Hello! I'm getting ready to upgrade from my dslr and am really drawn to the A7s. I'm aiming to shoot 12 shorts in 2015 and I have to say, the low light capabilities of this camera are a big reason why I'm looking to get it as well as picture quality, as I have a lot of low light situations in them. I've seen Philip Bloom's review on it, and the 1080p quality looks pretty good to me, not to say 4K wouldn't be nice, but it's just not something I need right now. One of my biggest worries though, is the rolling shutter. The reason for that is I really like the handheld look in films, I very rarely shoot on a tripod (I don't even own a proper one) and am concerned rolling shutter will effect my films. Only 2 out of the 12 shorts I have planned are action shorts (not intense action either). I know aps-c cuts down on the rolling shutter, but it'd be nice to use the full frame when I have it. Do you guys think this is a good buy for me? Thanks!
A7s help
- Thread starter 3RightsFilms
- Start date
I've had a 5DmkII since it shipped - rolling shutter is pretty bad on that, but in all my projects with it since I've never found it to be much of an issue. The biggest problem I see with it is less with action and more with vibration - it can look bad on a car mount, for instance, or handheld with long lenses if your hand is shaking. The handheld issue can be addressed with either a stabilized lens, shoulder mount, or monopod - it's really never been something I've worried too much about.
Here's an action-y film we shot a few years back on the mkII which has a good deal of handheld in the first half - there's only one shot I can really see the effects of the rolling shutter:
https://vimeo.com/13661537
The A7s is certainly no worse than the 5DmkII, and probably slightly better, in full frame mode. In APS-C mode it's significantly better. I'd say if you're planning to shoot a lot of handheld and don't have stabilized lenses consider using APS-c mode or getting some sort of lightweight brace/shoulder mount - some of the handheld stuff in the link above used the zacuto striker, something simple like that is all you really need to make a big difference.
I'm roughing together some test footage I shot handheld (without any additional support) on my A7s recently - not a lot of action, but I'll try to post a link so you can see what it looks like.
Here's an action-y film we shot a few years back on the mkII which has a good deal of handheld in the first half - there's only one shot I can really see the effects of the rolling shutter:
https://vimeo.com/13661537
The A7s is certainly no worse than the 5DmkII, and probably slightly better, in full frame mode. In APS-C mode it's significantly better. I'd say if you're planning to shoot a lot of handheld and don't have stabilized lenses consider using APS-c mode or getting some sort of lightweight brace/shoulder mount - some of the handheld stuff in the link above used the zacuto striker, something simple like that is all you really need to make a big difference.
I'm roughing together some test footage I shot handheld (without any additional support) on my A7s recently - not a lot of action, but I'll try to post a link so you can see what it looks like.
What are you "upgrading" from? I have used the A7s (right alongside Philip actually) and it does create stunning images... But.. Low light ability is not a good reason to buy it.. If you shoot a night scene, it should look like it's at night. The cost offset to buying a couple lights and the film look software that Phil uses is not reasonable, unless you are not concerned with budget. Then I would say cool, but the A7ii might be handy too.........
I'm upgrading from the t3i. I decided to just go ahead and buy it after some further research. Looking forward to the footage ItDonnedOnMe!
Extreme night-for-day examples aside, low light ability isn't generally about making night scenes look bright. Once you've graded things your night scenes should still look like it's night, but you should have much more control over things like shadow detail than if you're running at the exposure limits of your camera. Additionally - the ability to select the most appropriate aperture for your scene, rather than having to shoot wide open just to hit your exposure target in low light, gives you more control over the final image.
There's also more to it than 'buying a couple of lights'. You're always going to need to light if you want the best results, but the difference is in how much light, and lighting equipment, you need to achieve the results you are looking for. Less equipment, and lighter equipment, means you can change setups faster - often with less crew - and be more productive in many situations.
Slightly delayed as I was also taking this opportunity to try out the latest version of Premier - seemed to be running very smoothly with the footage until I got about a minute worth of stuff cut together, and now it's suddenly struggling to play things consistently at all. I'm going to jump back over to FCPX and see if it handles it any better tomorrow.
I second IDOM's reply.
Plus: it's a huge difference shooting at night at 1.8 and having to push the brightness of the image OR shooting at a less shallow DOF and having the choice to proper exposed and darken the image afterwards.
I tested it last week.
The menus are not simple.
I still need to start editing to see how it all works out.
On a MoVI I didn't notice rolling shutter, but I didn't run around with it (used it on corporate events: no use for running there...)
Essentially, using a metabones e-mount speed booster for ef will give you the same DOF and such as the full frame, when using a full frame lens.
So, if you go that route you will not lose out on the full-framiness, only resolution, but that shouldn't be an issue at 1080p either.
I think this is actually a great example of how the sensitivity isn't just about shooting in the dark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vT8Ysml0jk
He's shooting volleyball in slow motion on a long lens - so a higher shutter speed and smaller aperture to keep things in focus = less light for the sensor. He says later in the video that most of the volleyball is at 3200 or 6400. Granted, this is more of a documentary situation than something you'd necessarily encounter in a narrative shoot, but I think the point is valid - there are many situations in which you can benefit from the sensitivity that aren't just making moonlight look like daylight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vT8Ysml0jk
He's shooting volleyball in slow motion on a long lens - so a higher shutter speed and smaller aperture to keep things in focus = less light for the sensor. He says later in the video that most of the volleyball is at 3200 or 6400. Granted, this is more of a documentary situation than something you'd necessarily encounter in a narrative shoot, but I think the point is valid - there are many situations in which you can benefit from the sensitivity that aren't just making moonlight look like daylight.