If that info is accurate, that is good news. As an aside, I find it frustrating that none of Sony's handycams nor Panasonic's camcorders (or is the other way around) have sound inputs. We are looking for a small non-pro camera that can take mini-RCA in, to make YouTube videos.
From research over the last two days, it seems that you need to get into the prosumer models ($1,100 USD +) before you get this flexibility. I would love to be corrected on this, too, if anyone knows differently.
I am considering getting a Panasonic NV-GS330 mini-DV Camcorder (PAL) and asking a tecchie friend to add a mini jack to it (there are plans on the net for this). Sorry to go OT, but an answer to this would be really helpful Cheers, KL...Show more →
I think the HD Video aspect is squarely aimed at the PJ who is more and more being required to provide small video clip interviews for media websites. With one tool, they can shoot stills, pause and do a quick 30 second interview with a subject and move on to continue to shoot stills. I'd expect to see this feature on every 1 series from now on.
cogitech wrote:
The fact that Zeiss has stated that they do not plan to add any zooms to the ZS/ZK/ZF/ZE series might tell you something about Zeiss' feelings about the IQ of zooms.
I think it is also important to realize that many shooters could easily cover their needs with 21-28-50-100 or 18-25-35-50 (whatever). It isn't like we need to commit to the whole line.
From the many recent images online taken with the A900 and ZA 24-70 I can tell that this is one hell of a lens. Absolutely amazing performance even at 25mp resolution, while so many people were complaining that their lenses are soft on the 1Ds3. I can't wait to see more extensive reports, but from what I've seen so far, it not only has the resolution, but also the great colors, bokeh, micro-contrast and 3D typical of Zeiss. In my very humble and very Zeiss biased opinion, this is the best 24-70 out there
Shavenyak wrote:
I think the HD Video aspect is squarely aimed at the PJ who is more and more being required to provide small video clip interviews for media websites. With one tool, they can shoot stills, pause and do a quick 30 second interview with a subject and move on to continue to shoot stills. I'd expect to see this feature on every 1 series from now on.
I can see this as a possibility, but if it is aimed at PJ's, then why put it on a 5D? The 5D doesn't strike me as a PJ camera, It is too slow and inadequately equipped. I don't suspect there are a lot of PJ's using 5D's.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I can see this as a possibility, but if it is aimed at PJ's, then why put it on a 5D? The 5D doesn't strike me as a PJ camera, It is too slow and inadequately equipped. I don't suspect there are a lot of PJ's using 5D's.
You might be surprised. I doubt a lot of travelling PJ's use it or serious sports shooters, but quite a lot of local guys will quite probably grab these or D90's for exactly that reason. You don't need a 1-series to cover local issues.
I suspect the 1 Series will get refreshed with N versions next year, and those will get DIGIC IV, HD Video and the high-res LCD.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I don't think we will see a direct comparison before these two cameras are available.
This is a somewhat difficult choice for me as I just sold my 5D and the 5DII is not expected until the end of November while I think the A900 will show up at the end of this month. IQ wise, Canon is claiming the 5DII replacement will exceed even the 1DsIII which itself might be slightly ahead the A900. The thing is, I only need low ISO/high resolution so the super duper low light performance of the 5DII is not a huge draw for me, nor is the video feature. Removing these benefits, the A900 seems to offer a much stronger basic camera feature set such as that huge, 100% viewfinder and increased FPS. When Adobe releases an update of ACR, I think we will get a better idea of what the A900 files offer and I bet this happens in the next week or so. It is interesting to me that Canon does not appear to have been too worried about competition based on the 5DII feature set upgrade or lack thereof. Image quality should be there though....Show more →
Well if you are looking for ISO <1600 than a900 with quality Zeiss lenses are the way to go.
Zeiss 24-70 smm + 135mm 1.8
Here is a thread over at dyxum , where the excellent landscape photographer infrastellar shares a few images and impressions:
Thanks, I had seen those images last night. Very impressive overall.
