Sony RX10 with 24-200mm f2.8 zoom and 1" sensor ! - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 11:28 AM
Member
 
bobk77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

This yet another example of a review that gives specifics and comparisons for stills, and says little about video that is useful. Here is what the review said about the video specifically:

"The zoom is quite slow but that does help the camera stay focused as the lens moves. The AF generally works quickly and smoothly. The stereo mics record powerful, accurate sound, and a headphones socket is on hand for monitoring. You can also plug in an external mic if you prefer more directional sound. Image quality is good—very good, in fact." That's it.

There are actually only two adjectives in all of that with any meaning (leaving aside "slow"). Beside "accurate", which is interpretable, what are we to make of "good--very good" video "quality"? not ""excellent"? compared to what? what quality are we talking about - color accuracy? resolution? dynamic range? noise? And, the AF "generally" working well - what do we make of that - are there instances where it does not work quickly or smoothly? C'mon.

There were specific comparisons of still quality to other cameras and some test images displayed in the review.

This favorable review is worthless. Reviewers of cameras are going to have to step up and learn video, as more and more cameras and users take video seriously.

I think we will learn a lot more from Ken, who knows what he is doing and has cameras to compare.

OK - Mark got interested.
I wonder how long you are going to wait before you test it? smile.gif
bobk77 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 11:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,838
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

It is impossible to not re-render when you add titles or transitions. The question is whether the editing software only re-renders at the transitions and merge points or re-renders everything. AFAIK, the only editing software that does the former is TMPGEnc MPEG Smart Renderer 4. It does titles, transitions, audio filtering and really renders only those parts where it is necessary. Thus, it is fast and the quality is the highest you can get without going RAW. It really works well, and you can also demux the video and remux another replacement soundtrack. It works with any h264 video (avchd, .mov, mts, mp4, etc.)

Thanks Mark! I'm sure you're right. I think we discussed this in detail months ago! I've had the TMPGEnc website bookmarked since then, but have done nothing about it.

FWIW, I've read that Premier Pro in the CC version has some "lossless" features. I have no personal experience so can't confirm it.

Best...
Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #183 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 11:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,838
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

......... Reviewers of cameras are going to have to step up and learn video, as more and more cameras and users take video seriously.

I think we will learn a lot more from Ken, who knows what he is doing and has cameras to compare.

What has kept me stuck here in this forum is learning about video capabilities. You and others have helped me learn a lot! I don't always take the advice though.

After following this thread, I decided against the RX10 for me. I've taken advantage of Ken's words here! Then I tried to verify them in a few other places.

Minutes ago I gave B&H more money than I've ever spent on a camera. I want it to do both video and photos. It's purpose is long reach wildlife telephoto in a compact form factor. I went around in circles for weeks and kept coming back to the same spot. It would have been easy with some DSLRs and a Ford F-150 to haul it around.

I may have to start an "Official" thread when I get the new camera. (grin)

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #184 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 12:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
hatchback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

What has kept me stuck here in this forum is learning about video capabilities. You and others have helped me learn a lot! I don't always take the advice though.

After following this thread, I decided against the RX10 for me. I've taken advantage of Ken's words here! Then I tried to verify them in a few other places.

Minutes ago I gave B&H more money than I've ever spent on a camera. I want it to do both video and photos. It's purpose is long reach wildlife telephoto in a compact form factor. I went around in circles for weeks and kept coming back to the same spot. It would have been easy with some DSLRs and a Ford F-150 to haul it around.

I may have to start an "Official" thread when I get the new camera. (grin)

Bill

Bill, your post is ambiguous but I hope that you haven't purchased an RX10 for wildlife video and photography! I am a big wildlife photographer and can assure you it is very difficult to get the shots I want of birds and mammals with less than 600mm equivalent focal length. And for insects, you need a good stabilized macro with some standoff distance, so 100mm equivalent is the minimum for that. The 200mm max reach on the RX10 will leave you disappointed for birds/mammals and the lack of true macro capability will frustrate you for insects. For the best results cost no object, you need to get a Nikon full frame camera (D4/D800/D610) and a Nikon 600mm or 800mm lens on a tripod with a gimble head. For excellent results on a budget, I think you will get the best results with a Nikon D3200/D5300/D7100 in CX crop mode and the new Sigma 120-300mm zoom. The D3200/D5300/D7100 are notable because they have the new Toshiba sensor with the highest small pixel performance of any camera sold today; the Sigma is notable because it has the best image quality for a telephoto zoom. Together, that package will give you an equivalent 180-450mm zoom in DX mode (uncropped APS-C sensor) and an equivalent 324-810mm zoom in CX mode (cropped APS-C sensor). For stills you would always shoot in DX RAW mode because you can crop later. For video, you would choose DX or CX mode depending on the desired equivalent focal length. Hope this helps.
hatchback is offline  
post #185 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 12:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchback View Post

