Matte Boxes - Show or Useful? - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony Alpha and NEX Camera Systems > Sony NEX-EA50 (all variants)

Sony NEX-EA50 (all variants)
Including NEX-EA50UH / EA50EH / EA50H / EA50UK / EA50EK / EA50K


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 24th, 2014, 10:02 PM   #31
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 317
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Craig,
I agree about the 18-200 , but that's the only long zoom with servo , the shorter f/4 available is not long enough ....

anyway take a look at the proaim 80mm box (ebay item#310879599570) . Don't know if will vignette but it looks vide enough (but they do list it as for 4:3 only...) in any case I like the option of 2 4x4 filters without the holder too!
Anthony Lelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 12:48 AM   #32
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 170
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Thanks Anthony, I'll take a look. The thing that bothered me about the 18-200 was the way it extended it's 'innards' out the front like an Alien on the warpath! After a lifetime with internal focusing , par-focal ENG servo zooms, it was a bit much as it would surely 'eat' it's way through any 4x4" glass filter! The 'Active' OSS on that lens can be useful for those that need such features. I sold mine 'as new' on ebay for a 'better than new' price so then set about purchasing a C/Y-NEX Speed Booster and an (almost) complete collection of Zeiss 'Contax' vintage primes. I have also recently acquired a cute little Zeiss 28-70mm zoom which has fast become my 'new best friend'!
Craig Marshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 01:29 AM   #33
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 317
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

couldn't agree more, Craig
let me add that f/6.3 is scary , I mean.. it's 2014 and we have to deal with THAT? Still don't understand the reason why our friends at Sony's decided on that NDless 3K camera (in 2014, I mean 2013 but we're now in 2014 and we are trying to find a solution for it..mattebox...lee filters..absurd if you ask me!): was it for the mechanical shutter for stills? (who cares of the stills I ask?) or another trick to limit the camera?

anyway after watching a couple of Sony's reps (or something like that) talking in Tokyo about the camera, the lens, the new f/4 zoom etc. I can tell that they have no idea how their own camera works. awesome display of professionalism giving me more doubts that the marketing department once again took over the fun, with Sony's
I am referring to a couple of interviews diffused by the newsshooter site covering the inter bee in Tokyo . won't link the material as it's painful to watch (and embarrassing)
Anthony Lelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 02:16 AM   #34
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 9,067
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Quote:
Still don't understand the reason why our friends at Sony's decided on that NDless 3K camera
Every manufacturer has it's "close but no cigar" camera's in the "lower" 5k range, that's where the money is at, they add all the goodies in the much more expensive camera's and cripple everything down the line, the big sensor dslr revolution has made all that diversification possible. A few years back the difference between 2 camera's was often that one had sdi out and the other didn't and you paid a 1 to 1,5k premium price for it but at least all basic functionality and image quality was the same, today the differences between camera's are carefully tweaked like one has moire and aliasing and a softer image and a weak codec, the other one improves on moire and aliasing, the 3rd one improves on the softer image and the last one on the codec, with this canon example I talking about camera's that start from 1,5k up to 15k and there are many more minor differences like leaving out a nd filter, giving one better autofocus capabilities or a better lcd screen or viewfinder etc.
Camera manufacturers and accessory companies (that didn't even excist a few years back) are making boatloads of money since the 5dII came along, selling you "close but no cigar" camera's for the crowd that can not afford the expensive toys and then make us buy accessories to complete our incomplete camera.
Noa Put is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 02:40 AM   #35
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 317
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Yes Noa,
I'd like to feel free to express my personal view about this "close but no cigar" "I-couldn't-say-it-better" thing :
there is a difference between adding more stuff (that cost money of course) and limiting (intentionally) something that already comes with it. Using this ancient concept (and I know that our friends in Japan are still sensitive about it) : there is no honor doing that . a Customer should feel the love and confidence that the seller did everything he could to make a good product good, but the idea of the seller spending his time finding the way to cut the angles on a good product making it less good is disgusting. Where is the honor in that? (talking to our friends in Japan)

:)


PS: myself and I'm sure many others are grateful to you (yes, You!) Noa for reporting things as they are, in here. So thanks Noa Put!
Anthony Lelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 02:47 AM   #36
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 9,067
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Just wait, before you know it you can only buy a camera on a monthly or yearly subscription so you can finally have it all, until your subscription stops :)
Noa Put is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 03:13 AM   #37
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 317
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Noa, yes but don't suggest more tricks because I'm sure they (all) are considering that the moment you said it..LOL

anyway let's get back to work : this ea50 is a great tool, with the limitations (intentional or not), but still a good tool. It is the only large sensor camera able to zoom (also lanc) from wide to tele. So far only the AF100 was able to do that , but only from (in 35mm) 90-350 (and with a less good Panasonic remote instead of the much better lanc protocol).

