Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

I think those figures are very pessimistic.

As evidence, look at the F3. It's known that the effective sensor count is somewhere close to 2456x1372 (the actual count including the masked pixels is 2468x1398), yet it delivers performance very good in terms of 1080 recording. Extrapolating what you say about a 4k sensor only giving "more likely 2.5k in general use", that would imply F3 performance equivalent to about 1500x875. In practice it's much better.

I'd heard somewhere around 80% as a ballpark figure, and the F3 results back that up. So horizontally the C300 sensor would be predicted to have around "3.2k" when fully deBayered. Maybe not "true 4K", but surely wrong to describe it as "no gain"?

Likewise remember that in the C300 the sensor does not use a considerable number of photosites round the edges - it windows 3840x2160 of a somewhat bigger sensor. Those could be used to give a somewhat bigger inprovement than the above suggests.

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

Good points Ron. I've had my 14x lens for just a week now and I'm really beginning to like it. Although the speed of the lens isn't constant, I was surprised to see that most of the ramping actually happens between 100 to 252mm. This makes the 18-100 range much more usable than I was expecting. It is quite slow at the longer lengths but the sensitive F3 chip goes a long way to compensate. And of course, you get the impression of a shallower DOF at the longer lengths anyway... (before I get flamed - I know it isn't !!!).

I've never been a fan of auto-focus on any camera but I must say the MF assist is really quite good. Never having had an EX3 or 1, I didn't know what to expect, but as long as your subject isn't moving around too much, it's a good aid for 'run and gun' type shooting. I find the full AF a bit slow for my use but it is very smooth. The steadishot works well hand held... but don't forget to turn it off with tripod use as it does seem to float around a bit on static tight shots.

What's really surprised me is how sharp this lens is. Really zingy at anything up to around 100mm even wide open. It's also proved a good colour match for the Sony T2 Kit primes.

There's a couple of things I don't like about this lens mainly involving the servo zoom. It's noisy - admittedly only at full speed, but you would hear it in a two camera interview situation. The take-up speed of the zoom rocker (I think this is also called ramping) it also too sharp for my tastes... and I can't see how to adjust it? You notice this when you want to start a very slow zoom or creep in... ie. you can't! The rocker's also in the wrong place but I knew that before I bought the lens.

In short - I'm very happy with this lens. It's super sharp and really useful up to 100mm or so. When you do need to crash in for a very tight shot it also helps not to have to change lens with tight budgets, no time and a director breathing down your neck. It doesn't replace fast primes but it does transform the overall usability of the F3 for all sorts of work I wouldn't have considered for this camera before.

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

Attached is a document I received from Sony explaining all of the rebates.

Ned Soltz

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

Hi Paul,

I agree that the steady shot works, but after giving it a more intense trial this a.m. I've noticed that its benefit is more subtle than I had originally thought. And in some A/B tests with the lens set on its tele end (with and without) its effect is hardly noticeable. Has that been your experience, or do I have a mechanical issue with the lens?

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

Hi all: Do you think it's worth starting a new thread on the zoom lens, given the new rebate and the discussion going on here? Can we move some of this thread to a new one?

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

You have my vote.

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

Ok.. I hear there is a F11. Think Spinal Tap! Cheers Doug.

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

I used your figure of 80%. That's 3072. 3K. Best case. Look, all you've written will not make that 4096. The C300 chip will not shoot 4K, it is not suitable for 4K I can't even see how you can prevaricate on that?.

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

"4k" is normally taken to refer to 4096, and by my maths 80% of that is 3276.8 - not 3072. Compared to 1920 that's an increase of just over 70% on each axis.
And if you go back to my earliest posts you'll see no claim it will make "true 4K". Look right back at post 34 as example:
Is that clear enough?

(The 60% is by comparison with Quad-HD - 3840 - 70% is by comparison to 4096, which the C300 chip is capable of.)

Many cameras over the last few years have claimed "1080 recording" but have not been able to manage 1920x1080 resolution (eg the HVX200 with 960x540 chips, and res of about 1150x650). Should it have been the case that if "true 1080" couldn't have been achieved everybody should have just stayed with SD in the meantime? I don't think so.

In this case, a 60-70% res increase per axis over 1080 seems well worth the effort - even if it's not the full 100-110% that "true 4k" would achieve. And the reason for ending up with a 4k raster recording (as opposed to a 3.2k recording) is that the chip deBayers easily to that resolution, no downscaling is needed, and it ends up a common standard. Hence the reason for "plonking the 3.2k into the 4k bucket" as you put it. Very similar reasoning to the design of the HVX200 and the choice of 960x540 chips. Easy processing to a "1080 bucket", even with the pixel shift.

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

The C300 only has 3840 pixel horizontally. Hence 80% is 3072. Good lord. Take your shifting goal posts elsewhere please.

If you think something that could resolve 3K with a very strong tail wind is suitable for 4K, good luck to you. I'm going shooting.

Re: Big announcement coming for PMWF3???
 

If you're going to say I'm shifting goalposts, it's worth checking facts first. The C300 itself only uses 3840 photosites horizontally - but there is a big degree of windowing happening, the chip has far more, 4206 in total. (See http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com/asset...-EOS_Specs.pdf )
It's usual to have a border of blanked photosites around the edge - but 366 horizontally is a far higher proportion than normal. The belief is that a second camera will follow soon, and to expect 4k. (Oh, OK, expect about 3.2k actual resolution in a 4k wrapper if we have to be precise.) In that case 4206 total makes sense - it's what would be expected if 4096 were actually used.

Similar story vertically. The total number is 2340, and the expectation is that 2304 would be active in 4k mode, as opposed to 2160 as used in the C300.