Sony A7S ii B&H Preview

[ALwin]

snip

 

Ehm, are you even reading my posts?

Stopping down the aperture was exactly what I was saying they could do to counter the shallower DOF. I said it right here:

 

Yes I read your post and I was simply clarifying my earlier statement.

 

I wouldn't call the shallower DOF a drawback.  The drawback is the effort, time and perhaps money involved in making it work perfectly.  If you have the time to set everything up properly and can record as many takes as you need until everything is perfect, shallow DOF can give a very beautiful look and feel to your video.  But if you are in a rush or cannot afford the time and cost to record several takes (e.g. live broadcasts) you may not want to go with a shallow DOF.  Hence why a lot of broadcast cameras or cameras used by newsies are still using small sensors.

 

A professional video producer I know told me of a rough estimate when he charges clients for producing videos. Every minute of recorded footage equates to roughly one hour of editing work.  And the more takes you have, the more footage you have to go through and that costs time and money.

 

PS: Regarding different methods cameras use to record videos on large or high MP sensors, some cameras use what is called "windowed" mode.  E.g if you have a 4K sensor and want to record 1080p video, it will only read the pixels from the central 1920x1080 area. While this method can produce better quality images, you are wasting a lot of pixels.

 

A full frame DSLR camera with a 12MP sensor at 1080p windowed mode (roughly 2 megapixels), you can imaging how much sensor area is being discarded.  So if your DSLR or Mirrorless camera uses this sort of method to record high quality video, you are already losing some of the advantages that a larger sensor should be giving you like the shallow depth of field because the camera is acting like it has a cropped sensor.

 

On some cameras, like the Ursa Mini which I am buying, while generally it uses nearly all the pixels on the sensor to record both 4K and 1080p video, it switches to windowed mode 1080p when you want to use higher frame rates (120fps) because using a smaller sensor (or sensor area) means faster internal image processing speed (down sampling, scaling, all this takes processing power and it's not like the camera has an Intel i7 CPU and Titan X GPU in that tiny body ) and perhaps faster thermal cooling with such high fps.

[MrSuperb]

Wait a minute. Either I got this wrong, or you got it wrong.

You compensate for the shallower depth of field by stopping down (as in, going from for example F/2.8 to F/4).

Stopping down also means upping the ISO ...

-> lower IQ ...

[Deli]

Stopping down also means upping the ISO ...

-> lower IQ ...

FF sensor is only about two stops difference in DOF compares to MFT. That means going up two stops in ISO. I'm sure the A7S II will have better IQ even with 2 stops higher ISO.

 

Moreover, with good lighting, you can stick with normal ISO100 to 800 range even using F5.6-8.

[LAwLz]

I wouldn't call the shallower DOF a drawback.  The drawback is the effort, time and perhaps money involved in making it work perfectly.  If you have the time to set everything up properly and can record as many takes as you need until everything is perfect, shallow DOF can give a very beautiful look and feel to your video.

Or you could just use a higher aperture so that the DOF will be the same as with a smaller sensor.

 

 

PS: Regarding different methods cameras use to record videos on large or high MP sensors, some cameras use what is called "windowed" mode.  E.g if you have a 4K sensor and want to record 1080p video, it will only read the pixels from the central 1920x1080 area. While this method can produce better quality images, you are wasting a lot of pixels.

 

A full frame DSLR camera with a 12MP sensor at 1080p windowed mode (roughly 2 megapixels), you can imaging how much sensor area is being discarded.  So if your DSLR or Mirrorless camera uses this sort of method to record high quality video, you are already losing some of the advantages that a larger sensor should be giving you like the shallow depth of field because the camera is acting like it has a cropped sensor.

 

On some cameras, like the Ursa Mini which I am buying, while generally it uses nearly all the pixels on the sensor to record both 4K and 1080p video, it switches to windowed mode 1080p when you want to use higher frame rates (120fps) because using a smaller sensor (or sensor area) means faster internal image processing speed (down sampling, scaling, all this takes processing power and it's not like the camera has an Intel i7 CPU and Titan X GPU in that tiny body ) and perhaps faster thermal cooling with such high fps.

