Anyone have any luck with a second camera for these? I'm have an X70 with a VG900 & think its a great camera, but I feel it gives a more blue-ish hue whereas the X70 tends to be reddish. Also its becoming a bit dated and lack of 4k it doesn't have too much of a future. Obviously the AX100 would be a good fit, but wondering how people feel about the a7 line as a second camera? (Either A7iii or a7sii or when the iii becomes available). Otherwise FS5,

Price range I'd prefer around 2-3,000 USD. I can sell the VG & likely another camera for a decent sum to offset some costs. FS5 a bit higher but there seems to be used ones avail. Also I have a decent set of e-mount lenses, so thats not much of an issue.


Thanks,

The a7III looks like a very interesting camera at a competitive price but then I see the first overheating posts pop up with not even 30 min recording time in full sunlight and about an hour indoors before the camera shuts down because it overheats so something to consider depending on what you shoot.

A fs5 would be a more capable videocamera.

I continue to shoot using the AX100 where the hopeless EVF and LCD are not serious limitations which rules out full sunlight near the ocean. The other serious limitation for me is lack of 4k 60p. But otherwise where those limitation are not problematic I find it a useful device. I especially like the greater depth of field the 1 inch sensor delivers.

Yes, the a7iii at first glance looks interesting but no 4k 60p totally turns me off. The question I would also pose is what does the so called full frame sensor really bring to the table other than the ability to almost invariably obtain shallow depth of field whether you want it or not.

I recall reading the various Sony strategy documents wherein they say that full frame was where they were headed as smaller sensor gear, including the APS-C line, is essentially unprofitable. While that’s well and good, totally understandable as unprofitable business is unsustainable, it is hardly customer focused.

Why would one go full frame for video (other than to save Sony’s business and other than when one really wants very shallow depth of field), is my question?

Larger sensors mean that for an equivalent number of pixels on the sensor, each pixel will be larger. This translates to being able to receive more light and thus be more sensitive. Thus the incredible ability of the A7s series, with its full frame sensor and lower pixel count, to capture more than the eye can see looking into the darkness. Not something I need every day, but the ability to get usable footage in extremely dark documentary situations at ISOs between 40,000 and 80,000 (shooting at f/1.8) has kept me with the A7s series cameras and their lower pixel counts rather than higher pixel count A7R or A7 series cameras.

Yeah, full frame is great for low light, as long as you don't need to zoom...an A7 type camera is nice for production where you have more setup time, but for run and gun or general all around video gathering, it's a bit too difficult, at least for me.\

Which reminds me, I need to sell off my A7sII and 28-135mm G lens before the A7sIII hits the market.

Paul

Larger sensors mean that for an equivalent number of pixels on the sensor, each pixel will be larger. This translates to being able to receive more light and thus be more sensitive. Thus the incredible ability of the A7s series, with its full frame sensor and lower pixel count, to capture more than the eye can see looking into the darkness.

From what I understand "full frame" alone doesn't automatically mean better low light performance but having lower pixel count does, a 5dIII will not outperform a gh5s in low light despite it being full frame just to give an example.

Not something I need every day, but the ability to get usable footage in extremely dark documentary situations at ISOs between 40,000 and 80,000 (shooting at f/1.8) has kept me with the A7s series cameras and their lower pixel counts rather than higher pixel count A7R or A7 series cameras.

If your subject doesn't move at all because how are you going to keep anything in focus that moves at f1.8 for a documentary situation. The main advantage for full frame can be the ultra shallow dof look only full frame can give you but other then that, taking the progress smaller sensor camera"s, like the gh5s, has made, I don't see any reason to use a full frame camera. It's nice to have 40 to 80000 iso capability but 3200 iso is as high as I go, even for dark venues I shoot in and then I get to see it how I see it with my own eyes. I much sooner would be adding light as very high iso with no light will look like crap compared to low iso with added light.

In terms of pixel size and sensitivity I was really thinking about the various A7 cameras - the lower pixel count of the A7s allows for larger pixels and thereby more sensitivity than the A7R or A7. i'm not taking into account varying sensitivities of sensors with different design concepts.

An example of the type of place I've put the high ISO capabilities to work has been doing behind-the-scenes shooting - which is where if you add light (such as a glow from an on-camera light) you are most likely asked to leave and never come back. On a tv show the set will typically be lit - though some series using the Varicam seem to rate their cameras at 4000 or 5000 ISO. If they're shooting wide open at T/1.5 that gives you an indication how dimly the set may be lit. But part of my job is also to capture activity going on off-set, where the light levels can fall off considerably. For one behind the scenes shoot of a play rehearsal, I needed to cover discussions between the director, production designer and effects people seated a few rows behind the lighting console in an otherwise completely dark theatre, discussing a cue that ended with a blackout. Shooting wide open with a Sigma 24mm and a Summilux 35mm, the A7s was able to give me usable footage when I could barely see them by eye. And again, adding or asked for light would have been a good-bye.