Jump to content
Nezih

Z Cam E2-S6 vs E2-F6

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know much about comparing these two models?

Are the S6 and F6 completely *identical* in every way except for the sensor size (and therefore, I assume, pixel size and density)?

Has anyone conducted tests or seen any test comparing the DCI 4K, UHD, and HD images from the S6 and F6 side by side?

Forget about glass for a moment.... I'm wondering if one is better than the other in terms it's super-sampling: edge detail, aliasing, moire.... that sort of thing.

I assume the F6 has a "Super35" mode? Is that cropping or supersampling, or are there options for both? In the Super35 modes (if it has them) how do the images compare to the equivalent native images from the S6?

Do the S6 and F6 have the same dynamic range (including "usable" dynamic range), noise floor, and base ISO? Do the S6 and F6 have the same sensor readout speed and therefore rolling shutter effect?

Cheers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F6 is a better camera all around.  It does have a 4K or 4KDCI S35 crop mode, which is superior to the S6 in that the F6 sensor has much lower rolling shutter skew when so cropped.  I personally don't see a camera having a 6K codec an advantage, so resolution advantage of S6 in S35 is not a factor for me, but maybe for someone else it is.  Buy the F6 unless you really can't afford the price differential, which sort of doesn't make sense to me since the difference is not that much, especially now with the price drops.  In fact, I'd almost say that for many people the newly announced E2-M4 paired with a speed booster or Z-cam's announced turbo EF mount makes more sense than an S6.  E2-M4 offers higher frame rates, and rolling shutter is much better.  In fact, if you crop down the 4/3 sensor down further to S16 mode, it is as close to global shutter like performance I've ever seen from any rolling shutter camera.  I did a rolling shutter comparison with the E2G (global shutter) and original E2 and when cropped, the difference is present, but you really have to push hard to see the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tom Visser great info, thank you!

When comparing F6 in Super35 crop mode to S6, do you have any comments regarding aliasing/moire/edge detail? Any noticeable difference? Specifically in HD, UHD, and 4K.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nezih said:

@Tom Visser great info, thank you!

When comparing F6 in Super35 crop mode to S6, do you have any comments regarding aliasing/moire/edge detail? Any noticeable difference? Specifically in HD, UHD, and 4K.

 

Thanks!

sorry, no first hand experience comparing that - but my gut tells me that all should be relatively on par with each other... pixel peeping - perhaps you could see the downsampled 6K S6 have some tweaky advantage under scrutiny, but I think in overall footage, the F6 gives you too many other advantages

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sebastian Ziegler said:

Has anyone done over and under exposure tests with these two cameras?

Does the F6 really have better dynamic range than the S6?

I'd like to know this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Popular Topics

  • New Posts

    • It's a bit like the difference between say RGB and Adobe RGB (kind of) or JPG vs RAW, as there's more information available. It really depends on whether it's necessary for your work. My preference, whether it comes to video or photography, is to record at the highest possible/practical rates to allow for the best post-processing (you never really know when you're going to need it). It requires more storage space, but that to me is a worthwhile tradeoff. Once information is lost, you never get it back. A graphic example: https://i.rtings.com/images/chroma-subsampling/subsampling.png  
    • Thanks. That's very helpful because a C300 II and a 4:4:4-capable recorder is high on my list of candidates. 
    • Thanks so much and yeah will do, and I try to search first also. 😉
    • What are people's general views on gimbals? I have a love/hate relationship with gimbals (I own two relatively lightweight ones) and, in the few years that I've owned them, I simply cannot get to like them. I've tried a cheap Glidecam clone and just hated it, as balancing it was always like trying to get a drunken wife into a car (been there, done that). The gimbals work fine, but they simply can't hold my run & gun rig that weighs 4.3 kg. There are of course gimbals that can hold that weight and newer ones that can do that without having to break down the rig for full movement, but you then end up with a huge weight to carry around (and I'm able to carry some fairly hefty weight). For the sort of work that I was doing before COVID, I was using an Easyrig clone to support a very heavy rig, but I subsequently reduced the weight to a nice 4.3kg and did away with the support (wandering around some places looking like a Ghost Buster started to wear thin). But there are times when I want to move about with the rig and get reasonably stable footage, which kind of points to a gimbal of some sort. Recently I did some testing with a counterweight system, by attaching my monopod to my rig, with the monopod extending horizontally from the rear of the camera (aligned with the lens). The results from the monopod experiment were actually quite surprising, giving an almost gimbal like movement with a bit of stabiliser added in post. Noting that I can't Ninja walk (more like Bobba Fett sitting on my shoulders) the results looked little different to shots using another camera on one of the gimbals. This could be an option with some practice. Gimbals are all the rage at the moment, but are they really an ideal option for documentary style work, which is my main aim? Has anyone come up with a portable solution that doesn't involve a gimbal?  
    • Do check requirements of any festivals you plan to submit to, as well as DCP specs. Many may be fine with whatever format, but some may be fussy. You may find capturing in 16:9 (but framing for 2.35:1) and then editing for 2.35:1 a safer option, so, if necessary, you can re-edit for 16:9 later down the line if required (may involve re-doing some “pan and scan”, but with the vertical alignment). Unless of course you’re shooting anamorphic, then you can’t do this and will need to crop your master heavily to create a 16:9 version. Also consider that, if theatrical release is intended, it’s unlikely to be 16:9, but rather DCI 4K or DCI 2K (1.89). So, if you can shoot in one of those formats instead of UHD/HD, then do! The few pixels of extra width will help you anyway if you’re going for a wider look, and will mean slightly less cropping of the height is needed (you’ll need to work out the correct crop to cut a 2.35:1 portion out of 4096x2160 or 2048x1080). Agree that creative intent is a part of choosing what to do here.  
×
×
  • Create New...