Benjamin Hilton

I think the one major use case for the high DR of the Alexa 35 is the ability to record fire with no clipping. It's a party trick really, but a cool one. It's kind of fun to be able to see a clip from a show and be able to pick out Alexa 35 shots simply because of the fire luminance. That being said, it has no real benefit to the story in any real way. I did notice a huge improvement in the quality of my doc shoots when moving from 9-10 stop cameras to 11-12 stop cameras though. But around 12-12.5 stops, I feel like anything beyond has a very diminishing rate of return. 12 stops of DR in my opinion can record most of the real world in a meaningful way, and anything that clips outside of those 12 stops is normally fine being clipped. This means most modern cameras can record the real world in a beautiful, meaningful way if used correctly

My firsts GH camera was the GH4, great camera in a lot of ways but definitely tough to work with overall image wise. The GH5 was really something special though, just a really good 4k 10bit image, and also some of the best 1080p I've worked with out of a mirrorless.

Totally agree on this take. We use the 7IV along with an FX6 for doc shoots, a solid camera all around. It kind of just does everything really well, with an absolutely solid image to boot.

Yeah the whole nature of the business is changing rapidly. It's easy to keep pace when you're working in the YouTube world, but I can't imagine how tough it must be in the Hollywood circles.

Proxies were an established part of our workflow for a long time, really the only way to get complex edits done. These days though using M1 laptops and desktops we haven't had much of a need for proxies, Davinci cuts 10bit 4k no problem.

Having used both professionally, I'd go FX30 all day. The XS-20 is a fun photography camera, that does video pretty well too. It's just not quite up for pro level work in my opinion. The image is really good, the size is fun, and the color is pretty good too. It's kind of fiddly though, lacks a good selection of custom buttons, overheats a lot, struggles with autofocus a bit and has the SD card in the battery compartment, which is something I personally don't enjoy. While not being maybe "as fun" as the XS-20, the FX30 is more of a workhorse. Decent color, duel native ISOs, integrated Sony cinema features, solid autofocus, good cooling, easily riggable form factor and the list goes on. The major con is lack of a EVF, but I rarely use built in EVFs, so that doesn't bother me. Basically if I'm choosing a family camera for stills and some video, I'd go the XS-20. For professional video work, the FX30 is a much more reliable choice.

The screen is sharp with good color, every bit as good as the Focus 5. What I mean by quality control is I've had the touch control get finicky on me before, and the build is a little cheap.

I've had the Focus 5, it's not a bad monitor. The Desview R6 is a really good option too. I believe it's 2800 nits, which is insane. It looks so good outdoors even in bright sunlight. Only downside is it is really cheap ($230 I think?) so quality control isn't always so good. But that being said, at the price you can just buy a few of them and cycle through when they break

I think that's just a slight contrast difference. Although I'm not arguing the FX3 always looks as good as the Alexa haha, just in that example to me

It's funny on your example, I thought for sure the second camera was the Alexa. Turns out it was the other way around. I'm not sure what you're seeing in the Alexa image in that comparison that looks better to you, to me the FX3 looks much better. That is solely due to user error more than likely though, I think the Alexa had a WB issue in that test.

Especially the case if you use expensive lenses, filtration, and have a good post house handle the color

That's where sensor and processing comes into play. I would be curious to see this night and day difference though. While I am pretty nerdy with this stuff, these days advantage from high end cameras seems minimal when using the same lenses, lighting, grading pipeline etc. I for sure can see a difference, it's just not that stark.

It's a combination of things. The sensors, processing, better processing due to bigger physical size so better separate of circuit boards, protecting higher end cameras etc. But all that said, the bulk of that amazing image comes down to the workflow. Pretty much all the content you see coming off of the high end cameras are shot for movies. These movies are not only using an Arri Alexa, they are using A-list talent, the best make-up people, talented DPs with the best lights, diffusion, camera filters etc. They are also using very very expensive lenses and filtratration. Then the final images are sent to very expensive post houses for color correction, grading, and sometimes exclusive film emulation. All that to say that yes, the expensive cameras are genuinely better than current more affordable offerings. But, they aren't as much better as you might think. The whole workflow of talent from A-Z is what makes a gorgeous image, not just the camera.

There's not that much of a specs difference, just a better image out of the newer censors. Granted with the chunky files from the FS7 a good colorist can make it look really good, it's just if you do a basic comparison between the two generations with limited grading you see a significant difference.

Yeah I'd have to say that while I love the form factor of the FS7, there is a huge leap in mojo from that generation of imaging to the next with the C70, A7SIII and so forth. It's just a richer cleaner image overall