Tagged: Review

You have probably seen our extensive written guide on how to get Magic Lantern’s 24p working on the 5D Mark III, which also includes a step-by-step instruction on how to end up with usable ProRes 4444 files.

Well, as it turns out, Sebastian here has found a much more straightforward way to post process the raw files from the 5D Mark III which allows us to skip the relatively cumbersome After Effects conversion process. This new process only utilizes Adobe Photoshop’s raw import module, which allows batch processing of files (which is necessary to apply the same settings onto an entire clip consisting of individual DNG files).

Watch our video with a step-by-step instruction on how to end up with editable post-processed files!

Software used:

Adobe Photoshop
Raw2DNG (free)
QuickTime 7

All credit is given to author cinema5DNino Leitner

Joe Simon operating the C100 on a slider

Joe Simon operating the C100 on a slider

Our friend Joe Simon, a very accomplished wedding filmmaker and commercial cinematographer (and first and foremost, a really nice guy) has shot a short review of the C100, especially focusing on his area of work, live events.

I want to highlight this because of Sebastian Wöber’s recent review of the C100 here on cinema5D, in which he highlighted that it’s an underestimated cinema camera despite its low price point. We are not interested in endless discussions about who owns the better camera, but that review resulted in a fiery discussion in comments on the post as well as on social media channels.

Watch Joe’s funny and educational review in which he highlights the C100′s feasibility for live event work such as weddings. He also compares the dynamic range and sharpness of the C100 with the 5D Mark III.

Using the Canon C100 for Live Events from Joe Simon Films on Vimeo.

Yes, there’s stuff missing (high speed recording, proper viewfinder), but the bang for the buck is incredible – when recording to an external recorder like the Ninja 2 you even get 4:2:2 colour sampling, which should put it right next to the C300 in terms of quality (which is almost 2,5 times as expensive).

It’s time to rethink this camera. The quality is unmatched by any video camera in this price range.

For a limited time the Canon EOS C100 is still -$1000 (=$5499) at B&H.
See link below.

All credit is given to author cinema5DNino Leitner

For this video specifically: All sponsoring income from this video will go to the “rainbow of hope” children’s home in Moldova.

The most affordable of Canon’s “cinema cameras” the EOS C100, has been around since late last year when I had a chance to test it in a real world environment (see video above).
In the light of recent camera announcements at NAB and the current C100 price drop I’d like to share my experience and tell you why I think the EOS C100 is one of the most important and underestimated cameras of 2013.

Canon EOS C100 reviewEveryone tells you that each project requires a different tool. Well that’s certainly true and sounds very professional, but if you’re interested to read about the C100 your budget probably limits your shooting style and choice of camera to only very few valid candidates currently available.

In this price range you are like so many others still looking and waiting for a camera that truly supports and helps you express your filmmaking ambition, be it documentary or fiction or anything in between.

Here’s a camera I can truly recommend. It has no big red labels screaming things like 4K, 12bit, or 3D for that matter (that was last year’s hype), in fact it has nothing too fancy about it: It’s HD, it does 30p max and has a mediocre file compression system. But don’t be fooled by technical specs, because this camera is superb within its boundaries and a surprisingly strong, well rounded tool from top to bottom.

Let me give you some examples:

Lowlight, lowlight, lowlight
I’m thankful that manufacturers like Canon and Sony keep pushing the lowlight capabilities of their cameras even though they don’t get as much attention for it as others who can show off pixel count.
A camera that delivers nice images in very low light conditions is the low budget filmmakers best friend. I can bring a lighting crew or I can bring a C100, and in many cases the C100 (natural lighting) will do a better job.
Sony’s FS100 and FS700 show very similar lowlight capabilities as the C100 and offer many of the same features on the surface. In my opinion the C100 is stronger in providing an organic, filmic look and as an intuitive & ergonomic working tool.

C100 natural lightFor the “rainbow of hope” video (seen above) we were working without budget and without a light crew and had 1 day to get some shots. I made sure to switch off all artificial light sources in all rooms and used the natural light coming in through the windows.

This also worked quite well for an interview (screenshot above) that I decided not to use. The C100 is strong enough to bring out the beauty of even small light modulations and makes lighting with very small units possible. This is a big money and time saver.

If I had shot the same subjects with one of the Blackmagic Cameras, or a RED, I would have ended up with an extremely noisy or even entirely dark image. The C100 with a F/1.4 lens can sometimes actually see more than the human eye.

c100_grainIf I remember correctly I shot the sequence as seen on the left at about ISO 3200-6400 and pushed about 1 stop in post. The noise is apparent, but I think it looks quite organic. No noise reduction was used on the film except color reduction here on the left.

File compression
noise croppedImmediately noticable on the screenshot is the 24Mbit file compression which has a hard time to handle the noise. For this project I didn’t mind the slight artefacts.
The only shot that fell apart due to too much structure, where compression was too noticeable to me was the shot at 3:36 where the girl says “It’s better here than at home.”

To solve the compression problem (which is really the major disadvantage compared to the C300) many people are using the Atomos Ninja 2 harddisk recorder which gets the 4:2:2 uncompressed signal out of the hdmi port of the C100 and stores it to ProRes or another good codec of choice. This also helps in the editing process later on as you have immediately available formats.

c100_dr2Dynamic range is terrific
I underexposed all shots in order to preserve the highlight details and give an organic and naturalistic feel.
roh_c100_scr-12raw

roh_c100_scr-12The camera’s dynamic range was extremely helpful to achieve that and serves with a beautiful highlight rolloff at the top range. This is what makes the images look so filmic. I had sufficient room in post production and didn’t miss RAW at all. I think RAW is very overestimated, many people don’t need that much information in their shots.

My advice on this point: Get the shots right while you’re shooting and in most cases you’ll have sufficient information on a C100 to get that look you like.
Also don’t forget: Small, sharp HD files help in a quick and efficient workflow. Don’t shoot 4K RAW if your target is HD Vimeo and you don’t have any special needs! Or do you go camping with your whole kitchen in your backpack just in case? No, you just take what you need.

Color Grading
I’m a big fan of filmconvert and I use it to grade everything I edit, I barely ever switch over to DaVinci anymore unless I have something to do in detail. Filmconvert emulates specific film stocks very realistically and while it still has some glitches in usability it has become invaluable to me.
It is simplistic and limited, but effective and helps me to be creative in color grading within well placed boundaries.
It’s compatible with many current cameras. The C300 and Alexa R709 profiles work very well with the C100, but I hear it will receive an update with a dedicated C100 profile soon.

8bit and 12bit
Grading with filmconvert is where I first noticed that there’s actually not too much noticeable difference in my desired end result between 12bit coming from an Arri Alexa or Blackmagic Camera or the 8bit image coming from a Canon C100.
I must say I’d prefer a lowlight capable 8bit camera any day now over a more light hungry 12bit tool, because filmconvert will get it close to what I like. 12 bit IS smoother, slightly more organic, but the difference is not as heavy as I had thought.

That’s definitely personal preference, but I urge you to evaluate how much 10 or 12 bits can actually really do for what your viewer sees at the end. More attention to the craft will actually get you a lot further than using your time on gathering pixels and data in my opinion.

C100 image stabilizedLower cost lenses are often enough
I admit I’m a convinced unexpensive lens user. I have learned to avoid ever shooting wide open. I don’t like too shallow depth of field and any lenses quality improves drastically when stopped down one or two stops so that’s what I always do.

Stopped down 2 stops a $20000 lens looks only slightly better in HD than a $200 lens and in today’s time of color correction to think a more expensive lens will get you a nicer picture in my experience is an illusion. Certainly there are numerous reasons to use expensive lenses on high grade shoots, but if you use a C100 you most probably don’t need these features. Spend your money elsewhere.

Again lowlight capable cameras make expensive lenses obsolete. If you’re a low budget or run & gun shooter, save money by getting a camera that is strong in lowlight. I can’t stress this topic enough.

Canon EF-s 55-250mmThat said if I’m not using a tripod I’m a fan of image stabilization lenses for documentary and there are few that have the kind of IS that really works for moving images. Be careful, because many lenses’ stabilizer can destroy your image as they’re laid out for stills. Canon’s own lenses usually perform well.

For this project I used mostly the EF-S 55-250mm F/4.0-5.6 and a little of the great EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 for the wides.
For full frame cameras I can recommend the EF 24-105mm F/4.0. This one also comes as an affordable bundle with the C100 that saves you $500.

Conclusion
It’s hard to hide that I think this is a great camera. Here are the points I like:
+ great ergonomics / handling.
+ long battery life.
+ XLR connectors and mic holder / controls convenient.
+ built-in ND filters.
+ dual SD card recording (for backup), brilliant.
+ good menu structure.
+ great lowlight capabilities.
+ great dynamic range & highlight rolloff.
+ very neutral color response with C LOG profile (even slightly better than C300).
+ uncompressed hdmi out.
+ very crisp & clean HD image from 4K sensor.
+ great price for a lot of quality.

Certainly the C100 can be improved and the crippled high compressed codec and AVCHD format are among the more annoying things about this camera.
Here are the points you might want to look into when you make your buying decision:
- position of LCD is not ideal.
- LCD resolution is not ideal (you need another monitor or EVF to focus).
- hdmi connector is not ideal (that’s for telivision sets. For a camera we want SDI).
- 8bit color space might be insufficient for your application.
- lack of slow motion or 60p mode.
- strong image compression & inconvenient AVCHD container.

If this review helped, if you have a question or concerns please leave a comment.

Thanks to our sponsor B&H for the help in building this platform. Please make sure you buy their gear through our links.
For this video specifically: All sponsoring income from this video will go to the “rainbow of hope” children’s home in Moldova.

The Canon EOS C100 is currently -$1000 on the B&H website.

All credit is given to author cinema5DSebastian Wöber

For this video specifically: All sponsoring income from this video will go to the “rainbow of hope” children’s home in Moldova.

The most affordable of Canon’s “cinema cameras” the EOS C100, has been around since late last year when I had a chance to test it in a real world environment (see video above).
In the light of recent camera announcements at NAB and the current C100 price drop I’d like to share my experience and tell you why I think the EOS C100 is one of the most important and underestimated cameras of 2013.

Canon EOS C100 reviewEveryone tells you that each project requires a different tool. Well that’s certainly true and sounds very professional, but if you’re interested to read about the C100 your budget probably limits your shooting style and choice of camera to only very few valid candidates currently available.

In this price range you are like so many others still looking and waiting for a camera that truly supports and helps you express your filmmaking ambition, be it documentary or fiction or anything in between.

Here’s a camera I can truly recommend. It has no big red labels screaming things like 4K, 12bit, or 3D for that matter (that was last year’s hype), in fact it has nothing too fancy about it: It’s HD, it does only 30p and has a mediocre file compression system. But don’t be fooled by technical specs, because this camera is superb within its boundaries and a surprisingly strong, well rounded tool from top to bottom.

Let me give you some examples:

Lowlight, lowlight, lowlight
I’m thankful that manufacturers like Canon and Sony keep pushing the lowlight capabilities of their cameras even though they don’t get as much attention for it as others who can show off pixel count.
A camera that delivers nice images in very low light conditions is the low budget filmmakers best friend. I can bring a lighting crew or I can bring a C100, and in many cases the C100 (natural lighting) will do a better job.
Sony’s FS100 and FS700 show very similar lowlight capabilities as the C100 and offer many of the same features on the surface. In my opinion the C100 is stronger in providing an organic, filmic look and as an intuitive & ergonomic working tool.

C100 natural lightFor the “rainbow of hope” video (seen above) we were working without budget and without a light crew and had 1 day to get some shots. I made sure to switch off all artificial light sources in all rooms and used the natural light coming in through the windows.

This also worked quite well for an interview (screenshot above) that I decided not to use. The C100 is strong enough to bring out the beauty of even small light modulations and makes lighting with very small units possible. This is a big money and time saver.