Bill, your post is ambiguous but I hope that you haven't purchased an RX10 for wildlife video and photography! I am a big wildlife photographer and can assure you it is very difficult to get the shots I want of birds and mammals with less than 600mm equivalent focal length. And for insects, you need a good stabilized macro with some standoff distance, so 100mm equivalent is the minimum for that. The 200mm max reach on the RX10 will leave you disappointed for birds/mammals and the lack of true macro capability will frustrate you for insects. For the best results cost no object, you need to get a Nikon full frame camera (D4/D800/D610) and a Nikon 600mm or 800mm lens on a tripod with a gimble head. For excellent results on a budget, I think you will get the best results with a Nikon D3200/D5300/D7100 in CX crop mode and the new Sigma 120-300mm zoom. The D3200/D5300/D7100 are notable because they have the new Toshiba sensor with the highest small pixel performance of any camera sold today; the Sigma is notable because it has the best image quality for a telephoto zoom. Together, that package will give you an equivalent 180-450mm zoom in DX mode (uncropped APS-C sensor) and an equivalent 324-810mm zoom in CX mode (cropped APS-C sensor). For stills you would always shoot in DX RAW mode because you can crop later. For video, you would choose DX or CX mode depending on the desired equivalent focal length. Hope this helps.

I agree that a 200mm lens is inadequate for wildlife, but as we are talking about video, I do not see that Nikon is the best choice for max lens flexibility. Why is Nikon better than Canon for video? Most people think that among FF cameras the Canon 5D Mark III is the clear choice.

And btw, I am not getting the RX10. I like small cameras with big sensors, and also RAW video is much more interesting and gives better results and allows more video creativity. The RX10, while a marvel in many ways, is way too big for my uses, has limited zoom range, uses a now old codec, and has a small sensor compared to APS-C or even BMPCC. A year ago it would have been my choice. And is a good choice for many now.
markr041 is offline  
post #186 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 01:17 PM
Member
 
bobk77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

I agree that a 200mm lens is inadequate for wildlife, but as we are talking about video, I do not see that Nikon is the best choice for max lens flexibility. Why is Nikon better than Canon for video? Most people think that among FF cameras the Canon 5D Mark III is the clear choice.

And btw, I am not getting the RX10. I like small cameras with big sensors, and also RAW video is much more interesting and gives better results and allows more video creativity. The RX10, while a marvel in many ways, is way too big for my uses, has limited zoom range, uses a now old codec, and has a small sensor compared to APS-C or even BMPCC. A year ago it would have been my choice. And is a good choice for many now.

I do have Nikon d5200 with the same Toshiba sensor an absolutely love it for stills especially at High ISO (hockey).
Video quality is somewhere between mediocre and awful and generally requre controlled enviroment and manual focus.
You you want to use Nikon lensed - try Nikon1 with FT-1 adapters. Video quality is slightly better.
I'll probably going to bite a bullet and get RX10 for the playoff time to replace FZ200.

Mark, I am missing your sport videos frown.gif
bobk77 is offline  
post #187 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 01:18 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

It is impossible to not re-render when you add titles or transitions. The question is whether the editing software only re-renders at the transitions and merge points or re-renders everything. AFAIK, the only editing software that does the former is TMPGEnc MPEG Smart Renderer 4. It does titles, transitions, audio filtering and really renders only those parts where it is necessary. Thus, it is fast and the quality is the highest you can get without going RAW. It really works well, and you can also demux the video and remux another replacement soundtrack. It works with any h264 video (avchd, .mov, mts, mp4, etc.)

I agree with Mark. I had downloaded that software and it does work well. I only did a couple of tests, but it appeared lossless.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #188 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 01:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobk77 View Post

I do have Nikon d5200 with the same Toshiba sensor an absolutely love it for stills especially at High ISO (hockey).
Video quality is somewhere between mediocre and awful and generally requre controlled enviroment and manual focus.
I'll probably going to bite a bullet and get RX10 for the playoff time to replace FZ200.

