D
Donald B
Guest
I discovered only the other week that the a7r2 4k full sensor video is also much better than the super 35 video that everyone claims is better, especially at high iso. why it is such a surprise is beyond me, marketing people have done a great job at pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.According to Gerald Undone who knows more about the mechanics of these things than most reviewers, the 4K output of the A1 is every bit as good as the A7Siii. He demonstrated this with resolution charts from both. Just as important, there were no more artifacts in the A1 than in the A7siiiI have seen many comments both here and other sources like Youtubers talking about how the A7sIII will have better 4k video than the A1 because the A1 will use pixel binning for full sensor 4k.
According to dpreview:
"...the camera can't produce over-sampled 4K from its 8K footage, so you'll have to do that in 'post if you wish. Instead it offers pixel-binned 4K from the full width of its sensor at up to 60p, or up to 120p with a 1.1x crop. These can be captured as up to 10-bit 4:2:2."
What I'm not understanding is why this would be any worse than the a7sIII? My maths may be wrong, but doesn't it look something like this:
50mp ÷ 4 = 12.5mp (2x2 binned pixels). This is basically the same as the A7sIII 12mp: 4320x2880 vs 4240x2832.
So effectively we have a 12.5mp sensor but with two other potential benefits over the A7sIII: faster readout, and full RGB info per pixel.
What am I missing here? Is it simply that people see the term "Pixel Binning" and immediately equate that to meaning worse? Or is there an actual reason that this would mean inferior 4K video to the A7sIII?
So, you get all the A7Siii offers plus 8K and other A1 benefits.
Don