If I had shot the same subjects with one of the Blackmagic Cameras, or a RED, I would have ended up with an extremely noisy or even entirely dark image. The C100 with a F/1.4 lens can sometimes actually see more than the human eye.

c100_grainIf I remember correctly I shot the sequence as seen on the left at about ISO 3200-6400 and pushed about 1 stop in post. The noise is apparent, but I think it looks quite organic. No noise reduction was used on the film except color reduction here on the left.

File compression
noise croppedImmediately noticable on the screenshot is the 24Mbit file compression which has a hard time to handle the noise. For this project I didn’t mind the slight artefacts.
The only shot that fell apart due to too much structure, where compression was too noticeable to me was the shot at 3:36 where the girl says “It’s better here than at home.”

To solve the compression problem (which is really the major disadvantage compared to the C300) many people are using the Atomos Ninja 2 harddisk recorder which gets the 4:2:2 uncompressed signal out of the hdmi port of the C100 and stores it to ProRes or another good codec of choice. This also helps in the editing process later on as you have immediately available formats.

c100_dr2Dynamic range is terrific
I underexposed all shots in order to preserve the highlight details and give an organic and naturalistic feel.
roh_c100_scr-12raw

roh_c100_scr-12The camera’s dynamic range was extremely helpful to achieve that and serves with a beautiful highlight rolloff at the top range. This is what makes the images look so filmic. I had sufficient room in post production and didn’t miss RAW at all. I think RAW is very overestimated, many people don’t need that much information in their shots.

My advice on this point: Get the shots right while you’re shooting and in most cases you’ll have sufficient information on a C100 to get that look you like.
Also don’t forget: Small, sharp HD files help in a quick and efficient workflow. Don’t shoot 4K RAW if your target is HD Vimeo and you don’t have any special needs! Or do you go camping with your whole kitchen in your backpack just in case? No, you just take what you need.

Color Grading
I’m a big fan of filmconvert and I use it to grade everything I edit, I barely ever switch over to DaVinci anymore unless I have something to do in detail. Filmconvert emulates specific film stocks very realistically and while it still has some glitches in usability it has become invaluable to me.
It is simplistic and limited, but effective and helps me to be creative in color grading within well placed boundaries.
It’s compatible with many current cameras. The C300 and Alexa R709 profiles work very well with the C100, but I hear it will receive an update with a dedicated C100 profile soon.

8bit and 12bit
Grading with filmconvert is where I first noticed that there’s actually not too much noticeable difference in my desired end result between 12bit coming from an Arri Alexa or Blackmagic Camera or the 8bit image coming from a Canon C100.
I must say I’d prefer a lowlight capable 8bit camera any day now over a more light hungry 12bit tool, because filmconvert will get it close to what I like. 12 bit IS smoother, slightly more organic, but the difference is not as heavy as I had thought.

That’s definitely personal preference, but I urge you to evaluate how much 10 or 12 bits can actually really do for what your viewer sees at the end. More attention to the craft will actually get you a lot further than using your time on gathering pixels and data in my opinion.

C100 image stabilizedLower cost lenses are often enough
I admit I’m a convinced unexpensive lens user. I have learned to avoid ever shooting wide open. I don’t like too shallow depth of field and any lenses quality improves drastically when stopped down one or two stops so that’s what I always do.

Stopped down 2 stops a $20000 lens looks only slightly better in HD than a $200 lens and in today’s time of color correction to think a more expensive lens will get you a nicer picture in my experience is an illusion. Certainly there are numerous reasons to use expensive lenses on high grade shoots, but if you use a C100 you most probably don’t need these features. Spend your money elsewhere.

Again lowlight capable cameras make expensive lenses obsolete. If you’re a low budget or run & gun shooter, save money by getting a camera that is strong in lowlight. I can’t stress this topic enough.

Canon EF-s 55-250mmThat said if I’m not using a tripod I’m a fan of image stabilization lenses for documentary and there are few that have the kind of IS that really works for moving images. Be careful, because many lenses’ stabilizer can destroy your image as they’re laid out for stills. Canon’s own lenses usually perform well.

For this project I used mostly the EF-S 55-250mm F/4.0-5.6 and a little of the great EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 for the wides.
For full frame cameras I can recommend the EF 24-105mm F/4.0. This one also comes as an affordable bundle with the C100 that saves you $500.

Conclusion
It’s hard to hide that I think this is a great camera. Here are the points I like:
+ great ergonomics / handling.
+ long battery life.
+ XLR connectors and mic holder / controls convenient.
+ built-in ND filters.
+ dual SD card recording (for backup), brilliant.
+ good menu structure.
+ great lowlight capabilities.
+ great dynamic range & highlight rolloff.
+ very neutral color response with C LOG profile (even slightly better than C300).
+ uncompressed hdmi out.
+ very crisp & clean HD image from 4K sensor.
+ great price for a lot of quality.

Certainly the C100 can be improved and the crippled high compressed codec and AVCHD format are among the more annoying things about this camera.
Here are the points you might want to look into when you make your buying decision:
- position of LCD is not ideal.
- LCD resolution is not ideal (you need another monitor or EVF to focus).
- hdmi connector is not ideal (that’s for telivision sets. For a camera we want SDI).
- 8bit color space might be insufficient for your application.
- lack of slow motion or 60p mode.
- strong image compression & inconvenient AVCHD container.

If this review helped, if you have a question or concerns please leave a comment.

Thanks to our sponsor B&H for the help in building this platform. Please make sure you buy their gear through our links.
For this video specifically: All sponsoring income from this video will go to the “rainbow of hope” children’s home in Moldova.

The Canon EOS C100 is currently -$1000 on the B&H website.

All credit is given to author cinema5DSebastian Wöber

Every large sensor & HDSLR shooter needs an ND filter for outdoor shoots and Variable ND’s have proven mighty useful if you’re a one-man band or on the clock.
But it is also a known fact that some Vari ND’s dampen your shots quality to some extent. So which is the best Variable ND for the money? Tim Fok put together a very useful test in which he compared the most common brands in detail.

Vari ND's

This is a guest post written by Tim Fok

So I’m on the look out for a new variable ND filter. I’ve used the LCW mark II for a couple of years now, and have never been particularly keen on the softness it’s always seemed to add. But whilst trying to complete my L series lens collection, the hunt for a new ND filter kind of took a back seat, until now.

I firstly want to say, that Dave Dugdale’s Fader ND comparison  is just excellent. I was set on buying the Heliopan filter after hearing Philip Bloom rave about it. But Dave’s review really put the Tiffen filter on the map for me. Before this I’d never heard of it.

If you haven’t already, I strongly recommend you watching Dave’s comparison of 6 fader ND filters. He concluded that the Tiffen was the best performer vs price.

So what’s missing in Dave’s review that made me not want to go out and buy the Tiffen right away? Well, not much. It covers pretty much all grounds. The only thing missing was first hand experience on my behalf. Much online content (including this blog post) is subjective, and only you can really decided what kit is best for you.

IMG_7157

My objectives we’re simply: Is the Heliopan really worth the extra cost vs the Tiffen? And how much better are both to my current LCW mark II?

My tests covered the following areas:
-Design/Function
-Sharpness
-Vignetting
-Bokeh
-ND variable range
-Sharpness

I wasn’t too fussed on covering colour cast. All NDs do it to a degree (all reduce blue), it’s something you can tweak on the 5D mark iii with the WB shift function.

Tests very much shadowed Dave’s techniques, I don’t claim any originality here, I simply wanted first hand experience. Sharpness is listed twice as this was a really important aspect for me, it’s an area I felt would potentially justify to cost difference between the Tiffen and Heliopan.

All filters were the 77m version, as all my lenses are stepped up to this thread diameter. Thanks to Will Evans for the loaner!

Design/Function

Heliopan

Pros
-Well built, feel weighty and substantial
-Front element remains 77mm (unlike other faders which are larger) therefore takes same lens caps.
-Hard stops

Cons
- inconsistent damping. seems loose at the top and bottom end of the scale, tougher to move through the mid range.
-Cheap, fiddly plastic carry case

Tiffen

Pros
-Well built, well damped.
-Very nice soft carry pouch

Cons
-Moving front element is larger than the static threaded back (the part which screws onto the lens) making it fiddly to get it on and off lens.

LCW Mark II

Pros
-Cheap

Cons
- Markings over time wear off.
- Damping over time becomes sticky.

Sharpness

For the sharpness test I positioned some text on white paper in the centre and top right corner of the frame. I manually focussed via live view on my 5D mark iii, 50mm f/1.2 lens, using my SmallHD DP6. I set each fader ND to the mid point on their scale.

IMG_7165

Here are the results:

sharpness-no-filter

sharpness-heliopan

sharpness-tiffen

sharpness-LCW

As you can see, it wasn’t the most clarifying of tests. All suffered sharpness loss in the corners vs middle (as does with no filter), and only the LCW fader really stuck out as being softer. The test didn’t really differentiate the Heliopan from the Tiffen from No Filter. So I dug a little deeper..

IMG_7163

Sharpness II

For this test I found a subject (in the form of a wooden ornament) which was clad with both text and a rough texture. Using my 100mm Macro L I moved in closer and did the same test.

sharpness-round-2-small

This tests clearly separates the LCW from the other two, but didn’t provide any wedge between the Heliopan and Tiffen; they’re simply as sharp as each other. More importantly, there’s next to 0 sharpness loss on either when compared with no filter.

Vignette

IMG_7169

Here I used my Canon 16-35mm at f/16, shooting straight at a (dirty) plain wall.

The lens itself on a full frame vignettes quite heavily, so it’s important to reference the amount of vignette prior to any applied filter.

As I primarily shoot video, and would seldom (if ever) use a fader ND for photos, all of these tests were cropped to 16:9. This applies to all of the tests, but it’s worth mentioning here as it directly affects the amount of vignetting in frame.

vignette-half-screen

In fact, when taking photos I’d go as far as saying the Heliopan is unusable at 16mm on a Canon 16-35mm mark i. I’m one of those guys that likes a little vig at times, but here it’s more of a fault than an effect. In the above 16:9 crops, the Heliopan is better portrayed. It’s a less gradual vig than the Tiffen, so dramatically lessens as the crop is applied. Making them similar is vignette for video. Although I think the Tiffen has the slight edge here.

I imagine the excessive vig on Heliopan is down to the fact that the front element is no larger than the back, meaning on wide lenses it catches the edge of the filter in frame.

IMG_7173

Bokeh

I really loved the part of Dave’s review that covers this. Wouldn’t have thought to test it myself. But I did for first hand experience.

bokeh-test-small

This is the same out of focus area, using the flash on my iPhone 5. Lens used was a Canon 100m macro L.

As Dave concluded, the LCW is terrible here, nasty particles on blurred areas. The Heliopan is very similar to no filter here, the Tiffen has a tiny bit of texture.

ND Variable Range

Now this test is a little subjective. as it wasn’t an official test, just done purely by eye. And my opinions have potentially changed from in-the-field to reviewing it on my laptop.

Before I explain what I did in this test, it’s worth highlight a problem all fader NDs face.

Variable ND filters like this use two polarising filters. when twisting the front element, it’s inevitable that at some point, the polarisers will align in such a way that form an unwanted cross pattern, as pictured below.

021A0006

This is common knowledge, and as mentioned it’s present on all fader ND. Some worse than others. It’s not something a company will promote about their fader NDs, and is therefore hard to obtain information about how each filter stands up to each other.

This test addressed this issue, and looks at how much usable ND range each filter offers. Again, this test is subjective, and real world situations will differ (not everyone will be pixel peeping and shooting against a flat wall). NB – After using the Tiffen in the field this week I can confirm that you do get a wider range from real life shooting

What did here was set each filter to it’s minimum, and take an exposed picture according the the in-camera meter. I then increased the ND until I felt that the cross effect became too  present and ruin the image. I then dialed the fader back a touch, adjusted the aperture to produce a correctly exposed image, and took another picture.

I then compared the between the first and second image in accordance to f-stop. The difference in exposure here would give me how much usable ND range each filter had. Below are the results.

X-heliopan

X-tiffen

X-LCW

For the third time, this is a subjective test. After reviewing the images in Lightroom, it’s possible the Heliopan was taken a tad too far, and in fact the 1/3 stop it’s gained over the Tiffen may be redundant. At the minimum, this test concludes little diference between the Heliopan and Tiffen.

