The video on top has just been posted on Sony’s Youtube channel. And I bet that after you saw this you will shout…WOW!!! Now you can take images where you couldn’t record them before! I think the A7s (now listed at Amazon) could become a new sort of drug. Once you take it you will never get back. The High ISO performance of the camera not only allows you to see where you didn’t se before. You can also have very short shutter timing at medium low light conditions (and that’s probably the biggest plus for photographers).
Damn, now I want to get the A7s too! Sony, if you read me…can you send me one for free? 🙂
Note: In Switzerland (Internet.ch) you can preorder the A7s for a much lower price than the one published by WexUK (Click here). The A7s is listed at Amazon (Click here), Digitalrev (Click here) and BHphoto (Click here) but with no price or preorder option.
A7s sites in different languages at Sony US, DE, UK, ES, FR, IT, NL, SE, FI, PL.
0 Responses
But still, I would like a non-streamed file to really say “wow” or not.
I am saying wow now just because I can see that 25600 is still an impressive feat depending on how it really looks straight off the camera.
agree. since the very high compression on youtube may hide a lot of ugly truth. we need to see the original file.
Yes and no – YouTube / the web will probably be the top distribution avenue for a7s videos.
Amazing.
That…is…insane!!!
Even more impressive if you realize that SLog2 was used, which eventually leads to extra lifting of shadows (more amplification).
4K output should be even better! Now I hope they will show some High ISO stills soon too.
+1
Certain spy agencies can now record your keystrokes in the dark, from far away. 🙂
They already can.
I don’t like high megapixel cookies.
Grest csmera but if yesterdsys price rumot is true they will not sell very well.
Yes. Price is the key here. Don’t forget we need to spend another $2000 for a 4K recorder, and we have other choices out there for a $4500 4K camera.
sorry, mistake. there is no edit function here?
anyway, should be $2000+$3500 = $5500!
You can edit your post..lok under you own coment and you will see an edit button.
Videographers who care will snap these up like hotcakes. Even it’s $5500 for the camera and an Atomos Shogun, that’s considerably less expensive and still smaller and lighter than a 300C or 500C. People whining about not being able to record 4K to memory cards aren’t thinking about the file sizes involved. The Shogun is capable to 2TB… that might get you 2.5 hours of footage. Think about that and then decide how much 2TB would be in 128GB increments of QUALITY memory cards. And then realize that the External drive is far, far more cost effective.
Also, frankly, $5500 is simply inexpensive in today’s video world where the highly vaunted, award winning, much supported FS700 is nearly $8k without lenses and is not a full frame camera with full pixel read out with no crop.
As for the still photographers who know what it can do, concert and theatre are two groups that come immediately to mind, a camera that can focus to -4EV and allows for clean 12800 will sell amazingly well because why? Because neither Canon nor Nikon have anything like it at $3k that’s why. They charge over twice that amount to gain that kind of capability. Not even the Df can do this kind of work. If the preliminary shots on video at ISO 51,200 mean anything, then the stills are going to be stunning. And that will be, again, a real game changer. The 70D does not qualify.
Just to Add, it cost at around $20K to get the FS700 operable for 4K. The A7s is going to be more like $6k-$7k
This is also FF and more sensitive.
Also, the Shogun should get closer to 5hrs in Pro-Res if my math is right.
I don’t think this replaces a Super35 production camera, not hardly. But it compliments one well, they have different purposes.
I’m also way more excited for the Shogun on the FS700 then the A7s. Hopefully we will finally get a good compressed Codec off that camera.
Agreed. The Shogun offers quite the package for its size. I can’t wait to test drive it. And also agreed on the pricing. I was merely trying to keep body for body pricing in line for the comparison. The FS700 users will be yet another group purchasing the A7s, no doubt. 🙂 I know the A7s isnt designed to usurp a Super35 cam but for some folks on a budget, it certainly could while they got established… and it would allow for some creative versatility lacking in other ILC video systems. S-Log and XLR compatibility alone make it worth the money, given the size, weight, and the sensor/processor combo that appear to punch way above their weight class.
I just wanted to add that for people not familiar with what Production 4K costs atm, with the intro of the GH4 and the BM4KC everyone seems to think it costs/should cost 2K-3K. When in reality the REAL cheapest options are nowhere near.
Hopefully this will put 4K in the range of more people, real production video is expensive though, more people need to get that too. I think 4K is widening the field between consumer video and Pro Video if anything, not necessarily because of costs though. Clients are going to expect more as 4K gets more and more accessible and with more and more talented people getting into video. It requires a lot more work to get good results, but it pays off.
