With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
PAntunes Regular Member • Posts: 410
Re: With Canon's low sale prices, is Sony becoming too expensive?
1

sportyaccordy wrote:

jonpais wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

I don't get the video thing. Good autofocus- I get. Nothing matters if your subject isn't in focus. Low light IQ- I get. Any camera can take photos in bright light. Etc. What exactly is the big win for 4K video for a primarily stills shooter? At full res, especially at normal TV viewing distances, the IQ difference is marginal. And that comes at a huge cost in space and processing power. What exactly does 4K enable you to do and why have I never seen the cinematographic masterpieces 4K has enabled so many Sony 4K advocates to create?

The whole 4K thing feels more like a spec Sony people rallied behind after the fact than something photographers actually need, like better AF, better IQ, bigger buffers etc. Not saying cameras shouldn't have video at all but in all the time we've had 4K cameras I've never heard why we all need it.

I'm so glad you asked. LOL

Video is a big deal, whether you personally shoot it or not.

Lots of shooters are finding they can increase their income by shooting both stills and video. Photographers are seeing the value in video for promoting their work, for creating tutorials, for selling work to clients and promoting workshops and on and on.

Most camera users/buyers today, even at the high end, are not working pros.

As far as 4K video goes, and this pertains to practically every single mirrorless camera on the market, shooting 4K results in a more detailed image than shooting 1080p. Even downscaling from 4K to 1080p in post results in a more detailed image as well as fewer noise artifacts.

In-camera 4K results in less moire than 1080p. Videos uploaded to YouTube in 4K look nicer than 1080p, especially if you're watching on a 55" OLED.

Again I've been on this forum probably for 4 years- I have yet to see one of these 4K masterpieces uploaded to YT.

Plus as you say later YT compresses the hell out of everything. It's hardly the place for cinephiles to upload their work. And yes I get how much 4K is supposed to help in theory. I have a 55" 4K TV in my living room and a 40" 4K monitor. I only see the difference (on YT at least) on my monitor. At normal viewing distances you don't see a huge difference, unless you want to justify your shiny new 4K camera

Regarding file sizes and computational power, editing 4K ProRes files in Final Cut Pro on any ordinary MacBook is a breeze, since Final Cut has been optimized. 4K files from the a7 III are ridiculously tiny because of the crazy low bit rate, so they take up very little storage space on my hard drives. Nothing compared to the huge 400 Mbps files of my GH5!

The fact that you have a GH5 shows you are more serious about video than the average shooter.

Perhaps most importantly, neither 1080p or 4K are truly 1080p or 4K to begin with! Downsampled 6K results in a much more detailed image than 4k, just as downsampled 4K is more detailed than 1080. Something to do with the Nyquist theorem. Look it up.

And then, 4K allows filmmakers to punch into the image in post without any noticeable softening of the image. Being able to punch in or slowly zoom in or out can be a very powerful tool. It can be - and is - often done in 1080p, particularly with a lot of 120p video, but it is without question mushier than 4K. In fact, 1080 120p Sony footage is mushy as heck, which is why filmmakers are demanding Sony include 4K 60p at a minimum in the a7s III.

Smoke, fog, vapor, mist, dust particles and other effects you can purchase from sources like Rocketstock are shot in 4K or higher on Red cameras because they have greater detail and can be more easily manipulated in post production.

So the answer to your question is that whether you're delivering in UHD or HD, shooting at a higher resolution will result in greater detail, less noise, fewer moire artifacts and allows more creative freedom in post.

And all this time, I've heard about stills, but not sure why we really need them. LOL

Again it's clear you are very serious about video. What you have to prove to us is that the majority of people buying the A7III are too, which makes 4K a true market necessity and not just another check box on the spec bench racer's checklist.

Most stills camera users are not "filmmakers" purchasing effects from sources like Rocketstock or whatever. Odds are high that someone buying an A7III is primarily using it for stills- again unless you have evidence to the contrary. And again the practical value for a very casual video user is questionable.

I remember I shot my daughter's 1st birthday in 4K on my A7R2. Obviously I wanted to edit and load some clips to social media and the like. It was a nightmare to get that file on my phone and at the end of it all it looked no better than a 1080P clip. Now I know the R2's 4K (and video in general) is not the best, but that was a headline feature and I'm certain Sony ambassadors cite its 4K as an "advantage" over cameras without it. But is it really that big of a deal? Nobody who is serious about video is using an R2 for it. And even you have a GH5... apparently even with its downsampled 6K the A7III still isn't good enough

Go to a video forum and check what cameras most people are using. You may be surprised by the amount of people using A7’s. Even production houses with much bigger cameras still have A7’s in the kit.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
T3
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow