SRV1981

55 minutes ago, Django said:

Keep in mind A7IV has very poor RS (26.8ms) so not really ideal for sports/action. 4K60p also has a 1.5x crop so it basically becomes APS-C & 4K120 is absent. If you add to that the overheating that makes A7IV a rather poor choice if you're planning on shooting beyond 4K30p..

Sports is one aspect - not for paid but personal use as a coach. I used an xt3 years ago and the only complaint people noticed was noise fr ISO and autofocus. RS isn’t a big issue for track and field in my view.  Lowlight is significantly more important to me, personally than RS. 

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

meh, just get an a6000 from eBay for mere pennies to take your photos with, and it makes for a handy B Cam / emergency back up to your FX30. 

Ha I get it! But I’d be shooting fast moving athletes indoors - never had luck with APSC. Was hoping the fx30 would be good for me but video after video notes that you must properly light your scene as you’ve said here. I’ve realized for my needs I won’t be lighting so an a7iv is a better value it seems. 

6 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

I can only comment on Sony cameras. I have very little experience with modern cameras from other brands.

TBH, basically any newer Sony camera(within 2-3 years) is going to be great at lowlight. I would recommend A7M4 because it is also a terrific stills camera, and in terms of image quality or high iso performance, quite similar to the A7S3. You don't need a high base of ISO 12800 to shoot in darker condition. For the most part, the high iso performance of the A7M4 is more than enough. It is FF too.

I personally use the FX30. Despite it being Super 35 and "only" ISO 2500, I can still shoot night scenes with it with only street lights and the results are at least acceptable. As long as there is some kind of light source, any capable modern Sony camera can give good result in lowlight.

My other even older camera, FS7M2, does decent in lowlight too. And that sensor is anicent, comparing to the A7M4.

Also, you can always clean up some of the noise in post. I really like the denoise in Davinci Resolve.

Well laid out points.  Took time today to check the experiences with overheating in the a74 and the look of cinetone with some modifications. 
 

this guy convinced me I don’t need LUTs to get good skin tones and images: 

This video also made me comfortable that at 4k 24 I shouldn’t worry about overheating: 

so the fx30 would Have better cooking and slow motion but I’d stilL need to buy a photo camera and it will Cost more than just using an a7iv and 24-105.

2 hours ago, Django said:

No I don't use much lighting when run & gunning. Most low light I do is concerts and events and I'll use the available lighting for realistic ambience. I mostly shoot fast prime lenses so not a big issue. On Canon I'll usually go with the Canon 50mm F1.2 & 35mm F1.4 wide open. On Sony I shoot with the Zeiss 35mm F1.4 & Batis prime series. And for zoom the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. I also don't mind crushing blacks and using a little NR. Whatever works. 

If I get the FX30 I'd surely go for those new 7artisans T1.05 cine primes I was talking about the other day.  

Nice! I’ll see if there’s any videos of them on fx30. Kinda want the fx30 over the s52 or a7iv and either get a6600, a7C, or wait till summer for new Sony camera for photo. Having another apsc could be good to pair for my travel personal documentary stuff. 

6 hours ago, Django said:

I can understand the FX3's uncropped 4K120 being a clear advantage but the "I like FF look better" sounds pretty arbitrary. YMMV.

Personally I like the FX30 better for video because the 6K oversampled video, 26MP stills, S35 & FF third party lens support (with speed booster), the more usable dual ISO range, the less aggressive NR, and of course 50% more affordable price tag. In fact with the last firmware update, chances are it is going to be my next camera (just waiting on the next few Sony releases of which another FX body is rumoured to be coming by this summer with the new AI chip/features).

By the way, was surprised to see French pétanque being played in NYC although I guess it is in fact its Italian bocce cousin!

 

What lens would you get for lowlight situations ? Are you always lighting ?