so let's get back to work, apply our skills and make it work. For that we have to be grateful to Sony. (less grateful for the limitations and THAT must be clear, so they should know that we know what has been done on this great camera!)

and we (all) should build a monument to the guys at Nikon's who created the monster by mistake (D90) - they didn't know what was about to happen when they did it: if it wasn't for the D90 we'd still be shooting with those miniscule sensors and still spend 5-6K for stuff that now can't go over 3K (if they ask more than that then people will start shooting cell phones that are good enough and WAY better than all the one third of an inch ridiculous video cameras up to this year (take the NX3 for example.. ok 3.5K instead of 5K but still.. come on)

and to all of you at sonys', Panasonic's, canon's : make good products , don't limit intentionally (we will find out!) and be proud of what you do and sell. Enough with the tricks and cuts that I'd like to consider as a thing of the past.
Anthony Lelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 10:12 AM   #38
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,678
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Anthony,

I am no defender of Sony, far from it. But to me, for you to complain about a slow kit lens on a $3,000.00 camcorder is ridiculous. I have said it a thousand times, GOOD glass costs money. It costs money to make it, and to buy it. There is no manufacturing shortcut. If you want it fast and you want it sharp it takes good glass, and a lot of it, period. It is a three thousand dollar entry level camera with a lot of bang for the buck built into it. Every lens I run on mine costs half as much as the camera. I like f2.8 constant aperture zooms so I paid for them. In the last decade camera value, in terms of what you get for your money has sky rocketed. You make it sound like it is a conspiracy to hold you back. The competition between Sony, Canon and others is what protects us, the consumer. We are the beneficiary's of that competition.

If you want more capabilities, get out your wallet and pay for it. No one is trying to hold you back. It is a $3,000.00 entry level pro camera, that's all. How much can you possibly ask for?

Steve
__________________
www.CorporateShow.com
Been at this so long I'm rounding my years of experience down...not up!
Steven Digges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 10:30 AM   #39
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,678
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Marshall View Post
Before I sold that dreadful Sony kit 18-200 zoom, I used a simple $35 sunshade on rails. Of course, it will not take 4x4" filters but the lens could zoom 'through' it and it did prove to be a very good sun shade.

Sony VG20 custom '3 point' Porta-Rig on Vimeo
Same thing here. Craig has stated many times that he came from working in the world of Fujinon broadcast lenses, a big time national rep I believe. Maybe a guy that earned his living selling lenses that go for thousands instead of hundreds can explain to me why he would call a KIT lens "dreadful". I honestly don't get it. It is a KIT lens, it is not intended for broadcast or incredible low light performance. You get what you pay for.

Steve
__________________
www.CorporateShow.com
Been at this so long I'm rounding my years of experience down...not up!

Last edited by Steven Digges; February 25th, 2014 at 11:02 AM.
Steven Digges is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2014, 04:02 PM   #40
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 317
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Im afraid that you missed a couple of points. The lens is what it is but it is also replaceable: but I have many questions about the sensor, why it was kept like a secret and then I understood why: the low light poor performance. and that's software, already ready for other models with much better low light performance. and few other things that seemed like "intentional" at the time, and at this time as well.
A guy who seemed to know what he was talking about when asked 'bout the sensor had a pause, then after recomposing himself said something like "we don't disclose that info" : info about the sensor? a secret? and why was that?
anyhow it's clear to me that I am the buyer and I have the right to move my doubts. When I will be the seller then I will behave maybe differently, but I am the buyer now, so...