So, will all the above considered, what have we concluded? Is the really Heliopan worth it?

IMG_7183

If they were the exact same price, and considering I’d only use it for video, I think I’d pick the Heliopan purely on design. I like the hard stops. But there’s no way I’d pay £130 extra for this feature alone. For the extra price tag I’d demand considerably better image performance over the Tiffen, and you just don’t get this from the tests I’ve done. The damping of the Heliopan is a huge disappointment also. It feels like over time it would come completely loose.

I wanted to do this test when I could afford to buy either filter, so that price would play less of a factor in the decision making of my purchase. But the fact is, it does. Buying the Tiffen gives me an equal performing filter, with cash enough saved to buy a second Tiffen, plus change!

IMG_7181

The 77mm Tiffen Variable ND is $150 All Sizes
The 77mm Light Craft Workshop Fader ND mark II is $136 All Sizes
The 77mm Heliopan Variable Gray ND is $443 All Sizes

Test conducted and written by Tim Fok

All credit is given to author cinema5DSebastian Wöber

sony-rx1

Download my full resolution 6000×4000 photos from the Sony RX1

The Sony RX1 is a compact camera that beats Leica and Hasselblad for image quality.

$2800 may seem a lot for a “compact” but that is before you see the images.

The Sony RX1 truly offers image quality in the league of a Leica M Type 240 outfitted with Leica 35mm / f2.0 Summicron-M.

That kit costs $10,000.

rx1-garden

rx1-ubahn

rx1-love

rx1-magic

rx1-cups

It is hardly any bigger than the RX100 jeans pocketable compact and in some dimensions even smaller than the Canon G1 X and Fuji X100. The lens is barely any larger than the Olympus 45mm F1.8 for Micro Four Thirds yet feeds a sensor 4 times larger. It isn’t jeans pocketable like the RX100 but it is jacket pocketable. It is a miracle.

rx1-iphone-size-comparison

Image quality

This one is simple.

A) The Sony RX1 is a compact

B) It outscores both the Nikon D4 and Phase One IQ180 Digital Back on DXOMark.

Next consider -

The Phase One IQ180 is $44,000. It is medium format. Not only is the RX1 pocketable – it is $44,000 medium format pocketable.

Anyone still complaining about the $2800 price tag? No? OK I’ll continue…

The lens is better performing than the $1850 Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm F1.4, a flagship 35mm lens Zeiss only recently introduced.

rx1-kids

If the base optics are superb then they become nigh on perfect when you turn on in-camera digital compensation. As the lens and body are matched, the image processor can be tailored around the optics. The RX1 has options to turn on or off correction for vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberration depending on your preferences. I turn on correction for distortion and C/A but turn off vignetting correction as I find a slight fall off of brightness at the corners very attractive wide open at F2.0. Despite the high end optical design there’s still a bit of distortion and purple fringing in the raw files but it is correctable in post.

Sony are leading the way with sensor technology at the moment. The only cameras with higher DXOMark scores all have Sony sensors. The Nikon D600 has the same sensor. The D800 has a joint Sony / Nikon 36Mp monster and the D800E the same but without an anti-aliasing filter. The RX1 also dispenses with the OLPF but unlike the D800E, it uses bespoke optics matched to the sensor.

rx1-rx100-size-comparison

The RX1 comfortably outscores the new Leica M Type 240 for dynamic range at a film rivaling 14.3 stops, a whole stop more than the Leica. The latitude is incredible. Some raw files I thought unsalvageable due to over exposure were brought down 3 stops in Photoshop to a normal level without any burnt highlights or banding in the roll offs. It outscores the Leica in low light, offering cleaner images at ISO 3200 to 25,600 and for colour depth. Is there anything left!?

Oh yes – the 5D Mark III is caned by the RX1 for dynamic range. At 11.7 stops the highly rated Canon sensor lags far behind the RX1 at over 14 stops. Yes you can believe your eyes  - Canon are playing catch up to Sony on sensor quality. DXOMark rated the RX1 raw files better for high ISO performance and colour depth too. Again a whitewash on all key image quality metrics. A 5D Mark III with the new Canon 35mm F2.0 IS gives you less performance for significantly more money than the RX1, a compact camera.

Micro Four Thirds may strike a good balance between size and image quality, but the RX1 takes that philosophy to a completely new level.

Now you can understand my excitement!

rx1-bearpit

Video

Sadly those hoping for high quality video to go with the high end stills will be disappointed by the RX1.

Just as with the Sony VG900 and A99 it’s nowhere near a match for the Canon 5D Mark III, Nikon D5200, GH2 or GH3 for image quality in video mode. It has so much aliasing and moire you can use it like focus peaking. It has a chronic lack of fine detail and comes nowhere near close to a used $500 GH2 body for video quality. The codec isn’t as clean as the one on the Nikon D5200 and uses an AVCHD wrapper in 1080p rather than the more usable Quicktime MOV. The RX1 has a MP4 mode but that is very heavily compressed at 12Mbit and 1440×1080.

Regarding the HDMI output there’s been a lot of misinformation about this, leaving many confused. The RX1 lacks the uncompressed HDMI output of the A99. It doesn’t even have a full screen image via HDMI nor is it clean (free of graphics and text). It is windowed with huge black borders in all display modes other than playback mode.

This is all very strange considering Sony’s progress with video on the NEX cameras a full 2 years ago. Those were the first of the mirrorless and DSLR cameras to give us 1080/60p – but the video quality of the RX1 is a step backwards from the NEX 5N and NEX 7.

The $600 sister camera RX100 also has a nicer image in video mode with more fine detail and less aliasing than the $2800 RX1.

rx1-rx100-video-200pc

Since this full frame sensor also went into the Sony VG900, a dedicated high end video camera, you’d have thought they’d have optimised the sensor for video a bit and got rid of the issues.

I also have noticed a bug there the last 50 or so lines in AVCHD 1080p mode were blurred (see below).

rx1-video-bug

Although the RX1 has 1080/60p, cinema 24p and has full manual control – everything the big A99 has – I’d rather Sony had just taken it off altogether. It’s a total embarrassment.

Form factor

This camera motivates me to shoot and experiment. “Bag me”, it says. It goes everywhere with you.

Have a look at the usual DSLRs lined up in glass cabinets at the shops – it seems no matter who makes them, they’re broadly homogenous. Not the RX1. This finally breaks the “serious camera” mould, not just in terms of the design and specification of the camera, but in terms of how you use it and the look of the stills.

You cannot get the RX1′s lens on a DSLR. It is seated just a fraction from the sensor rather than adhering to the long 44.5mm flange of a Sony Alpha body. That they were able to get such good corner sharpness with such a short flange is amazing. The lens has a total of THREE Aspherical elements, one of them a new type of Advanced Aspherical. The character of this lens only comes with the matched sensor and body of the RX1 and that character is unique.

rx1-chess

All other large sensor compacts on the market such as the Nikon Coolpix A, Fuji X100S and Sony RX100 have comparatively small sensors compared to the full frame RX1. Even APS-C is significantly smaller. Only a large full frame beast such as the Canon 5D Mark III, Sony A99 or Nikon D800, with a very high end 35mm prime, would give you a similar feel to images as the RX1 – but there are even more differences than just spec. The larger cameras almost always wind up being used differently due to their form factor. In terms of stealth factor for street photography for example people can react differently to a larger camera, as it is more easily noticed. With the RX1 they very rarely break the spell by looking directly at the lens. As a result the photos are more natural, more often.

Full frame

Full frame for me is not about extreme shallow depth of field, but about having a more pervasive separation of depth. I don’t always want to have an object off the focus plain, or a background, completely creamed out and unrecognisable but I do want there to be enough separation between points of interest in the image – that subtle blur of objects not directly on the focus plane even if the focus point is quite far from the camera gives a more 3D look to the photo.

With crop sensors at wide angle (even at fast apertures) parts of the scene further away blend sharply into the background, rather than being marked out.

rx1-band

Of course on Micro Four Thirds and APS-C to mitigate this lack of 3D depth you can shoot at longer focal lengths or focus closer but that changes your composition completely. Inspired by Tarantino and Kubrick I’ve always preferred wider focal lengths and full frame gives an unparalleled look to a 35mm F2.0. The 3D look on APS-C is just never quite as pervasive as it is with full frame and the RX1 with the Zeiss 35mm F2 gives you the characterful look of a Voigtlander Nokton 25mm F0.95 on Micro Four Thirds twice as often than the Nokton itself when used on a camera like the OM-D.

Fixed lens

I find I get the best creative results with a prime. It makes me concentrate and focus on the image not the choice of lens. Really you get two focal lengths with the RX1 – one at the time of shooting and one in post. It is 35mm full frame and 50mm (equiv.) APS-C when cropped 1.5x in Photoshop. Resolution is so high and detail so crisply rendered at 1:1 that cropping to a narrower focal length is perfectly doable and to have a zoom in post is very useful. 35mm and 50mm are very versatile focal lengths and I rarely use lenses longer than 135mm for my stills work. I still have my DSLR when I want to use the beautiful Canon 135mm F2.0, or a modded lens like the Flare Factory 58 or a tilt shift.

rx1-blossom

Focus

I wouldn’t rate the AF system on the RX1 as terrible, but it is certainly a weak area along with video.

So many cameras lack a good manual focus assist or fast AF or both that I assume some companies must think focus is secondary to stitch panorama. Exposure and focus should be priorities on every camera bar none. Simple as that.

AF on the RX1 is much better than the X Pro 1 and X100, but it is nowhere near as fast to lock on as the GH3, OM-D E-M5 or Nikon V2, nor as silent. AF on the RX1 has a more mechanical feel, you can feel and hear the whirring motor drive. Considering Sony have faster and more discrete AF on their NEX cameras and lenses you’d have thought the RX1 would be at least as good, but it actually slower! I do however find it more accurate, which is essential for such a large sensor and F2.0, so maybe there’s a reason for the focus system being designed the way it is.

rx1-stereo

Whilst I find it extremely accurate in good light and acceptably quick for most kinds of work (whereas the X Pro 1 was unacceptably slow), it is pretty bad when shooting sports or in low light, bordering on unusable. The RX1′s mediocre AF system has also got stick from one of the main targets of the camera, street shooters and they have a point but one of the greatest of all time Henri Cartier-Bresson never needed it – really this depends what style of street photography or photojournalism you’re doing. If you’re going to point and hope, the AF will let you down. If you’re going to lie in wait, think ahead to what will happen then the AF will work just fine as long as the scene is not moving very busily and unpredictably.

Fly by wire manual focus on the RX1 is not the disaster it is on some other cameras like the X100 (though the X100S improves the feel). The manual focus ring is responsive and you can rack quickly and precisely like you can on a manual lens from the 70′s. That’s progress!

I recommend turning off the automatic manual focus assist and instead assigning this to one of the two function buttons when you want to use it. The live view feed has so much moire and aliasing it acts like peaking is enabled which is just as well since the peaking function of the camera bafflingly only works when in magnified focus assist! On the RX1′s little brother the RX100 and ALL OTHER CAMERAS peaking works as it is meant to work.

rx1-hitchcock

Electronic viewfinder

The attachment OLED-EVF is a very useful add-on but a mixed bag performance wise.

Electronically it is very good with a nice high resolution OLED display. Great colour and contrast. It seems to be identical in performance to the OLED in the NEX 7 and the TruFinder attachment for the NEX 5N. It is slightly higher priced than that but has a metal housing and can be angled up or down.

I generally enjoy using it but it has one major issue and one smaller quirk.

The optics are poor, with a lot of smearing when your eye is not directly straight with the viewfinder. Your eye needs to be so straight to avoid the soft edges that most of the time you find yourself concentrating more on getting your eye straight than on actually composing a shot. The optics should have been made larger to compensate for the edge smearing issue, but the compact size of the EVF meant Sony didn’t do this.

