just " flat picture " as base ISO on A7s can't be lowered than ISO 3200 in SLog mode
That's similar to F55 (base ISO 1250). F5 (base ISO 2000), etc
So there is more to SLOG than just flat picture
brettstark: Looking at this vs the GM1. About to choose the GM1 for flexibility. Think the IQ should be at least as good, perhaps better particularly in low light.
1/2 or not, even an APSC camera with 18-55mm kit lens isn't better in low light than RX100 III. The difference between F2.8 and F5.6 is 2 full stops.
I don't think APSC cameras's ISO 3200 is better than RX100's ISO 800
"only 1/6 of a stop"? DF is "only" 16 MP then. That's not much difference.
And it's not "2007" technology as no 2007 FF sensor could do full sensor readout for higher quality video in 2007. In fact, no FF sensor except A7s can do that in 2014, either.
Speaking of 2007, DF can't even do video. Now that's truly 2007
It's not big enough to compensate 2 stops dimmer lens at telephoto end.
GM1's ISO 3200 is definitely not better than RX100's ISO 800
GM1 should not be better in lowlight light with the kit lens. The kit lens is significantly dimmer.
cgarrard: Seems all the criticisms that were made of the original RX100 are included in the RX100 III and, it's a better camera for it afterall. Despite defenders of the RX100 initially :).
Glad to see Sony making good stuff even better!
yes did. You were blowing hotair just a day of the announcement and it turned to be the most popular compact of the decade
Your marketing understanding is pretty close to zero
halc: It's not only the noise and dynamic range.
7S can actually focus in near-dark whereas 7R hunts.
Different cameras for different uses.
7S is the reigning available low light king.
It's constraint significantly by cropping capability (which also given you more "zoom" as you can crop deeper). 36MP sensor totally blows the 12 MP at most used ISOs
I read it again, and I was correct. Your criticism were about "hotshoe" "too many pixels" "lens without filter threads" You were also demanding bigger zoom.
Obviously RX100 III Sony wasn't "reading" your articles when they designed RX100 III.
I am betting RX100 the original will stay best seller for Sony, so it apparently wasn't "too late"
Ben O Connor: One thing amazes me that, Sony trusts its new products that they sent then to reviews almost immediate! Remeber that, this camera has not been on the shelves yet!
and of course special thanks to DPR, that they put very serious effort to inform customers around the globe.
"Remember that, this camera has not been on the shelves yet!"
The camera has been selling on amazon for weeks now.
Plus reviewers always get production models a few weeks before the shops
Your "criticism" were about missing "hotshoe" and lens with no "filter threads" and 20MP is "too many pixels"
and you also claimed, as I remember, "too little too late". It's almost 2 years now, so doesn't "appear" to be that late two years ago, and the original RX100 was still the best seller (better than II) and I doubt III will outsell it.
Mike99999: What I don't understand about this comparison tool, is that if I pitch the A7 @ 6400 against the E-P5 @ 6400, I barely see a difference.
But then when I shoot my A7 against my E-P5 at home, there is a world of difference.
The E-P5 is completely useless at anything above ISO 800, while the A7 is perfectly happy at ISO 6400. Why are these differences not visible on the test image?
Maybe because good studio lights help? At home you are probably shooting in in dim light.
All cameras do ok at high ISO when in good light
D3s is sports oriented camera with faster AF for tracking and larger buffer for burst. A7s is video camera with better video quality .
jonny1976: as expeted minimal gain and mostly after iso 25600 where the absolute quality is simply too low for quality work.
The "gain" could be higher in video. It's 12 MP FF so it can read every pixel for video.
I want to see SLog2 in lowlight as that wil preserver the highlights while other 2 will blow the highlights
Lets see the video still shots now. Still studio shots and low light.
My guess is full sensor readout makes a bigger difference there even for low light.