Hi Guys

I'm still toying with the idea of adding Matte boxes and rails to both cameras but I'm not really sure whether my desire for them is purely "because they make your camera look really cool" or whether they actually will help with stray light!! When I use the Tokina 11-16 on the camera it's petal hood seems quite ineffective and even with the stock lens hood I did struggle a little with the sun. I don't own any 4x4 filters so probably wouldn't use that holder (or maybe I should??)

Anyone else (I know Tom has one) using a matte box and feels they are worth the money?? or is just worth getting them as it makes your cameras look a lot more pro to the client!

Chris

If you are going to be a wedding "cinematographer", you're bound to need one! (LOL)

I made one up that attached to the rectangular hood of the HD111, but really have not used it since I tried it out. A lot of my shots are tele and there seems to be less issue with stray light in the environments I am in, mainly indoors.

I used velcro to attach it, and I can give you the name of a good Weeties box for the raw materials.

I really need to install a "like" button for the forum.

Hi Chris

Please no!! This is a refuge from the insanity of Facebook with fairly sensible posts (OK my one right here might not be, but most are!) I however do want to seriously know if people buy matte boxes to make their rig look professional or do they really use them and swear by them!!

I'd hate DVInfo to start getting posts like "Bought a new ND filter today" ..post has 16 likes ...No thanks!

We really don't want to know what people had for breakfast and whether we like it or not.

Chris

Chris, in all seriousness, I have not used my matte box but did look at them on ebay when I first got the camera. I was in the same position, are people really getting value out of them or is it just for looks. I figured I could get a reasonably solid setup for around $200-250, that I could justify to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Instead, I made the aforementioned "Blue Peter" special. I have not used it though. What I did buy was one each of these:

37mm 16 9 Rectangular Wide Lens Hood FOR Canon Vixia HF M30 HF M300 HFM31 USA | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/37mm-16-9-Rectangular-Wide-Lens-Hood-for-Canon-Vixia-HF-M30-HF-M300-HFM31-USA-/131111852524?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item1e86e019ec&_uhb=1)

Mennon 72mm 16 9 Screw Mount Rectangular Wide Angle Lens Hood White Balance CAP | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Mennon-72mm-16-9-Screw-Mount-Rectangular-Wide-Angle-Lens-Hood-White-Balance-Cap-/131098575570?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item1e861582d2&_uhb=1)

for my two HF200's, one with and one without a wide angle adapter on.

They have proved to be a very good investment. Maybe this is a place to start, without going all "wanky" and OTT? They come in other sizes too.

Also, I think Chris Rex puts that comment about the "like" button in when there is something he finds diverting.

Hi Tim

I can get a quite nice matte box and rails from CineCity for $240 that will fit a variety of lenses. My issue is that at weddings I'm using not just my stock zoom (65mm thread) but also my Tokina 11-16 and Tamron 17-50 all which have different diameters and the idea of having a matte box on adjustable rails and a little "hoodie" that seals off between the lens and box is necessary and all the lenses are not only different diameters but also different lengths. The Tamron also extends on zoom so it's length changes so I need a flexible front end.

I had a situation a few weeks ago where I could had used a flag as the sun was coming through the trees and we got quite a few lens flares.

Tom uses the same one and has a pic here : http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-nex-ea50-all-variants/520810-matte-box-3.html

Chris

Sounds like a tough situation, especially the Tamron with the changing length. Let us know which way you go on this.

Hi Tim

I need some feedback from Tom who already has one of these so waiting patiently. The 18-200 stock lens is the problem as it extends 80mm when at 200mm zoom so there needs to be 80mm of space between the matte box and the lens so you can physically zoom!!!

Request to Tom please I need your help ??

The stock EA-50 lens changes length from full wide to full tele by an extra 80mm ...if you setup your Camshade on the rails so the stock lens at full zoom is touching the matte box, when you zoom right back to wide (so the lens is now 80mm shorter) is there enough "material" in the black hoodie that goes over the lens so it can actually retract back 80mm and not pull the sock thingy off???

I wonder if you could please test on your EA-50 to see if there is actually enough space inside to zoom??

Many Thanks

Chris

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/members/rob-cantwell-albums-hxr-nx5-picture720-rig-2.jpg
I had this setup on a Canon 7D thats since sold, the only good thing that the Matte Box was useful for was ND filters other than that i couldn't really tell if it did anything else useful really.

iv'e since moved on to a variable fader on my Canon 5D mk 3 and dispensed with all the extras, it might be ok for non run&gun but the other thing i found with this rig was it required a good bit of time to adjust for a different size lens.