Definitely agree with your sentiments here. Spot on. 4K (and, god save us, 8k) will inevitably become the professional field darlings whereas 1080/2k will be for amateurs or budding filmmakers on a budget. I think the A7s will likely provide some pretty stunning 1080p XAVCs footage for ANY videographer but most certainly for a student or creative looking to break in. The new XLR adapter is a great addition for the live audio junkies looking for connectivity or just a solid raw feed. The price alone will continue to split the field but you’re definitely right: more people are being given the chance. It may flood the field for a bit but the best will generally rise up when they are able.
Exactly, I see nothing but good things from all this. Video is totally a separate thing from stills and not something you can just dabble in. I take more specialty equipment to do good video, that is totally separate from photography equipment.
It takes a lot more than just a camera and some lenses to do good video, I see this as only having a positive effect for working Film-makers.
A concert or theatre usually doesn’t need a camera with -4ev to focus.
A canon 6D (great low ISO capabilities) downscaled to 12MP should deliver clean 12800 files, too. My D610 gives very nice ISO 6400 files and downsized to 12MP ISO 12800 looks great, especially if I don’t want to sell wall sized prints.
I see the benefit for video guys, but for still pictures a Df or other newer generation FF camera will be more than enough for most situations. One thing Sony should do is to decrease the shutter sound.
It is unlikely that either the 6D or the D610 will match the native dynamic range of the A7s out of the box and it is also unlikely that they will match the cleanliness of the upper echelon ISOs. And neither will either of them match the video output in 1080 or 4k for obvious reason. Not to take away from either of them but they simply don’t have ability. And as someone who’s shot dance, and ballet, and other ridiculously silent productions, even way back with my FM2n cameras, I’ve never felt terrible about a shutter sound in my life. And no one has EVER complained to me about it. Birds do not take flight, the deer do not run, and kids these days are so immune nothing distracts them. To me the shutter sound issue is moot.
I think the 6D is a great camera, the D610, to me less appealing but still accomplished… but the A7s offers a different level of hardware than is available to either of them.
It sure is more capable (being newer) and has great video options (which I don’t need, but is sure a great thing for people interested in it). However, downsizing images gives you a similar noise level and dynamic range for a certain range of ISOs (for the highest S/N is so low, that photons lost at the pixel boundaries become important) but increased sharpness. You can trade that in for further noise reduction (luminous-landscape has an article on this and I could point you to scientific articles showing that it’s even possible with pixel binning, if certain algorithms are used (otherwise artefacts like aliasing or moire get into play)). The biggest benefit I see would be a reduced work-flow. But I prefer higher pixel counts to be able to crop and would down-scale if necessary. The good thing is the competition raised by Sony, forcing Canikon to do s.th. in the future (especially because Fuji is going FF, too).
I would t mind a 12MP APS-C NEX cam with similar features, much more affordable and smaller sized. Perhaps competitors will wake up
Except that an APS-C sized sensor would not perform as well as a FF sensor.
not as well but well, difference between 2k and 600€
at 102400 its like morning LOL wow this with my 50mm 1.4 man i don’t even need my light set up any more haha
but the rumor price is way to much! this should be around 1200 to 1600 pounds not more
a7, a7r, a7s, the glorious three, there really isn’t much overlap, the a7 the most versatile with the snappiest af and the best in class 24mp sensor,
the A7r with the best 36mp sensor and now the A7s with the best low light sensor currently available. I am sold, I meant to say, my DSLR gear is about to go on sale 🙂
Way ahead of you on the sale…I only have 2 Canon lenses left!
Canon gear gone………..(:-)
🙂 Canon and Nikon gear….almost all gone, the 55mm did it for you too, right?
As soon as I shot with it I dumped my 85L, I always preferred a shorter lens but Canon’s 50’s were not in the same league as this!!! ~Chris
I hear you. I rented the Nikkor 58mm 1.4 to compare, that made the decision easy, the 55mm is far superior.
I’m just wondering. The 55 is one of the best available (the new Sigma perhaps plays in a similar league). But the difference in sharpness is not leaps and bounds better compared to a 50mm/1.8g on a Nikon D610 (which I have and compared to) if you don’t compare at 100% all the time. The 50/1.8 gives you very sharp shots wide open (I don’t care about cornea for that). Do you all print DinA0 all the time to really see the difference?
If you are a fine art professional photographer, I understand that. If photography is your hobby and money is no issue, o.k. But only to feel good to have s.th. which is better mostly at 100%? I don’t know.
