Forget the A-99 for video

Started Nov 28, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP (unknown member) Regular Member • Posts: 393
Re: Forget the A-99 for video

Nordstjernen wrote:

Depends a lot on which level you are making video, doesn't it?

Who buy DSLR cameras for serious video work anyway, even if there are some successfull productions made with such cameras by professional photographers/teams out there? But then, the results are thanks to the skilled photographer/team, not the camera.

Cannot agree with you more. Or as this video shows:

Putting a $5,000 lens on an IPhone is not a warranty for quality. But it makes a good gag.

Facts are simple to understand. In 2012, a DSLR used for video is a compromise. Canon who for years only had its DSLR to produce high-end quality video (a.k.a.: film look), nothing wrong with their pro line by the way, introduced the C-300 last year, optimized for film look video.

As the starting post stated, you can buy two A-99 for the price of the medium priced F-55 Oled viewfinder. Properly equipped, with a $40k zoom lens, a couple of cheap Sony prime, the full kit being in the $125,000 range, or 25 well lensed A-99. Still, if you are shooting video for real, this is cheaper in real money, than a early U-Matic set-up, RCA TK-76 and BVU-100  with less resolution, modulation you name it than the cheapest webcam available today in the leftover bin at BestBuy for $20.

DSLR simply are useless in 2012 for film look video unless you have a zero dollar budget. Yes as you so point out, with the right people, any camera can produce quality video that most broadcasters would buy.

Let's go back to F-55, I would thing that it would offer almost the same range of controls as the F-65 , read this manual to understand what REAL WORLD video shooting means. In the days of the TK-76 it meant registring the tubes one or twice a day, cleaning the capstan of the VCR. As you have written elsewhere, for video production you must shoot differently than if you are taking a picture and you must take into account the limitation of the camera, fast panning is a no-no unless you like Jello.

Some will never get it obviously. I will presume that for the A-99 price point, low end pro camera, Sony's decision was easy, photo quality 80%, video 20%. As a second camera, used for cut-aways or as disposable one (explosion etc) NOT A SOUL watching the output live on a screen would notice the difference in the video quality.

And as much as I like Vimeo or Dailymotion, the last time I checked they were batch processing their codec rendering, we are not talking spendind hours tweaking the right interframe here.

So I would suspect that for 99% of users the video output of the A-99 will be acceptable, for both REAL PRO and average users. From what I've seen so far, in the proper hands, it delivers what it promises, but then I'm of the Saint Thomas persuasion, always wait for the first firmware revision to buy any camera...

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow