Sony announced new A7r mk2, RX10mk2 and RX100mk4 all with internal 4k

[Dylan Couper]

Please please please don't keep us waiting for an A7s mkII!!

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

The detail in those A7R-II is just tremendous. It's pixel peeper's heaven!

Dang!!

Detail is very good, perhaps on par with the NX1, but I'm less than impressed with the color on any of these new Sony releases.

To my eyes the color looks both desaturated and too blue, a problem with several recent Sonys.

[Betsy Moore]

A few stray thoughts...

1) Sony (almost) always Best Buy showrooms up the color and sharpness and contrast of their promotional videos so I'm not worried about the color just yet.

2) Say you what we will about its video potential, this looks like a world-class stills camera--and that's its primary customer base.

3) I'm not very technically oriented so forgive the extremely crude estimate but I'm not sure how great the low light capability in video mode will be--at all. In full frame still mode, using every pixel on the sensor, the camera is already 2 ISO stops down from the a7s. Okay, not a big problem since the a7s is a low light monster, though that already means you can't deep focus in moderate light like you can with the a7s.

But remember, just as the 409,600 mode on the a7s is not aesthetically usable in most situations, neither will the 102,400 iso mode on the a7rii. For most folks the a7s stops putting out a magnificent picture if it goes beyond 51,200 iso. If the same ratio applies to the a7rii, then in full frame still mode one will probably start to lose great quality beyond iso 12,800. Still impressive--but already no a7s.

It gets worse though, in full frame 4k video mode the a7rii has to engage in massive line skipping. Forgetting about moire for the moment, even in 16 x 9 mode the a7rii in still mode has roughly the resolution of an 8k camera. So, crudely guessing, in video full frame 4k mode you're using 1/4th the pixels--wouldn't that reduce the light capturing ability by another 3 or 4 iso's? In full frame video wouldn't we be looking to max out at iso 1600 before quality starts to go down?

In super 35 things get more complicated as Sony claims to incorporate 1.8X 4k into one beautiful 4k signal. But given the relatively small area, and how tiny even pixels that are virtually twice as large would be, are we still talking about a good but not miraculous iso of 3200 or 6400? Now a lot of us would say that's plenty but I've gotten spoiled by what you can achieve with ultra high ISO (the more generous f-stops, the faster turn-over times from tiny light rigs, the magical effects that pop up when small objects all the sudden become light sources, etc.).

And while super 35 is the cinema standard, those of us who love the full frame look can't really see the a7rii as the first full frame internal 4k camera if the full frame mode is so compromised Sony is all but urging us not to use it in the promotional materials.

[Ken Ross]

Betsy, just responding to your #1:

I watched the Sony 4K demo on my calibrated 4K monitor. I use this same monitor for viewing and editing my NX1 4K videos. Those NX1 videos certainly have the detail of the Sony demo, but have far better color that is both more saturated as well as more neutral.

Right now, that's my biggest concern.

Secondarily, I'm very interested to see how effective the Sony in-camera stabilization is. The OIS of the Samsung lenses on my NX1 is just 'OK'.

[Betsy Moore]

Oh sure, Ken, I didn't mean your monitor was off, only that Sony likes to amp up its videos before it sends them out. That said, I agree Sony never has my favorite color out of camera.

[Larry Secrest]

Ken,
Are you actually saying that the NX1 footage looks better than what you've seen from the A7r?

[Ken Ross]

Larry, with only one released 4K clip from the A7r ii to judge by, yes.

Objectively, up to now, the NX1 has the greatest 4K resolution measured by Slashcam. Of course they haven't yet measured the A7r, so we'll have to wait for that. On a more subjective note, I find the color better on the NX1 than from recent out-of-the-camera clips from Sony cameras. The NX1 takes truly excellent 4K footage.

However we only have one clip from the A7r at this point to compare, so let's wait before rendering a final verdict.

[Larry Secrest]

Ok, great, as I'm really toying with buying an NX1.
Since you do have it, I assume you convert the footage? Into what? Prores, Cineform? How do you find the footage as far as color gradation?

[Michael Kraus]

S-log in the RX10 and RX100 should be interesting. If you bought all three of these cameras it could make a pretty sweet travel setup.

The Panasonic LX100 seems to be the direct competitor to the RX10...and still seems more attractive to me because of the micro 4/3 sensor and price. But S-log is tempting still...