A 6D or D610 with primes is very good value for the money and not too expensive (28/1.8,50/1.8,85/1.8) and not heavy at all.
I’m still not convinced about the A7 (the green flare problem, responsiveness and speed, shutter sound. I’m not the only one to find that but maybe it’s a typical first generation issue. The A8 will be better). I will however seriously consider a A8 or s.th. if the variety in autofocus lenses grows and some of the quirks get resolved in the future, unless the new Xpro-2 FF will deliver or Nikon comes with a FF mirror less, too.
I totally agree and personally don’t care so much about sharpness, for most general subjects I wouldn’t bother spending so much on a standard lens, however, when you shoot full length portraits or editorials wide open and it goes to print, you do see the difference because the face of the model ends up being close to the boarder of the frame, but most importantly, the phase detect/contrast detect af is spot on most of the time, whereas shooting with the Nikon and Canon misfocused shots were a real problem with the 50mm 1.2 L or 1.4.
This is the point that got me interested in mirror less. This is the only point I sometimes curse my Nikon for. My OMD is able to focus very close to the borders and contrast af is more accurate for sure. As I don’t rely on it professionally I don’t care, but I would like to have a FF mirror less for shallow DOF work just for fun.
I would want 85 and 135mm lenses at prices and quality comparable to a Nikon 85mm/1.8g, which is excellent ( I don’t care about plastics). My guess is, however, that a future Zeiss 85mm will be expensive. I could use adapters, but this is not always fun.
Now there’s the new sigma art 50/1.4… bigger though
Sounds like they made a nice lens too — it’s great to have choice!
Rather than spend thousands to make darkness into daylight I’ll use the Sun, it’s free! 😀
I’m sure as much as so many beautiful things that happen during days, there are equal number happens during nights.
AlphaGuy doesn’t go outside at night. There’s nothing to see out there, it’s dark!
so is the A7s better at pics than the A7r or is the A7s just better for video?
if you don’t need the resolution, it will be the best low light camera, stills and video alike
I tried to shoot some local Blue Grass music events last year (see my site) with a Sony video camera. The audio was lovely via the XLR mic, but the picture quality was pretty lousy as these guys like to perform after dark in lamplight. I can only imagine how much better the A7s & XLR mic adaptor would make them!
One of the reasons I got the A7 (over the A7r) was for its slightly better low-light performance.
If I had known the 7s was coming I would have waited for it.
Oh well…
If it’s that much of a problem just sell it and buy the A7S. It’s only money.
Doesn’t the A7R have slightly better lowlight performance than A7?
As it turns out yes. The A7r has an edge over the A7 for some reason.
Yes, in the end the 7r actually turned out to be slightly better (though I was anticipating the opposite when I pre-ordered) 🙂
Swis offer is not available
cant wait to see what the stills look like and how the AF performs… i wont use the video feature, so thats not really important for me
Or you could just get a CaNikon which will give you great low-light performance, fast AF performance, plenty of lenses, professional support and a flash system that actually works! Tough choice!
Can you please link me to the full frame mirrorless canikon camera that has great low light and fast AF? i cant seem to find one when i search… and i shoot with manual flash so the flash system is irrelevant for me and I’m already invested in Sony A-mount glass
You are missing the point. CaNikon don’t need a full frame mirrorless to get great low light and AF for weddings, they already that PLUS all the other things I mentioned. But hey, it’s your money, you spend it on a body that’ll get replaced by a version 2 in six months time that fixes the firmware bugs.
haha its so funny when people try and tell me what it is i want.
-Canikon does not have a full frame mirrorless – which i want
-Canikon does not have a camera that rivals the sony that’s also in the same price bracket
-I already have all the lenses i want (minus a 45mm tilt shift which can easily mount to any A7)
-I already know how to to use my flashes so “a flash system that actually works” is irrelevant
i will agree that the firmware updates are despicable… but they are equally as bad at Canikon… the only camera company doing it right is Fuji (love my X100)
You obviously didn’t read the bit where I said it’s you money.
You clearly don’t understand the point that for stills photography CaNikon don’t NEED a mirrorless body because dSLRs and are ALREADY mirrorless!
If you think that this thing is going to give you fast AF with your A-mount lenses then good luck and don’t say you weren’t warned.
