Moonlight | Sony A7s ISO test from Carbon Studios on Vimeo.
The Sony A7s is one of those few cameras that can expand your creativity. Here is just an example of a video shot in moonlight only! Carbon Studios writes:
“The first scene was shot at 1/25th, f/1.4, 25,600 ISO, The second scene was shot at 1/25th, f/1.4, 32,000 ISO. We did not add any color grading, noise reduction, or sharpness. All of the clips are straight out of the camera shot in the PP2 setting. You will notice some purple fringing around the left side, The Metabones adapter that we rented had a light leak issue from what it looks like. Sony has done an amazing job in creating this camera especially after seeing the quality that has come out of this camera. Gear used:
Sony A7s
Metabones EF to NEX Smart Adapter II
Zeiss 55mm 1.4 Otus
Zeiss 28mm 2.0“
Sony A7s store links:
Sony A7s in USA/CA at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony USA, Sony Canada.
Sony A7s in Eu at Sony DE, UK, ES, FR, IT, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, NO, FI, PL. And Wex UK.
A7s Gariz leather case in [shoplink 27569 ebay]Black (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 27570 ebay]Brown (Click here)[/shoplink], [shoplink 27571 ebay]Red (Click here)[/shoplink] and [shoplink 27572 ebay]Orange (Click here)[/shoplink].
And here is the Carbon Studio team on the location:
0 Responses
Just amazing
i really want to sell my X100 and get an A7s as my everyday camera but i have been trying to hold off to see what the new FF A-mount camera will be since i need to upgrade my 2 A900s…
Wow!
I suppose it’s technically impressive, but I’m not sure about how it’s extended creativity. The video looks a bit like a washed-out daylight shoot under flat light with the saturation turned right down. There’s not much atmosphere suggesting moonlight save the odd glimpse of a bright star or planet.
So impressive that you can do it. Not sure about the creativity shown.
It expands creativity because NOW you can try to shoot without too much available light. Imagine shooting with bright stars as your background without using lights. Or if you’re in the middle of nowhere, and you turn your light, you become noticed by some animal or people… so what about shooting with just what’s available. What about some documental shots in bright skies. Don’t know about you, but right now I’m thinking about several things that can be done for less than 3000USD. Does this sounds like expanded creativity?
An incredible tool for filming documentaries using available light.
There are many situations where lights are frowned upon, here’s one I ran across with a bunch of musicians, nice guys, they tolerate the photographer but I’m positive they wouldn’t tolerate any lights or interruptions (and I don’t blame them).
https://vimeo.com/103294052
409,600 ISO on the A7S
This is a technical demo. I don’t think anyone claimed this as being the greatest thing anyone could do with a camera 😉
and that is the difference between a small sensor and a big one. Unbeatable!
Sweet .
*Military equipment manufactorers lining up for Sony A7S sensors*
Nooooooo
Impressive!
Can’t wait to see this sensor in the A99 II S
Its called adapter ,but yeah whatever… U’ll never stop crying about that a mount 😀
LOL
Make up a new routine man 😉
lol nicely done
Bah… would be impressive if it was done WITHOUT any moon light ! (I’m sarcastic, congrats to Sony !)
When they can shoot using only the light of one firefly then I’ll be impressed. LOL….
Light pollution is getting worse everyday. Guys please remember to fight against light pollution. Help preserve the dark nighttime environment. Make use of proper lighting fixtures when you can and speak out against excessive and unnecessary street and store front lighting. Your Sony A7s will thank you!
http://www.darksky.org
amen!
Technically impressive, yes. But interesting images live from contrast, highlights etc. What’s the point to shoot a ‘grey soup’ movie and be happy that it was moon light? If the audience doesn’t even see the moon to create the association then it looks like underexposed footage.
Moon would be overexposed 😀
Folks this is ridiculous. If you adjust the measurements of DxO mark for sensor size and pixel count, there is not much difference between NEX-7, A7 and A7s. I myself did test pictures with the A7 and the NEX-7 to have this confirmed at least for this pair. Okay, it is easier to find a lens with 40mm of aperture for a FF sensor than for an APS-C sensor (in other words, it is easier to build a 50mm/1.4 than a 35mm/0.9), but that’s all. In particular, there is *no* noticable difference in noise between the A7 and the A7s. You just have to scale the A7 images down.
