This camera is extremely tempting. I currently shoot on the 5D3, but the near 16 stops this camera captures makes it very compelling. Couple that with the 40megapixel images, it makes it a win/win for what I do. I recently found out it supports autofocus using Canon L lenses? That being the case, I'm very intrigued as I have a fair amount of L-series lenses. The only reticence I have about moving over is losing MagicLantern capabilities to be able to shoot RAW video. :-(
mediman30: Let the cancellation of pre-orders for the 5DS/R begins!....
Here comes the Sony A7R II ! :)
My only complaint with the Sony cams is that the lens selection pretty much sucks. I love their sensors! Wicked awesome. But lenses?... not so much. And if you attach 3rd party lenses you lose autofocus abilities, etc. :-/
coody: 50MP, is it necessary? Faster focus, better 4k video and small size are more preferable than the high MP.
All depends on what you use it for..... if you're shooting for movie posters... then medium format or high MP DSLR are necessary.
agaoo: Fullframe, 4k, and log gamma are reasons to consider but $16K price tag stops it. 4K blackmagic at $6K stands unbeatable.
Ever actually owned and operated a BlackMagic camera? Price isn't everything. I've owned everything from Sony to JVC to Panasonic to Canon.... and my worst experience has been with BlackMagic. We purchased the BM Studio 4K Camera and it took them THREE replacements before we received one without major flaws. Something I have never experienced with any other camera.
Biowizard: Further to my earlier complaint that a cinema camera costing $20K should have a GLOBAL shutter, not a Rolling shutter - I see the brand new, Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera (just announced in DpReview) DOES ... at a mere $995. Hurray!
I've owned BlackMagic cams (still have the BlackMagic Studio 4K cam)... and I can tell you they are great, for what they are. But, they have a lot of their own problems that other cameras do not have. So you can get into them on the cheap, but you're not going to have the experience you get with much better cameras. The only great feature of the BM cameras (besides price) is the universal sensor. Other than that, my experience on other cameras has been superior.
Rational: Poor engineering choices.
To build a high resolution sensor and at the same time to cripple the camera it goes in by not allowing that camera to store the image in native RAW format but only as jpg (which is compressed and hence suboptimal compared to the RAW file) is schizophrenic at best, bad engineering at worst.
Count me out.
Uh.... it stores RAW images. Crikey... what the heck are you talking about?
Dester Wallaboo: My biggest complaint with the Sony cams is that they are mirrorless.... yes.... I know the advantages, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in my book. Being at the mercy of a monitor to know what is coming through the lens is a not what I would call a great method for shooting. Yes, I use ML so I can get full histograms while shooting using a monitor. But at the end of the day the only real way to see what is coming through that lens, outside of long-exposure photography, is to look through the lens itself with your eye. Unless Sony has recently put in screens that can display full RAW dynamic range, which I'm certain they haven't, you are at the mercy of a monitor that cannot even display full sRGB, let alone ProPhotoRGB, and certainly not RAW.
I'm not pounding the Canon drum... I'm agnostic when it comes to manufacturers. Cameras are purely tools to be used. Obviously the camera aperture is wide open when not pushing aperture preview. But to say your screen is showing you EXACTLY what you are capturing is utter nonsense. No screen can display what your aperture is capturing. That includes Wide Gamut pro monitors like Eizo. My point is that I like to see what a screen cannot.
Let's hope that monitor technology finally catches up to sensor technology.... because they are worlds apart right now.
I use my screen for dialing in my focus. Then shift to optical/mirror viewing so I can see all of the light as it is coming through the lens. I don't like the limitation of the screen's ability. Once screens become wide gamut, it will likely be less of an issue.
Well.... since I actually work in the film/digital video arena. And more than that, own an 8500 sq foot sound stage and shoot regularly on RED. Yes, I could say I'm intimately familiar with the process. I'm talking about still photography where you have the luxury of time dealing with a single frame.
My biggest complaint with the Sony cams is that they are mirrorless.... yes.... I know the advantages, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in my book. Being at the mercy of a monitor to know what is coming through the lens is a not what I would call a great method for shooting. Yes, I use ML so I can get full histograms while shooting using a monitor. But at the end of the day the only real way to see what is coming through that lens, outside of long-exposure photography, is to look through the lens itself with your eye. Unless Sony has recently put in screens that can display full RAW dynamic range, which I'm certain they haven't, you are at the mercy of a monitor that cannot even display full sRGB, let alone ProPhotoRGB, and certainly not RAW.
Jun2: The camera is mainly designed for video, competing with GH4, 5D III etc.
Let's make it clear... shooting "4K video", most of which isn't actually 4K but UHD (but I digress) ≠ superior video. There are so many factors involved including file compression, color compression, artifacting, motion estimation in compression, shutter roll, etc. In fact, I'd pick a 1080p or 2K camera with a universal sensor shooting RAW over a 4K camera with decent compressed image.
No.... That's recording to a 1050x or faster CF card internally.
The Mick: Hi Dester,I failed to ask before, but can you share with your creeped out fans how you achieved the very bloodshot eyes? I noticed that technique was applied to your other zombie pics as well. Was this part done in post processing or did you have your daughter rub her eyes for 20 minutes before the shoot? Just kidding, of course, but this photo is so detailed, I had to ask.Thank you again for your commentary (and patience). ;o)Best regards,Mick
The eye effects were accomplished all in post. Knowing these were going to be stills only, I knew post-effects would be simplest, and least traumatic for everyone involved. Had this been for video/film, I would have approached it differently.
The Mick: This one creeped me out from the beginning... and still does. One of my favorites!
One of my editor's in my studio has a fair amount of experience doing realistic monster makeup..... so I asked her if she would do some makeup for our family zombie pics. She does pretty amazing work. :-)
Stefano M: Wow, terrific!!! Congratulations!
l_objectif: very nice! Well deserved!
Thank you... :-)
This is our daughter. We were shooting family pics as zombies. At first she was a bit reticent to do it. But once she got all of her costume and makeup on.... she was totally 'in the zone'..... as you can see here.
Thanks! Very much appreciated.
jimbojames: this is my fav of all of these.. very cool eye effect!
Thanks! Much appreciated.
We were shooting a big family photo for Halloween. I decided to pull everyone into the studio before going into location so I could snap a couple of controlled-lighting shots. :-)
Size limitation is an odd requirement.... not sure why that was included in the challenge.
Sorry guys... this is one field I'm intimately familiar with.... and there is no way this camera is worth this amount of money. I'd buy a Red Scarlet before buying this camera.