The A7S came out in 2014, it is FF, it has 4K video, can shoot in the dark, and costs $2K or less.
Kudos for presenting one that hits the criteria of FF + 4K video for the $2k range. Objective and true is respected and appreciated.
UPDATE: It seems that the A7s does NOT record 4K video, it only records HD video. Instead, it allows 4K video to be recorded using an output to an external 4K video recorder ... i.e. another piece of gear to buy, and to tote along with you. Thus, the ability to record 4K video is NOT achieved in a single camera with FF for $2,000. I still appreciate / respect the reference to the A7s, but it turns out that the marketing perspective is a bit overzealous compared to the actual capability of the camera (no foul on scrappydog, though).
One little caveat though that some folks might consider a double standard though.
So while folks are clamoring that HD video isn't future oriented, and that anything less than 4K is "insane" etc. ... umm, the A7S is running quite a few pixels short (I understand why) of contemporary standards of MP, and certainly if the "must be future oriented", the A7S @ 12MP ... well, to be honest, that is LESS than my 2004 Kodak SLR/C has @ 14MP. Someone "could argue" that this is "insane" or not "future oriented". That said ... I won't, but I will state that it is targeted for not general use by current / future standards.
On that note ... I will re-iterate to meeting the objective (with no specification on the FF aspect @ MP).
So, for the same money $2K, folks can choose between the 6D2 without 4K vs. the A7s with only 12 MP and no articulating display, 5 fps and battery life 1/3 that of the 6D2. Obviously, there are a few other diff's between these two cameras that for some will find objectoinable in either direction. The point being, that for $2K ... ummm, you can't get everything, from anyone, anywhere ... at least not in 2017.
Again, Kudos for bringing up the A7s. (See Update Above)
The A7S came out in 2014, it is FF, it has 4K video, can shoot in the dark, and costs $2K or less.
Kudos for presenting one that hits the criteria of FF + 4K video for the $2k range. Objective and true is respected and appreciated.
UPDATE: It seems that the A7s does NOT record 4K video, it only records HD video. Instead, it allows 4K video to be recorded using an output to an external 4K video recorder ... i.e. another piece of gear to buy, and to tote along with you. Thus, the ability to record 4K video is NOT achieved in a single camera with FF for $2,000. I still appreciate / respect the reference to the A7s, but it turns out that the marketing perspective is a bit overzealous compared to the actual capability of the camera (no foul on scrappydog, though).
One little caveat though that some folks might consider a double standard though.
So while folks are clamoring that HD video isn't future oriented, and that anything less than 4K is "insane" etc. ... umm, the A7S is running quite a few pixels short (I understand why) of contemporary standards of MP, and certainly if the "must be future oriented", the A7S @ 12MP ... well, to be honest, that is LESS than my 2004 Kodak SLR/C has @ 14MP. Someone "could argue" that this is "insane" or not "future oriented". That said ... I won't, but I will state that it is targeted for not general use by current / future standards.
On that note ... I will re-iterate to meeting the objective (with no specification on the FF aspect @ MP).
So, for the same money $2K, folks can choose between the 6D2 without 4K vs. the A7s with only 12 MP and no articulating display, 5 fps and battery life 1/3 that of the 6D2. Obviously, there are a few other diff's between these two cameras that for some will find objectoinable in either direction. The point being, that for $2K ... ummm, you can't get everything, from anyone, anywhere ... at least not in 2017.
The A7S came out in 2014, it is FF, it has 4K video, can shoot in the dark, and costs $2K or less.
Kudos for presenting one that hits the criteria of FF + 4K video for the $2k range. Objective and true is respected and appreciated.
UPDATE: It seems that the A7s does NOT record 4K video, it only records HD video. Instead, it allows 4K video to be recorded using an output to an external 4K video recorder ... i.e. another piece of gear to buy, and to tote along with you. Thus, the ability to record 4K video is NOT achieved in a single camera with FF for $2,000. I still appreciate / respect the reference to the A7s, but it turns out that the marketing perspective is a bit overzealous compared to the actual capability of the camera (no foul on scrappydog, though).
One little caveat though that some folks might consider a double standard though.
So while folks are clamoring that HD video isn't future oriented, and that anything less than 4K is "insane" etc. ... umm, the A7S is running quite a few pixels short (I understand why) of contemporary standards of MP, and certainly if the "must be future oriented", the A7S @ 12MP ... well, to be honest, that is LESS than my 2004 Kodak SLR/C has @ 14MP. Someone "could argue" that this is "insane" or not "future oriented". That said ... I won't, but I will state that it is targeted for not general use by current / future standards.
On that note ... I will re-iterate to meeting the objective (with no specification on the FF aspect @ MP).
So, for the same money $2K, folks can choose between the 6D2 without 4K vs. the A7s with only 12 MP and no articulating display, 5 fps and battery life 1/3 that of the 6D2. Obviously, there are a few other diff's between these two cameras that for some will find objectoinable in either direction. The point being, that for $2K ... ummm, you can't get everything, from anyone, anywhere ... at least not in 2017.
The A7S came out in 2014, it is FF, it has 4K video, can shoot in the dark, and costs $2K or less.
Kudos for presenting one that hits the criteria of FF + 4K video for the $2k range. Objective and true is respected and appreciated.
One little caveat though that some folks might consider a double standard though.
So while folks are clamoring that HD video isn't future oriented, and that anything less than 4K is "insane" etc. ... umm, the A7S is running quite a few pixels short (I understand why) of contemporary standards of MP, and certainly if the "must be future oriented", the A7S @ 12MP ... well, to be honest, that is LESS than my 2004 Kodak SLR/C has @ 14MP. Someone "could argue" that this is "insane" or not "future oriented". That said ... I won't, but I will state that it is targeted for not general use by current / future standards.
On that note ... I will re-iterate to meeting the objective (with no specification on the FF aspect @ MP).
So, for the same money $2K, folks can choose between the 6D2 without 4K vs. the A7s with only 12 MP and no articulating display, 5 fps and battery life 1/3 that of the 6D2. Obviously, there are a few other diff's between these two cameras that for some will find objectoinable in either direction. The point being, that for $2K ... ummm, you can't get everything, from anyone, anywhere ... at least not in 2017.
Again, Kudos for bringing up the A7s.
Jul 01, 2017 at 09:14 PM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #14092148 « Official: Canon Announces the EOS 6D Mark II »
to meeting the objective (with no specification on the FF aspect @ MP).