Of course you could absolutely invest in a Canon body that doesn’t get revamped in 5 years (still ongoing) or a Nikon body that hasn’t been revamped in 6 (also still ongoing… where oh where is that D400s?) and realize that you’ve invested in a system that relies solely on its namesake and merely takes advantage of the fact that their users invested in the 90s and early 2000s and refuses to move into the modern era.
No one buys Nikon for video unless they’re forced to by the lens mount they’re already invested in… though if they were properly educated they’d buy a GH4 and an adapter, or perhaps an A7s when it comes out. The Canon guys are also tired of being beta tested on for generations of firmware updates, and are looking to Fuji, Sony, and Panasonic to lead them into the future of their careers… many already owning a mirrorless system as their second system, knowing it will eventually become their primary. No one in their right mind is going to own a 1DC when the GH4 will likely destroy its capabilities or when the A7s will offer a higher quality image across the board and in all light levels.
Giving Canon and NIkon credit for 30yrs of system is one thing but saying that Sony needs to have matched that 30yrs in under 10 is ridiculous. In innovative technology Sony has already surpassed Canon and Nikon combined. It has been the emergence of Sony as THE global sensor design and fabrication leader, that is finally allowing Sony the money to truly develop the digital imaging sector. The lens system is finally growing at a measurable pace (optics take forever to develop and manufacture, some lenses taking 2 years to build) For two years now Sony have been turning a profit in their digital imaging division. Do you really want to back the hemorrhaging Nikon, staring down record losses and a slowing system R&D? Or how about Canon who really want you to believe that the T5i and the SL1 represent the pinnacle of their entry level userbase, using 5 and 4 yr old architecture, when an A6000 does everything a 7D can do and then some for the same price as a T5i? In fact, if it were full frame, the A6000 would be a better camera than the 6D.
When you invest in companies, you invest in their future. There is no question that, at the very least, Sony tech and innovation give the Sony user an excellent chance at a system they’ll be using for a lifetime, or at least for as long as digital photography remains a thing. It’s very clear that Sony’s Digital Imaging division has been given a mandate and a serious pile of cash. Combine this with their indisputably world class engineers and you’ll have cameras for the ages.
This is just incredible… It’s like daylight!
not natural at all . What is the point to change night into day ? Just give me 3200, 6400 clean iso .
yes they are so damn stupid. why dont they just wait till sunrise and then start filming…
you guys are trolling, that is just a iso testing. And if they can perform well at high iso, at low iso it sure give you clean image, think about it.
People won’t necessarily change day into night, you can still underexpose to make sure it still looks like it’s during the night but have good image quality!
And it can allow for people to make “artistic tests” much more easily, like on that picture I include. 30sec exposure at ISO 200? What about exposing at 1/30 and be able to film like that? (It was a night time picture.)
I wonder if a 5-6mp entry NEX with this sensor in APS size would sell.
I’d pick certainly pick one up. I’d like the sensitivity occasionally but without the bulk and price of FF. I rarely print big any of my shots taken in sub-par light anyways as I make sure that light is good if I know I’m going to print. And for small prints 5-6MP suffice.
Besides, I wonder where the partially faulty wafers are going. Industrial low-res stuff maybe? Certainly not into any consumer stuff…
Given equivalent levels of sensor technology, an APS-C can never be as “sensitive” as a 35mm FF for equal output size. The FF sensor will (for the same exposure) detect 2.25 x the number of photons and there is simply no way round it. Put a 5.3mp sensor on an APS-C sensor, then you can achieve the same IQ at 1:1 pixel sensor scaling, but all you then have is a 44% (by area) crop out of the middle of the FF frame.
not sure you are technically right on that one… Okay a FF sensor can detect 2.25 x the number of photons but then the surface size of a FF sensor is 2.5 times that of an APS-C so what does that prove? Tell me that if the FF can only detect 2.25 times the number of photons then the APS-C is still ahead of the game… Frankly I think your 2.25 is off it should be 2.5 and it is all based on the surface area. But that doesn’t mean you couldn’t go the same route in a APS-C sensor trading the number of pixels for better sensitivity. Taken to an extreme one could build an even smaller 1/1.7 size sensor that had only one pixel and yet have it be much more sensitive as the A7S sensor… You seem to be assuming that they wouldn’t simply use a chopped off version of the A7S sensor in the APS-C camera, if they did just use a chopped off version its abilities would be the same only with a different format.
The crop factor for Sony APS-C sensors, is normally stated to be 1.6, which means the surface area of the FF is 1.5 x 1.5 = 2.25, not 2.5. I suppose if you care to look into the detailed spec, and do the mathematics, then the actual crop factor is more like 1.52, which gives you about 2:3:1in area, but that’s a mere detail.
Also, I don’t really understand your logic. Yes, you could keep the photosite size the same, and reduce the sensor size to one pixel. If we ignore the colour aspect (a bit difficult to have a bayer-pattern 1×1 sensor), it would, all other things being equal, have the same DR & NR characteristics exhibited on each pixel of the A7S sensor. However, that’s hardly useful. You then have something that is just a single pixel “crop” of the full frame. If you scaled the FF image down to that single pixel then it would, in theory, have an enormously increased dynamic range and SNR.
The simple fact is that whole image IQ is ultimately limited by the number of photons that can be detected and, with equivalent technology (QE, read noise, well depth per unit area etc), the larger sensor is always better (in direct areal proportion) to the smaller one. It’s simply a game of statistics once the detailed issues of fabrication are equalised.
So, your smaller sensor can cover a (proportionally) smaller FoV with the same IQ and sensitivity, or it can cover the same FoV with the same IQ and lower sensitivity or the same FoV with lower IQ and the same sensitivity. What you can’t have is the same FoV, IQ & sensitivity.
Of course, if you do have a smaller sensor, then you can compensate with faster lenses. A 35mm f2 on APS-C will deliver approximately same FoV and number of photons as a 50mm f2.8 on FF. That means you can run at half the ISO on the APS-C with the same DoF and the same IQ at comparable output resolution. That’s basically because the total light collecting power of the two lenses is about the same (and, not coincidentally, will the approximate diameter of the first element of the lens – at least for simple symetrical lens designs). It’s all in the principle of equivalence.
A very useful page on all this stuff and required reading for anybody who really wants to understand what’s going on
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/
nb. there is a limit to this though, and that’s dictated by how many excited electrons the sensor can hold per unit area (something called the electron well depth). Go beyond that, and the photosite saturates and can receive no more. As the faster lens delivers a higher flux level to the smaller sensor, it will saturate earlier. That’s why large sensors ultimately have higher base DR than smaller (at equivalent output levels).
Well, where did I claim that APS was equally sensitive as FF?
If the early samples are an indication, this sensor seems to have at least 2-3 stops advantage over modern high-density ones.The difference between FF and APS is about one stop give or take. That still leaves a 1-2 stops advantage.
Also, with everything being equal (and it is, given the similar body sizes), the smaller sensor generates less heat (esp. during LV) making the difference even smaller.
While this image is better than most of the other low light video options that preceded it, it is still sub-pro in appearance to my eyes. The YouTube stream gives away just how unattractive and globular the noise is at anything above ISO1600. I would much rather see a properly lit scene with a less-capable camera (and with a finer noise pattern) then a half-a$$ed shot, in near-dark conditions. One more thing, simply raising the ISO adds no dimension to the scene. In reality this may just be a tool designed for the laziest of DPs who don’t want to bother being creative with lighting on the set. Those results will be terrible in most instances. So I see this as being a good tool for the documentary shooter who’s working solo and doesn’t have time to light a set but honestly, that’s about it.
hey man, be serious… have you seen something “near” similar before?
it’s just amazing…
on vimeo there is a full movie about this story
The question is not how unique the spec is, it’s how applicable it will actually be in the real world of film making. As others have already said, if you’re trying to trick a viewer into seeing daylight this may work, but it’s just a ridiculous illusion that ends up looking sub-par from a cinematography point of view. When the sun is below the horizon and you’re shooting in the dark, you’ve lost the shadows that add the drama to the scene and you’ve replaced them with globs of grain that make the image look like it was underexposed by mistake and then lifted in post. That being said, this camera is perfectly suited and will be great at 4K astro-timelapse, unfortunately it doesn’t appear to have an electronic shutter mode so one will have to burn up shutters to use it for that purpose. The entire feature set of this camera seems riddled with holes that are mostly filled in with low-light marketing redirection which doesn’t quite cut it unless that is all that is important to you in a camera. I wish that was not the case!
People would find good use in videography for the high ISO capability. It’s only the operator that doesn’t know how to use the tools to produce sub-par productions. No one in his right mind would make a sunrise scene to be as bright as daylight. Any dark scene with the need to closing the aperture way down would benefit greatly from this. Just let your imagination fly instead of nitpicking.
My point is that the scenes you describe are already easy to manage without ISO 500,000. It tends to be a rare circumstance that anything more than ISO 1600 is necessary, so the benefits of high ISO for film making is highly overstated by marketing depts, IMO.
