For those of you who have been using the EA50 with a decent fixed lens, does the 2x zoom rocker on the camera give you a clean image when you zoom in? Sony claims it is lossless and is one of the features that really interests me in this camera over the FS100. It would allow me to do interviews with a low light fixed lens, get the shallow DOF I want and not have to physically move the camera when I want to vary the shot. I have been reading pro and con on this issue and would like more feedback. Thanks.

Hi Stephen

It actually looks pretty good BUT the manual does in fact state that the image will lose resolution despite "lossless" claims .... It's pretty hard to notice in good lighting and I doubt whether any viewer would notice but the bottom line is yes, the image will have some losses. I'm sure there is a few examples of digital 2X zoom on this forum already. I remember seeing a couple so that might help you make your mind up

Chris

I can't speak to the EA50, but this feature is showing up across the Sony lines, so I do have some experience with it... A57, A77, RX100, among others...

It is not as sharp as native optical, but it also doesn't degrade so noticeably that you're likely to be offended by the results.

Think of it as a digital doubler - and since I believe the number of pixel sites on the sensor is likely quite a lot larger than the "resolution", there's data there for the processing to munch on and create a fairly clean image result.

Of course if you can stay in the native optical range, that's your "best" option, but having that additional digital "range" does provide a little more "oomph" to your lens range that most viewers will not see as a "bad" image, but consider that it looks quite good.

Hope that is somewhat helpful.

Hi Dave

Probably if you are stuck it's a nice feature and also obviously designed to be able to zoom with primes..I can see uses where you are jammed in a corner with nowhere to go and the lady to the left has the rim of her hat in your frame...a tiny digital zoom gets you out of the mess but yes it's not available if the power zoom lens is on ..that's optical only.

The EA-50 has an APS-C sensor which is 16.7 (or 16.5) megapixels so technically the image is way bigger than 1920x1080 so in theory you are not zooming but cropping to a smaller FOV....nevertheless all theory aside it DOES drop off ...end of story but still would be useful IF it was the only option to get out of a mess with a prime lens on the camera.

Chris

I used the digital zoom the other day at an event I covered, using a 50mm , 1.4 Nikkor. Not too bad for this doc.

Digital Zoom Test on Vimeo

Hi Dan, that looks pretty clean. If you can remember, did you do complete 2x zoom or somewhere between 1x - 2x?

Hi Stephen,

That was fully zoomed in, but at the start, not quite fully zoomed out. I was about 11 ft. from the subject with the 50mm. I have another shoot tonight at which I will use the Sigma 19mm, f2.8.

I love not having to lug around and set up lighting!

Dan

It depends a lot on the subject you shoot, the digital zoom magnifies any artifacts that are in the image such as moire and aliasing, you see the image turn a bit softer when you zoom in which can be fixed but artifacts that are present can ruin your footage for sure. It can be used but with care. In the coalmine video I did a while ago there is a shot with these sheep rubbing it's head against some fine branches, I did use the 2x magnifier to check and could see the image falling apart on all the fine detail.

By all rights this photo should be as soft as you could ever imagine. I put more stuff in front of the processor than you ever should. I was testing a new metabones adapter last night. This is an unsharpened still.

EA50 / at 2X digital zoom, metabones EF to EX adapter, Canon 2X optical doubler, Canon lens at 350MM = 2800MM x 1.5 = 4200MM

Could my math possibly be correct? That seems outrageous. And of course, there is 250,000 miles of compressed atmosphere between me and the subject. I think it turned out OK.

But to answer your question, I am in the "no average client is going to notice the 2X digital degradation" camp. It is a great tool to have available.

Steve

I will post information about the Metabones (standard version, not speed booster) later. It is not a perfect world.

Winter Light on Vimeo

The Winter Light video has several digital zoom sections, applied to a 24mm nikkor and the kit lens. Softening does occur but only slightly. It's a god send for framing. Works like a charm. Seen below is another clip using DZ on the kit lens.

Undercurrent on Vimeo

Nice shooting Robert!

I challenge anyone to pick out every scene with 2X. I can't see it enough to be sure. If you can't see it it's not there. At least not with Vimeo compression. Do you see it a lot more in HD on a real screen? I don't think it stands out at all on the little bit I have tested.

In three weeks I have shot less than an hour of footage. It is all dumb test shots. I can't wait for a chance to get out of this office and go shoot for fun!