11 hours ago, markr041 said:

I have shot many videos with both cameras (not borrowed for one week from Sony). I thought I would like the fx30 better, since I am a bit of a stickler on resolution, and the fx30 oversamples 4K from the full sensor. But, what I found is I just like the look of the full-frame 4K from the fx3. And the fx3 4K 120p is uncompromised, while that from the fx30 is clearly noisier and has a big extra crop. With the fx3 one can mix together slow motion (from 4K 120p) with any regular-motion frames (in my case, the dreaded 4K 60p).

The "big" fx3 disadvantage for me is that the lenses for the full-frame fx3 are so much bigger. I need to travel light, and also cannot poke big rigs into crowds or in some travel spots.

Thus, I tried out the fx3 with the smallest zoom lens there is the "kit" 28-60 collapsible lens. It is slow and has limited range. So, can you get shot variety from it? - Clear Image Zoom though helps it get to 90mm essentially losslessy. Do you sacrifice image quality from this cheap lens, including subject isolation from shallow DOF?

I took this combo to Bryant Park to capture the Spring blooms and the activities. The video mixes slow motion and regular motion (some bocce and pingpong clips are in slow motion 2X).

I was pleased with the results. The one issue is that I cannot smoothly manually zoom the kit lens, and I am normally very good at manually zooming. Clear Image Zoom gives me smooth variable-speed zooms, though, but only up to 1.5X.

Note this video does not use any of the new firmware features - this video could have been shot with the a7siii.

Would love to see you compare both in different conditions and ISO levels! Well done. 

28 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Working on it!

Last year, I shot and produced 32 (all weddings by the way so if that bores you, look away now!) and I was a little sporadic in my use of lighting for all kinds of reasons*

Early, but slow start this year and kicking myself I did not start as I meant to go, ie, again, not full use as intended.

Next job, next week, I am going to light light light it and keep on doing so for the future.

This is the way.

*Mainly long lay off over Winter and first couple of jobs always a bit rusty. That’s my excuse anyway… 🤨

Awesome! Congrats.  When you’re producing during travel for yourself etc are you lighting indoors and outside when it’s dark? 

11 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

This maybe the case, and it helps marketing as well. Putting a professional sensor into a consumer (or prosumer) model makes the camera much easier to sell.

But yeah, for those vloggers who often shoot at environments where absolutely no lighting is allowed and whose work doesn't require a good image, rather it's more important to get the shot, good ISO performance can be a big plus. I think enthusiasts who just want to film their family or daily lives will also appreicate the extra lowlight capability.

Though back to the topic, I don't think the FX30, FX3 or the A7S3 is necessarily a perfect choice for those users. Unless they want a camera that they can grow their videography and filmmaking skills with.

This is exactly what I’m saying. Well said. What cameras would you recommend for those who fit this description?

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Pro or non-pro, reconsider it.

For years I went naked priding myself on being a ‘natural light shooter’, but recently I have seen the light. Literally.

At all times indoors and low light, I use at least one LED light and quite often a second.

I use one super lightweight light stand plus a table top tripod.

Neither the Rotolight Neo 3 or Falconeyes are exactly THE last word in lighting, but they do the job I need them to do which is most fill lighting for naturally back lit subjects.

They take seconds to put up and I rarely move them once set.

On camera, video or stills, I have a pair of tiny 4x AA powered LED’s off Amazon that cost about 30 each.

So even if the former is too much for you, I would at least consider the latter and use it on camera or off plonked on a piece of furniture or something.

Even simple things like a plate of food are transformed by a tiny light sitting on the table pointing at it on a flat plane angle.

Takes seconds, costs peanuts.

Thanks. Well said. Do you have any videos of you doing this ?

6 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I'm not trying to lecture you, so forgive me if it comes off that way, but I don't know that you're getting the point that I was trying to make. 

How do you think we used to film in a low light situation when running and gunning with cameras that were infinitely worse at it than even a modern M43 camera? As @IronFilm said, the FX30 is miles ahead of what we had available to us back then, but people were still able to run and gun with those cameras in low light situations because we knew how to get around that limitation. Back then though we didn't have the luxury of owning LED pocket lights that cost under $100 and could easily be added to the camera's hot shoe. 