I specialize in documentary-style shoots and I can tell you, at 2am in the middle of a 24-hour race, documenting action behind the scenes is always lacking for light. For documentary shooters this camera is a game changer.
ok now thats very impressive!.. yes this would be perfect for my film doco work – i’ve been shooting a self-funded doco on a new cancer treatment for the last two years, they are using lasers in a dark room.. maybe this could be the key to me actually being able to get footage of the actual operation.. just wish i had the funds for something like this.. been using Sony’s RX100 which just cannot cut it in the op room but is perfectly fine for interviews.. 🙁 now anyone in Guangzhou, China who gets their hands on one and wants to see something pretty special? plz buzz me!
I agree and in my original post I stated that for documentaries this camera makes good sense.
It’s rare because the previous tech would not let people getting good enough footage above 1600. Watch the documentary on Stanley Kubrick’s candle lit Barry London scene to see how some people were willing to go through that much trouble to achieve the effect they envisioned. Obviously, one of the noted effects was how the darn scene had razor thin DOF beside the unwanted glow. I am strictly a stills shooter, and even I sometimes wish I have more than just a mere ISO 1600. I would be glad when I need much more than that, it’s there. You don’t need to shoot high ISO all the time. As for the product, I’m glad Sony is showing these videos. They’re not that good at marketing their imaging products. On the other hand, you don’t have to buy into these so-called “highly overstated.” If you need the capability, you buy it. If you don’t, then you don’t. Because you don’t see the point, it doesn’t mean others wouldn’t.
Just presented my opinion… didn’t realize everyone was buying the camera to reshoot Barry Lyndon in “proper fashion.” I stand corrected!
Tron, the movie is not exactly about how good is camera filming in night. In most of cases real life scenes are filmed indoor or even outdoor in moderate light conditions. Just several days per year are sunny except you live in Sahara. Most of pictures/movies taken in real life conditions have a _lot_ of noise, that is hope, this camera will eliminate it.
“you’ve lost the shadows”.
You have nice shadows with the full moon.
It may not appeal to the folks the set up shots and have big budgets but for the student film makers that don’t have the time or money for lighting it will be very appealing.
If you’re a student then you should definitely learn how to light a scene, it is paramount to understanding the craft. Cheap LED panels abound everywhere today. Experiment, have fun, learn… don’t rely on ISO 500K as a replacement for shaping light. That has the potential to limit your creativity and aesthetic in the end. It can work for you too in certain instances, no one is disputing that.
For somebody with such a lack of imagination you are quite the snob (or maybe it’s because of it).
You can’t imagine that in many situations there might be no way to get extra light in? Or somebody might not want to add light because of the atmosphere? You speak of unattractive noise over ISO 1600, compared to what camera now exactly?
You sound like a dinosaur, bitter and jealous that everybody with this camera is now going to be able to get shots easily that previously only you could get with your professional fancy ways. Lighten up.
Totally agree. Photography should be limited by the photographer’s imagination, not by a stupid camera that can only record in a studio (with $5000+ on lighting). High ISO / fast Shutter opens up a lot of creative potential imao.
You read an awful lot into other peoples feelings, how about I have a turn –
You cannot imagine that someone would not choke down the marketing drivel surrounding this camera. You drop your pants at the first sign of “class leading ISO performance.” You compensate for your deep down insecurity at the meager feature spec by projecting an aire of elitism against anyone who is not solely satisfied by High ISO performance in their cameras.
Speaking of High ISO, it would be much more impactful if the camera had lenses, autofocus capability and frame rates substantial enough to take advantage of the higher shutter speeds that the low light technology will allow for – especially in sports photography, but sorry that won’t happen in this cam. High DR -> Landscapes -> Low Pixel Count – sorry but landscape is out. 4K video? Sorry, you need another $2K add-on to build up a $5K kit without any lenses and only with 8 bit video color space. 2.5 fps continuous contrast detect?? Come on now… the holes in the spec are too large to cover here.
No, I just don’t base my purchasing decisions on the size of pixels alone. I am allowed a choice as well and an option to post my reasoning for it based on facts. That’s what people do in a free society. Try being wide-eyed enough to identify a realist amongst the sheeple for a change rather than drinking kool aid.
Another commercial for the A7S. Can’t wait until the A77II gets some more praise. I’m already tired of this camera. It was exciting from Sunday – Wednesday and now like most e-mount products has lost its allure.
i am sold but its obvious this sensor need a processer can give 10 bit out
maybe vg 900 style or a99s give us what we need 4k internal and 10 bit output
Breathtaking!