Steve

Thank you for the kind comments. DZ can be very effective when you are able to focus carefully. It really works. In the two clips, the ducks taking off was full DZ with the 24. The closeup of the ice on the branch is full DZ on the kit lens extending it to 400mm. In Undercurrent, the two real close in ice shots plus the dam shots are full DZ as well as the last minute of the stream shots as the ice layers seen are tiny save that the kit lens with DZ makes them look large. The 50 really works well and the DZ has become indispensable in shooting. I will be shooting some bluegrass musicians this week and DZ will be used for closeups without question. Best

Bob

With the 18-200 lens at least I would never use the digital zoom for sure, I have posted a sample here before where you clearly saw what negative effects that DZ had, I"ll try to post it again this evening in this thread and also a shot of some branches from the coalmine video where you can see the side effects of that DZ on the stocklens. Especially on that coalmine video on a big screen in it's native format those branches where full of artifacts. You could see the aliasing on the branches as well without the DZ but the DZ only magnified it. If I would use the power zoom to get the same frame compared to a 2x digital zoom then the problem didn't show.

IF there is moire or aliasing visible in a shot the DZ will make that only much more visible, if you have got a image with no very fine detail then the image only gets a bit softer. That's why I suggested to use the zoom with care.

Thanks for the shots, Robert. Good work! I could not see any difference with the DZ. Perhaps in some fine detail subjects, degradation might occur, as Noa points out. But I certainly won't be shy about using the DZ.

Perhaps in some fine detail subjects, degradation might occur

It will occur, not might, and it's painfully visible on a big screen.

Perhaps in some fine detail subjects, degradation might occur

It will occur, not might, and it's painfully visible on a big screen. But mainly in shots where there is moire or aliasing going on, and I"m really not pixelpeeping, it's that obvious.

The digital zoom looks quite ok for me, but I'm not very happy the way it's implemented on the EA50. Why didn't Sony add (as with most even dirt cheap camera's) the digital zoom at the end of the optical zoom. If I want to use the digital zoom with the kit lens I can't use the optical zoom using the rockers on the camera and are forced to use the zoom on the lens itself. Even when connecting a wired remote the same thing applies.

For the rest I'm very happy with the EA50, coming from a VG20, did my first choir shoot last saturday with almost stunning results, video and soundwise, but a bit more flexible zoom options would make this cam even better. Hoping for a firmware update...

Ok, for those that say the digital zoom is ok to use, look at below shots and tell me what you think. This is what I mean with that aliasing or moire is being magnified if it's there, as long as that's not the case you will only end up with softer images but it can surely be very nasty. You can also see at the rooftop shot at the horizon how much softer the trees are getting, all detail is turned into mush. Also the branches on the first shot show a lot of macroblocking at 2x digital zoom in the native format on a big screen, looks plain ugly, the vimeo compression doesn't show the real extent of the problem.

Now if you ask yourself why in the rooftop shot the optical zoom shot did not display any moire (since I said that the digital zoom only magnifies moire if it's there), that was because at first I zoomed out and I saw moire appear, then I zoomed in digitally which is making this mess. In order to get the same focal length optically I didn't use the digital zoom but zoomed in optically to get the same frame as the 2x digital zoom and in that case there was no moire visible.

Sony nex ea50 moire and aliasing on Vimeo

Why didn't Sony add (as with most even dirt cheap camera's) the digital zoom at the end of the optical zoom

Those dirt cheap camera have this function only for people that want to have a 200x zoom on their camera and don't care about image quality. A digital zoom will have a very negative impact on image quality and there is a reason why Sony only added a 2x magnification. The digital zoom was mainly added to give prime lenses a zooming ability and in that case the optical zoom is not relevant.

did my first choir shoot last saturday with almost stunning results, video and soundwise
Don't know if you are allowed to show but I know there are users here, inclusing me, that would be very interested to see some sample shots. :)

I am not so sure about that. When done right DZ is fine but I agree it can be a disaster if not done carefully as there shots whereby you cannot tell if dz was used.

My tests only show one thing clearly, IF there is moire or aliasing in your image the DZ will make matters much worse, that's all I"m saying (and showing).

It also always has a negative impact on resolution like very fine detail that just "disappears" like my video also shows but for certain shots, like those that have been showed here as well, it can look ok to a general viewer but I am sure that if you let me show it in the native format on a big screen I will pick most shots out that you did with a DZ..

So my end conclusion is, yes, you can use the digital zoom but double check using the 4 or 8 x magnifier to verify it looks ok, there is no fixing in post if you get it wrong.

You're absolutely right. You have to be real careful or it will not work. This is why I use the loupe, whenever possible, in looking at stuff I am shooting because if the material contains the artifacts stated in your post, DZ will emphasize them big time.

Not all movies are focussing on rooftops with straight lines. It will probably work fine (but not perfect) on faces of people.

About the video I shot: I promised the choir not to share the movie with the rest of the world. But I used a few nice tricks on this camera that I never accomplished with my VG20. I recorded the sound with the internal mike and the external one, and the mixed sound came out far greater than expected. I also forced the zoom speed to the lowest speed (speed 1) which delivered filmish zooming in (during the many solo's) and out (when the choir was dancing and singing). I only struggled a bit with the buttons, not yet entirely familiair with the EA50, because I had forgotten to take a little lamp with me to light the side of the camera when needed.