[Ken Ross]

I actually don't convert at all. Although my usual editor is Edius Pro 7, it doesn't handle native H265 as of yet. I suspect Edius Pro 8 will from what I've read.

So I use Power Director 13. PD13 ingests native H265 without conversion. You can then output your project to H264, or alternatively (a lengthier encode) to H265. Visually I'm hard pressed to see any difference in 4K detail or artifacts between the H264 & H265 encodes.

So PD13 makes this whole process easier, but the program itself is more scaled back than my Edius Pro 7.

As for grading, I'm very happy with the color out-of-the-camera, so I haven't done any grading. I've read that people that have done it are surprised by how tolerant the footage is to grading.

If you want to get an idea as to quality, here's a quick edit I did for a trip to Baltimore & DC. All clips are straight from the camera, no corrections. My biggest issue with the camera is the OIS in the 18-200 lens I occasionally use. That lens was used for some shots and those were done with no tripod and I would have hoped for a somewhat more effective OIS:

Baltimore Harbor & Washington DC shot with the Samsung NX1 in 4K - YouTube

[Larry Secrest]

It's so razor sharp! It's an amazing footage, the resolution and the details are amazing, but I could never mistake it for film. As somebody mainly interested in narrative, I'm not sure it's the right cam for me?

[Noa Put]

As somebody mainly interested in narrative, I'm not sure it's the right cam for me?

How do you mean? Will a 4K camera prevent you from telling a story?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Betsy Moore

3) I'm not very technically oriented so forgive the extremely crude estimate but I'm not sure how great the low light capability in video mode will be--at all. In full frame still mode, using every pixel on the sensor, the camera is already 2 ISO stops down from the a7s. Okay, not a big problem since the a7s is a low light monster, though that already means you can't deep focus in moderate light like you can with the a7s.

...........

It gets worse though, in full frame 4k video mode the a7rii has to engage in massive line skipping. Forgetting about moire for the moment, even in 16 x 9 mode the a7rii in still mode has roughly the resolution of an 8k camera. So, crudely guessing, in video full frame 4k mode you're using 1/4th the pixels--wouldn't that reduce the light capturing ability by another 3 or 4 iso's? In full frame video wouldn't we be looking to max out at iso 1600 before quality starts to go down?

I think you may be being unnecessarily pessimistic, but I'll confess I shall have to make some assumptions about what is going on.

I've thought for a while that about 42Mp is a "magic" figure for sensor resolution and the reason why is an extension of the technique Canon used for sensor read with the C300. Simply, in FF mode it can theoretically do the same trick as the C300 used to derive HD - read the sensor in 2x2 Bayer blocks, and derive each output pixels R,G,B values directly - no conventional deBayering.

For the C300 to do this for HD it needed 4x1920x1080 photosites (about 8.3 million). To do the same for 4K (or QHD at any rate) would mean 4x3840x2160 - about 33.2 million. That's for 16:9 - adjust for 3:2 (cropping to get 16:9) and it brings it to a total of about 39.3 million effective. Add in extra pixels for the surround and hey presto we're getting very close to the quoted count.

Are these assumptions correct? I don't know for sure, but they certainly make me optimistic! If - IF - it is true, then far from "massive line skipping" it could open the way to a highly clean 4K output achieved with fairly simple processing.

And more - by reading 4x4 blocks - it should give very good HD output, again with fairly simple processing (here averaging R,G,B values within each block).

And it's a similar thought regarding sensitivity - although each photosite may be relatively small, the averaging process will counteract that and you can expect to get back to square one. That should also hold true in s35 mode, here the averaging happening via the scaling process.

Yes, there are a lot of assumptions there - but I certainly see enough to make me very, very optimistic. Only proper chart tests will definitively show if it is indeed using the 2x2 read technique as seen (for HD) in the C300, but the numbers look right......

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Larry Secrest

It's so razor sharp! It's an amazing footage, the resolution and the details are amazing, but I could never mistake it for film. As somebody mainly interested in narrative, I'm not sure it's the right cam for me?

Thanks Larry. People differ in the look they like. I've always gravitated toward the 'you are there' look and the resolution of the NX1 gives me that.

With that said, I'd agree with Noa, there's no reason that this look wouldn't prevent you from telling your story.

[Larry Secrest]

Of course not. These days stories are told with Iphones 5, not even Iphones 6!
I'm just saying that even an uneducated audience will say, oh, this is video, uh? And we all know that's not a good thing for a narrative.