Chris,

With the camtree mattebox I can use the stocklens from wide open to full zoom but it's not easy.
I prefer a lens that doesn't extend with a mattebox. But people comment that I have I really professional looking camera now. At this moment I haven(t used the french flags. Had always filmed inside and also almost every day raining and lots of wind here. At this moment no need of the french flags.

I have also a new counterweight (handmade) that makes it a bit more difficult to use the stocklens.

I will make this weekend a short movie of my setup. That will help you

Thanks Tom

That's much appreciated indeed. I thought I would ask you as you already have the Camtree box. I was wondering if you adjusted the matte box so it sits in front of the lens so it's not extended (at wide angle) and then put the hoodie cover over the main lens body, surely the part of the stock lens that extends would simply extend through the centre hole in the matte box and actually extend into the matte box itself??

We have pretty much clear skies at this time of the year and the sun can be a real pain as most brides seems to choose a ceremony time around 3:30 to 4:30 and the sun always seems to be at the worst angle too!

If you are busy this weekend just a few photos would be good enough too ... just to show where the lens and box are sitting (with the black hoodie off)

Thanks too to Rob ... I do need to justify a dual purchase (as I have two cameras) apart from just looking "cool" and updating my status from "videographer" to "cinematographer" ... then I can triple my prices too.

Chris

Don't forget one for your GoPro as well, or you'll never get those triple prices!

Actually on my DIY website I did a tutorial on how to make a really effective matte box from a flower pot. It had rails and the works and cost under $10 which included the aluminium rails and the flower pot.

I try to keep the hero as unobtrusive as possible if I can!! I don't want to draw attention to myself !

I have a growing collection of Schneider Optics 4x4" glass filters which can add considerably to the 'filmic' look of modern HD video cameras. For these, a matte box is essential however I recently sold my 'no name' box, replacing it with the new Fotga DP 3000 'swing out' model. Although the construction of the 3000 is a still a bit flimsy, for around $100, the swing out design is excellent and speeds up my lens changes considerably. As I have a large collection of Zeiss 'Contax' primes and mount them on the APS-C sensor via a genuine C/Y to NEX 'Speed Booster', anything to make prime lens changes faster is a good thing!

of course, the huge advantage is you only need one size of filters, irrespective of your lens filter size. For short zooms which do not 'travel', a matte box can make a convenient sun shade too.

When I first got into DSLR shooting (technically mirrorless m4/3) I put together a big shoulder rig with a zoom H4n and Rode NTG-2 attached, tripod plate, big monitor, follow focus, big LED light on top, etc. etc. The problem was it took too long to set up and it was incredibly heavy. I was about to install a matte box on the end, too! I then rearranged the rig with new rods so the camera's viewfinder was right up against my face so I could do away with the monitor. I then just used a Rode VideoMic Pro and if need be recorded audio separately. Then I switched to a monopod so no need for follow focus, etc. I still have the slimmed down shoulder rig, but I don't use it as often as I used to. I think those matteboxes, especially for run and gun/one man crew, are total overkill. Lens flares aren't necessarily bad, anyhow. To the contrary, they're quite popular.

Hi Craig

I don't use ND's on my cams simply because with my different lens diameters it means I need all sorts of adapters and it really became a pain. With a matt box I only need 4 x 4 filters regardless of what lens is on the camera and that is a huge asset for me.

I'm glad someone found another advantage, especially of your calibre!

Patrick, when I have a cam on the stedicam yes I often purposely shoot thru trees at the sun so I can get a nice sun flare on the footage but like guys who shoot everything with a tiny DOF, I prefer everything in moderation. I was shooting a ceremony a few weeks ago and even the photog was struggling with sun flares which is something you don't want during a wedding ceremony.

Tim? Funnily enough, I used my GoPro at the above wedding too and a LOT of the footage just totally flared out so maybe that isn't a bad idea ...maybe I can just tape a Weeties box over the camera. In fact I use an LCD shade on my stedicam so I can see the screen and it's made from 5mm foam board glued together with hot-melt ... works like a dream but I normally destroy it after about 4 or 5 weddings and have to make a new one ...costs be $2.50 for the black foam board and one stick of glue in the gun.
I see no reason at all why I couldn't make the same for a Gopro??? Just a square foam board box that slides over the camera and stops the flaring.

Just waiting for some comments back from Tom about using the zoom lens which extends 80mm if you zoom full but I cannot see why the front piece of the lens (which extends forwards) couldn't just go further thru the centre hole in the matte box ?? Tom is doing some pics of his rig for me when he gets a chance

Chris

Chris, sorry for the late reply. At this moment only pictures.
I had to film last night.