RX1 EVF TruFinder attachment

Now the quirks – the diopter on the side of the EVF can easily be changed by accident, the proximity sensor does not allow automatic switching on eye contact between the camera LCD / EVF and the EVF has no securing screw like the one for the NEX 5N. This is both a blessing and a curse. It means the RX1 features a ‘normal’ hotshoe not a proprietary attachment like the NEX 5N and NEX 7, whilst maintaining the smart electronic functionality.

With the superb OLED EVF attached you can focus manually very quickly whilst composing the full frame without needing to use any focus assists thanks to the terrible moire in the live view video stream :)

Build quality

If not Leica standard the RX1 is exemplary for a compact camera aside from two areas. Although the lens is solid and feels excellent, the focus ring is plastic. The only plastic part on the entire lens aside from the Zeiss badge is the most important part of the lens. That makes little sense.

The battery / card door is plastic and again that seems a shame given that the entire body is a sleek carved block of alloy cold to the touch – even the lens cap is metal!

The flash has an all alloy construction and intelligent design, so no expense spared there unlike on a lot of other compacts with their pop up plastic stalks.

rx1-bigbord

rx1-girls

Puzzling stuff

There’s a few things lacking which are on the much cheaper NEX and Alpha cameras and rival mirrorless cameras. A few quirky things.

I’ve already mentioned the slower AF than NEX cameras, well there’s also no in-body stabilisation like on Alpha cameras. Sony owns all this technology, why isn’t it on their $2800 RX1? The lens lacks the optical image stabilisation of OSS NEX lenses and the articulated screen mechanism from the equally thin NEX 5R body is missing altogether. Still an underrated feature. Unlike the Fuji X100S the camera lacks a built in ND filter despite rather needing one with such a fast lens and a leaf shutter maxing out at 1/2000 when shooting at faster apertures than F4. The battery is the same as the one in the tiny RX100, with this camera packing a full frame sensor you’d think they’d have put a bigger battery in there to match. Size shouldn’t be the problem here as the tiny Nikon V1 has a smaller body but packs in the battery from the Nikon D800!

OK so maybe not quirks but major flaws but the images are just so good and the camera just so nice to use, that complaining about these quirks is a lot like abandoning a Ferrari 458 Spider because there’s a scratch on the passenger door.

rx1-piquet

Yes Sony should work on these areas for future models and some of them I don’t see an excuse for. Stuff like the lack of built in ND filter – probably no room between the lens and sensor and hard to get the quality, are forgivable. Other things like peaking not working over the full image is however a bit less justifiable and should be looked at in a firmware update as should video quality which needs to be drastically improved (or rather fixed – I consider it broken).

Conclusion

Aside from the disappointing video quality, the RX1 is a gem. I’ve been looking for a stealthy street camera with that Henri Cartier Bresson magic for a long time and now I finally have it, without resorting to the expense of a Leica system.

I had hoped the Fuji X Pro 1 would be that camera, but the cripplingly slow AF, terrible manual focus feel and chunky body resulted in it going on eBay. Nor does that camera have the full frame look of the RX1 and outright image quality.

I’ve lost count at the number of times I’ve picked up my iPhone as a camera due to convenience and the fact you have it with you, and shared a photo taken with it. Well it is time that stopped. From now on I’m carrying my RX1 around. If it had a phone on the back, it’d be even better!

I’m kidding but the point still stands. You’re more likely to pick the RX1 and shoot stills with it than a 5D Mark III. As for crop sensor cameras, every time I used one for stills in the back of my mind something bothered me – that temptation to lug my full frame camera around purely because the quality was unmatched. Now not only does the RX1 match the look of the 5D Mark III it betters it. The RX1 gives you an image quality reason for using it not just a convenience factor or size advantage. Imagine no longer having to carry a bulky DSLR and set of primes, let alone a huge medium format camera, tripod and lens onto a fashion shoot.

Medium format quality in a compact camera? It had to happen some day I suppose.

Hurray for technology!

Pros

  • It gets the important stuff so incredibly right
  • Leica M image in a compact
  • Over 14 stops dynamic range
  • 24MP sensor has even higher resolution in reality thanks to lack of OLPF filter D800E style
  • Superb low light performance
  • Zeiss lens easily worth almost a third of the cost of the camera
  • Rich colour
  • Superb JPEG engine
  • Solid build quality and excellent handling on the most part
  • Versatile choice of focal length
  • Incredibly small for a full frame camera and currently unique on the market with no rivals
  • Almost completely silent leaf shutter
  • Stealth factor very attractive for pros and photojournalists – discretely small, dark, silent and not intimidating
  • Characterful images feel unique to the RX1, especially when shooting wide open at F2
  • Attractive design gets admiring glances
  • High quality LCD and useful brightness setting for sunlight visibility
  • Attachment EVF has good resolution and contrast (though poor optics)
  • Accurate AF system (though not that fast)
  • Convenient USB charging (though no separate charger in the box for your $2800)
  • Useful auto-ISO in M mode allows exposure compensation dial functionality even with full control over shutter and aperture
  • Snappy menus and responsive controls
  • Capable built in flash
  • Actually useful scene modes! Handheld Twilight produces genuinely better JPEGS in low light, Sweep Panorama mode is class leading

Cons

  • Heavy line skipping in 1080p, worse video quality than the little $600 RX100 (simply unacceptable aliasing and moire, very electronic feel to video)
  • All manual focus assists disabled in video mode (no magnification and no peaking)
  • Peaking only works whilst zoomed in, defying the whole point of having peaking function
  • No uncompressed or clean HDMI output
  • No optical or in-body image stabilisation and electronic SteadyShot for video heavily crops the image (down to APS-C!)
  • Live view quality in P,S,A,M stills modes lower than in movie mode
  • Purple fringing sometimes quite evident wide open at F2.0
  • Poor battery life well short of peers (notably Nikon V1, GH3, OM-D E-M5 or a DSLR)
  • No built in EVF and add on has issues – poor viewing angles, smearing, cannot switch between main screen and EVF with proximity sensor, no hot-shoe securing mechanism
  • AF not up to standard set by Micro Four Thirds cameras or Nikon 1 series especially in low light and video mode
  • No articulated screen makes tripod work uncomfortable
  • Maximum 1/2000 shutter speed at fast apertures (due to leaf shutter) makes shooting at F2.0 in daylight marginal without ND
  • No built in ND filter like Fuji X100S
  • SD card slot placement not optimal (in battery compartment rather than side)
  • Focus ring is plastic and doesn’t feel quite as solid as the rest of the camera
  • Confusing and unnecessary separation of stills and videos in playback mode

The post Sony RX1 Review appeared first on EOSHD.com.

All credit is given to author EOSHD.comAndrew Reid

sony-rx1

Download my full resolution 6000×4000 photos from the Sony RX1

The Sony RX1 is a compact camera that beats Leica and Hasselblad for image quality.

$2800 may seem a lot for a “compact” but that is before you see the images.

The Sony RX1 truly offers image quality in the league of a Leica M Type 240 outfitted with Leica 35mm / f2.0 Summicron-M.

That kit costs $10,000.

rx1-garden

rx1-ubahn

rx1-love

rx1-magic

rx1-cups

It is hardly any bigger than the RX100 jeans pocketable compact and in some dimensions even smaller than the Canon G1 X and Fuji X100. The lens is barely any larger than the Olympus 45mm F1.8 for Micro Four Thirds yet feeds a sensor 4 times larger. It isn’t jeans pocketable like the RX100 but it is jacket pocketable. It is a miracle.

rx1-iphone-size-comparison

Image quality

This one is simple.

A) The Sony RX1 is a compact

B) It outscores both the Nikon D4 and Phase One IQ180 Digital Back on DXOMark.

Next consider -

The Phase One IQ180 is $44,000. It is medium format. Not only is the RX1 pocketable – it is $44,000 medium format pocketable.

Anyone still complaining about the $2800 price tag? No? OK I’ll continue…

The lens is better performing than the $1850 Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm F1.4, a flagship 35mm lens Zeiss only recently introduced.

rx1-kids

If the base optics are superb then they become nigh on perfect when you turn on in-camera digital compensation. As the lens and body are matched, the image processor can be tailored around the optics. The RX1 has options to turn on or off correction for vignetting, distortion and chromatic aberration depending on your preferences. I turn on correction for distortion and C/A but turn off vignetting correction as I find a slight fall off of brightness at the corners very attractive wide open at F2.0. Despite the high end optical design there’s still a bit of distortion and purple fringing in the raw files but it is correctable in post.

Sony are leading the way with sensor technology at the moment. The only cameras with higher DXOMark scores all have Sony sensors. The Nikon D600 has the same sensor. The D800 has a joint Sony / Nikon 36Mp monster and the D800E the same but without an anti-aliasing filter. The RX1 also dispenses with the OLPF but unlike the D800E, it uses bespoke optics matched to the sensor.

rx1-rx100-size-comparison

The RX1 comfortably outscores the new Leica M Type 240 for dynamic range at a film rivaling 14.3 stops, a whole stop more than the Leica. The latitude is incredible. Some raw files I thought unsalvageable due to over exposure were brought down 3 stops in Photoshop to a normal level without any burnt highlights or banding in the roll offs. It outscores the Leica in low light, offering cleaner images at ISO 3200 to 25,600 and for colour depth. Is there anything left!?

Oh yes – the 5D Mark III is caned by the RX1 for dynamic range. At 11.7 stops the highly rated Canon sensor lags far behind the RX1 at over 14 stops. Yes you can believe your eyes  - Canon are playing catch up to Sony on sensor quality. DXOMark rated the RX1 raw files better for high ISO performance and colour depth too. Again a whitewash on all key image quality metrics. A 5D Mark III with the new Canon 35mm F2.0 IS gives you less performance for significantly more money than the RX1, a compact camera.

Micro Four Thirds may strike a good balance between size and image quality, but the RX1 takes that philosophy to a completely new level.

Now you can understand my excitement!

rx1-bearpit

Video

Sadly those hoping for high quality video to go with the high end stills will be disappointed by the RX1.

Just as with the Sony VG900 and A99 it’s nowhere near a match for the Canon 5D Mark III, Nikon D5200, GH2 or GH3 for image quality in video mode. It has so much aliasing and moire you can use it like focus peaking. It has a chronic lack of fine detail and comes nowhere near close to a used $500 GH2 body for video quality. The codec isn’t as clean as the one on the Nikon D5200 and uses an AVCHD wrapper in 1080p rather than the more usable Quicktime MOV. The RX1 has a MP4 mode but that is very heavily compressed at 12Mbit and 1440×1080.

Regarding the HDMI output there’s been a lot of misinformation about this, leaving many confused. The RX1 lacks the uncompressed HDMI output of the A99. It doesn’t even have a full screen image via HDMI nor is it clean (free of graphics and text). It is windowed with huge black borders in all display modes other than playback mode.

This is all very strange considering Sony’s progress with video on the NEX cameras a full 2 years ago. Those were the first of the mirrorless and DSLR cameras to give us 1080/60p – but the video quality of the RX1 is a step backwards from the NEX 5N and NEX 7.

The $600 sister camera RX100 also has a nicer image in video mode with more fine detail and less aliasing than the $2800 RX1.

rx1-rx100-video-200pc

Since this full frame sensor also went into the Sony VG900, a dedicated high end video camera, you’d have thought they’d have optimised the sensor for video a bit and got rid of the issues.

I also have noticed a bug there the last 50 or so lines in AVCHD 1080p mode were blurred (see below).

rx1-video-bug

Although the RX1 has 1080/60p, cinema 24p and has full manual control – everything the big A99 has – I’d rather Sony had just taken it off altogether. It’s a total embarrassment.

Form factor

This camera motivates me to shoot and experiment. “Bag me”, it says. It goes everywhere with you.

Have a look at the usual DSLRs lined up in glass cabinets at the shops – it seems no matter who makes them, they’re broadly homogenous. Not the RX1. This finally breaks the “serious camera” mould, not just in terms of the design and specification of the camera, but in terms of how you use it and the look of the stills.

