Benjamin Hilton

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

If budget is no option, FX6s all around. You're talking a sturdy body to handle the shake of long lens, good autofocus, good low light, good audio and timecode options, good dynamic range and color. If you are majorly constrained by budget, GH5s would be fine, FX30s would be better if you can afford them. As some have mentioned though, lens constraints are a major factor here.

I'm in the same boat. I work for a non profit, so it's a steady 9-5. But I love the work, most of the projects are my own creations, so videos I can get somewhat excited about. My salary is modest, but steady. We drive a 14 year old vehicle and live in a 900 square foot house in the country. No debt other than the mortgage. Most of my work is from home in a small mini barn I converted into an office/studio. It's amazing the peace you can find from living a simple lifestyle. Our income is pretty small compared to many these days, but we live really comfortably. Owning things in cash, buying used, and not trying to keep up with the Jone's can go a long way in building a comfortable life.

It's been years since I created a professional DVD. Recently though, we are seeing a resurgence in desire to own physical DVDs for content consumption. (a lot of people are getting sick of the streaming networks)That being said we decided to take the plunge and release a new documentary on both digital download and DVD on our online store. After some research, I realized the only legitimate way to create a DVD menu and such today are the old professional (but discontinued) software giants with either Adobe Encore, or Apple's DVD Studio Pro. Apparently the professional DVD companies still keep a fleet of old computers running the old software as there are no modern alternatives. So I thought I'd detail my process here in case anyone else in interested in doing this too, I might be able to help out with any questions if I've run up against the same issue. This is my process so far: - Bought a Mac Mini on Ebay from 2008 for $50, it works surprisingly well. (unfortunately it was updated to OS Yosemite - Bought a copy of Snow Leopard on Ebay for $25, installed it on a partition with no issues - Bought a copy of Final Cut Studio 2 on Ebay for $30 that was supposed to include the serial number - Upon install I realized the serial number was hand written, and couldn't decipher it exactly even though I tried dozens of different combinations - I bought a second copy of Final Cut Studio 2 on Ebay for $50. Upon install I realized that it was an upgrade copy, not an original as advertised. Therefore I couldn't install it since an upgrade requires you to have an original serial number. (I returned this copy and got a refund) - With the printed serial number on the upgrade copy though, I was able to decipher the pattern of what a final cut serial number is supposed to look like. I was able to compare this to the hand written number from the original purchase and try a few more variations, it finally worked! - After a lengthy install process, DVD Studio pro and Final Cut Pro run no problem on the old Mac Mini, very snappy performance - I took my final video files and encoded them to MPEG 2 with Handbrake, Studio pro threw an error code on import, it said it couldn't recognize the file format - I tried a bunch of combinations with hand brake, no luck. I also tried a bunch of combinations with Shutter Encoder, also no luck. - I tried encoding with Apple's old compressor software that was included with the Studio 2. That worked fine, just really long encoding time due to the old mac, and the quality wasn't nearly as good as Handbrake or Shutter. - I finally got gave Adobe Media Encoder 2025 a try, and that worked! The quality wasn't quite as good as Handbrake, but a lot better than Compressor. I was able to play around with encoding settings and sharpening to find a happy medium for a final output that looks pretty good, even for SD - After that it was just a matter of building menu graphics in photoshop, importing and linking everything in DVD Studio Pro. It's surprisingly intuitive software to use, but very powerful at the same time. I'm about to burn my final DVD to send off to the duplicator, so fingers crossed everything continues to work.

I'd have to agree that the Sony A7R IV is the best bang for buck and all around useful camera on the market right now. It doesn't have any huge headline selling points, but it just does video and stills really well. No major flaws, and just a gorgeous image. If you need to go cheaper, I'm leaning on FX30s. Still a great image, good form factor, and just a solid camera for the price. The Canon R7 is a solid option too in this cheaper category. It's pretty cool these cameras exist in this price bracket, that for under $1500 you can get good stills, solid 4k with good DR, good color, auto focus, solid audio, the list goes on. No excuse to not be out there creating good visuals these days

My favorite right now has to be Sony. After years of squeaking by with old cameras from several different brands, with odd adapters and cheap lenses, we finally invested in a complete Sony package this year. Overall just a really solid offering when it comes to cameras, image and feature wise. The FX6 is the best documentary camera hands down IMO. E-ND, 4k120, 4 channels of audio, good ergonomics etc. We're pairing that with a couple of FX30s for studio work, solid image and great for static use. And an A7R IV, which has been an awesome camera for some light video combined with photography use. The really nice thing is we can use all of the above mentioned cameras in a multicam shoot if we want, and they will match decently in post.