I have been looking through that thread as well as a number of others at the images coming out of the A900 thus far. Personally, I would not feel comfortable shooting the A900 above ISO 400 and even then, the Canon 5DII ISO 1600 shots I have seen are even better as far as noise is concerned. The in-body IS of the A900 certainly helps here a bit but even then, this is not going to be competitive with regard to noise compared to a 5DII. The A900 is still a very compelling camera given all its other attributes and I think, in the end, its feature set and those incredible Zeiss AF lenses will sway a number of photographers who do not need the higher ISO performance of the Canon. Having seen a quite a few shots taken with the Zeiss 24-70 wide open at 2.8 and the A900, Canon should be worried. That is a pretty amazing combo. I have read by those who use it that it can produce some fairly ugly Bokeh.
For myself, I'm leaning towards the A900 for my needs at the moment since I do not have a huge investment in Canon glass. Sony has just moved into third place after Canon and Nikon in overall DSLR market share as well. This bodes well for their future and commitment.
moire wrote:
Well if you are looking for ISO <1600 than a900 with quality Zeiss lenses are the way to go.
Zeiss 24-70 smm + 135mm 1.8
Here is a thread over at dyxum , where the excellent landscape photographer infrastellar shares a few images and impressions:
As far as I'm concerned, the A900 is my next camera. The colors!!!!!
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks, I had seen those images last night. Very impressive overall.
I have been looking through that thread as well as a number of others at the images coming out of the A900 thus far. Personally, I would not feel comfortable shooting the A900 above ISO 400 and even then, the Canon 5DII ISO 1600 shots I have seen are even better as far as noise is concerned. The in-body IS of the A900 certainly helps here a bit but even then, this is not going to be competitive with regard to noise compared to a 5DII. The A900 is still a very compelling camera given all its other attributes and I think, in the end, its feature set and those incredible Zeiss AF lenses will sway a number of photographers who do not need the higher ISO performance of the Canon. Having seen a quite a few shots taken with the Zeiss 24-70 wide open at 2.8 and the A900, Canon should be worried. That is a pretty amazing combo. I have read by those who use it that it can produce some fairly ugly Bokeh.
For myself, I'm leaning towards the A900 for my needs at the moment since I do not have a huge investment in Canon glass. Sony has just moved into third place after Canon and Nikon in overall DSLR market share as well. This bodes well for their future and commitment.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
It is limited to something like 29 minutes so I don't think it will be a direct replacement for a dedicated Video camera. Seems like if one used it often, it might result in extra heat build up on the sensor but what do I know. Anyone have any ideas on this or its impact.
There is no 29 min video limit. That's all you can get per 4GB card.
For example if you have a 16BF card , you can shoot up to 2hrs.
On that link above for example, they shot nearly 12 hrs of footage.
Also, it's rare that you ever shoot more than 10 minutes of video non-stop (except maybe for amateurs).
There is no 29 min video limit. That's all you can get per 4GB card.
For example if you have a 16BF card , you can shoot up to 2hrs.
On that link above for example, they shot nearly 12 hrs of footage.
Also, it's rare that you ever shoot more than 10 minutes of video non-stop (except maybe for amateurs).
That's incorrect. You have a 4GB per clip limit (This is the max file size on a FAT32 partition, which all large flash cards use). You can fill a 16GB card with 4 clips, but you still max out at 4GB per clip.
It also certainly doesn't stomp Red on anything other than price. Red is much higher resolution than 1080p at MUCH higher bitrates, no length limitation, differing fps, etc. If Laforet is correct it's also better in low light.
But it is cool, and the limitation is irrelevant for the intended use (PJ's doing short video for the web as well as wedding shooters adding value).
When? Two years from now? By the time they arrive, the competition between Canon, Nikon and Sony will be so intense that it will be difficult for another player to enter the market. Sony is big enough that hey have actually been buying their DSLR market share and taking a loss. Will RED be able to do that? Why would they want to?
