KnightsFan

I'm always glad to see people doing actual tests on these things! Thanks Andrew. I don't really see any difference in the pictures you posted. I did quickly grab some images with my Z Cam. I can't do the same format in 8 and 10 bit, so I compared 8 bit H.264 at 120 mbps vs. 10 bit H.265 at 60 mpbs. Big difference there... here's a 1:1 crop of the sky dropped 4 stops in post and no other color adjustment. 4 stops is a lot, but not unreasonable for exposing a Zlog2 image particularly with high dynamic range. Lots of very ugly colored bands on the H.264 and actually it looks worse with the full image. It might be worth comparing your highlights as well as shadows, especially in log footage. I don't see any banding in the shadows in my image when pushed, just in the highlights. So I will agree with @jghardingthat it will vary camera to camera, and encoder to encoder.

It's far better to know where the sound is a problem and fix it rather than stick a bandaid on it. A brickwall limiter (which is the only type that is guaranteed to fix all clipping) still sounds distorted, it just won't technically clip. Immediate visualization of clipping without requiring playback would be amazing.

That would be a fantastic feature to have.

If the rumors are true and its as disappointing as everyone seems to already know that it will be, I wouldn't be surprised if chip shortages are partly to blame. Nvidia can't make GPUs, Sony won't meet demand for PS5's until 2023... it's unsurprising that Panasonic is reusing parts from the GH5. Maybe it's either that or a paper launch. Though in the absence of chip-related new features, an internal ND could have been be a welcome addition, so who knows what's going on. Ultimately with the prices of the S5 and XT3 so low, I don't think there is anything with a price >$1k that a M43 hybrid would tempt me with and Panasonic probably knows that.

I'm glad this guy spoke up, because I'd prefer to spend a little more money to support good business practices, and that includes being upfront and honest with reviewers who are getting gear to review, and having good customer support. But "blackmail" is a pretty strong word considering their "threat" is to stop sending free stuff. I might have missed something, but it sounds like they just said "we aren't going to send you free gear to review unless you actually review it." And it sounds like they said it in a nasty way--which is a fair point to make and a genuine reason to rethink your support of the company--but the actual terms of that transaction seem pretty clear to me, and he can either accept or not accept it. His argument that they are pressuring him into doing something he didn't agree to is a little dramatic, because unless he left something out, withholding free gear that he didn't ask for or expect is not pressure. He also mentions that smaller content creators rely on free stuff that they can't afford. Well, if your channel is mainly about creating content, then use cheaper gear or get a day job.

No, it can't. And also if you have a 3.5mm mic plugged in, you can't use the internal mic. So you can't do internal L + 3.5mm R.

I would not say that is true. On Blackmagic you have a big touchscreen and lots of buttons and dial within finger reach. On Z Cam you will do more menu hunting and moving hands around to reach buttons, plus the rigging and wiring for a monitor makes it more awkward. For handheld a handle like the Rvlvr Clutch is useful with its custom dials.

It can record H.264, H.265, ProRes (all flavors), and ZRaw internally, if your card is fast enough. With the most recent firmware, you can even record ProRes in 120 fps. I'm unsure of the exact ProRes frame rate limits. You can also record ProRes Raw externally on the Nina V (again, some people have problems with it but I have never tested it), and you can record any YUV format externally at 10 bit 4:2:2 or lower. If you're holding the camera by itself with no rig, then the Blackmagic will probably be easier. If you're putting it on a shoulder rig, neither one is ideal to be honest. It is a closely related sensor to the P4K and GH5s, so dynamic range and noise are similar. The color processing is not the same, and the codecs aren't either. Yes. It uses Sony NP batteries, or you can rig it with a V Mount. Yes, it has builtin mics. You can also use the 3.5mm jack in place of the internal mic, and with a dongle you can use dual XLR mics. And you can mix/match internal and XLR, for example using Left internal mic + Right XLR.