P.S. : they do hold the right to do whatever they want, but if you "pause" for a moment and follow me in this please.. just a moment: a corporation working hard to make a product already in place less good doesn't look good. The buyers may feel better knowing that a corporation is doing the best they can to make a product better, not the other way around. That's what I'm saying, when something like this happens then we have a place to express our feelings (but there will be always others defending the corporation against the other customers who dare to talk, that also is part of the process... I know that, and you know that, and you know also that I know that we both know (the defense thing)


P.P.S.: competition between canon Panasonic and sony? ok. let's talk about the D90 that started everything: the video came out beautiful, correct? and it was a surprise, correct? Surprise for everybody (including myself , and I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the first video from that camera. stunned like everybody else. Ok , now you believe that sony didn't know that before? . hmmm guess who makes the sensor of the D90. of course they knew. all of them knew. but they kept the small sensor mania until . they could, not expecting that a couple of guys at Nikon's created by mistake a monster that was about to change the entire industry pretty much overnight. So let me ask you what competition we're talking about exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Digges View Post
Anthony,

I am no defender of Sony, far from it. But to me, for you to complain about a slow kit lens on a $3,000.00 camcorder is ridiculous. I have said it a thousand times, GOOD glass costs money. It costs money to make it, and to buy it. There is no manufacturing shortcut. If you want it fast and you want it sharp it takes good glass, and a lot of it, period. It is a three thousand dollar entry level camera with a lot of bang for the buck built into it. Every lens I run on mine costs half as much as the camera. I like f2.8 constant aperture zooms so I paid for them. In the last decade camera value, in terms of what you get for your money has sky rocketed. You make it sound like it is a conspiracy to hold you back. The competition between Sony, Canon and others is what protects us, the consumer. We are the beneficiary's of that competition.

If you want more capabilities, get out your wallet and pay for it. No one is trying to hold you back. It is a $3,000.00 entry level pro camera, that's all. How much can you possibly ask for?

Steve
Anthony Lelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2014, 05:49 PM   #41
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 317
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Digges View Post
Same thing here. Craig has stated many times that he came from working in the world of Fujinon broadcast lenses, a big time national rep I believe. Maybe a guy that earned his living selling lenses that go for thousands instead of hundreds can explain to me why he would call a KIT lens "dreadful". I honestly don't get it. It is a KIT lens, it is not intended for broadcast or incredible low light performance. You get what you pay for.

Steve
we get what we pay for? I'm sorry but I need to remind you that the D90 , GH2, GH3 , all the canons already happened. 3K is now what it used to be the old (last year's) 7K segment , the 4K GH4 will cost? now you may want to re-consider the money-level thing to attach all the expectations to it , and I can tell right here and right now that 3K looks like three times 1K , so it's enough of money to be picky. Enough of money. The gold mine of the minuscule sensors is over. We (da People) are not stupid .

back to the cheap lens that comes with the ea50 : it's only a $1,000 lens , so I can't pretend that will actually work like a $120 camcorder . In fact the $120 camcorder won't lose the focus for a half of a sec (it's an eternity in video!) when zoomed back like the $1,000 ea50 zoom does. And it's not like nobody is watching... it's a video : everybody is watching. there is a play in the mechanism , nothing to do with the electronics: it's a simple "play". Now if you take a cheap zoom and put a motor on it and sell it for $1,000 then you better check if it actually works. At least in my vision of the world : if I give a 2 minute clip to a Client for $1,000 and it works sporadically don't you think that they'll call me? Not all the Clients are like you : "I only spend $1,000 for that clip so I get what I paid for" kind of Client..actually none of my Clients will think like that.

Last edited by Anthony Lelli; February 26th, 2014 at 07:35 PM.
Anthony Lelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 03:18 AM   #42
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 9,067
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Your being a bit harsh on Sony now Anthony :) I have used this camera for a year and quite extensively, the stock lens was useless once I entered a darker reception but for the rest of the day, when light permitted it was a joy to use, it is actually a lens which I miss now going back to "regular" dslr formfactor camera of which the gh4 is also a part of.

I also think you do get quite a lot for your money with the nex-ea50, I just didn't like the size of the camera. What I liked about the stocklens was that I could do very controlled and smooth manual zooms, the feedback you got with manual focussing however was not that good and the motorized zoom had some issues as well especially at the start of a zoom. The autofocus was not very good but good enough if you knew when not to use it. I absolutely loved the focus magnification and how conveniently it was positioned so I could easily check on my focus without introducing any camerashake during a non stop handheld filming event.

How many manufacturers can say they make a stabilized 18-200 lens with autofocus features, a motorized zoom with very smooth manual zoom possibilities and the possibility to control iris without any jumps, and that for 1K? It's easy to get frustrated about the inconveniences this lens does have but considering it doesn't have any competition you could say that in the land of the blind one eye is king :)

Also the 4k gh4 is not a camera to compare with the nex-ea50, if you need to have all the glory the camera can display you need to get that "brick" and a external recorder that can handle 4k 4:2:2, from what I understood that is a 3,5k extra investment on top of the 1,5k starting prize for the gh4 body and then we don't even have considered a lens which will set you back another 1k for a quality one. So we are talking about a 6k camera here.

