Sony sort of announced this camera at NAB. Now that there's some preliminary specs available it does look more attractive than Panny's effort. Panny's 4/3" sized sensor is a bit of a bust unfortunately as you get roughly 1/2 the FOV compared to a 35mm imager.
The Sony ships with a PL mount and supports Cook/i, nice. Pity it only does 4:2:0 at 35Mbps but it has HD-SDI so many ways around that limitation.
Panny's 4/3" sized sensor is a bit of a bust unfortunately as you get roughly 1/2 the FOV compared to a 35mm imager.
So, what's the shape of any cammie's sensor, doing native 16:9? Assuming that the Pannie is a 16:9 is a slice through the middle of the 4/3 chip, how many responsive/alert pixies are there in this Pannie?
I have to guess that the cost is going to be higher than the panny. This has a bit more of the higher end feature feeling than the Panny which might be attainable by the prosumer'ish user.
Could be wrong, but I'm going to bet somewhere in the 10K range, where as Panny is saying something like 6 aren't they?
Anyway - Looks a bit better than the Panny so probably very worth it to anyone who can put the extra dough down, except that Panny said they were going to be working with still camera lenses and functioning with AF if you wanted to use it, and this doesn't seem to say anything about that/like that.
because 4/3 sensor isn't native widescreen aspect ratio. It's the same dimensions as SDTV - 1.33:1 - in stills - full sensor fits standard 8x10 print size.
Those dimensions are not wide screen natively. APS-C is 1.50:1 - thus, DSLR video is cropping top and bottom of sensor as well.
I'm not assuming. I saw the video where Jan explains that it is a slice through and there a picture of receptor which looks pretty square with a 35mm film frame next to it for comparisons.
But why couldn't a 4/3" sensor natively be 16:9? There's nothing in the description of 4/3" that says what ratio it is. It only describes the size, 1 and 1/3 inches, not the shape.
"Check out the video and the questions and answers. "
OMG. What were you thinking Sony?
It has the same 1/4" mounting screw(s) as the EX1 which is held onto the rest of the camera with 4x 2.5mm screws. Somehow the thought of a $20K camera and $75K prime being held firmly to mother earth by those 4 piddling screws does not sit right. They cannot even reliably hold an EX1.
I know, they're trying to keep the cost of this camera down but that's one cost cutting measure that makes no sense unless they're getting kickbacks from Arri.
Highly probable. I couldn't find a link to the video and Q&A that you were referring to. I did find a video on the Sony page and a Q&A session on Facebook regarding the Sony F3 camera and obviously wrongly assumed that was what you were referring to. I wasn't entirely sure though as the video was about Sony's uber expensive F9000 camera.
This camera is not aimed at the EX1 crowd. This camera is aimed squarely at the people who want a RED One, but can't quite get there. I think it's a VERY nice effort to be honest.
People are talking about the fact it only shoots XDCamEX onboard. So what? Anyone seriously looking at a $16k body with PL glass isn't going to be worried about that one bit. They will use the onboard recording for exactly what it's there for. Proxies. It also shoots Log. That in and of itself, separates this camera from a LOT of wannabees. Lemme see, other cams that shoot Log under $50k... RED... uhhh... Yep, that's it. Under $100k, you can add the SI2K and Alexa to the mix. Pretty nice company if you ask me.
I think Sony is going to have to wait a little while before they place one of these under $10k. It would decimate EX3 sales.
This gamma curve is pretty much the same as the Cineon curve used with scanned film. Not of much use unless the camera has higher latitude than the typical video camera.