Mark, I am missing your sport videos frown.gif

Ah, for indoor sports video the RX10 is perfect, assuming the AF is fast enough. Now there's an important use that big sensor (and RAW) cameras are not well-suited.
markr041 is offline  
post #189 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 01:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Just a point that's been missed by reviewers. Although in theory the lens is a bit over 8x in its zoom ratio, it can actually translate to more than that. How?

No, its not the clear zoom, but it's actually the variable crop factor. If you select 'Active' IS, you get what appears to be about 25-50% greater magnification as the crop factor is increased. I need to measure the actual increase.

So by using 'Standard' IS at wide angles and switching to 'Active' when you need the greatest reach, you've achieved a higher real zoom ratio.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #190 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 01:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,838
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchback View Post

Bill, your post is ambiguous but I hope that you haven't purchased an RX10 ......
I should have been more direct.

I learned in this thread enough about the RX10, that despite it's appeal, it was not going to add that much to what I can already do with what I have.

To get what I wanted, I shopped for long reach lenses that were physically small. I found a Panasonic Vario G 100-300. Next was fitting a camera on it. The GH3 was attractive and thoroughly discussed on this forum in other threads. Based on a couple comments from Ken Ross, I think the GX7 will produce video that suits me.

Based on a more photo based forum I found someone that has the GX7 and this lens. He liked it.

That same forum has an active Montana wildlife shooter with full frame Nikon gear and big 50-500mm Sigma. That could be fun, but too many dollars and much to big in size.

Because it is gift giving season, B&H will let me send it back until January 17 if it is a total mistake.

In 40 years of photography, I've not spent that much money on a camera and lens at one time!

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #191 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 01:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 108
"In 40 years of photography, I've not spent that much money on a camera and lens at one time!"

Maybe that Brownie you had when you were 8 or so cost that much in 2013 $'s smile.gif.
markr041 is offline  
post #192 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,030
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Just a point that's been missed by reviewers. Although in theory the lens is a bit over 8x in its zoom ratio, it can actually translate to more than that. How?

No, its not the clear zoom, but it's actually the variable crop factor. If you select 'Active' IS, you get what appears to be about 25-50% greater magnification as the crop factor is increased. I need to measure the actual increase.

So by using 'Standard' IS at wide angles and switching to 'Active' when you need the greatest reach, you've achieved a higher real zoom ratio.

Yes, this is an important point. And according to official Sony specs, here is what you really have in video:

[Movie 16:9] f = 26-212mm (SteadyShot® Standard), f = 29-315mm (SteadyShot Active Mode).

So you effectively get a 315mm lens for video at f2.8 (and do not sacrifice much at the wide end)!

Now we are talking.

[Note: The Canon EF 300mm f2.8L IS lens is - $7200.] Who says the RX10 is expensive?
markr041 is offline  
post #193 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 01:57 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post


And btw, I am not getting the RX10. I like small cameras with big sensors, and also RAW video is much more interesting and gives better results and allows more video creativity. The RX10, while a marvel in many ways, is way too big for my uses, has limited zoom range, uses a now old codec, and has a small sensor compared to APS-C or even BMPCC. A year ago it would have been my choice. And is a good choice for many now.

Mark, I look at it a bit differently as you know.

Although AVCHD is an 'older' codec, I've seen some exceptionally good results from it. In fact, from what I've seen from the overwhelming majority of people using RAW video, I'll take the old AVCHD codec almost every time.

It still appears to my eyes that good cameras are doing a better job with judgement than people are with RAW.

This doesn't negate the fact that RAW is better in theory, but as I've said in other threads, there are times you can fly a 747 through the gap between theory and reality.

Likewise, cameras that shoot with x number of stops of dynamic range are great, but it's meaningless if the editor can't extract all that information and details are crushed in shadow.

Either way, no matter what shortcuts are used, it still takes more time to go from RAW to the standard editing process (effects, music etc.) than it does when the camera makes the decision.

To be honest Mark, I know you've just begun learning the process, but I think the work you've done with your past cameras looks much better, IMO, than almost anything RAW I've seen from anyone. Of course there are exceptions, but they are seemingly few and far between. A lot of additional work for not a whole lot of results. I know that some would argue that point, but that's my viewpoint.