You are right and wrong. Noise levels of CMOS sensors do not differ too much. What makes a difference here is the fact, that almost all pixels (and so the full surface of the 16:9 part of the full frame sensor) are used for the video picture and not only a fraction of the (significantly smaller) pixels of the A7 or NEX-7 sensor. This minimizes noise by dimensions. If you compare only stills, where all pixels are taken into account when scaling to the same resolution, then you do not see much of a difference.
And the A7S sensor is optimized to provide better color dynamic at high ISO levels.
I didn’t know this, thank you for the heads up. It is not unimportant, though, to make clear that you have to distinguish clearly between still and video capabilities. Sony obviously has no interest in pointing this out, and many other just copy that.
You are making a fairly common assumption here: assuming video is just a series of still frames.
You can’t do that because your stills camera cannot produce full resolution frames at anything near video rates. What your stills camera will instead do is downsample that stills images, thus throwing a lot of the data away, then throw even more data away in encoding (which it has to do to get the video stream to fit onto a slow stills-centric databus). By the time the video hits the storage card, the image is a former shadow of itself.
Some cameras are overengineered, and can be hacked to provide more video-friendly performance, but this always comes at the cost of stability, heat (noise) issues (especially for long shoots), and longer post production workflows (inlcuding having to put up with common video software not recognizing your hacked codecs, which means clients will not accept it unless your production is end-to-end. For example, the most hackable and affordable camera (the GH2) has serious hack loops to go though: you have to do an ISO switch hack before each shot and you have to remember to change WB to minimize the red channel (because the red channel is very noisy in hacked video). If you don’t do both, then your footage will take much longer to fix in post, and may be useless for anything except web.
Cameras that have video designed in at the onset have better video codecs, higher internal bitrates (through a video centric data bus) to support the better video codecs, lower resolution sensors (to aid better downsampling to video resolution, or even to allow no downsampling at all), better use of fast storage cards, and no thermal noise caused by long shoot periods (this may include custom sensor cooling),,, but most of all they are stable and output known pro-codecs. Your A7 or NEX7 has none of these features, although if you are comparing still frames, you can be fooled into thinking they do.
The landscape is fantastic, the cameramen talented, the film really well made : those guys are pro !
But the pictures look grayish and muddy. It isn’t night, nor day. It doesn’t make much sense IMO.
We need some hint that it was night, something that prevent us to think that it was a day scene where something went wrong with the WB.
That you can film such scene doesn’t mean you should do it. Or may be just add a little blue to the WB and include some night light in the scene.
I totally agree
Disagree, if you look closely you can see there were stars in the sky.
And they are REAL! Not CGI. That is what is the coolest.
“We did not add any color grading, noise reduction, or sharpness.
All of the clips are straight out of the camera shot in the PP2 setting.”
My creativity and my A7S have to wait for the california moonbouncers:-)
I can shoot with a6000 and 35 1,8 with no light at all.
Man, you need to get kiting in some warmer weather 🙂
http://youtu.be/tbr7HxI6vWg
The point is not to say, “shoot film in moonlight” rather it’s saying that when needed, look what this camera can do. I can see many videographers benefiting from this. Especially in the wedding industry.
This is one sweet video camera in a still type camera body. Does anyone here have any input on its still capabilities and printing to as large as 16X20. Can one crop modestly and still print to what size? I know this camera needs the large pixels to accomplish what it can do but is it still a camera that can be used for stills say 60 to 70 % of the time with little sacrifice? Thanks for any insight. It seems to me that if you are able to compose your shot the way you need it and only need minimum cropping for print size this would still be a very good still camera.
If the a7s costs 900$ then is a good awesome piece and sony go up in market. But costs 2500$ and sony go down!!!
Those who fail to see the “extended creativity” with such a tool have failed to extend their own creativity.
“You will notice some purple fringing around the left side, The Metabones adapter that we rented had a light leak issue from what it looks like. ”
It’s not a light leak, it’s just how the sensor behaves at high senstivity settings and longer exposure times. Affects stills as well.