Yes, I saw that as well. The colors are phenomenal. Those of us who have used Zeiss glass on Canon bodies have experienced similar color. I think its mostly down to the lenses but I could be wrong. I would love to see, for instance, the same shot taken with the same lens mounted on the A900 and 5DII. That should be possible.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Tariq, I think this will remove any doubts:
"This camera will sell for approx. $2,700 - and perform better than many $100K plus video cameras out there…"
Give me a break! The 5DII is not in competition nor does it have the required feature set of a $100K Pro Video camera. This guy simply does not have a clue! The resolution of 1080P is nowhere near current pro video quality from say, the Red 4K: This breaks things down for you:
There is no 29 min video limit. That's all you can get per 4GB card.
For example if you have a 16BF card , you can shoot up to 2hrs.
On that link above for example, they shot nearly 12 hrs of footage.
Also, it's rare that you ever shoot more than 10 minutes of video non-stop (except maybe for amateurs).
"A top commercial film editor who who regularly edits RED camera footage - and has seen the raw footage from the 5D MKII - says the 5D MKII is “far superior to the RED camera” in terms of low light performance…"
I will believe a commercial film editor who has actually used both the 5D II and RED over people here who have not.
As for video length, yes, you can get 4x 29 minute videos on a 16GB card. Impressive. And again, I don't know many people, save for some amateurs, who would shoot a continuous, non stop scene for more than 30 minutes.
Regardless, the IQ of the stills of the 5D II are better than the A900, and the video quality is definitely better than the video on the A900
mawz wrote:
That's incorrect. You have a 4GB per clip limit (This is the max file size on a FAT32 partition, which all large flash cards use). You can fill a 16GB card with 4 clips, but you still max out at 4GB per clip.
How is that incorrect? That is what I said, on a 16GB card you can shoot up to 2hrs.
4 clips at 29 minutes each is almost 2hrs. Show me where I said you can shoot a 2hr continuous clip?
First of all, I corrected that 29 minute quote a while back. The spec is actually just 12min of HD video and 24min of std video per clip.
There is, of course, much more to a pro video camera then just low light performance. I could say that a Fisher Price Pixelvision just kills any other video camera at any price with regard to cheap media, portability, etc but obviously there is more to it than that. You would be laughed out of any pro video discussion upon suggesting that the 5DII could replace a 4K video camera. But, I agree on one of your points. The 5DII trounces the A900 in regard to video(seeing how the A900 does not offer video).
You cannot definitively say the still IQ of the 5DII kills the A900 without stating the criteria you are using to compare the two(Color reproduction? Noise? Dynamic Range?) and since the 5DII is not even shipping yet, and the Sony A900 is in certain areas, it would be pretty difficult for you to make any sort of definitive statement comparing the two.
musclepics wrote:
"A top commercial film editor who who regularly edits RED camera footage - and has seen the raw footage from the 5D MKII - says the 5D MKII is “far superior to the RED camera” in terms of low light performance…"
I will believe a commercial film editor who has actually used both the 5D II and RED over people here who have not.
As for video length, yes, you can get 4x 29 minute videos on a 16GB card. Impressive. And again, I don't know many people, save for some amateurs, who would shoot a continuous, non stop scene for more than 30 minutes.
Regardless, the IQ of the stills of the 5D II are better than the A900, and the video quality is definitely better than the video on the A900 ...Show more →
"It produces the best video in low light that I’ve ever seen - at 1080p"
The "at 1080p" is, by the way, very important!
musclepics wrote:
"A top commercial film editor who who regularly edits RED camera footage - and has seen the raw footage from the 5D MKII - says the 5D MKII is “far superior to the RED camera” in terms of low light performance…"
I will believe a commercial film editor who has actually used both the 5D II and RED over people here who have not.
As for video length, yes, you can get 4x 29 minute videos on a 16GB card. Impressive. And again, I don't know many people, save for some amateurs, who would shoot a continuous, non stop scene for more than 30 minutes.
Regardless, the IQ of the stills of the 5D II are better than the A900, and the video quality is definitely better than the video on the A900 ...Show more →