I certainly agree with you that RAW offers a high degree of creativity that in-camera processing doesn't....if you are after a 'look' other than reality.

Although I too like small cameras, too often they are devoid of what I consider to be essential features such as viewfinders, high resolution still shot capability and good ergonomics. Invariably I've found myself unhappy when some or all of those things are missing. For some, these omissions are meaningless, which is why it's so fantastic there are so many superb choices today!
Ken Ross is offline  
post #194 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 02:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Yes, this is an important point. And according to official Sony specs, here is what you really have in video:

[Movie 16:9] f = 26-212mm (SteadyShot® Standard), f = 29-315mm (SteadyShot Active Mode).

So you effectively get a 315mm lens for video at f2.8 (and do not sacrifice much at the wide end)!

Now we are talking.

[Note: The Canon EF 300mm f2.8L IS lens is - $7200.] Who says the RX10 is expensive?

But you know Mark, it gets back to precisely the point you made when discussing reviewers. They often miss key points, misstate others and just get things plain wrong. I discovered this just by accident and experimentation.

I think you learn more from a forum like this where we all contribute than you do from many reviews. smile.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #195 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 02:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsprague View Post

I should have been more direct.

I learned in this thread enough about the RX10, that despite it's appeal, it was not going to add that much to what I can already do with what I have.

To get what I wanted, I shopped for long reach lenses that were physically small. I found a Panasonic Vario G 100-300. Next was fitting a camera on it. The GH3 was attractive and thoroughly discussed on this forum in other threads. Based on a couple comments from Ken Ross, I think the GX7 will produce video that suits me.

Based on a more photo based forum I found someone that has the GX7 and this lens. He liked it.

That same forum has an active Montana wildlife shooter with full frame Nikon gear and big 50-500mm Sigma. That could be fun, but too many dollars and much to big in size.

Bill

Bill, best of luck with that rig. I'm assuming (hoping) that Sigma lens has OIS?
Ken Ross is offline  
post #196 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 03:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,838
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

Bill, best of luck with that rig. I'm assuming (hoping) that Sigma lens has OIS?
My writing skills seem to be lacking today. I started dreaming about wildlife photography again when reading about the big Sigma or "bigma" as some call it.

Knowing it was not for me due to size and total cost. I looked for something I hope will get me good results with a lot less weight and bulk.

To do that, today I ordered a Panasonic GX7 and lens with an additional Panasonic 100-300 zoom lens. The equivalent is 200-600 and the incamera doubler should yields 400-1200 (I think). The birds, seals and bears had better hold still! Free shipping makes me wait 8 working days.

Encourage me if you're interested in an "Official Extreme Telephoto Video Equipment Forum".

Back to the topic... I looked at, and was tempted by, a $250 Raynox telephoto add on for the RX10. The thread size matched but I couldn't get confirmation it would work well.

Bill
bsprague is offline  
post #197 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 03:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bsprague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: On the Road
Posts: 2,838
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

"In 40 years of photography, I've not spent that much money on a camera and lens at one time!"

Maybe that Brownie you had when you were 8 or so cost that much in 2013 $'s smile.gif.
Did I post that photo here?
bsprague is offline  
post #198 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 03:39 PM
Advanced Member
 
hatchback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Yes, this is an important point. And according to official Sony specs, here is what you really have in video:

[Movie 16:9] f = 26-212mm (SteadyShot® Standard), f = 29-315mm (SteadyShot Active Mode).

So you effectively get a 315mm lens for video at f2.8 (and do not sacrifice much at the wide end)!

Now we are talking.

[Note: The Canon EF 300mm f2.8L IS lens is - $7200.] Who says the RX10 is expensive?
SteadyShot Active Mode uses sensor cropping to correct the frame back to the horizontal, and when it does that, it causes moire and reduces the measured resolution. If you want good video or stills from the RX10, you'll need to use SteadyShot standard mode (optical image stabilization only).
hatchback is offline  
post #199 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 03:56 PM
Advanced Member
 
hatchback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: NJ
Posts: 526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