Is the hassle of carrying a small Aperture light when you need it really worth spending more on a FX3/A7Siii for those low light situations? For some I guess it is? Just seems silly to me.

All good points! I guess I’m one of the members here that are enthusiasts but don’t do it professionally and wouldn’t want to use lights for the most part. Everything you said and others is sensible.  I’m just wanting a sub 3k video on a Sony that is good in LL 

3 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

Obviously, everyone's needs are different. If one has to shoot almost always in very dark situation with absolutely no way to setup even the smallest of lights, like a newshooter, then he must have the camera with the best lowlight quality.

The FX30 is good enough in lowlight, as long as there is some light in the scene. Of couse it will do very poorly in pitch dark situation, but the same can be said for A7S3. Great in lowlight doesn't mean you don't have to light the scene. When we use the A7S3 at ISO 12800 setting on set of the short film, we still have to do porper lighting.

You need light to produce a good image. Great lowlight capablity is not the substitute for lighting.

Anyway, a cameraman has to adapt to the situation. In a lot of tight spaces or very poorly lit condition, even a small LED light panel can make the difference. Those are very cheap and portable, not luxurious at all.

There are many differences that make the A7S3 or FX3 the better camera than the FX30, such as FF look, no 4K120P crop. The lowlight advantage is there but IMO not as important as many other factors.

 

To the point you agreed about needs are different - do you think they're putting the a7s3 sensor in a consumer ZV-E1 because the majority of those users don't light scenes etc and need good ISO performance in challenging situations?

12 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Advancements in technology are great, but people are becoming slaves to it. Lets say for arguments sake the FX30 has very poor low light performance (it doesn't) but it fits your needs perfectly otherwise. What do you do? Decide to keep looking/wait until the "right" camera comes along, or do you buy it because it's the best overall option and work around it's low light performance by carrying a small light or two?

I've been doing video for 25 years, since I was 13 years old. One of the first things I learned was how to adapt and get around limitations. To me that's a big part of what we as videographers and filmmakers do. We are problem solvers! 

So yeah, when seeing people complain about a camera's lowlight performance because it can't see in the dark or gets grainy at ISO 3200 it makes some of us start asking "what are we doing here?!" There are 100s of affordable little lights that can easily fit into any bag. Grab a few of them and just start shooting!

 

Everyone's needs are different.  As stated, some folks don't have the time/luxury/desire to setup external lighting and having a competent camera for lowlight would be very helpful.  If the noise was not a distraction/noticeable then i'd agree with you.  That said, I am unsure if it is on the FX30.  I'll have to dig in deeper to see how the fx30 compares in lower lit conditions to the fx3/a7siii to see if it is really a noticeable difference.  

6 hours ago, Emanuel said:

The low light concern going on this camera is basically focused on crop 4K 120p for that purpose from the crop format per se already, I guess : ) Hence the YT video above-posted.

I'd say my concern is more of 4k 24p.

4 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

That youtube video above is almost unworthy of being posted by a beloved forum member such as Django. "Biggest flaw", what clickbait nonsense. Lowlight on the FX30, as we have noted before, is about one stop less than the modern FF counterparts. So it is a lowlight achiever in S35 terms, better than C300II, than FS7. No mushyness but "grain". Great lowlight camera. No mushyness is a novelty, not many cameras offer in that price range, nor timecode, nor pro reliability and such.

Now, C70 in RAWlight is the overall lowlight cinema champ after the classic Alexa Alev sensor and very close regarding quality of colour rendition, latitude and dynamic range, if I trust the judgement from german testsite slashcam and heresay from dop buddies. Same sensor as C300III. For the money, trust Ironfilm and others, FX30 is not to beat as a pro S35 B or A video cam in the Sony system.

Love this response.  Makes me think, at times, if you can afford to get the video camera that’s best for you and worry about photo secondarily - if you can - it’s the way to go! 