I have an E2 M4. I haven't gotten to use it much because of Covid, so I've only shot 2 small interviews, and a half dozen "walk around outside" tests. The minimum setup is a CFast card, battery, lens, and phone. That's how I use it on a gimbal (I mentioned my setup in my post here). If you use it handheld, I would get a handle for each side. With a wide grip, it's very stable. There are some nice grips with control functions, but they are expensive. I would say that no matter what controls you use, it won't have the speed of a DSLR or cinema camera with more buttons and better ergonomics. It's not designed as a run and gun camera. The image is very nice. There are lots of examples on the fb group, and I can shoot stuff if you want a specific test... likely limited to nature shots though. I wouldn't say the image its necessarily better than other cameras in the price range, though I like the color, high frame rate, and codec options. The app and the OFX plugin really set it apart from competition. Some gotchas you will want to check before purchase: - some Android phones just don't work with the app. I'd ask in the fb group for your specific model, if that's how you plan to use it. - Timecode is a pain. You need 2 separate adapters. Or, you can set it over wifi from a jquery post (work in progress but it does work). Internal clock is atrocious, I got seconds of drift over a 20 minute period compared to the Zoom F4. - Viltrox adapters don't work with many Autofocus lenses. Their support told me they don't support the M4... despite supporting the E2. - It doesn't play nicely with the Ninja V. YMMV. Also saw some reports of it frying the HDMI port if connected to specific models of monitors, when both are powered from the same battery.

In that case I'd do the same. Mine was advertised as bus powered, and didn't come with a DC adapter. It worked perfectly on Firewire, but after owning it for a year and trying it on USB 3 for the first time I found that it clearly worked better with a power brick. Seems like a completely different situation though.

Are you bus powering or using a DC adapter? I have a G tech drive that makes clicking noises when it's bus powered because it doesn't get enough juice.

I'm not sure the statements "he's in it for the affiliate links" and to "sell sell sell" holds true when your main complaint is that he's giving a negative review to a deserving product. Just to be absolutely clear, how many of you have tried both the A7r4 and the fp L, and find the fp L to be a better camera, and why? I'm genuinely curious, because as I mentioned before, from my point of view the fp L isn't as strong but the vast majority here seem to know something I don't.

I think the problem with the sigma fp and fp L is that they strip down the conveniences of other cameras in favor of modularity, but don't have enough modularity to compensate. I doubt there is anyone out there who is more in favor of customizable cameras than me. But if the options are limited to EVF or no EVF, then that's not customizable, that just means there are two options. What sigma could have done to differentiate themselves is create an open protocol to allow more 3rd party accessories or even ad hoc solutions. This is entirely on the software side. Here are a couple things I could see myself wanting: - Add a larger grip that has the shutter button in the right place. If you add a deep, comfortable grip currently, you need to crook your index finger all the way back to reach the controls. I have first hand experience trying to design a grip for the XT-3, it didn't go well and I couldn't achieve NX-1 levels of comfort (despite literally scanning the NX1 and printing a grip with the same shape). - An XLR adapter that attaches securely onto the USB port like the EVF, eliminating the need for gain staging or dealing with internal preamps. Also more secure than the hot shoe ones that Panasonic has. - A wireless controller that integrates with other cameras or accessories. - Ethernet IP video and settings control With an open IO protocol, these are all things that could be done without hardware changes. If you have that level of customizability, then the comparisons to existing cameras would be less head to head. As it stands though, it's not really much different in terms of use cases, it just has different placement in the traditional categories: - it's much smaller (many of us don't really care) - It has rolling shutter in photos (would affect the sports photos I've taken, and most mirrorless cameras can be electronic shuttered if you need silence) - No 10 bit log video (tbf, only Panasonic has it in FF yet) nor 10 bit photo - Raw video (most users aren't going to put up with the file sizes anyway, I certainly won't) - Fixed screen, but better EVF if you pay for it (which is a great idea that more cameras should do!) And these are all just different design choices, not levels of modularity. The truth is that none of the downsides that prevent me from buying an fp or fp L can be solved with accessories.