I agree that a 200mm lens is inadequate for wildlife, but as we are talking about video, I do not see that Nikon is the best choice for max lens flexibility. Why is Nikon better than Canon for video? Most people think that among FF cameras the Canon 5D Mark III is the clear choice.
Bill said he wanted stills and video. So Nikon is the better choice because the Nikon sensors are so much better than any current Canon sensor, and the lenses are a wash. The Nikon D5200/D5300/D7100 are the pick of the litter for crop mode photography because they have the Toshiba sensor, which has the best per-pixel image quality of any camera sold today (better even than the D800/D610, or the GH3, and vastly better than the Nikon 1). DxO Mark for the Nikon APS-C cameras with the Toshiba sensor are 83-84. DxO for the APS-C Canon 70D is a shameful 68. DxO for the full frame Canon 5D MIII is 81, but it's crop mode performance is more like the 70D. If you want to go full frame, then the Nikon D800 is 95.
hatchback is offline  
post #200 of 452 Old 11-26-2013, 03:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchback View Post

SteadyShot Active Mode uses sensor cropping to correct the frame back to the horizontal, and when it does that, it causes moire and reduces the measured resolution. If you want good video or stills from the RX10, you'll need to use SteadyShot standard mode (optical image stabilization only).

Haven't really noticed any degradation in resolution and I certainly haven't noticed any increase in moire. But I'll keep looking. wink.gif

Keep in mind too, that when you are at the extreme of a typical telelphoto's range, a slight loss of detail usually goes unnoticed because your FOV has dropped considerably. A drop in detail would be far more obvious in wide angle where there is so much more detail to begin with.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #201 of 452 Old 11-27-2013, 07:12 AM
Member
 
bobk77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatchback View Post

Bill said he wanted stills and video. So Nikon is the better choice because the Nikon sensors are so much better than any current Canon sensor, and the lenses are a wash. The Nikon D5200/D5300/D7100 are the pick of the litter for crop mode photography because they have the Toshiba sensor, which has the best per-pixel image quality of any camera sold today (better even than the D800/D610, or the GH3, and vastly better than the Nikon 1). DxO Mark for the Nikon APS-C cameras with the Toshiba sensor are 83-84. DxO for the APS-C Canon 70D is a shameful 68. DxO for the full frame Canon 5D MIII is 81, but it's crop mode performance is more like the 70D. If you want to go full frame, then the Nikon D800 is 95.

I own d5200. Cannot be happier with the stills especially at Hight ISO and complicated lighting - but video sucks. I guess there is more than just sensor performance.
bobk77 is offline  
post #202 of 452 Old 11-27-2013, 07:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Considering the YouTube compression, this one is not too bad and shows some of the sharpness of the 10. It also gives you some idea of the audio, but there's quite a bit of background noise as the result of where this was shot (I'm assuming):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evVQoz9iKus
Ken Ross is offline  
post #203 of 452 Old 11-28-2013, 03:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
brunerww's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 30
A very nice sharp video, Ken. And there's no hint of moire in the violin strings - but it's clearly in-camera processed, 8 bit, high contrast video (just like my GH3 stuff when I shoot in my favorite profile, Vivid smile.gif).

I hate to sound overenthusiastic about RAW, but Mark's Shopping in Grand Central Terminal grade looks much more like real life, in my view.

Have a great Thanksgiving,

Bill
brunerww is offline  
post #204 of 452 Old 11-28-2013, 04:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Seams like even in this video, it's talked about how the video quality breaks up when your panning. It's after the 10 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInkZaJ2CAc

Their are different ways of implementing AVCHD so I wouldn't say it's necessarily the fault of AVCHD like he said. Sony is most likely using a week implementation of AVCHD in that camera if true.

Somebody really should put both the RX10 and a GH3 or GX7 on a device and walk around with it. Make sure both cameras are shot in 1080 60p. Then post the Raw files on Vimeo so people can download it to really see for themselves if the motion quality is really that bad.
Paulo Teixeira is offline  
post #205 of 452 Old 11-28-2013, 04:47 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Bill it's funny how we all see things so differently. To my eyes the RX10 video looked more real, more like how I see the world. In Mark's latest video, he seemed to go from the over saturated look of his prior video (which I believe some also thought looked 'real') to what appears to my eyes, as a now under saturated look. These two videos present very different looks to me.

I saw under saturation in the opening scene where the fruits and veggies looked somewhat pale relative to 'real life'.

