Alternative options to the mainstream solution is always welcome in that it keeps the big dog serious.
whyamihere: I find the level of cynicism of most of the comments to be simultaneously unsurprising and utterly infuriating.
Nowhere else can you find a group of people who are completely defeatist about a production team taking a photography and film tool that the majority of people have on their person at any given time and making a full-length feature.
I'll gladly argue against the use of a 'real camera'. I'm fed up with footage from 'real cameras' being post-processed into appearing as amateur handheld video. This is the real deal, which lends to the character and authenticity of the movie.
For all the concerns about the footage quality, I can't say that I've read a single review of the film thus far complaining of how the film looks. Your average audience member doesn't care about IQ unless it adds or completely distracts from the story being told. It looks like an interesting movie, which means I'll probably take it over the countless beautifully-shot yet otherwise-garbage films out there.
Everything you said makes sense and I agree wholeheartedly with every point, so I'm not here to argue. Just wanted to say that even though the average viewer doesn't give a hoot about IQ, we as shooters should and it's totally reasonable to complain about the IQ of a smartphone versus a Red Epic. I agree that if a good story is told, IQ isn't a problem unless it's absolutely horrible. Just saying that we should care.
I think this film is more a celebration of the team's overall artistic skill than any display of an iPhone's technical prowess. That they could pull this off is incredible, but it's not like they shot with "only" an iPhone: there were lighting rigs and props and professional audio recording. Even the iPhone was rigged with a Steadicam. In the end, this film could have been shot with a Samsung/HTC/Sony phone just as easily, maybe even a GoPro. Kudos to the team for pulling this off. In this case it's more about the people than the tool.
Thus far Nikon is killing this competition. I am surprised by the photo rankings, as some of the ones I like are waaay in the back and some I find not so amazing waaay up front. Photography truly is subjective!
As a photographer myself (though not a music photog) I naturally side with Mr. Sheldon on this one. If this ends up beneficial for all photog's (sports, music, portrait, wedding) then why not? Mr. Sheldon doesn't hurl curses or toss insults in the way of Swift's company or agent, but has kept it civil and on-topic while not dodging any points, unlike Swift's agent's response.
dash2k8: Everything is great for me except the no-AA. At such a huge resolution, all the surface imperfections will be too much for me. I can see where the extra detail will be great for nature photog's. For my portrait work where skin is rarely perfect, it will be more of a hindrance than a bonus.
My mistake, I looked up the Zeiss 135mm for Sony!
That's the trick, isn't it? To touch up without making it look "plastic." I prefer the in-house tried-and-true tricks, though there are situations where automated apps can speed things up.
The Zeiss 135 is absolutely amazing, I agree. For that price, it'd better be! The Canon equivalent is a terrific value at half the price but not half the IQ.
Did I say I don't like the high resolution? It's non-AA at such a high resolution that's troublesome.
Both of you know exactly what I mean, so don't be silly. You ever shoot a model and have to touch up the facial skin? Then you know what a pain it is. Detail up to a certain point is unwelcome. Like I said, detail is excellent in scenery and animal shots, but not so great for people. AA will help "smooth out the wrinkles." Nobody likes wrinkles.
Try watching a movie with no antialiasing at 4K. Your eyes will hate you.
Morpho Hunter: Did Sony just do the impossible?
Nope, true the camera is small .. but the lenses (compared to the mft system) are huge (albeit Zeiss fantastic). However I just wonder how this camera will fair (sales wise) when the rumoured Olympus E-M1 replacement, with it's HAND-HELD 40mp sensor shift system is released. More importantly, just how many people out there can afford (or are willing) to pay for those Zeiss lenses .. I mean .. just how often does one blow up a print to the size of a barn door?!!
The Batis line is relatively new and yes, Sony-exclusive, but there are only two thus far and they truly are similar in size to other brands. I guess I should have worded my piece better. "Most" of the medium-priced Zeiss lenses are very similar to Canikon counterparts.