It has nothing to do with rooftops, the video only illustrates that if moire and aliasing is present that the DZ will magnify it to a level that it's not possible to fix in post anymore. The video also illustrates that the video gets softer when you use the DZ.

If that is acceptable for your production will vary from shot to shot and can only be decided by yourself or by the client you are working for. Some people are very happy with the image quality of their 200x DZ camera and others won't touch the DZ if they know if will have the slightest negative impact on image quality.

If I would do an interview on a tripod, I would never, ever touch the DZ if I have a prime lens attached but move the camera to a position so the framing is correct. If I was doing a eng style interview going from person to person handheld I would probably would use it if I can't get into a position to get a good frame. I would however check for any aliasing or moire patterns (in clothing f.i.) using the magnifier to be sure I was not creating any issues.

Attached is a 300mm DXed shot of the moon (2 X 300mm = 600mm) reduced from a 16mb still. AHAIK, there is no real artifacts in the pix.

Here's another of a dead tree using the kit lens and DZ to the max.

never tested the digital zoom on the stocklens. Next week a have a stage event to film.
I only have the panasonic hc-x920 with 25x intelligent zoom for closer shots.

For stage you need 20x zoom. In the past I had the sony hxr-nx5 I used for this (not mine) This worked great.

Just tested the digital zoom on the stocklens in low light against the X920. (with some light in the background, like a stage)
My first test says the sony has better low noise! Always thought (and read in reviews) the little panasonic was one of the best consumer camcorder in low light. The sony is a bit less sharper but less noise.

Will test this further but at this moment I will use the digital zoom for the close ups next week.

Tom,

I hope you have enough light to stay away from the gain. Noa keeps saying it (and so do I) but some guys really seem to want magic from that DZ. The problem is in the gain. DZ magnifies everything in the image.

Steve

I did a test with the Sony 50mm Prim Lens. this is quite old but I hope it may help someone looking to see the difference using the optical zoom:

NEX EA50 Digital Zoom Test - YouTube

I have to disagree with you on this Aaron, the digital zoom on the ea50 is about as bad as it gets, especially on the stocklens, it is somewhat usable on sharp primelenses and in some case many might not even see but the digital zoom for sure magnifies any artifacts by a large amount, with artifacts I"m talking about moire and aliasing.

Here is a test I did a year ago which shows how bad it can get, my conclusion was, never use the digital zoom, unless you really need to.

start looking from 00:20 where you can how bad it can get

https://vimeo.com/58138635

Hi Aaron,

What was your gain set at for that test?

Know one is trying to discourage anyone from using it, we all want it to work, but you have to know when it will get you in trouble. Noa's video is a perfect example.

It works best under perfect conditions. Bright light, zero gain, and no aliasing or moire in your shot. Then it is almost lossless, very away from perfect and it falls apart.

Many of us consider 18 DB (some guys 21db) the high end of usable gain before you introduce too much noise. With the stock lens you will find yourself up there often. I suggest you test it at real world gain stages that you use in a dark church. I am not trying to push a point, many of us thought it was a great feature the first time we turned it on. But then learned otherwise. I said "we" because I went through those posts back then, otherwise I only post in "I".

Edit: You might want to throw a shirt with a pattern and texture in it over that Roman pillar, turn the gain up to 21 DB and see what you get?

Steve

Hi Steve,

I don't know what he gain was at the time. I was only fascinated by the fact that I could zoom even though I had a prime lens on it. I have to admit I did not read the whole thread. I saw where some test were posted using the Digital Zoom and I just threw mine in there just in case it could help someone. This video was a made a while ago before long before I found this site. I have learned so much since i have been here it has made a world of difference. I use the digital zoom now more than I did before because i'm now using Canon glass and manual focusing. I probably should not have even posted it. Like I said when I filmed that test I was just in awe of being able to use it with a prime lens. I did not think about the gain settings or any of the other settings for that matter at the time. mainly because i did not know how to use them then. Cheers!

Aaron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSBqEmEJCrc&feature=youtu.be

HC-X920 panasonic vs sony nex-ea50.
Panasonic is sharper. When digital zoom was used it gets really blurry. (like Noa said)

When filming stage I need 20x zoom. Do you guys film this with another camcorder and use nex-ea50 for global view?

Or use a tamron, nikkor, minolta 300mm lens or something for this?
or a 70-200mm F2.8 ? (and use digital zoom)

Hi Tom

Because the EA-50 is a big sensor with a 300mm lens you might have an issue with DOF!! If you have a group on stage and you are at the back and say 30 metres from the stage, at 300mm and F2.8 the big sensor will only allow you a DOF of just a fraction more than 1 metre so with a big cast you simply would be able to have everyone in focus. So it's important to check that before filming a group of people 50 m away and expecting them all to be in focus! Probably a camcorder would work better here as the small chips allow a big DOF. AFAIK on Canon and JVC make a pro camera with 20X zoom.

Chris