4 hours ago, Django said:

Its really going to depend on your lens choice and at what frame rate you're capturing. 4K60/4K120 is going to be a challenge in lowlight, especially with slower glass. Fast glass and/or a speed booster can help mitigate lowlight performance. I've noticed quite a couple FX30 users have been pairing it with 7Artisans new affordable APS-C T/1.05 cine prime lenses for such purposes:

 

This video was helpful thanks! Makes me feel the fx30 is good enough for most situations, including lowlight with the right lens pairing.  

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The FX30 has low light performance people would have given their kidney for a decade or two ago. 

The fault is with the user, not the camera, if you can't get good images out of it. 

I'm not sure about this.  We're not living a decade ago and for those who don't have more than themselves and no lighting - ISO performance and options today are what's relevant.  Fault with the user ... could you unpack how that plays out in lowlight as a single operater?

Soap Opera aside, what’s the thoughts on an fx30 for situations where you will not be lighting? Is the ISO performance good enough to fill in lowlight?  Obviously it doesn’t rival the fx3 but is it close enough that it’s usable ?

On 4/6/2023 at 2:58 PM, PPNS said:

some stills from a new short i dp’d. Still ungraded, some still need to be cropped a bit.

 

Lovely tones. What camera(s)

5 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Nikon Z6, 8-bit internal 4k 24p, Nikon FLAT with iDynamic set to High

 

Looks awesome! Nikon is beat up a lot and so is 8 bit yet I found the image appealing and well done. 

58 minutes ago, gt3rs said:

Why would you "buy" an APS-C lens for A7IV? If you already own it maybe for video, but buying it make no sense to me, for photo is meh as you loose a lot of res and for video is questionable.

Buy a good FF used lens, you will resell it with no too much loss if you want to change.  

I mostly buy used lens and if you find a good priced one you may end up selling for almost the same price that you brought.

What places do you buy from?  How do you evaluate if it is clean and dust free/minimal

30 minutes ago, Ty Harper said:

Oh wait, @ntblowz you're talking about losing lowlight advantage with just the regular adapter? But even then - I get how you'd lose focal length in S35 - but how would you lose lowlight advantage?

Original context was Sony 

2 hours ago, Amazeballs said:

Safe more money ang get FX30 instead of A7IV. It has more video features anyway. 

Without a mechanical shutter you can’t shoot any fast moving subjects in photo. Unless your saying it’s smarter to get an fx30 and a photo body instead of using an a7iv for both 

How do some of you see this as a way to save money ?  
 

Grab a Sigma 18-50 for an A7IV and use on 35mm mode and also get a 35mm fast prime for FF ?

What’s the general consensus when on hybrid cameras like the a7iv. 

56 minutes ago, PPNS said:

im unemployed, check out my reel!

https://vimeo.com/797642822

Cool as shit 

6 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Let’s share our work guys!  I’ll start. Here is an interview I shot and lit the other day, featuring a congresswoman from Indians!  One camera was a Nikon z6 recording into an Atomos ninja v.  With a Tamron 45mm 1.8.  The other was actually the ancient, cheap Canon 7D fitted with a Canon 85mm 1.2 shot at f/2.5!

Lovely color

18 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

It is not just while recording, but simply being on that apparently it can overheat under certain conditions 

Seems premature to be that specific and confident,  no? 12 people had a stab at it with different analysis of overheating. 

1 minute ago, TomTheDP said:

I don't feel you really have to grade log. You can just put on a lut and adjust the exposure if you need/want.

But in terms of your question I would say it depends what other features you are looking for.

The Canon R8, FX30, or Panasonic S5 MK2 seem like good relatively budget options. If you can, renting or borrowing is the best way to really see if you like a camera as IQ is only one aspect.

Big knock for Canon seems to be 3rd party lenses - same for Panasonic?  Seems Sony a7iv/fx30 are a great go to for most prosumers?