SL3/250D 1080p Quality? Any improvement over SL2/200D?

attilab wrote:

I have no 4K TV so no need for 4K videos for now.

So that's not a great argument.... I know because it's the same one I used in 2010 deciding between an sx10is and an sx20is. The main difference was the slightly cheaper 10mp sx10is took 640x480 video, and the newer 12MP sx20is took 1280x720 video. Well, of course my tv at the time only displayed 640x480, so what use was HD video to me?

Well, fast forward to today, and not only do all the 640x480 videos I took in the 7 years I used that camera exist, because yup, that's the point of taking videos of my family, but they look pretty terrible on my 4k tv.... Looking back, I really really wish I had paid the extra $50-$100 or whatever it was for the better camera, because I no longer remember what I spent the money I saved on, but I am reminded every time I watch one of those videos how terrible the quality of 640x480 is ... In 10 years when the last 4k tv goes out of production in favor of 8k, how good are those 1080p videos going to look on an 8k tv ...

Just something to think about....

Turned out my tamron 17-50 zoom autofocus is very laud (how searching around where I am pointing) in playback but my 24mm SI pancake is decent silent.

Canons STM lenses are pretty much silent focusing on videos, I've never heard one in one of my videos...m

I think these still photos from a clip of the video is not accurate.

I have the sl2 and make lots of videos they are crystal clear? and filming fish in aquariums is one of the hardest videos to make with the low light and tricky lighting.

Kirk Sachs wrote:

attilab wrote:

I have no 4K TV so no need for 4K videos for now.

So that's not a great argument.... I know because it's the same one I used in 2010 deciding between an sx10is and an sx20is. The main difference was the slightly cheaper 10mp sx10is took 640x480 video, and the newer 12MP sx20is took 1280x720 video. Well, of course my tv at the time only displayed 640x480, so what use was HD video to me?

The real difference from SD to 1080 is much more than from 1080 to 4K.

I know one person with a 4K TV and 4K service, and its wasted. Compressed so there’s more pixels but the resolution (detail)  is actually worse than my 1080 over the air signals

RedFox88 wrote:

Kirk Sachs wrote:

attilab wrote:

I have no 4K TV so no need for 4K videos for now.

So that's not a great argument.... I know because it's the same one I used in 2010 deciding between an sx10is and an sx20is. The main difference was the slightly cheaper 10mp sx10is took 640x480 video, and the newer 12MP sx20is took 1280x720 video. Well, of course my tv at the time only displayed 640x480, so what use was HD video to me?

The real difference from SD to 1080 is much more than from 1080 to 4K.

I know one person with a 4K TV and 4K service, and its wasted. Compressed so there’s more pixels but the resolution (detail) is actually worse than my 1080 over the air signals

Yup, just like it was when he first came out... I'm just saying. In 2011 when I looked at the pictures I took, they didn't look bad. But when I look back today? They look like crap. The grain in ridiculous.  Compared to what was normal back then it was fine, but compared to today, it doesn't hold up.

Just like with video games. I remember how "real" video games looked when I was a kid. Compared to my parents Atari, it was amazing. Then as a young adult, the next generation looked amazing, and I couldn't believe how terrible the previous stuff looked. Now what we have today is amazing, and stuff from the early 2000's looks like crap.

As amazing as things look today, there is indeed room for improvement. You may not see today where it can go, but trust me, you don't want to look back in 15 years and go "dang, wish I had gone 4k instead of HD.....

In the time since posting this thread I did actually pickup an M50. After comparing video quality to my RX10 (original) though, I ended up selling it.

I was terribly disappointed with the ability of the M50 to resolve detail in 1080p, See the following 100% crop comparisons from video captures:

The M50 just looks so unnatural compared to the RX10, with what to me looks like strange artifacts caused by over-sharpening.

So my conclusion is that no, the SL3 is probably no better than the SL2, and any  perceived improvements in detail are simply due to increased default sharpening.

2eyesee wrote:

In the time since posting this thread I did actually pickup an M50. After comparing video quality to my RX10 (original) though, I ended up selling it.

I was terribly disappointed with the ability of the M50 to resolve detail in 1080p, See the following 100% crop comparisons from video captures:

The M50 just looks so unnatural compared to the RX10, with what to me looks like strange artifacts caused by over-sharpening.

So my conclusion is that no, the SL3 is probably no better than the SL2, and any perceived improvements in detail are simply due to increased default sharpening.

To me the colors look better from the canon the sony looks over greenish yellow colored to much almost to the point you have a colored filter on it everything  in the whole photo has that greenish yellow color cast over it and the canon shows different shades of colors better separated.... why not just lower the sharpness on the canon then? I don't know if you seen my videos I linked above my SL2 works and looks awesome.