This should revolutionize astrophotography (as well as candlelit weddings, etc.).
But Sony, c’mon – still shooters need/want this cam without the half-implemented 4k tech cobbled on…
Read this here on using Sony as a Astro-Camera:
http://www.davidkinghamphotography.com/blog/2014/4/the-ultimate-lightweight-camera-for-night-photography
Thanks for the Link HF! I agree with David on everything except the issue he is having with the Sony A7 EVF, he said its dark so he cant use it!, I have an A77 and have found my EVF to be more effective and brighter than the simple Optical pentaprism in my Canon’s view finder. It could just be that he is not used to the EVF, All I do is set for a long exposure and the EVF brightens everything up (a bit noisy but who cares its just tempory to frame heavens in the EVF first) then reset to the settings I want and take the photo. 🙂 If the A7S is actually as sensitive as the Hype then you can bet it should beat the pants off of the CaNikons ;-).
“Sony, if you read me…can you send me one for free? 🙂 ”
You can then sell it to me for the fake link price you post at 1864 Euros!
1864 Euro equals 2586.11 US Dollar – this could be the price Sony could ask for.
Though, $1,999 could be a good price for this camera IMHO
Sony just turned darkness into daylight!! But I also want to see handheld low light still picture performance with various shutter speed.
waiting for the new 99s…
same technology, more mpx, will record 4k on board.
Me too!
Rolling shutter is very bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlxCSrdhyW8
The $12,000 Canon EOS 1D C rolling shutter :
https://vimeo.com/66833076
Not even close as bad as the D7s.
Do the rolling shutter test as fast as the A7s with the 1D C and it would look just as bad.
If it wasn’t for the price, rolling shutter would drive me to GH4 anyhow.
It looks as bad as the AX100. Such a pity.
And sony wants >$3000 for this camera right?
What a joke.
Really? That’s normal.
Virtually any camera…
nice work sony! stills samples please! 🙂
I bet Sony will have a cinema 4K (4096×2160 @60fps ) VG900 upgrade with UHS-II support and 400Mbps bit rate at the next CES 2015.
Doesn’t impress me really. Video is much less demanding: Low spatial resolution, plus the smearing effect of the moving picture, is the best anti-noise weapon.
I want more a-mount News….
Time of the day data is needed for fair judgement of this video sample. I.e., was the sun starting to rise as ISO value increased?
how much brighter does it get in 1 min?
but anyways this was sunset.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/12631/sony-a7s-rolling-shutter-test
problems problems…
I’ve been trying to work out what light level this is to compare it to other very low light videos. Looking at what I’d judge to be a “correct” exposure, then I’d pick the one about 200,000 ISO. Doing a bit of conversion work, that’s about -2EV (about 30 secs at 100 ISO), and equates to about 0.6 LUX. That makes sense – it’s in the range of what you get from a full moon on a clear night (0.27-1 LUX).
Canon have a test video (of fireflies), on a dedicated 1080p HD video sensor, which has 19 micron photosites (so only one photosite per HD pixel, so will have much poorer colour separation than the Sony which will have 4 photosites per 1080p pixel). It is notably poorer than the Sony video, but was apparently filmed at just 0.01LUX, which I make about 6EV less than A7s video. It would be interesting to find some more.
It would be interesting to find some more examples of ultra low-light videos (perhaps the
Canon EOS C300, which appears to have a similar pixel counts, sizes and layouts in the actual video, rather than still, image frame). It would also be really useful to have some information on the actual illumination level. One off promotional videos, such as Sony and Canon’s are really not much of a substitute for properly controlled tests, but this is all that’s available for the moment.
One thing to note is that in professional video cameras, ISO as such is often not used as a term in favour of gain, which is really a more accurate description of what it is going on.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/09/13/canon-releases-sample-video-from-high-sensitivity-full-frame-cmos-sensor
That stuff’ll make your head spin Steve! My nerdy niece thought those Canon fireflies were the coolest thing ever and never noticed the noisy file. Kids today……(:-)
It’s nothing new… when a higher MP sensor image is down-ressed to the size of a lower MP sensor image, it’s better than an image that came out if the lower res image sensor.
Im also guessing you haven’t seen the first set of videos by the Canon. They show far better colour than the Sony. .. just saying:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/03/04/by-the-light-of-the-silvery-moon-canons-new-full-frame-sensor-gets-video
Have a look.
I suspect the Canon will be ultimately better in low light. However, the Canon in return will not be able to achieve the same level of colour fidelity at HD resolution.