Their lenses aren't much bigger than Canon and Nikon's variations, right? And when you mention Zeiss lenses, I assume you're talking about the truly expensive, exclusive ones, not the regular run-of-the-mill Zeiss lenses listed on Sony's site. The average lenses cost about the same as Canikon's counterparts and the quality is about equal (slightly better sharpness, much worse vignetting and distortion). The really expensive Zeiss lenses are also made for the other brands so it's not an issue (the Otus, for example, is available for several mounts).
Everything is great for me except the no-AA. At such a huge resolution, all the surface imperfections will be too much for me. I can see where the extra detail will be great for nature photog's. For my portrait work where skin is rarely perfect, it will be more of a hindrance than a bonus.
photosen: Looks very nice. "Canon should expect some cancelled EOS 5DS orders..." and Sony should expect more cancelled lens orders...
From DPR's own review of the Sony Zeiss 35mm:
"The 35mm F2.8 generally compares favourably to other recently-designed full frame 35mm primes. It pretty much matches the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM for sharpness, but loses out on distortion and vignetting (the latter a consequence of its small optical unit). It's much the same story when we look at the Canon EF 35mm f/2.0 IS USM; the Sony's measured central sharpness is higher, but this substantially reflects the fact that it's tested on a much higher resolution sensor. However if we look at edge sharpness, the two lenses are a pretty close match, and again the Canon has rather lower vignetting and more-tractable distortion characteristics."
Common theme here: bad distortion and vignetting, equal sharpness. So I'm not sure they are of "highest end quality."
User5049779158: Battery life is a huge disappointment, I have only tried Sony and fuji and there is a big difference. I feel that they are not investing enough to improve in battery and power saving (compared for example to the mobile phone). It is 5 years since the first nex camera..!
In this camera's defense, I don't think any serious wedding photog at this moment will replace their Canon or Nikon kits for a Sony gig. One reason is familiarity, another is the lack of lens options.
As of this writing, there are only two full frame primes for Sony and they are not even "Sony's," they are Zeiss-made lenses FOR Sony. Zeiss also makes lenses for Canon bodies. So it's not a Sony vs Canon issue, it's whatever lens you want to buy for your body (Canon, Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron...). Everyone knows Zeiss lenses are the best, but also the most expensive. The Otus sees no rival, but few can afford it. The cheaper Zeiss's like the ones for Sony are only equal to other mounts.
If you compare the Sony APS-C lenses with Canon's, those things really suck in comparison. Sony's full frame zoom lenses are also worse than Canon's and Nikon's.
dash2k8: Would it have killed them to move that REC button somewhere more accessible?
Do you actually own a a7-series camera? The position of the REC button is publicly-acknowledged awkward. A third party company actually started selling a plastic button to solve this problem. Pushing the button from the side is not intuitive at all. Look at all the Canon and Nikon bodies. They have REC buttons placed in the back and that works great.
Or, according to your thinking, they should just put all the buttons, including shutter and aperture dial up front, where it's impossible to accidentally press anything. Just have to get used to it, right? Ergonomics be damned.
Would it have killed them to move that REC button somewhere more accessible?
dash2k8: I don't understand the hate for this thing. Scrolling through the comments, the majority of comments have condemned this as a tool that props egos and fuels self-esteem. Never have I seen the word "narcissist" appear so many times in one place. If you don't like this, get a Phantom and your problems are solved.
20 minutes flight. Its 1m waterproof-ness is perhaps to buffer it for a water landing. It is, after all, a quadcopter, not a submarine.
LightCatcherLT: Seems overpriced and big. Answer to this is kickstarter funded Zano http://www.flyzano.com/
@kkx, did you notice that the Nano is, uh, REALLY small? A light breeze will send it tumbling away. One couldn't possibly use this in less than perfect conditions. I agree it will be fun but my experiences with large drones (Phantom and above) tell me that the Nano will have a hard time outperforming a selfie stick. I don't hate the Nano, it's just simple physics. Those tiny propellers will not win against the wind.
ovatab: Please add Lily Light to autonomously track and dramatically illuminate Lily Сamera's subject.
First thing that popped up in my mind is a fugitive being lit up to the sound of "You are surrounded!" ;)
Philip Lanoue: I really don't need a constant reminder (and more photographic evidence) of my ever increasing bald spot on the back and top of my head but which looks even worse from above. Yikes
The hat industry's scheme is exposed!