Timbukto: I'm a fan of the A6000 but I think the award and scoring of the A7S just doesn't add up. Way too much brownie points are awarded for the A7S's 'good' 1080p mode. Sorry but the NX1 and GH4 come with internal 4k that when put through pro video processing and decimated to 1080p will also produce very detailed but moire free 1080p video. Now I'm not a video guy, but I assume the whole 'well it takes more work and time to post process 4k' is no different from folks who claim processing RAW for stills is too much work. You guys included someone with pro video chops for analysis and his rundown of the A7S did not seem like a 'gold award' or home run for appraise to me either. So overall we know that for stills its a bit compromised compared to other cameras...and for video, you guys harp on about how good its 1080p mode is (when other camera's come with 4k and with a little work will produce stunning 1080p!...that is the POINT of 4k...to have more to work with to produce stunning 1080p).
5D3 doesn't seem to line skip. It gets like 2 stops better SNR than 5D2 for video and doesn't have all the aliasing and moire of the 5D2. It IS soft, but seemingly not straight off the sensor since ML can intercept the early video and it looks pretty sharp, only at some later stage does it turn to waxy mush.
Looleylaylow: Review in sum: "Average performance in nearly all regards. Gold Award!" Once trusted site is acquired by the world's biggest retailer and becomes enamored with the world's biggest consumer brand. Shocking.
Yes so average that the low ISO dynamic range only blows away any Canon DSLR ever made, so average that the video is only close to 6x more detail than from any regular Canon DLSR not using ML (and even then it's still 4x more detailed than 5D3+ML RAW, although the editing might be tougher for color/curve since it;s just 8bit 4k, granted), so average it only has better high ISO than any other camera (arguably, some prefer a bit less DR and more noise with more MP for tighter 'grained' look and could reasonably argue that is better, it depends).
insane light and not the typical view either!
Thomas Clabough: i want one ! Which is the best for me I ask myself. Are there any sample files that I could download and compare the two on my Canon 44" wide printer?Just saying (:-)
I'd get one WITH an AA filter. After a little sharpening in post you barely miss any real details and you avoid false details/aliasing.
the 1000000 one sounds interesting
russbarnes: People don't want to hear the truth. They want to hear that Canon's lens lineup can easily handle 50MP and the sensors handle noise beautifully at low ISO.
They don't want to see blurred corners and poor edges revealed in the 17mm & 24mm Tilt Shift lenses that was never apparent before. They don't want to hear about the noise in clear blue skies at ISO 200 and blotchy shadows that are worse than ever. Every image I've seen so far that's meant to demonstrate the incredible resolving power of the 5Ds has been utterly appalling, without hesitation. No fine detail at 100%. What is going on?
That said it sounds like it's yet another, old 500nm process sensor that will be a few stops worse than all the competition.
And they did the usual like not allowing more fps in crop mode, holding back trivial things like focus peaking, etc. etc. and yeah nobody wants the truth they just wanna cheer on the team regardless and so Canon probably will get away with an older sensor even for a landscape camera.
Granted some don't care about the DR at all, but the way they all but cheer it on and mock and trash anyone who might care.... just proves it's easy for a great power to lead people like sheep.
To be fair sample images from Canon and the photographers they let have a test at have been terrible from any body from a technical standpoint.
They always look soft and waxy at best and misfocused or hand-shake blurred at worst.
I mean the 5D3, the 40D, the 1DX, the 1Ds3, etc. the samples pre-release all looked horrible.
Some of it is down to the ever more over DNR'ed waxworks jpg engine which uses strong DNR even at low ISO and the early shooters using nasty setting choices and the rest is down to who knows what.
I really don't know why they don't use settings to show things in the best light or let people who can't even hit focus or proper shutter speed show the bodies off first. Lowered expectations so nobody complains once in hand?? Makes people feel good that they get better results than Canon can and that makes them more prone to spend more?
But nice shots certainly. The first one grabs you right in. etc.
