mpgxsvcd: Here is what I learned from this review.
1. Based on these test results the A7s does not achieve the Maximum Dynamic Range that Sony has claimed at its Base ISO.
2. The A7r achieves a better dynamic range at base ISO than the A7s.
3. The dynamic range and noise response for the A7s exceed that of pretty much all other cameras after about ISO 51,200. However, those results still may not be acceptable at that level.
4. The 1080p @ 60 FPS full sensor readout video in the A7s is the best compressed 1080p @ 60 video you get out of any camera on the market to today.
5. The high ISO video performance is exceptional and unmatched.
6. The cropped A7s 1080p video just isn't worth it.
re 6:A7s video in crop mode is pretty good and still better than any APS-C photo camera. Also, rolling shutter is acceptable unlike the ridiculous amount in FF mode.
Jurka: Those pics are empty.
Generalizing much?There are certainly some excellent images in the gallery.
vscd: A real density of 4 on a flatbedscanner? Would be awesome. I can't believe real optical 6400 dpi eighter.
Please let it be at a good price..
Reviews measured the true resolution of v700/v750 at around 2300-2400dpi. I'd expect similar results with these new scanners. Maybe a bit better because the adjustable height holders and the included pressure glass should help achieve optimal focus and flatness.
Technically Epson can claim the higher resolution because that's the number of pixels the scanner can output. But it is probably further limited by the optical resolution of the system.
There is also a test on Silverfast's website, which measures the max density of the v700 at 3.11 (Epson also claimed 4.0 for v700). That 4.0 is probably some theoretical value. An ADC pipeline limit or whatever.
Edit:Here's the link: http://www.silverfast.com/PDF/TestReport_ME_DWueller.pdf
Of course it is neither true 6400dpi, nor true 4.0 density. Don't be silly. :)
One big problem is that this looks like a camera from the camera side. And one significant advantage of smartphones is that they don't look like camears.
I wish that it didn't have a shiny big lens ring and the lens was more subdued into the body.
xtoph: I am somewhat curious as to the basis of the editorializing characterization of these cameras as "popular". I know people doing professional work on cheaper cameras, and i know people doing projects on arri and red systems, but i don't personally know anyone working with these. Which doesnt mean much, but as i said, popular according to whom?
Check some rental houses stats.The c300 might as well be the most used camera in the video world...
The A7s can actually limit luminance range, but the option is gamma specific. You'd need to select Cine2 which is a legal safe gamma (16-235).
I wish this had prefocus. *sigh*
jorg14: I think Adobe is the bellwether. If they succeed, it will open the floodgates and all companies will be asking for a subscription. It's basically apartment renting and car leasing on a smaller scale. Good for business and bad for the consumer.
I disagree.I am shooting narrative as a hobby. I need access to high end video tools 2 months in the year. If I had to by Adobe Production Premium this would set me back ten times the sum I pay for subscription and I would be stuck with the version I've purchased.
Bootom line, good for the consumer in my book.
Who do I need to bribe for a 38mm eqv. GR?
The Zeiss has a distance scale (can't see it in the picture?). Aaand suddenly I am interested.
aris14: Ι find it extremely difficult to see the use of these cams anyway...All these about street photography which needs some peculiar cams is IMO rather a philology.Street photography as a term/art does not need a certain cam with certain abilities or whatsoever, just something handy and reliable, top IQ is not its main quest.The only positive thing in these cams is that they explore miniaturization.
I don't think you truly understand the problem. You don't have 5 seconds to pre-focus when out on the streets. Distance calibation should be possible to accomplish in a moment, whenever I want, preferably without the need to raise the camera to my face.
Besides, there is not always an object available around you at the required distance so that you use it to AF/manual prefocus. So, on top of raising the camera to eye level, you need to move around to get something in this distance. No, thanks. I'll just stick to manual focus lenses with scales.
Welcome to the club.I don't even own a DSLR anymore.
Take the Sony NEX series as an example. There are NO distance scales on the E-mount lenses, not even on the Zeiss e-mount lenses. And there is NO electronic distance scale in software (Fuji's do have one). This means you can't set focus to a predetermined distance, a feature which is needed for shooting without looking at the screen or through the viewfinder, i. e. for waist or hip shooting. Manual focus is not the same as distance pre-focus. Manual focus can't help you if you are not looking thorugh the viewfinder/screen.
The only way to use a NEX camera as a zone focus camera is to use adapted lenses with distance scales on them.
Cameras actually DO need certain features for optimal street. Prefocus abilities, auto low limits for shutter speeds, bigger than the frame viewfinders, etc. Many street photographers find one or more of these mandatory for their process. You will be surprised how many otherwise excellent and ergonomic cameras can't be prefocused which makes them useless for hip or waist level shooting.
Alejandro del Pielago: ... One of the longest and most boring and most snobbish advertising about Fuji and Ricoh cameras...
Might have something to do with Fuji and Ricoh cameras actually being suited for street shooting.
Wish there was a 35mm eq. Ricoh GR.*sigh*
Dotes: Andrew certainly meant tonal precision and NOT tonal range here: "This can be used to extract maximum dynamic range at the time of recording, at the expense of tonal range."
It is about time reviews start MEASURING the rolling shutter effect and not just demonstrating it. It is not even hard to measure. Also, I fail to see how a clean and almost moire free camera like the d7100 has worse image quality compared to the gh3.
Hello Andrew, nice to have you here.Here is another moire test of the gh3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VAfRO0yIic&feature=youtu.be
I am sure the gh3 is a much more video oriented camera (I actually used one last month for a shoot). It is a true hybrid. But we are discussing image quality here, not features. For me, moire is the most distracting video image element. It might be ok in a still image, but completeley draws attention to itself in a moving image and destroys shots. Neither rolling shutter, nor "electronic" noise, nor low DR, nor FPN ruin shots in the way moire ruins them.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. I cherry picked a moire test video because we are discussing moire. If we were discussing porn I would cherry pick a porn video for you, geez.
Moire occurs in situations involving fine-line and human made structures, which incidentally are all around us. If you did have any idea about what we were talking about you would know that moire and aliasing artefacts are the single most annoying and (hard to fix in post) problem for low budget/indie filmmakers.
Neither the Nikons d5200 and d7100, nor the Canon 5d Mark 3 exhibit aliasing artefacts comparable to this moire-fest.
Being a property of the unifrom sequency sampling it is actually possible theoretically to fully remove this if your OLPF and downsampling are optimized for the sampling rate of your camera.
And finally, learn to do a proper argument. Your posts are full of fallacies.