If you have questions I will answer them.

Thanks Tom

You are a star!! I just wanted to find out if there was enough clearance for the stock zoom if you zoom in tight and it simply sticks thru the hole in the matte box. Simple as that. I think one would have to be careful and not slide the matte box forward too much but rather allow the lens to poke out ..if you have the box further forward then at full wide it could quite easily vignette!

Your pics are much appreciated

Chris

Chris could you post a link to the matte box at Cine City so I can have a "consider" too.

I just sold one of my tripods and there is cash burning a hole in my pocket!

Hi Tim

Video Matte box|Camshade Matte box (http://www.thecinecity.com/eshop/CAMTREE-Camshade-Video-Matte-Box.html)

Just also bear in mind that if you don't have rails, you need them too!! That tripod money is as good as gone plus half your current savings too!!

Chris

In the past I found cheap Matte Boxes to be more hassle than there worth. If you’re going to get one I would highly recommend getting a good one. Cheap ones let stray light in where they shouldn't such as between the French Flag and the Matte Box or even worse between the box and the filter.

A quality Matte Box is an excellent tool for controlling the light and allowing the use of 4x4 filters. Just bear in mind that Matte Boxes aren't small and you’ll need rails. It adds to the equipment list and what you carry. I think they’re best left in the studio or for high budget shoots.

Now I got visions of the DOP saying to his assistance during a wedding ceremony “Adjust the nun knickers”.

Seriously though, these days I prefer a screw in filter (if required) and a stock hood and travel lighter. I think for most shooters a matte box are an expensive overkill that will get left behind once the novelty has worn off.

Chris,

I really need to install a "like" button for the forum.

I agree with the subsequent comment that Facebook has that covered, but what about a "Funny" button?

Videographers are creative in more ways than one and there have been some really good posts. Heck, just a couple days ago the series about the 1" sensor was good. It was so good I had difficulty reading the subsequent posts ...

Chris,

You asked about the benefits of the box set up. If you are not going to really get into using 4x4 filters I see the idea as a pain for you. It detracts instead of improves your system. Weight, bulk, lens changes, and generally just something in your way that you do not need.

One man shooting weddings, two EA50s, a go pro, steadycam with vest, wireless mic systems, lights, a cart to push it all around. That is you, all good stuff. Why on earth would you want to slow yourself down with gadgets you know you don't need? You had to turn to this board for justification of usefulness.

Not knocking it. But I am saying I don't get it. So my vote is NO matte box.

(....Rant..) Deleted rant about how ridiculously consumed Americans are about how everything looks. No soap box today ; )

Steve

I"m with Steve, you would be better off getting this: HolyManta VND EF | MFT | Holymanta (http://www.holymanta.com/products/holymanta-vnd-ef-mft), as I understood Toms mattebox is for looks only and although I have to say my old camera looks very sexy the mattebox adds quite some bulk to the camera, including rails that have no function and will slow you down, ok for controlled shoots, if you plan on using filters but for a wedding that seems overkill to me.

Thanks Guys

Comments are appreciated. I have to update the rails on the cameras anyway so the rails are already ordered. I use a rail system mainly on the B-Cam so I can use my ENG rig at receptions .. Us old guys need some support otherwise our back kills us!! My ENG rig fits under the rails with a sprung rod into a waist belt so all the weight is taken off the front end of the camera... Makes a huge difference when you have to handheld the camera thru 3 songs filming the dancing. The main reason for the matte boxes that fit the rails anyway was to be able to use standard ND filters with different lens sizes ..it's far easier to drop in a 4x4 ND into the Matte box slot and you are done instead of fiddling with adapter rings etc etc and then knowing my luck I'll invest in a ND system that allows me to go from a 72mm down to say 55mm and then decide to buy a new lens with an 82mm filter diameter.

Yes I don't need matte boxes BUT they might make life easier on the filter side? I might just order one unit give it a whirl or look at other ways to use ND's Funny fact is that with adapter rings and good quality BIG ND filters will actually cost more than buying 4x4 filters.

Chris

Hi Guys

I'm still toying with the idea of adding Matte boxes and rails to both cameras but I'm not really sure whether my desire for them is purely "because they make your camera look really cool" or whether they actually will help with stray light!! When I use the Tokina 11-16 on the camera it's petal hood seems quite ineffective and even with the stock lens hood I did struggle a little with the sun. I don't own any 4x4 filters so probably wouldn't use that holder (or maybe I should??)

Anyone else (I know Tom has one) using a matte box and feels they are worth the money?? or is just worth getting them as it makes your cameras look a lot more pro to the client!