But that's not a drawback of full frame. It just means a full frame camera using that method can perfectly emulate a camera with a smaller sensor. Sure you won't get any benefit of the bigger sensor if that technique is used, but it won't be a drawback either.

 

 

Other than price, I don't really see any drawbacks of using bigger sensors. Things like DOF is so easy to compensate for.

 

 

 

Stopping down also means upping the ISO ...

-> lower IQ ...

Not necessarily.

Not sure how bright their setup is but a lot of times when filming outside you want to use an ND filter to not make the scene too bright. In those cases you would just adjust the ND filter and not even touch the ISO.

With their lighting setup they are probably able to keep the ISO very low even if they got the aperture quite closed down.

 

 

 

And I repeat, I do not think they should/need to upgrade to this camera. I just don't think their quality would drop by changing to it.

[6God]

Snip

 

IIRC a sensor will just use a specific sensor region OR supersample the information. TBH this isn't something I've ever considered but I think Ill go give it a read. 

 

I would assume that if a sensor was large enough (higher MP count especially) that it could leverage supersampling in some manner, though the performance cost might be astronomical. Maybe its really just the performance angle. Smaller sensors typically only have enough lines for the video resolution in question and nothing more, better performance as you have less heat generation and less noise as a result. 

 

DSLRs and their kind have huge sensors, massive amounts of information going through and substantial heat generation which may sour the proceedings. 

 

Im just spitballing here with limited knowledge, I really need to go read up on this as I am interested in how a camera like the A7R II can do 4K internal with its massive sensor but the A7S II only needs 12mp for 4K. though in that regard, the S is a low light fiend on a level that no other camera currently in the full frame sphere can come near. 

[ALwin]

snip

 

I guess I should say that the pros and cons of working with any camera, of any sensor size, is less technical and more about working with the technology.

 

For someone who doesn't have or isn't given the time to spend on getting everything prepared before shooting, working with a large sensor camera might be a hassle that isn't worth it.  Biggest example would be field reporters chasing the news.

 

And the opposite for someone who has the time to prepare and plan everything out first. e.g. Hollywood

 

A couple of years ago I went to Asia to do shoot some documentary, I had a FF DSLR that did good 1080p HD video and a camcorder. But for some places where it was a "get it right the first time" type of situation I had to use the camcorder because working with the DSLR could mean any mistake I made will results in no usable footage.  One of the larger portions of the project was done on a lake, filming while riding a fast boat and I had only a single day to get things done, many places and subjects to film so had to make sure I could get everything right on the first try.

 

I was working freelance, my own gear and accessories I could carry on the plane, and one assistant.  And I don't own a steadicam or gimbals for my cameras.  Even if I had, taking them around with me would be too much work and expensive for flying half-way around the world with a lot of luggage.

[TroubleKlef]

I do believe that in the video describing it, they said it was sufficient. 

 

Yes but it's always nice to streamline your gear. I'm pretty sure their main camera is a Sony FS7 which uses the E-Mount so having all their cameras on the same lens mount would be beneficial. 

[ALwin]

Yes but it's always nice to streamline your gear. I'm pretty sure their main camera is a Sony FS7 which uses the E-Mount so having all their cameras on the same lens mount would be beneficial. 

 

Yeah if they had several e-mount lenses, which I don't think they do.  Also, this is not a major benefit.  The FS700 has a Super 35 sensor and the GH4 has a MFT sensor, they can benefit from the advantages of having both sensor types.  FS700 for studio work, GH4 for sort of run and gun style shooting as the smaller sensor will be more forgiving.

 

So your insistence that they get the Sony is wishful thinking at best.

[Lauen]

Yes but it's always nice to streamline your gear. I'm pretty sure their main camera is a Sony FS7 which uses the E-Mount so having all their cameras on the same lens mount would be beneficial. 

nah they have an FS700 but I don't know if that uses a different lens mount. Anyway, the GH4 is mostly used for macro and general B-roll, so do you even want the same lens? 

[TroubleKlef]

nah they have an FS700 but I don't know if that uses a different lens mount. Anyway, the GH4 is mostly used for macro and general B-roll, so do you even want the same lens? 

 

Not the same lens but the same lens mount. Pretty sure they all use E-Mount so having their cameras to be on the same platform would increase compatibility and also save space.