You cannot get the RX1′s lens on a DSLR. It is seated just a fraction from the sensor rather than adhering to the long 44.5mm flange of a Sony Alpha body. That they were able to get such good corner sharpness with such a short flange is amazing. The lens has a total of THREE Aspherical elements, one of them a new type of Advanced Aspherical. The character of this lens only comes with the matched sensor and body of the RX1 and that character is unique.

rx1-chess

All other large sensor compacts on the market such as the Nikon Coolpix A, Fuji X100S and Sony RX100 have comparatively small sensors compared to the full frame RX1. Even APS-C is significantly smaller. Only a large full frame beast such as the Canon 5D Mark III, Sony A99 or Nikon D800, with a very high end 35mm prime, would give you a similar feel to images as the RX1 – but there are even more differences than just spec. The larger cameras almost always wind up being used differently due to their form factor. In terms of stealth factor for street photography for example people can react differently to a larger camera, as it is more easily noticed. With the RX1 they very rarely break the spell by looking directly at the lens. As a result the photos are more natural, more often.

Full frame

Full frame for me is not about extreme shallow depth of field, but about having a more pervasive separation of depth. I don’t always want to have an object off the focus plain, or a background, completely creamed out and unrecognisable but I do want there to be enough separation between points of interest in the image – that subtle blur of objects not directly on the focus plane even if the focus point is quite far from the camera gives a more 3D look to the photo.

With crop sensors at wide angle (even at fast apertures) parts of the scene further away blend sharply into the background, rather than being marked out.

rx1-band

Of course on Micro Four Thirds and APS-C to mitigate this lack of 3D depth you can shoot at longer focal lengths or focus closer but that changes your composition completely. Inspired by Tarantino and Kubrick I’ve always preferred wider focal lengths and full frame gives an unparalleled look to a 35mm F2.0. The 3D look on APS-C is just never quite as pervasive as it is with full frame and the RX1 with the Zeiss 35mm F2 gives you the characterful look of a Voigtlander Nokton 25mm F0.95 on Micro Four Thirds twice as often than the Nokton itself when used on a camera like the OM-D.

Fixed lens

I find I get the best creative results with a prime. It makes me concentrate and focus on the image not the choice of lens. Really you get two focal lengths with the RX1 – one at the time of shooting and one in post. It is 35mm full frame and 50mm (equiv.) APS-C when cropped 1.5x in Photoshop. Resolution is so high and detail so crisply rendered at 1:1 that cropping to a narrower focal length is perfectly doable and to have a zoom in post is very useful. 35mm and 50mm are very versatile focal lengths and I rarely use lenses longer than 135mm for my stills work. I still have my DSLR when I want to use the beautiful Canon 135mm F2.0, or a modded lens like the Flare Factory 58 or a tilt shift.

rx1-blossom

Focus

I wouldn’t rate the AF system on the RX1 as terrible, but it is certainly a weak area along with video.

So many cameras lack a good manual focus assist or fast AF or both that I assume some companies must think focus is secondary to stitch panorama. Exposure and focus should be priorities on every camera bar none. Simple as that.

AF on the RX1 is much better than the X Pro 1 and X100, but it is nowhere near as fast to lock on as the GH3, OM-D E-M5 or Nikon V2, nor as silent. AF on the RX1 has a more mechanical feel, you can feel and hear the whirring motor drive. Considering Sony have faster and more discrete AF on their NEX cameras and lenses you’d have thought the RX1 would be at least as good, but it actually slower! I do however find it more accurate, which is essential for such a large sensor and F2.0, so maybe there’s a reason for the focus system being designed the way it is.

rx1-stereo

Whilst I find it extremely accurate in good light and acceptably quick for most kinds of work (whereas the X Pro 1 was unacceptably slow), it is pretty bad when shooting sports or in low light, bordering on unusable. The RX1′s mediocre AF system has also got stick from one of the main targets of the camera, street shooters and they have a point but one of the greatest of all time Henri Cartier-Bresson never needed it – really this depends what style of street photography or photojournalism you’re doing. If you’re going to point and hope, the AF will let you down. If you’re going to lie in wait, think ahead to what will happen then the AF will work just fine as long as the scene is not moving very busily and unpredictably.

Fly by wire manual focus on the RX1 is not the disaster it is on some other cameras like the X100 (though the X100S improves the feel). The manual focus ring is responsive and you can rack quickly and precisely like you can on a manual lens from the 70′s. That’s progress!

I recommend turning off the automatic manual focus assist and instead assigning this to one of the two function buttons when you want to use it. The live view feed has so much moire and aliasing it acts like peaking is enabled which is just as well since the peaking function of the camera bafflingly only works when in magnified focus assist! On the RX1′s little brother the RX100 and ALL OTHER CAMERAS peaking works as it is meant to work.

rx1-hitchcock

Electronic viewfinder

The attachment OLED-EVF is a very useful add-on but a mixed bag performance wise.

Electronically it is very good with a nice high resolution OLED display. Great colour and contrast. It seems to be identical in performance to the OLED in the NEX 7 and the TruFinder attachment for the NEX 5N. It is slightly higher priced than that but has a metal housing and can be angled up or down.

I generally enjoy using it but it has one major issue and one smaller quirk.

The optics are poor, with a lot of smearing when your eye is not directly straight with the viewfinder. Your eye needs to be so straight to avoid the soft edges that most of the time you find yourself concentrating more on getting your eye straight than on actually composing a shot. The optics should have been made larger to compensate for the edge smearing issue, but the compact size of the EVF meant Sony didn’t do this.

RX1 EVF TruFinder attachment

Now the quirks – the diopter on the side of the EVF can easily be changed by accident, the proximity sensor does not allow automatic switching on eye contact between the camera LCD / EVF and the EVF has no securing screw like the one for the NEX 5N. This is both a blessing and a curse. It means the RX1 features a ‘normal’ hotshoe not a proprietary attachment like the NEX 5N and NEX 7, whilst maintaining the smart electronic functionality.

With the superb OLED EVF attached you can focus manually very quickly whilst composing the full frame without needing to use any focus assists thanks to the terrible moire in the live view video stream :)

Build quality

If not Leica standard the RX1 is exemplary for a compact camera aside from two areas. Although the lens is solid and feels excellent, the focus ring is plastic. The only plastic part on the entire lens aside from the Zeiss badge is the most important part of the lens. That makes little sense.

The battery / card door is plastic and again that seems a shame given that the entire body is a sleek carved block of alloy cold to the touch – even the lens cap is metal!

The flash has an all alloy construction and intelligent design, so no expense spared there unlike on a lot of other compacts with their pop up plastic stalks.

rx1-bigbord

rx1-girls

Puzzling stuff

There’s a few things lacking which are on the much cheaper NEX and Alpha cameras and rival mirrorless cameras. A few quirky things.

I’ve already mentioned the slower AF than NEX cameras, well there’s also no in-body stabilisation like on Alpha cameras. Sony owns all this technology, why isn’t it on their $2800 RX1? The lens lacks the optical image stabilisation of OSS NEX lenses and the articulated screen mechanism from the equally thin NEX 5R body is missing altogether. Still an underrated feature. Unlike the Fuji X100S the camera lacks a built in ND filter despite rather needing one with such a fast lens and a leaf shutter maxing out at 1/2000 when shooting at faster apertures than F4. The battery is the same as the one in the tiny RX100, with this camera packing a full frame sensor you’d think they’d have put a bigger battery in there to match. Size shouldn’t be the problem here as the tiny Nikon V1 has a smaller body but packs in the battery from the Nikon D800!

OK so maybe not quirks but major flaws but the images are just so good and the camera just so nice to use, that complaining about these quirks is a lot like abandoning a Ferrari 458 Spider because there’s a scratch on the passenger door.

rx1-piquet

Yes Sony should work on these areas for future models and some of them I don’t see an excuse for. Stuff like the lack of built in ND filter – probably no room between the lens and sensor and hard to get the quality, are forgivable. Other things like peaking not working over the full image is however a bit less justifiable and should be looked at in a firmware update as should video quality which needs to be drastically improved (or rather fixed – I consider it broken).

Conclusion

Aside from the disappointing video quality, the RX1 is a gem. I’ve been looking for a stealthy street camera with that Henri Cartier Bresson magic for a long time and now I finally have it, without resorting to the expense of a Leica system.

I had hoped the Fuji X Pro 1 would be that camera, but the cripplingly slow AF, terrible manual focus feel and chunky body resulted in it going on eBay. Nor does that camera have the full frame look of the RX1 and outright image quality.

I’ve lost count at the number of times I’ve picked up my iPhone as a camera due to convenience and the fact you have it with you, and shared a photo taken with it. Well it is time that stopped. From now on I’m carrying my RX1 around. If it had a phone on the back, it’d be even better!

I’m kidding but the point still stands. You’re more likely to pick the RX1 and shoot stills with it than a 5D Mark III. As for crop sensor cameras, every time I used one for stills in the back of my mind something bothered me – that temptation to lug my full frame camera around purely because the quality was unmatched. Now not only does the RX1 match the look of the 5D Mark III it betters it. The RX1 gives you an image quality reason for using it not just a convenience factor or size advantage. Imagine no longer having to carry a bulky DSLR and set of primes, let alone a huge medium format camera, tripod and lens onto a fashion shoot.

Medium format quality in a compact camera? It had to happen some day I suppose.

Hurray for technology!

Pros

  • It gets the important stuff so incredibly right
  • Leica M image in a compact
  • Over 14 stops dynamic range
  • 24MP sensor has even higher resolution in reality thanks to lack of OLPF filter D800E style
  • Superb low light performance
  • Zeiss lens easily worth almost a third of the cost of the camera
  • Rich colour
  • Superb JPEG engine
  • Solid build quality and excellent handling on the most part
  • Versatile choice of focal length
  • Incredibly small for a full frame camera and currently unique on the market with no rivals
  • Almost completely silent leaf shutter
  • Stealth factor very attractive for pros and photojournalists – discretely small, dark, silent and not intimidating
  • Characterful images feel unique to the RX1, especially when shooting wide open at F2
  • Attractive design gets admiring glances
  • High quality LCD and useful brightness setting for sunlight visibility
  • Attachment EVF has good resolution and contrast (though poor optics)
  • Accurate AF system (though not that fast)
  • Convenient USB charging (though no separate charger in the box for your $2800)
  • Useful auto-ISO in M mode allows exposure compensation dial functionality even with full control over shutter and aperture
  • Snappy menus and responsive controls
  • Capable built in flash
  • Actually useful scene modes! Handheld Twilight produces genuinely better JPEGS in low light, Sweep Panorama mode is class leading

Cons

  • Heavy line skipping in 1080p, worse video quality than the little $600 RX100 (simply unacceptable aliasing and moire, very electronic feel to video)
  • All manual focus assists disabled in video mode (no magnification and no peaking)
  • Peaking only works whilst zoomed in, defying the whole point of having peaking function
  • No uncompressed or clean HDMI output
  • No optical or in-body image stabilisation and electronic SteadyShot for video heavily crops the image (down to APS-C!)
  • Live view quality in P,S,A,M stills modes lower than in movie mode
  • Purple fringing sometimes quite evident wide open at F2.0
  • Poor battery life well short of peers (notably Nikon V1, GH3, OM-D E-M5 or a DSLR)
  • No built in EVF and add on has issues – poor viewing angles, smearing, cannot switch between main screen and EVF with proximity sensor, no hot-shoe securing mechanism
  • AF not up to standard set by Micro Four Thirds cameras or Nikon 1 series especially in low light and video mode
  • No articulated screen makes tripod work uncomfortable
  • Maximum 1/2000 shutter speed at fast apertures (due to leaf shutter) makes shooting at F2.0 in daylight marginal without ND
  • No built in ND filter like Fuji X100S
  • SD card slot placement not optimal (in battery compartment rather than side)
  • Focus ring is plastic and doesn’t feel quite as solid as the rest of the camera
  • Confusing and unnecessary separation of stills and videos in playback mode

The post Sony RX1 Review appeared first on EOSHD.com.

All credit is given to author EOSHD.comAndrew Reid

Attention: This post is a copy of the original blog post on my personal blog.