The no-photoshop bragging seems a touch over the top. The digital sensor records light in linear fashion so direct output would be unusable. Maybe he sets a nice tone curve pre-set in the camera that is good enough, but it's not like that is some high and mighty thing. Also, with film, people played with amount of time in this and that bath and did dodging and burning, etc.
Granted it can be a drag to sit in front of photoshop and if you just lock in some pre-built tone cruve and so on and upload that to the camera and use that I can sort of understand the aspect of just clicking and being done (even if surely not quite ideal and it's still doing processing since something has to be done to the linear sensor data).
Zoron: Canon is not fighting the sensor war. If u can't take a good picture then, u can't now, Sony sensor is not going to help u get better pictures either.
His point seemed to be that who should care, which is a specious point.
Interview with a Canon executive recalling product management meetings that they held regarding video:http://youtu.be/sJBq0z2Vmu4?t=53s
More dynamic range opens up more potential shots though.
bronxbombers4: Personally I prefer a full-size, real deal DSLR for everything I can, otherwise I want something truly hideaway, pocketable, like a Sony RX100. Anything larger than that and it defeats the purpose of small size. If it can't fit in a pocket and totally hide away and not be a bother then what is the point as far as I am concerned. None of this intermediate stuff does anything for me. I either want the full speed and performance and everything of a DSLR or the completely you don't even know it's on you-ness of a P&S.
No it's not. The RX100 is a TRUE hideway and the one I both wanted and got.
Shmuel Goldberg: It must be clear that there is absolutely nothing in physics of a DSLR that makes it better than a mirrorless camera. Weight and size of DSLRs is not an advantage, it is a result of outdated technology. An idea that was excellent 75 years ago makes no sense today.
@57even - TV guys also shoot sports at practically infinite DOF!!
Personally I prefer a full-size, real deal DSLR for everything I can, otherwise I want something truly hideaway, pocketable, like a Sony RX100. Anything larger than that and it defeats the purpose of small size. If it can't fit in a pocket and totally hide away and not be a bother then what is the point as far as I am concerned. None of this intermediate stuff does anything for me. I either want the full speed and performance and everything of a DSLR or the completely you don't even know it's on you-ness of a P&S.
DStudio: Why create a 50MP sensor and then "pre-blur" the image with an AA filter? The applications for the non-R model seem rather limited.
Yeah Nikon world users went for AA-less more, but maybe that was just falling prey to marketing or all the apparent extra detail of which a decent bit was just aliasing, it looks details and sharp but it's fake (I mean it does bring some true extra detail too, but not that much beyond what sharpened images would from AA filter bodies, and it does add false detail which you really ever know how to remove and moire which could be a total beast to deal with in post and other aliasing which could be a bit dealt with in post but in worse more lossy fashion than with AA filter to begin with I'd say)
If you see my posts here you will quickly realize that while I've been shooting Canon I'm not exactly a Canon fanboy apologist! ;)
Heck, I'm hated by many Canon posters.
And the fake detail has nothing to do with brand loyalty but simple sampling theory science.
I wish Nikon had left the AA in the D810 or given an option to get it with an AA filter.
krestenov: Can't get all that moaning - if you like something else, support the manufacturers by giving your money to them. DR will not make your photographs an piece of art, it's up to your talent, eye, taste, experience... It's not Nikon, Canon, Pentax that make your shots great. There is no Holly Grail in photo equipment. Better work on mastering your art - that is what will stay beyond your time and not your tools. Who cares what were van Gogh canvas and brushes???
Not that big for some but big for others. If shoot in forests a lot on days that are not clouded over, you can often run into DR issues where 2-3 stops more would make all the difference for instance.
photonius: The Nifty Fifty is already the 50mm f1.8 lens.
It should be the Hefty Fifty or something like that.
The Expensive Fifty With Disappointingly Low DR.
(unless the 2 stop rumors are somehow true, the Expensive Fifty)
(unless they unlock 6-7fps in crop mode as well and then Super Awesome Fifty Stills Beast)
So you get less aliasing and moire and less fake detail.
It's not like the AA filter turns it back into 22MP! And those have AA filters too.