Chris

they are mainly for show , and the flag to actually help should be really big. But on the ea50 it may be useful for the lee filters, ND. the screw-on filters are a pain to use, take it off, put it back , often while shooting. But on the kit there is the lens extending that will ruin the idea. Still Im thinking about it, not for the box but for the filters.

Hi Anthony

Thanks for that. The lens extension is not really a problem. Simply shift the matt box forward so it clears the extending zoom, I seldom zoom outdoors at wedding more than 50% so the distance is only 35mm and with the huge opening I doubt whether it would vignette even at full zoom. Yep, the filter side makes life a lot easier too with a host of different lenses. The only time I MIGHT zoom more would be inside a tricky Church if I have to place myself far back and there an ND is not needed so the lens end can protrude or just take the box off !! I have the rails so I grabbed a couple of boxes and will report back on limitations with the stock lens regarding how much it can be moved. All my other lenses have minimum extended portions.

I needed the rails and facility for being able to mount on the stedicam easily and then pull the camera off and clip on the ENG stabilizer so it doesn't kill my back on long handhelds ...that camera will rarely zoom more than 2X so that's 99% on wide anyway!!

Chris

Tom??

To shift slightly off the topic for a second. What happened to the round cylinder weight that was on the back of your camera. Is the new end piece also a counter weight?? I rather like the idea of it handing down at 45 degrees as it will lower the centre of balance too. Did you make that one yourself or is it a bought one??

Chris

Chris,
how about the 80mm boxes (accepting 2 4x4 filters) that you can screw to the lens?

the counterweight actually works, got it by mistake and it stays on the mount permanently now. But I am about to abandon the ea50. two many marketing tricks to make it not as good as the others (and you know what I'm referring to) : Sony marketing lost control for few months over the sudden adjustments (from the sub-standard offers of the 5K so called pro-sumer money making models due to the D90 that revealed the trick of the small sensors), but now is back. look at the low light performance of the ea50 and compare it to the several years old SR11 ?the same. it's the same!. Now look at the performance of the more expensive models in the sony lineup and tell me what you see: isn't the marketing people that you see in the low light pictures out of the ea50? look closer at the borders... can't you see the marketing guys dancing? They work day and night to limit a model so we spend more. has always been like this in video: in order to produce you have to spend that amount of money , no way to find a shortcut: they always make sure that you can do up to a point, so they limit what you have . anyway we have the internet now, so we can find a way to make it public (what they do). At least we can let them know that we know. LOL

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.

Here is a short 30 second clip I cut on the Vg20 with the Sunshade attached. I retained most of the rails, etc to take the 'real' matte box:

Sony VG20 custom '3 point' Porta-Rig on Vimeo

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!

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'!

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)

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.

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!

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, 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,

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

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 (https://vimeo.com/36757463)

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

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?

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

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.

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. :)

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.

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, 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

I had a ProAim (insert your India based shell company name here) matte box. It was total junk and didn't even fit my camera as advertised. The company offered a full refund saying half will be paypal'd back upon poof of return shipment, balancing upon receipt. They asked first for good photos showing the problems, as if they didn't know!

After I provided photos, then provided proof of return shipmen, they came up with every excuse in the book about how they didn't have any paypal funds, they were broke, wah-wah-wah. Then when they received their ProAim (insert your india based shell company name here) garbage back, they refused to issue a full refund, only sending half.

The matte box itself was way out of tolerance, the rails were heavily shot-peened to hide all the surface mishandling, the matte box pivot was sloppy beyond all belief and the matte box would not slide on the rails as the rails and blocks were out of alignment.

Total scammers and junk products, you've been warned.

I use the Fotga DP3000 'swing out' matte box and the new design makes changing lenses a breeze but to improve things, I commissioned my local Dress Maker to make a 'knicker' for the matte box. I can now throw away those stupid rubber lens adapters as the 'stretchy knickers' adapt to all my lenses from 60mm to 120mm in diameter an it keeps out the back light 100%.

I want to buy a matte box, I am in dilemma which of the two is compatible with nex50
1. CAMTREE Camshade Video Matte Box or
2. Fotga 3000 Matte Box
Thanks

Do you REALLY need a matte box or do you just want your camera to look "COOL" .... Steve Digges asked me the same question but I ignored his advice and bought one anyway! Be careful !! A matte box sitting at the front of your camera might look cool but it adds more weight to the front that you realise ,,, I had the cam shade and their rail system ..sold the matte boxes and kept the rail as my camera became just too heavy to hand hold!

Chris

Chris never use the camera on his shoulder