Benjamin Hilton

While I enjoy following the latest camera releases, there would literally be zero ROI on us switching systems anytime in the next 5 years. 

18 hours ago, kye said:

I find it incredible that people talk about switching bodies / systems all the time without really considering the wider ecosystem of lenses and accessories.  Hell, I've stayed within the MFT system and whenever I get a new MFT body there are still all these extras that I end up being surprised about and inflate the price by 10-15%.  If I was re-buying lenses then it would double/triple/quadruple the cost.

I have no idea what the economics of lenses are, but I wouldn't be surprised if the camera body is now a loss-leader and the lenses where all the profit is.

Yeah 100%. We stayed in the Lumix eco system for years using Canon lenses, and it worked. 3 years ago we finally bit the bullet and dropped like 15 grand into upgrading to Sony bodies and Sigma E mount lenses. That being said, we probably won't do a camera upgrade until these die on us, they more than accomplish anything we need from them. At this point, if we need another body, we can always pick up a used FX30 for like $1200 and it fits in perfectly with our FX6 and A7IVs. 

4 hours ago, Jahleh said:

The Apple gamma shift issue should be fixed by know for SDR. Watched some YT video about it linked to Resolve forum, that Rec.709 (Scene) should fix everything, but it is not that straight forward.

If you set your Davinci settings to use Apple Profiles for display, and then use Rec709 for your profile, it gives an accurate output for YouTube, at least it does for all of our workstations 

13 hours ago, kye said:

But, even more importantly, it doesn't matter.  You might get a perfect calibration, but as soon as your image is on any other display in the entire world then it will be wrong, and wrong by far more than you'd think was acceptable.  Colourists typically make their clients view the image in the colour studio and refuse to accept colour notes when viewed on any other device, and the ones that do remote work will setup and courier an iPad Pro to the client and then only accept notes from the client when viewed on the device the colourist shipped them.

This is why I check all my final grades on my macbook pro screen. It's not perfect, but it seems like it's a good approximation of a lot of screens out there 

On 1/3/2026 at 10:16 PM, kye said:

I shoot in uncontrolled conditions, using only available light, and shoot what is happening with no directing and no do-overs.  This means I'm frequently pointing the camera in the wrong direction, shooting people backlit against the sunset, or shooting urban stuff in midday-sun with deep shadows in the shade in the same frame as direct sun hitting pure-white objects.

This was a regular headache on the GH5 with its 9.7/10.8 stops.  The OG BMPCC with 11.2/12.5 stops was MUCH better but still not perfect, and while I haven't used my GH7 in every possible scenario, so far its 11.9/13.2 stops are more than enough.

The only reason you need DR is if you want to heavily manipulate the shot in post by pulling the highlights down for some reason, or lifting the shadows up for some reason.

Beyond the DR of the GH7 I can't think of many uses other than bragging rights.  When the Alexa 35 came out and DPs were talking about its extended DR, it was only in very specific situations that it really mattered.  

Rec709 only has about 6 stops of DR, so unless you're mastering for HDR (and if you are, umm - why?) so adding more DR into the scene only gives you more headaches in post when you have to compress and throw away the majority of the DR in the image.

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. 

On 11/18/2025 at 4:05 PM, Andrew Reid said:

I have been getting back into the Sony A7 IV recently.

The more I think about it, the more I think this (along with 2018's a7r III) is where Sony finally got things right and properly came of age. It's really very good and current used prices make it one of the best bang for buck full frame cameras.

Constantly surprised at how good the EVF is for the price.

The IBIS is much improved from previous gen.

As is the colour science.

The menus are still complex, but they're much snappier and faster.

And the grip, all buttons, really have much more feel.

The fact they kept the build quality and ergonomics the same as some of their most expensive cameras, i.e. a9 II or original a1, is the opposite of what Panasonic did with the S1R II being in a mid-range S5 body.

And although the sensor is slow compared to an a1 or stacked sensor camera, the price is low, the image is fantastic, the 4K is oversampled from 7K and you still have the option of faster frame rates in the Super 35mm crop modes.

Also although the H.265 bitrates are quite low by 2025 standards, the codec holds up magnificently. And small files are what I like.

Autofocus is not up to the high-bar of a 2025 flagship Sony like the a1 II of course.

But it's pretty damned good.

£1600 is a steal (used).

Bring on the a7 V...

Rumours have us expecting the same 33 mp sensor but partially stacked, but I don't they put a 7K or 8K mode in there. 4K/60p without a crop, maybe 120p in the S35 mode more likely.

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. 

19 hours ago, Rhood said:

I read a somewhere on a forum that the quality of the screen was really bad. Like looking at an old monitor.
Or is that what you mean with quality control? 
How would you rate the Desview against the Focus 5?

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

Just now, zerocool22 said:

It just pops. can't explain it. I could look at it forerever, while the fX3 looks bland/boring

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

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Not sure if they used same lens in this case, but the difference is huge in this one.

 

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. 

17 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

but in 2025 someone could absolutely take a sub $5000 camera, film a feature with it, and 99% of the people viewing it wouldn't know whether it was shot on an Alexa or Canon R5 II. Bo Burnham filmed his Netflix special "Inside" on a S1H and used other budget film equipment you can get on Amazon to do it. No one, outside of us camera nerds who paused and rewinded reflections of the camera and equipment like it was the Zapruder film, noticed or cared.

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

6 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

I just mean side by camera comparisons, the difference is night and day. (Not accounting different lights, actors, set design) just side by sides. Exact same setup.

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. 

23 hours ago, Django said:

I love the IQ of my FS7. Nice chunky 4K 10-bit XAVC-S. You can bake in LUTs. I really don't see much difference in specs to the current Sony cams (FX30, FX3, FX6 etc) aside for extreme low-light. Ergonomics are great for shoulder mount, its a workhorse. I keep mine because Sony is used everywhere in pro use and it gives me work. Don't really feel a need to upgrade. That being said for personal hybrid projects I prefer Canon/Nikon. I'd recommend R5C or Z8 if you're a hybrid shooter. Personally I'm thinking of going for R5 mk2 mainly because of Clog2 and tiny bitrate SRAW, total game changer. Guess a C70 would be a good cop, great form factor with NDs and long battery life with that DGO sensor, only caveat is the image is a little too soft for my taste.

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. 

44 minutes ago, inde said:

There's the scan and then there's the film as has been noted above. I remember in the early thousands being told by an emeritus prof in astronomy that they were finding digital was sharper than film. These were low resolution dgital sensors but worked better in low photon capturing. Remember, digital doesn't suffer from failure of reciprocity. I was shocked at the time.

My guess is today, above 100 iso, digital is better than s35 at 1080p for resolution on a sensor without an OLPF. However, digital colour is not as rich generally and much worse on a standard sony sensor. Dynamic range is better on film even if just because it has a proper toe and shoulder. There I said it.

Dynamic range was certainly better on some of the best film stocks for quite a while, but I don't think you're seeing much of an advantage over the Alexa sensors these days. (most other high end digitals aren't far behind) Plus with most decent cameras a good highlight rolloff isn't hard to pull off in post if you know what you're doing