This isn’t because of some bias on my part, one way or another. It’s simply a reflection of the fact that Sony’s sensor has approximately 8Mpix in the sensor area, meaning that it can perform full colour sampling in every 1080 video pixel, whilst the Canon will have to interpolate such colour information. Consequently, spatial resolution of colour on the Canon will be worse, although this is not such an important issue with video as it is for still images.
However, the Canon low MP count will provide for a modest improvement in dark area noise, but as there are only 2 million pixels to read, it will be able to read them all much faster, thereby achieving higher frame rates. It will also mean that rolling shutter effects will be a lot less on the Canon sensor. Indeed, there may be another trick that Canon may be able to play, and that is perform multiple reads per video frame and thereby improve performance even more.
Of course, the Canon sensor is also a one trick pony. It is a dedicated video sensor, and would make for a dreadful still image sensor. The Sony sensor on the other hand is better characterised as a still image sensor optimised towards video. In low light situations, the Canon to by considerably better than the Sony sensor, but in half-way decent lighting, I’d expect Sony HD output to be better than the Canon’s (due to higher colour spatial sampling rates), albeit with more rolling shutter issues. I’d also expect the Sony to be a bit better than the Canon on aliasing due to the higher spatial sampling frequency, although that can be a bit unpredictable as it depends on the material.
Simply horses for courses, and an illustration of the impact of design tradeoffs.
Just responding to your comment on colour not being good on the Canon. Did you see the green tree in moonlight?
The rest of what you say is common sense and we all know this it is a one trick pony. The a7s is also very close to being one actually, for those who need resolution. .. but not as bad.
It’s not the quality of the colour (and in very low light the Canon will be better), but the spatial resolution I was referring too, although that’s not so critical for video as still. After all, most video is encoded with reduced chromatic frequency.
As far as colour in good light is concerned, then (provided that the manufacturers haven’t cheated by reducing sensor filter selectivity), that’s more a function of processing from RAW than anything else.
If that is the case then Sony could have just tweaked the A7r to give the same thing instead? Like what Panasonic did with the GH2 sensor? Then this A7s is nothing more than a cynical marketing move? Dem.
Go in a tangent much? 🙂
Take a deep breath and please read my comment again. It doesn’t say the a7r images down ressed is the same as the a7s images.
HERE IS THE THING!
WHATS THE POINT OF HAVING SUCH LARGE DYNAMIC RANGE WHEN THE RAW FILES ARE COMPRESSED IN A LOSSY MANNER!
YOUR THOUGHTS?
Still beating a dead horse, eh? And turn off THE DAMN CAPS LOCK!
It has been proven time and time again, that for 99.999% of situations, The image quality of the RAW compression employed by Sony will not be any different from a lossless compression. Some websites go out of their way, to actually find a scenario and publish it as a big problem with Sony cameras.
The truth is that the scenario occurs very rarely in real life. From what I recall, it had to do with very sharp and high contrast color transitions, such as black line next to a white line. Or bright blue sky against the very dark horizon. These are the only scenario where you will see compression artifacts.
Maybe someone can explain it better than me. I don’t exactly recall the tests that were performed, so this is off the top of my head.
My thoughts are – BROKEN CAPS LOCK!
BLAH BLAH BLAH!
What did you ask again?
What do you shoot? The A7R file looks better than the Canon files (for my work). The only guy I’ve heard take issue with the Sony file shoots lawn furniture…………
You don’t use Sony raw files much, do you?
well with youtube compression iso 6400 looks worse than iso 51200
Very impressive. Still have no interest in buying one but I get the excitement.
Duck me! Impressive!
Your Links are Broken… no preorder or something else
Let there be light!
Philip Bloom prefers GH4 over the Sony A7s:
“It’s just a real shame there is no internal 4K recording…now that would be mind-blowing . That means the camera with a sensor half the size of this, the Panny GH4 stills has the edge on 4K recording over it due to it’s ability to record internally. With a Metabones speed booster (still no EF mount) you can make that sensor give you a field of view not far off S35/ APS-C”.
Nice surprise to see the noise reduction at the same time they increases ISO till 102400.
Dear Sonyalpharumors,
Please tell Sony to offer us a Sony A7m, monochrome version of the new 12MP A7. In other words an A7s without the Bayer filter. It would make a phenomenal black and white only, street, underground and combat camera.
You can take my order right now !
no internal recording => no buy
yaaayyyyyyyy……….. its so so s ……ugly