jkokich
Joined on
Jan 25, 2012
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |
| Osprey by paul cool from A big year - birds 2018 | Fountain Flats Buffalo by McFrost from wild animals | Cross Country by Hobbyfotograaf from Sports - Individual Dry Land - Non Winter | Splashdown by poppyjk from Seagulls | _MG_8058 by Maurice Byatt from - Sad - One Adult human portrait in full colours |
mosc: "in any situation where you need to maintain a certain depth-of-field, it can outperform the Sony" which is the situation most professional video used to be shot under. Huge depth of field minimizes the viewers displacement from adjusting their own focusing on different elements in the frame at different depths. Bokeh in a movie can be jarring.
I'm not saying video should be shot at 6x FF crop (1/3") all the time because the lens aperture is rarely available (it'd be really small f-numbers) for a desired focal length. I'm saying you really don't lose much going to 2x crop because an f2.8 lens is still probably too shallow for most shots at most focal lengths.
It's also notable to get the lower MP sensor here to shave off diffraction that creeps in from dropping information in sloppy downsampling due to limited processing capability at 60fps high res.
Sometimes I find bokeh really distracting, which is the opposite of what it’s supposed to be.
jkokich: Sony A7R!
just how fast do you need your af?
So, bitcoin says Kodak’s plan is a scam? Hmmm...
Sony A7R!
jackspra: The smaller size is definitely a positive.
I don’t understand the whole unbalanced thing. I rarely hold a camera with one hand, I usually hold the lens, if it’s big and heavy, and on a tripod, why would you just let the rig sit there, without making sure it’s stable?
bkellyusa: The size argument between the mirrorless and the DSLR is getting old. When Sony started on their mirrorless climb I think they thought that the smaller the better and it certainly got everyone's attention as to how much camera technology they could pack into a tiny box. Since that time Sony has increased both the size and egnomics of their cameras significantly.
The weight advantage issue with mirrorless cameras has also been been obscured by the misleading criticism that both cameras types get heavy when using telephoto lenses. That is only true if you are using long telephoto lenses. In the real world most people are using much shorter lenses and with that the mirroress wins hands down.
As to the future of DSLR's I think that the mirroless manufacturers have made it clear that the mirror itself is not a necessary part of modern camera design. In the future I just can't see anyone being willing to pay the additional cost of having a feature that you don't need.
I agree with you. A mechanical, flipping mirror, is simply not necessary, anymore.
AlanG: If you buy this, the only people who will think you are cool are people you should avoid at all costs.
Deep for the win.
I’ll bet that many who are criticizing this, are the same ones who say people don’t understand the Leica experience.
Felts: Reading any thread about Leica cameras on DPReview is a hilarious sport.
When will the detractors realise that if you have to ask how much, it's probably not the camera for you?
It seems that the major reason to buy a Leica is to say, “I bought a Leica.”
I don’t even need a firm place on which to stand.
monked: The FF focal length equivalent is 2.1 for apsc. Gotta multiply it by crop factor too.
Ah! Thanks, Jack!
monked: The FF focal length equivalent is 2.1 for apsc. Gotta multiply it by crop factor too.
Isn’t a 16mm lens, 16mm in FF? I thought there was no crop factor for FF.
Wow, who peed in your Cheerios?
Unless you look at the videos side by side, you won’t notice the difference. If you are a techie, yes, you might be able to say, that should look like this, etc., but if you are watching a movie/web series/commercial and you aren’t engrossed by the story, the problem isn’t the camera or the lens.
Interesting... I only picked the Canon once...
This has got to be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Even with protective lenses, looking at an eclipse can blind you. What morons.
jkokich: How about a $500 Sony? I'll bet you could shoot a damn good movie with that.
Toss in another $300 and let's have another test!
How about a $500 Sony? I'll bet you could shoot a damn good movie with that.
M Chambers: "I'm shocked. Shocked to find gambling here." Professionals used professional equipment and professional lighting to create the iPhone ads.
While this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone here it probably does amaze the general public.
Always has been. Remember pet rocks?
The quality of iPhone videos, even without the ridiculous gear attached to them, is fantastic. It's state of the art of a few years ago for high level gear, so if that state was perfectly acceptable, so is this. You really could shoot commercials, or features, on your iPhone if you actually relied on your abilities as a videographer, and not on the gear.