The GH4 is for sure a remarkable camera, even at it's bare 1,5k costing form and image quality wise it will be a better camera then a nex-ea50 but formfactorwise there is no comparison, the nex-ea50 is obviously the much better camera here and that is what the main purpose is of this camera, you take it out to an event and out of the box it will handle about any situation you trow at it, it is a camera that can give you ease of mind, the fact that I had to pay 3,2k in euros (21%tax incl) makes it even more remarkable as this was the first camera after my canon xh-a1 (which was more expensive) that felt like a "real" videocamera and not a photocamera trying to act like one.

This doesn't mean I prefer the nex-ea50 over the gh4, my current shooting style asks for smaller camera's, that's why I do have the gh4 on my radar as well because it does have some functions included, like zebra's that would make my life easier when shooting on the fly, also the fact that I already heavily invested in m4/3 lenses makes the switch much easier. The Nex-ea50 however will remain a camera that I really enjoyed using, if only it wasn't such a large beast. :)
Noa Put is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 06:21 AM   #43
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 317
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Well said , Noa
I do use the ea50 , I do appreciate the zoom, I like it and when the lighting gets tough then I try to use the few skills left in me (as a videographer): we make stuff work, that's what we do and supposed to do.
But let me repeat that the downgrading of the low light performance of the ea50 compared to others with the same sensor (it's the same sensor, don't believe them when they try to make us believe that it may be different - they never said it loud, they masked the embarrassment giving vague "hints", but it's the same sensor, only treated. To be clear the other cameras perform much better in low light with the same zoom, so...

You did a great job informing us, the good and the bad. I already said it but I want to repeat it because you deserve to be recognized for that.

but this "trick" that Sony did wasn't nice.

we had few examples previously , I remember the canon 10D and the cheaper 300D , basically the same camera with features blocked in the software. Until somebody revealed the job that was done, gave all the features back. Another corporation working hard to limit a product, intentionally. Anyway THAT didn't look good, but it was many years ago.

Now the GH4 is a new standard for price and performance, hands down : but the GH4 can't shoot a football game from the press box. The ea50 can, the GH4 can't.

P.S. the play of the zoom is nasty, you're right. Not easy to control. But that wasn't intentional (I guess). The low light performance is a totally different thing : and low light is crucial . it's the reason why who needs it is obligated to buy the other one and pay lots of money for what the ea50 had in it's arsenal, already.

Last edited by Anthony Lelli; February 28th, 2014 at 12:26 AM.
Anthony Lelli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 07:13 AM   #44
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 9,067
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

About the low light performance of the ea50, to which camera's are you comparing? The stocklens is not a good performer in that area starting at f3.5 and ramping quickly to f6.5, for that reason you get constant f2.8 zooms with a speedbooster or any other f1.4 prime, like the samyangs offer great value.

I didn't find the low light performance of teh ea50 bad, from my experience it's about the same as any other dslr out there, except the canon 6d, 5dIII, c100 and fs100.
Noa Put is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27th, 2014, 03:07 PM   #45
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York City
Posts: 317
Re: Matte Boxes - Show or Useful?

Noa, comparing to another sony camera that cost an arm and a leg , with the same sensor and the same lens. We are talking about a whole stop difference, maybe even more.
the low light performance of the ea50 is comparable to the SR11 . Actually exactly the same. The SR11 is (how many?) 100 years ago?

look at the VG30 , same settings , same lens : the ea50 is slightly better. it's a scale: oh boy they do work hard limiting the sensors, uh?
it looks like a game for them

Noa look: it's some old habit in video, seen it before so may times and with all the cameras (not just Sony). But times are about to change. Let me explain why: if you look at still photography they (all) started like that but then had to stop (eventually). Because our friends still photographers started revealing the tricks sooner than us. Now the cameras are all the same in terms of processing the sensor: what changes are the features (that cost money to implement and I can understand a price increase for more added features). But for all the software related functions they don't limit the models anymore. a rebel takes the same pictures that a 7D takes. the 7D has more features.
We'll get to that, we just need to be vigilant and reveal the tricks as wee see it. And once again (and for the last time!) : there is no honor limiting something that was born performing well. No honor. It's a disgusting habit.

/rant OFF

Last edited by Anthony Lelli; February 28th, 2014 at 12:25 AM.
Anthony Lelli is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony Alpha and NEX Camera Systems > Sony NEX-EA50 (all variants)

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:59 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network