 

The music video for “DEJA – Struck by the Light” came around at the right time to make it a camera test for the brand-new Sony F55. The target audience for the song are teenage girls, and I think few of cinema5D readers fall into this target group, so I don’t blame you if the music is not for you – but if it is, please support the artist Deja by buying the song via iTunes or Amazon.

Also, please enjoy Patrick Zadrobilek’s brilliant behind-the-scenes video, shot on the Canon C100:

The new Sony F55 was one of the most anticipated cameras in a long time, because telling from the specs, it ticks almost all the boxes. It seems like a camera which tries to please everyone: 4K, 2K and 1080p raw and compressed, without crop factors, high speed recording of up to 240 fps in 2K, SLog2 curve with a huge latitude, a global shutter (!) and the Sony FZ mount which (like the F3) gives you extreme versatility with mount adapters, allowing you to put almost every lens you have ever seen on it (provided you have the right adapter, but it’s possible). And apart from all that, ergonomically one of the first cameras in a very long time that sits on the shoulder just as-is, without any huge rig that you have to build around it.

The technical specs were overwhelming and everything sounded almost too good to be true, so like many others, I was really looking forward to get my hands on the camera as soon as possible.

Finally, after some delays, I was able to actually have a good close look at it in a studio test environment. As part of the preparation for a new regular TV documentary series, the production company is eager to decide for a camera model that will serve them well in the years to come, and that’s why they had us compare several models in different setups. Part of the results to this test were already published on cinema5D earlier, check the comparison between the F55 and the 1DC out here.

Since that test, I had more opportunities to use the camera in different circumstances. Two TV documentary features (which will be published much later in the year), and the other one was a music video that I have been asked to shoot by director Jan Frankl, a very talented young director I have worked with for the first time sometime last year for another TV comedy programme.

Notoriously low budget (as most music video shoots tend to be these days), we decided to pull off something more ambitious by shooting with the brand-new F55, and pulling a lot of favours of crew members who were willing to work for low or no pay simply because they wanted to see how the new beast really performs under tough conditions.

And boy, we did pull the F55 through its paces during those one and a half days of shooting.

Nino Leitner using a Vocas prototype rig for the F55 with their terrific wooden handles

Nino Leitner using a Vocas prototype rig for the F55 with their terrific wooden handles

 

Gear used apart from cameras

Biggest thanks go out to Pro.Media and Juraczka, the Sony pro dealers that loaned us the camera, accessories and the terrific Cooke Panchro Mini Primes that we used for this shoot. If you are looking for great deals on either rental Sony equipment in Europe or if you are looking to buy, contact them! Very knowledgeable and always helpful.

promedia-juraczka

Lighting gear was supplied by my dear friend, fellow DP and Steadicam operator Alexander Boboschweski with his KFlect system, the great reflective lighting system we already used on the production of the C500 short “ALEX”.

The dolly we used was the terrific CamDolly, the most versatile dolly system I have EVER used. You can see us using it mainly in the club, both on stage behind the singer and behind the audience pointing at the stage. I used it in the “maximum version”, the sit-down dolly, but it’s versatility is unmatched by any other system – you can reduce this thing to a bare minimum table top dolly and it really comes in many sizes. Check out the details on the website. There’s promo right now on the whole system which can get you the full system for less than $2,400 – I tell you (and I am saying this because I mean this!!) – an INCREDIBLE value for money. It’s rock solid.

Vocas supplied us with a prototype of their F55 rig and I loved it. Their wooden handles are unlike anything else on the market, so incredibly comfortable even for longer periods of shooting from the shoulder. Their entire F55 base plate and top handle makes the camera much sturdier than the normal Sony grip gear supplied with the camera.

 

The VBag Philip Bloom Edition used on the running shots in the streets

The VBag Philip Bloom Edition used on the running shots in the streets

I also used a VBag Philip Bloom Edition for the camera moves parallel to the street when following the singer after she leaves the cupcake store. It gave me great camera support in a moving car, a very efficient piece of kit – watch my review video by clicking here.

The best global shutter test: strobe light in a club, in slow motion (50 and 60fps)

The best global shutter test: strobe light in a club, in slow motion (50 and 60fps)

 

Global Shutter vs. Rolling Shutter

For me, one of the most intriguing features of the F55 is the global shutter at which the CMOS sensor operates, simply because this is something unheard of from other cameras. Over the past 5 to 10 years or so we have all become used to the amazing features that CMOS sensors offer us: relatively cheap sensors with an amazing low-light capability, also allowing manufacturers to produce larger chips at much smaller prices than used to be possible with traditional CCD sensors.
However, the CMOS technology (so far) had a few major downsides that limited their ability to shoot with them: Fast movement either through the frame or with the camera itself can lead to the “rolling shutter” effect, where buildings and objects seem to tilt to one side during the camera movement. This is because of the fact that the sensor is read out sequentially line by line, rather than at once. Also, flashes and very short light eruptions in the frame lead to an effect where only half of the frame is lit at a particular point in time. When I saw this the first time on my EX3 4 years ago, I was surprised – up until then I had mainly worked with CCD cameras which don’t suffer from that problem – but then, like many others, I quickly got used to it. It’s strange how often you see this problem on TV news reports these days (where, naturally, very often a lot of flashes are being fired off in the frame) – yet people just got used to this weird issue, so they almost don’t see it anymore.

In other words, with traditional CMOS sensors, you can’t shoot really fast movements and flashes look awful. When I first saw it years ago I was taken aback, but somehow we all got used to it – DSLRs like the 5D Mark II (and III) suffer the most from it because they are not optimized to shoot video, even the 1DC has a rolling shutter that is much worse than, say, from the C300 or C100. But you can go all the way up to the Epic and the Alexa, and to a (smaller) degree, the effect is there too.

The F55 changes that all: It’s the first CMOS based camera I know of that reads out the entire sensor at the same time. Its smaller sibling the F5 (which comes in the same body, but sports a different sensor) still has a rolling shutter. (The 4K Blackmagic S35 camera is said to come with a global shutter as well once it ships later this year.)

According to Sony, the F55 is a tad (a stop or so) less light sensitive than the F5 because of its global shutter, but that’s a sacrifice that I am more than willing to make considering the still incredible light sensitivity of the camera.

Shooting among the dancers in the club

Shooting among the dancers in the club

 

Global Shutter & XAVC codec test

In the music video shoot, we tried to test the global shutter as well as the XAVC 4K and 1080p codec in circumstances that are tough for every camera.

First of all, we filmed running scenes with our lead actress Deja, and I wanted to shoot them only parallel to the street. First of all that allowed us to improvise without permissions for these locations, because we were able to pick some quiet corners in Vienna during the shooting weekend and film her running in several locations without much hassle. Secondly, I thought the fast parallel movement would be a great test for the global shutter, and it turned out great – no bent lines, just like you would expect. It’s funny that over the years, with so many cameras that have trouble shooting something like this, you kind of develop a gut feeling of what is possible and what isn’t, and considering the conventional CMOS cameras my gut told me “it won’t work”. It looks like it’s time to rethink the limitations of CMOS technology in the future.

One of Sony’s strengths has always been the fact that they think in full solution pipelines rather than individual products. As giant as they are, they are one of the few electronics companies in the world who are capable of doing something like that. In accordance with that tradition, Sony not only announced the F5 and F55 cameras, but also loads of accompanying accessories and also a completely new codec family for efficient compression of high-quality footage in 1080p, 2K and 4K. XAVC is the name of Sony’s new codec family, and after our music video shoot, I can safely say that it’s a very future-proof offering indeed. We shot mostly XAVC 4K (for all real time stuff), and XAVC 1080p for high speed recording (50 and 60fps). (However, the grade was finished in 1080p).

The cool thing about this camera: XAVC 4K and 1080p blend seamlessly on a 1080p timeline. Sharpness is similar when downscaled to 1080p, with the 4K being only a little bit cleaner. There is a lot of nice wizardry going on inside this camera for that, and I’m sure a lot of it has to do with processing power. The sharpness of this camera is incredible no matter which resolution you use – it’s so sharp that it’s hard to match it with some other cameras, always keep that in mind.

DEJA in the cupcakes store (scene still)

DEJA in the cupcakes store (scene still)

 

XAVC vs. raw

Although we had it, we did not shoot 16 bit RAW with this camera on this project. That’s the thing with raw, for me at least: when you don’t have it, you want it. When you finally have it, you seriously don’t need it anymore. Our C500 test short “ALEX” (click here to see it and read my camera review) produced 1TB of data for 1 hour of 4K footage in Canon Raw. It was an enormous pain to work with in post production. Of course if you need it for special shots, it’s great to have, but hey … I think that goes for about 0.1% of all the stuff I shoot, to be perfectly honest. In a normal production environment where you have a budget and you have to meet deadlines, raw is not an option. Efficient compression is the future, and that’s where XAVC really seems to shine.

Light sensitivity, ISO’s & the “blue stage light” issue

Having little experience with the camera’s sensitivity, I was initially hesitant to push up the ISO too much – but shooting the running scenes guerilla style without any additional lighting on the street (impossible to put up lights on the street without permissions), I had no other choice. In these street and also during the disco scenes we ramped it up to 4000 and 5600 ISO, sometimes even higher, and I was amazed how remarkably clean the footage still turned out. There is a little grain, but it looks quite organic and therefore not really sticking out. If anything, I would say the camera is sometimes even too clean if you are heading for a “film look”. It’s quite apparent that with the latest camera generation from most manufacturers the sensitivity of film stock was definitely long left behind. I think we are – like it or not – heading to a new aesthetic as digital cinema cameras deliver more and more details that we were never able to see on “film” before. For now, the impact is small, but our habits of perception will change with the technology itself.

Anyway, I digress:
The F55′s native ISO is 1250, although I have learned to doubt the comparability of ISO numbers – while not having tested it, I think the ISO1250 of the F55 is not much brighter than the native ISO850 of the C100/C300/C500 (in C log mode). It looks very similar. My good friend Mario Feil has posted a video in which he compared the ISO sensitivities of the C300 with the 1DmkIV about a year ago – and the differences of the cameras couldn’t be more apparant – the maximum ISO of the C300 is 20,000, and it looks about the same as ISO 6,400 on the 1DmkIV.

Nino Leitner operating the Sony F55 on a tripod (with the Vocas rig still attached)

Nino Leitner operating the Sony F55 on a tripod (with the Vocas rig still attached)

 

So, as you can see, ISO doesn’t seem to be a standardized value after all, because the same ISO’s on different cameras look VERY differently. There is no other way than to compare them side-by-side and judge it by yourself.

In any case, the higher ISOs on the F55 prove to be very clean and the noise that’s there has a very filmic quality – it’s not colourful like it is on some of Canon’s cameras (though it’s mainly the older DSLRs that suffer from that), but very similar to the F3′s noise pattern (when using an external recorder with SLog).

We ran into one big issue with the camera when shooting the dance scenes in the club: like most other Sony CMOS based cameras that I know, it seems like it isn’t able to deal with blue stage lights very well. The spectrum of these lights seem to cause real trouble to the sensor – everything appears over-saturated and even burned out, despite the fact that it’s not overexposed. Look at the last few shots in the video where we really used these lights prominently. The effect is extremely strong. In some shots you see only a spot of it in the background and it sticks out enormously. We decided to go for it despite the extreme effect, and we tried to reduce it during the grading, but it didn’t really work well. It’s a bit disappointing that the F55’s sensor still suffers from that problem, because I remember Sony cameras have had issues with that for a long time – when shooting concerts, I ran into the same problem with my EX3 years ago.

Interestingly, when you look at the behind the scenes video (which was shot with the Canon C100), there is no sign of this problem and the Canon seems to deal with the blue light in a much better way.

Director of photography Nino Leitner operating the Sony F55

Director of photography Nino Leitner operating the Sony F55

 

ND filters

The F55 has two stages of ND filter built in, 0.9 and 1.8. It’s essential to have built-in ND filters in a camera like this if you use it for documentary purposes like I did frequently – it was however not necessary for this music video production.
On the documentary pieces I shot with this camera I came across one major problem with the ND filters – in bright daylight, even ND 1.8 is not strong enough at the base (and native) ISO 1250. If it’s a really bright day, you end up shooting at f/8 with the ND 1.8 to get correct exposure. You would need to stick additional ND filters in a mattebox or use a vary ND in front of your lens – both are not an option for many applications and I would much rather see Sony built a third ND directly into the camera. This IS a real design problem in my opinion. Sony managed to put more ND’s into some of their bigger XDCAM ENG models, so there is no reason why they didn’t do it here.