It seems that every scene requires careful manipulation to get anything approaching a depiction of real life. I'm not even seeing many instances where I can immediately see the benefits of the greater dynamic range. I see many RAW videos where shadow detail is crushed. Sure it's probably the post-processing, but it is what it is.

Aside from the 30p frame rate limitation, which always creates another departure from reality for me, it just seems really really hard to get a natural looking color balance as an end product...at least to me. I feel the results Mark was posting with the EOS M looked much more real to my eyes.

It's just my POV, but I really don't see this as an easy way to get what I can get from good in-camera processing. Having the extra color depth means very little if the colors look better to me with the 4:2:0, in-camera processed color. smile.gif

Of course I would welcome greater dynamic range and color depth for any camera, but honestly Bill, the extra work required for the results I'm seeing just totally eludes me. I see lots of 'artistic' looks but very few 'real life' looks.

But that's probably where my tastes diverge from most who are using RAW video. Perhaps most are really after that arty look, but for me, not so much.

I guess it gets back to the old "different tools for different jobs". smile.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #206 of 452 Old 11-28-2013, 05:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira View Post

Seams like even in this video, it's talked about how the video quality breaks up when your panning. It's after the 10 minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInkZaJ2CAc

Their are different ways of implementing AVCHD so I wouldn't say it's necessarily the fault of AVCHD like he said. Sony is most likely using a week implementation of AVCHD in that camera if true.

Somebody really should put both the RX10 and a GH3 or GX7 on a device and walk around with it. Make sure both cameras are shot in 1080 60p. Then post the Raw files on Vimeo so people can download it to really see for themselves if the motion quality is really that bad.

Paulo, all in all, a gushing review. They obviously liked it...a lot.

As for the blurring during panning, I'm of the opinion in good videos you should never pan rapidly. Whatever the quality during rapid panning, it's nauseating to watch. That's probably why I rarely experience it. But pushed in to a rapid pan, I saw the same blurring in my GH3. I don't think it's Sony's implementation at all. The more detail a camera is capable of, the more blurring you'll see during rapid panning. That's precisely what the video guy was saying. The RX10 gives tremendous detail, better than the GH3 or GX7, IMO. I didn't do a direct comparison with the GH3 vs the RX10, but I did compare the GH3 to the GX7 and the 7 was at least as sharp and detailed as the GH3.

I now have the GX7 and the RX10 and I'm finding the RX10 has even a bit more detail than the 7. I personally love the added detail and it's worth the risk of some blurring during rapid pans for me.

In the end the blurring is very easily avoided or at least minimized. Don't pan rapidly. smile.gif
Ken Ross is offline  
post #207 of 452 Old 11-28-2013, 06:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Their really can be a gigantic difference in codec quality even among AVCHD. The better the implementation, the less break up you'll see in the same bit rate during fast pans. You misunderstood what the guy was really saying. He was blaming the codec for the mush.
Paulo Teixeira is offline  
post #208 of 452 Old 11-28-2013, 07:13 AM
Advanced Member
 
brunerww's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 30
FInally got around to watching the video Andrew did for his RX10 review at eoshd. These are the best colors I have seen from the RX10 (for me, at least). Holds up to the grade pretty well, but loses detail in the shadows.



Shot on the RX10 at 1080/50p and graded with filmconvert:





Interesting to compare the carousel scenes in the RX10 video to the shots in Andrew's BMPCC ProRes test with the Speedbooster and Sigma 18-35 f1.8.





I'm starting an RX10 group on Vimeo to curate and showcase the best videos from this camera, please join and contribute: http://vimeo.com/groups/rx10


Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!,

Bill
brunerww is offline  
post #209 of 452 Old 11-28-2013, 09:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira View Post

Their really can be a gigantic difference in codec quality even among AVCHD. The better the implementation, the less break up you'll see in the same bit rate during fast pans. You misunderstood what the guy was really saying. He was blaming the codec for the mush.


But he made the relationship between the great detaiil and how panning with AVCHD can mess that detail up. He said nothing about Sony's implementation of AVCHD. The greater the detail the more obvious the loss is.

Either way, it's avoidable with sensible shooting. We learn how to avoid or mitigate issues with cameras, codecs and lenses. Nothing is perfect.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #210 of 452 Old 11-28-2013, 10:14 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,295
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 458 Post(s)
Liked: 585
Thanks Bill. Joined.
Ken Ross is offline  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off