Settings and menu design, planned upgrades

Sony has released an extensively detailed road map for firmware releases for this camera, which goes well into 2014. Check it out here:

Upgrade schedule for the F55

Upgrade schedule for the F55

 

While it’s nice of them to provide rough dates regarding when a particular feature will be enabled, it’s also very frustrating to work with the camera at this stage when some of its biggest selling points are not working yet.

For instance, right now, the camera can only do 60fps in 1080p. It will be able to record up to 180fps in XAVC 2K/HD internally later in the year, and 240fps Raw with the optional AXS-R5 raw recorder (which we didn’t use for this production) also by the end of the year.

With the menu in the current firmware version, you feel that Sony is still working on a lot of the stuff – the performance of the menu is sluggish (though it indeed got a lot better after the first few firmware updates, and all of them are always available free of charge, which is also new for Sony). A lot of very important menu points are hidden away deep in submenus and so I think there is still a lot of space for optimization. The menu really could use a rearrangements with some of the most important settings positioned more prominently.

For example, when we started this production, we were unaware that there is a separate setting for the color gamut that has to be adjusted in order to get “ultra wide color gamut”. We assumed that’s all part of the Slog2 setting (Sony’s evolution of the Slog we have grown to love from the F3), but it isn’t. So we ended up shooting the entire music video in the “normal” color mode, because I didn’t want to change everything half way through the production. This resulted in images already being more saturated when coming out of the camera (yet nowhere near as saturated as footage from standard and even “neutral” settings in common DSLR cameras). Nevertheless, of course this reduced the amount of color adjustments we were able to make in grading (yet it wasn’t really necessary). The aim was to go for a very oversaturated “sweet” look in the video anyway, to match its music and story.

So there is more work to do for Sony and they are well aware of it. Ease of use could be better and many very important features are not supported yet. It almost seems like they wanted to push the camera in the market quickly, and get customer feedback to make it better. In that regard they clearly learned from Red – whether that is an entirely good thing is debatable though, because Red cameras have failed to deliver on sets before simply because a firmware version wasn’t ready. Then again, Red is really angry at Sony exactly because of the F55, and claims that they infringed many patents – and Sony countered with another lawsuit.
There is a lot for Red in this camera to worry about. Once the F55 delivers its 240fps Raw with the external recorder, it is capable of delivering high quality high speed footage at a price very close to the Red Epic, yet without the typical Red issue of cropping: Red only allows its cameras to “window” a different resolution other than the standard 5K of the Epic, meaning that you can’t shoot the same angles with the same lenses as you can when shooting full resolution. It also means you HAVE TO shoot 5K if you want to use the entire sensor … and as we know, that’s very often overkill for post production with all the conversion needed if you need only 1080p. The F55 solves all these problems.

Sony F55 on the Kessler CineSlider

Sony F55 on the Kessler CineSlider

 

Built-in MPEG-2 proxies

A very nice feature is the fact that the F55 can generate 50MBps MPEG-2 4:2:2 proxy files on the fly when shooting XAVC 4K. That’s essentially the XDCAM HD standard, and can be edited natively by almost every editing platform. So even if your editing platform doesn’t support the new Sony standard yet (at 4K, most of them don’t yet), you can edit off your proxies and then finish in 4K when moving to a grading software like Blackmagic Design’s Davinci Resolve (which already supports all flavors and resolutions of the new Sony codec). A pretty neat solution which can save you a lot of time in post production converting the 4K footage into smaller proxies – they are there right away. Heck, your editor can even start editing on set while you are still shooting … XDCAM HD can be edited on almost any laptop these days.

 

Ergonomics

The Sony F55 is the first camera in quite a while that ticks one particular box almost without any needed accessories: it’s ergonomic just as it is.

It sits nicely balanced on your shoulder with many lenses just like an ENG camera. All you should do is add a pair of grips attached to a baseplate plus maybe (if you need it) a matte box and off you go.

 

Viewfinder

Be aware that the F55 comes with neither a viewfinder nor a monitor – both need to be bought separately. I have worked only with Sony’s own OLED viewfinder, the Sony DVF-EL100, and it’s truly brilliant. It has a pin-sharp 1280x720p resolution, a 10000:1 contrast ratio and focusing is super easy with it, even at 4K, and that’s crucial. Very good built quality, but that should be expected for a device costing $5,000.
One big problem with third-party viewfinders has always been their attachment and adjustment for me – but this one has a mechanism that allows it to be adjusted perfectly to the position you need.
I just wish Sony didn’t use a new proprietary connector for the viewfinder – I want to use this one on all sorts of cameras, especially at this price tag! So let’s hope there will be an SDI- and HDMI converter soon.

Setfoto-158-2

The Vocas rig proved to be perfect for the handheld shooting style in the club

 

Conclusion

The Sony F55 is indeed the one camera that ticks most boxes these days – at least as soon as all the planned firmware upgrades are released. Sony really listened to the needs of filmmakers and I think the F55 combined with the XAVC codec is a great proposition for production companies both in broadcast and independent film production. Let’s look at the state of this camera by the end of the year again, but I have a feeling that it will prove to be quite popular.

All credit is given to author cinema5DNino Leitner

CHAUVET LED Pinspot 2 (2 of 2)

I was working on the set of a horror feature last week, shooting in an old warehouse. The scene we were working on required our actress to come into view out of the darkness in undead makeup and the director asked if I had anything that would emphasize the dead and pale look that our makeup artist was going for.

The lighting kit we were using on set was 3200K and the cameras were set to 4000K  to give the crates and pallets scattered around the warehouse a warmer look. To bring out the dead look of our actress in makeup I decided to go with a few of these LED Pinspots from Chauvet. The color temperature of these little LED spot lights is somewhere near 6500K which ended up giving our actress a nice pale hue.

To soften things up just a bit and defuse the light, I also grabbed a small smoke machine. Filling the area with a bit of smoke gives nice visible beams of light and provides just the right amount of haze. The smoke also does a great job of naturally blending in prosthetic applications like this neck wound.

CHAUVET LED Pinspot 2 (1 of 2)

One LED Pinspot was aimed at her right shoulder from about 4 feet up on the right hand side of the actres. The other LED Pinspot was directed up from the floor towards her chest to give dark contrasting shaddows. To get the background to drop into darkness we simply moved the scene 10 feet away from the back wall and under exposed the shot by a few stops. The result is this reasonably believable yet disturbing undead creature walking out of the darkness.

The LED Pinspots don’t have a perfect color profile by any means and they often give you a purple cast around the final beam of light. But if you employ them in a horror film setting, they do a great job of making it feel like there’s a beam of moonlight cutting through a scene. The LED Pinspots also do a great job if you need to make an object appear to be glowing in an otherwise low contrast area. At $38 a peace the LED Pinspots are one of the cheapest spots available and well worth checking out if you’re in the market for this kind of look.

All credit is given to author DSLR Film NoobDeejay

Click here to view the embedded video.

Iscorama anamorphic on the 1D C and my test footage at Vimeo

I shot with the Canon 1D C and Canon C100 Cinema EOS cameras recently with SlashCam in Berlin. The 1D C is the most Jekyll and Hyde camera I’ve ever used and a difficult camera to review. The 1D C is a marriage of beautiful 4K images and an unwilling partner who hasn’t shifted an inch to accommodate it.

High end DSLR stills are ahead of even the best digital cinema cameras for image quality on a per-frame basis. The Nikon D800 does 7K raw images with 14.5 stops of dynamic range. If ever there was an opportunity to marry Canon’s expertise in high speed stills shooting to a moving image, the 1D C is it, but what a shame it makes no concessions at all to video ergonomics.

Image quality

The 4K image of the 1D C is way better than the best 1080p cameras like the C100 or C300, both in terms of the astounding level of resolution and the film-like feel to the image. Despite being only 8bit it really does banish any feeling of ‘video’ especially in Canon LOG mode.

Here’s a 1:1 crop from 4K:

1:1 crop

And the original composition!

Full frame

Viewing the 4K images on my 2.5K Dell 2711 the detail really does pop and I don’t even have a 4K screen yet. I enjoyed having my eye drawn to tiny details. That doesn’t happen in the same way with 1080p.

Although when viewed at 1:1 the 4K image is not quite at the mark of true 4K, it is still a significant leap from the C300. 4K also gives you the ability to crop in post if shooting 4K and delivering in 1080p but that will further reduce the full frame look of your lenses.

Here it is a full 4K frame (click the image to download it) with my Iscorama 36 anamorphic on the Contax Zeiss 50mm F1.4 -

1D C sample frame shot with the Iscorama 36

In low light it is a new benchmark, completely displacing the Canon C100, C300 and Sony FS100. ISO 3200 is like silk, ISO 6400 is perfectly usable and even ISO 12,800 can be worked with especially if downsampled from 4K to 1080p and some light noise reduction applied in post.

Here’s a 1:1 crop of ISO 12,800 on both cameras. The C100 has been upscaled to 4K (as you can see, it is no match):

c100-vs-1d-c-iso-12800

With noise reduction turned off you get the usual DSLR style noise (bright speckles of red and green) rather than a nice film-like grain (as seen on the Ikonoskop and Blackmagic Cinema Camera). With it turned on you risk a more plastic looking image and a drop in detail which is all the more noticeable in 4K mode. My advice is to turn noise reduction off and apply where needed in post if shooting at ISO 6400 and above.

Here’s the character of the noise for your pixel peeping pleasure…

1D C ISO 12,800 noise pattern

Is the image better than a Red Scarlet, Blackmagic Production Camera 4K or FS700 with 4K recorder? That’s what the 1D C should be compared to. Certainly the 1D C has one advantage over the Scarlet (and likely Blackmagic S35 offering) – much cleaner in low light. However there’s no 12bit, 10bit, raw, global shutter, compressed raw, HD-SDI, peaking, no cinema camera features at all really. Rolling shutter is also a real issue on the 1D C – quite severe in 4K – so the global shutter equipped Blackmagic Production Camera certainly has an advantage when it comes to shooting fast paced action or handheld sequences.

Parts of the image suffered from a banding in the roll off to highlights, where the camera would render a steep drop to a blown highlight with just 2 or 3 bands of colour. There was a nice gentle roll off to blacks from the mids, but again a stepping of shades when going from dark grey to black over larger areas of the frame.

This 1D C only has 24p in 4K mode, the firmware update is due later. Under Berlin’s street lights the only usable shutter speed was 1/50 or 1/100, any other resulted in an unusable flickering image.

Canon log mode had an impressive effect on dynamic range, saving highlights and shadows where a normal picture profile would crush and burn. There are a few ungraded Log shots in the sample video for reference. I could happily shoot in low light with Canon Log without a significantly nosier image.

You can see my Log and low light test in the second half of the sample video (top of the page).

Overall, I am totally in love with the 4K image from the 1D C.

The 4K market

Inevitably 4K is the next cinema standard. Manufacturers are jostling for position. At this stage 4K is more important for the industry than the consumer (most of whom don’t yet need it). In the early days of a new standard it is important to establish a presence as Blackmagic are doing so with the Production Camera and Resolve 10. A state of the art 4K workflow from acquisition to post for $4000. Amazing.

Red have already established themselves technologically and Sony seem to be taking the lead with the F5 and F55 in the broader commercial videography market.

Canon’s 4K efforts are -

  • The C500 – very expensive 1080p camera with a tweak to allow 4K
  • The 1D C – very expensive stills camera with a tweak to allow 4K

Both the C500 and 1D C are a toe in the water, and Canon can’t be fully satisfied with their efforts. It is not an all guns blazing approach like Sony, Red or Blackmagic, it feels more like a side project at the R&D department, which is a huge shame given the imaging prowess of Canon’s stills sensor technology in the 1D X and 1D C.

Canon 1D C with Iscorama 36

The 1D C is a frustrating camera and I want to fall in love with her, but she happens to be a pain. You can’t have a camera review without a car analogy too, so it’s like having a Ferrari engine in a hover craft. It should really be in a car. Did that work!?

On an affordable DSLR you don’t mourn too much about the snared cinematic beauty trapped inside a stills camera. It is what it is. For Canon to offer such a tantalisingly beautiful 4K image in such an ill suited form factor at $12,000 is an avoidable situation because they could easily have put this sensor and 4K image in a C100 form factor for $6000 and owned the professional video world like they do stills with the 1D X. Sadly a huge added value with minimal overheads won the day.

Ergonomic problems

Using the 1D C on the same shoot as the C100 it becomes even more stark just how poor it is to use as a stills / video hybrid. Not a single concession has been made to the stills camera for video shooters apart from the additional 3 recording formats.

Unlike on most consumer DSLRs there’s no dedicated movie mode or record button, very much like the old 5D Mark II. The 1D C goes backwards from fundamental improvements Canon made with the 7D over the 5D Mark II way back 3 years ago – there’s no lever to switch live view mode between stills and video, instead the option is buried deep in the menus. This wouldn’t be such a problem if you could use the shutter release to grab a full frame raw still in the same mode you record 4K in but if you try this you get an error message. If you need to quickly grab a moment as a raw still, you have to exit live view altogether and use the optical viewfinder, or switch the live view mode to stills deep in the menus.

Canon log is also buried in the menus. When you eventually reach it, the Canon Log sub-menu contains 1 option – the option to turn it on! Only upon switching on Canon log does the reason for the sub-menu become clear – about 4 more parameters appear to fine tune stuff like saturation in log mode, then out you go through the cascading menus back to finally shoot. There’s no dedicated button to switch picture profile or quickly turn on or off Canon log!

Canon C100

Above: the form factor the 1D C’s image deserved but didn’t get

Setting ISO in live view mode obscures the frame with a list of ISO numbers on a darkened background. So to really see the effect of the exposure change you have to exit the ISO menu or half-guess at what the exposure looks like.

The start / stop button for video is assigned to a function button near the shutter release which is one of the least tactile and hardest to feel buttons on the camera, being so small and recessed. I recommend reassigning it to Set but there didn’t seem to be an option for this.

The focus assists for video – for there are none – come in the form of the usual stills magnification mode which every DSLR has, but unlike on a $400 T2i the button is placed awkwardly well away from any fingers and thumb in a bizarre location under the screen. Manually focussing really requires an external monitor, as shooting 4K requires precision sharpness but then you lose the DSLR stealth form factor and small size – so at over $12,000 why not just shoot with a proper cinema camera?

The crop factor in 4K mode is 1.3x and does not give either the full frame look to your lenses OR the Super 35mm look, as it is in-between. I’m used to building my lens collections around Super 35mm, Full Frame and Micro Four Thirds. APS-H is something else entirely and in 4k on the 1D C my Leica R 28mm feels something like a 36mm or 40mm and the character changes. This leads to inconsistency on a shoot with Super 35mm and full frame cameras, in terms of the look of lenses not just the field of view. On a full frame camera I have a beautifully gentle vignette on the Leica and yet it isn’t there on the 1D C in 4K.

1080p modes

The Super 35mm 1080p mode is sharp but I don’t consider it much of a selling point when you can get the same standard of Super 35mm 1080p from the C100 at $5500 without the ergonomic (and economic) struggle. In full frame 1080p mode the 1D C is identical to the $6000 1D X and the ‘new’ 1080/60p doesn’t seem very new when you realise it looks like upscaled 720/60p, which the much cheaper 1D X and 5D Mark III already have. Sneaky.

Downsampling 4K Canon Log to 1080p in post however results in a very cinematic image which definitely has the edge on the C100 and C300.

Battery capacity and screen

Most of my 1D C shoot involved me kneeling or crouching, or looking at a low battery indicator. Although the 600D has an articulated screen, and the GH3 has an articulated screen with weather sealing, the 1D C makes no concession to the video shooter here either despite being 12x more expensive than the GH3! As a result it is horrible to use bare bones, requiring constant kneeling or even lying down to be able to see the LCD when shooting on a tripod. Battery life is poor in video mode. Although almost a quarter of the camera body is taken up by a battery almost as wide as a 2.5″ SSD drive, it rates at just 2450mHa compared to the Nikon V1′s battery of 1900mHa and 5200mHa for the Canon C300 battery.

Red Epic and Nikon V1

Above: my ultra small $400 Nikon V1 (seen here with Red Epic) has a similar capacity battery to the 1D C. What gives?

The Nikon V1 is a tiny mirrorless camera, the whole body is almost the size of the 1D C’s battery and yet manages to fit a camera in there somehow. Whilst we’re on the subject of space – the 1D C could easily have been designed to fit a 5200mHa Canon C100 battery and a 480GB Red mag sized SSD without increasing the size of the camera or dropping the DSLR form factor. A DSLR battery and CF card is all well and good for stills, to not upgrade these aspects for movie recording at $12,000 is not going to endear Canon to their customers very much.

Post

The 1D C is designed to fit into existing DSLR workflows (both post and production ones) and needs extensive rigging on a set to become more usable. That for me defies the point of having a DSLR in the first place – the stealth factor, the small size, the convenient marriage of stills and video in one device. Hollywood must surely have moved on from working around DSLR ergonomics now they can rig up the small Sony F55.

On common 600x compact flash cards the 4K mode randomly stops recording. On 1000x speed cards, your bank manager randomly calls during a shoot. On a 64GB 1000x CF card you can fit just 16 minutes of 4K footage, and archiving a year’s worth of footage becomes almost as expensive as archiving raw but with none of the benefits.

1d c workflow

The 4K MJPEG is designed to fit existing workflows for Canon DSLR or Cinema EOS footage, but even on powerful Mac Pro hardware and CUDA I couldn’t get smooth playback in Premiere CS6. Changing playback resolution to 1/2 or 1/4 didn’t help, which leads me to believe the bottleneck is the drive, but the files were being streamed of a RAID 0 array of 3! The poor performance of MJPEG could be due to Premiere selecting the wrong mode for playback as it is not used to coping with MJPEG at such high resolutions (maybe the wrong playback buffer size). One mooted solution is to transcode to ProRes 4K but then your storage requirements bloom to even more unmanageable proportions. It has been suggested that simply changing the file extension to MPG (MPEG) to force Premiere to handle MJPEG in a better way, can give smoother results – I will try this on my next shoot.

It is clear at this point that the 1D C is not going to be a C100 or C300 replacement for those wanting 4K as it doesn’t even touch the Blackmagic Production Camera for ergonomics let alone Red or Sony. Consumer mirrorless cameras like the Panasonic GH3 and DSLRs have better video ergonomics for well under $1000.

Conclusion

I’m left in mourning for Canon’s early 4K efforts. For a start the price makes them an incredibly risky ownership prospect. In the case of the C500 would you blow $25,000 on a big petrol hungry car knowing it would cost you a lot to run and depreciate by $10,000 in the coming 12 months? The 1D C is also at risk of huge depreciation. I know many who can afford the asking price, but not many willing to risk the depreciation for 4K they don’t really need yet.

If the 1D X sensor can do 4K video, just put it in the 1D X and sell loads! I don’t understand Canon’s business strategy for charging $12,000 for a small quantities of a barely modified camera based on one that is relatively mass produced. The establishing of a new standard it is an opportunity to create space for one’s self and really push aggressively for market share, because there’s a whole television and film industry to feed, a billion dollar industry just beginning to build around and invest in 4K content. It is important to get there first and in the right way. The 1D C is not the right way.

Canon 1D C sample frame

 

The same flawed approach has been taken with the C500 which is almost identical to the C300 and requires an external recorder. Canon do not have the software or post production products to do an end-to-end workflow like Blackmagic for $25,000 let alone $4000. The fan on the C500 is too loud and the cabled external recorder isn’t an integrated solution like on the much cheaper Sony F5.

The Canon 1D X is designed to be held to the eye and the sensor is a very fast one, enabling sports shooters to capture full resolution stills at up to 14fps and “hey look we can also do 4K, charge double!”, but it has worse ergonomics for video than the $700 Nikon D5200 consumer DSLR, less video optimisations than 2009′s GH1 and all for that bargain price of $12,000 in the form of the 1D C. I’m a big believer in the end result (the image) being what counts. Though I was always happy to work around the shortcomings of DSLRs at $1000, to be working around them at $12,000 seems obscene.

Pros wishing to mix stills and video on one shoot will be frustrated that the 1D C does convergence so poorly. You might be better off with a separate 1D X and a Blackmagic Production Camera for the same money. It isn’t that the DSLR form factor hinders video on the 1D C, it is that absolutely no attention has been paid to making this particular DSLR form factor work better! Zero!  It is purely a stills camera, designed for photographers not filmmakers, that happens to record video to compact flash cards. 4K or not, that’s a lazy implementation of video considering the asking price.

The 1D C follows a familiar pattern of late for Canon. A great story, stifled by a cynical product strategy, coasting into our consciousness on a wave of good will from Hollywood. By current form I’ll be getting my 4K acquisition solutions from Blackmagic Design or Sony.

Pros

  • Lovely end results in 4K, silky smooth and amazing detail
  • World leading low light performance at high ISOs
  • A flagship stills camera and same robust build quality as the 1D X
  • Sharp in 1080p with Super 35mm crop (but the C100 has that for a lot less money)
  • Ready to shoot out of the box (though painful to use bare bones)
  • Internal 4K recording to common media and no need for external solution aka C500 (though media is expensive)

Cons

  • Absurdly high price and huge potential for depreciation
  • 4K only real selling point over half priced 1D X, but benefit of 4K questionable for audience and clients in 2013. By the time it becomes an industry standard the 1D C may well be obsolete!
  • Zero handling concessions to video, not even a video record button on a $12,000 movie camera!!
  • Live view activation required every time you turn on the camera
  • No dedicated movie mode
  • 4K mode has an odd crop factor, nowhere near the full frame look to lenses
  • Very poor rolling shutter performance especially in 4K mode
  • Mushy 1080/60p image quality looks like upscaled 720p
  • Poor battery run time and low capacity considering physical size
  • Cannot quickly shoot stills whilst in 4K recording mode
  • Live view stills / movie mode hidden deep in the menu, no dedicated lever like on the 5D Mark III
  • Video quality in full frame 1080p mode barely better than a $3000 5D Mark III, vertically smeared
  • Expensive media (1000x 150MB/s 128GB CF minimum standard) and many cards required
  • 4K requires card speeds above 100MB/s – only a little more optimisation would have enabled use of cheaper 600x 95MB/s cards
  • No form factor excuse for not using small customised SSD mags like Odyssey 7Q / Red
  • 8bit disappointing to see at $12,000, banding an issue under ISO 400 especially in Canon LOG mode
  • Canon log buried deep in the menus
  • No direct access to picture profiles like on consumer DSLR
  • ISO menu obscures entire exposure / composition
  • Poor feel to m.Fn button near shutter release (default for activating movie recording)
  • Buttons, even the on / off switch impossible to see in the dark
  • Illumination of top and rear info panels turns off whilst recording
  • Menu system designed for stills shooters (lots of pages of AF!)
  • Focus assist not designed for video shooting, no peaking
  • Awkward positioning of magnified focus assist, more apt for playback mode than shooting
  • Magnified focus assist too slow to move around the frame
  • Awkward to use on a tripod for bare bones DSLR stealth shooting – no articulated monitor, stealth factor disappears when you add monitor
  • Requires firmware update for 25p (and only came about after months of requests)
  • Not nearly enough changes to the 1D X to justify doubling of the price
  • No high frame rates (HFR) in 4K, not even 30fps
  • Poor 4K editing performance in Adobe Premiere CS6 due to inefficient MJPEG codec and possibly compatibility issues

The post The Canon 1D C review appeared first on EOSHD.com.

All credit is given to author EOSHD.comAndrew Reid