@kye The interesting thing about resolution is that the sharper the edges, the fewer samples are needed to describe it. A perfectly flat video game edge between white and black only needs 2 samples of 1 bit each, whereas the gradient produced by a diffusion filter, or a soft bokeh ball, has essentially infinite analog resolution. before it is quantized (both spatially and in wavelength) by the digital sensor. It is also true that no bayer sensor will produce completely flat edges, as bayer algorithms usually have each pixel affected by the pixels around them. Not just those directly adjacent, but 2 or 3 pixels away. I think a big part of our acceptance of lower resolution video is cultural. We like soft images, the same way we like cinematography that obscures things and leaves imagery to our imaginations (e.g. The Godfather). I'm still a big believer in high digital resolution, but mainly for the reason I mentioned: it describes soft edges more accurately. Soft analog with sharp digital is my preferred look. And I think that over 1080p, you really see diminishing returns in terms of enjoyment of the movie as an end product. I haven't done my own tests, but a possible explanation for Yedlin's conclusion is that when he upscales 2k->4k, he's not reproducing high frequency details from a true resolution chart, it's that the scaling algorithm is doing a "pretty good" job of recreating the original gradients produced by pleasantly soft optics. I could be wrong though.

I got my E2 at the beginning of last year, used it twice, and then it sat in a closet all during the pandemic. Now that my crew and I are getting our vaccines, I'm starting to kit out and practice with the camera a little. I'm still very happy with it. One of the best things I did was get this chest strap to mount my phone. I got it for gimbal use, but it's actually really nice when the camera is on a tripod as well, if I'm setting up lights or am one-man-banding it and need to hold a boom pole. I just look down and see this video feed--neat! Latency on par with the HDMI latency from my old NX1. Maybe not something I'd bring on a budgeted pro shoot, but considering the phone was free, its a great value. I hope to get a better phone soon with a bigger and better screen, both because I need a new phone and it will be a better monitor. This is what I see when I look down: I like a minimal setup that is as lightweight as possible, and in particular is easy to move between tripod and glidecam. With it stripped down, and with the glidecam's top plate modified, it's light enough to use without an arm if necessary. The worst part is the absolutely atrocious timecode adapter with its ridiculously long cable with a heavy adapter at the end. I whipped up a bracket to mount it for my shots today, and am working on a more elegant solution. So yes, it does block the Cfast door in this picture. I'll probably also ditch the Viltrox focal reducer. It flares too easily. So what does all that get? Well, with no actors I took videos of flowers. This I shot from my glidecam with the Nikon 28mm in the pic above. And this one with a Nikon 105mm AI. It was shot at 160fps which is why you see a bit more noise. Both have noise reduction off, and none added in post. Actually these are both worst case for noise as they were shot in the "Low Jello" mode that reduces rolling shutter. Probably not necessary for the shot below, but it is nice for gimbal shots like the one above.

I'm going to regret getting involved here, but @tuppI think you are technically correct about resolution in the abstract. But I think that Yedlin is doing his experiments in the context of real cameras and workflow, not an abstract. I mean, it's completely obvious to anyone who has ever played a video game that there is a huge, noticeable difference between 4k and 2k, once we take out optical softness, noise, debayering artifacts, and compression. If we're debating differences between Resolutions with a capital R, let's answer with a resounding "Yes it makes a difference" and move on. The debate only makes sense in the context of a particular starting point and workflow because in actual resolution on perfect images the difference is very clear. And yeah, maybe Yedlin isn't 100% scientific about it, maybe he uses incorrect terms, and I think we all agree he failed to tighten his argument into a concise presentation. I don't really know if discussing his semantics and presentation is as interesting as trying to pinpoint what does and doesn't matter for our own projects... but if you enjoy it carry on 🙂 I will say that for my film projects, I fail to see any benefit past 2k. I've watched my work on a 4k screen, and it doesn't really look any better in motion. Same goes for other movies I watch. 720p to 1080p, I appreciate the improvement. But 4k really never makes me enjoy it any more.

I agree with that, it's just that for me the fp L comes off a little worse. I'm not telling anyone not to like it, and really I'm rooting for sigma. I just find the fp L to look less useful both on the photo and video side for me. Add in good 10 bit log at reasonable bit rates, and then it would make sense for someone like me even with a few hundred added to the cost. 100% agree. Once you get the speed down to a few ms, it's perfect for anything other than strobe lights and flashes and at that point, mechanical shutters will just be another failure point (off topic--I read that someone is suing Sony over faulty shutters). I think that's pretty close to a technical reality, with true global shutters in consumer products being a little farther off. Faster readouts and ubiquity of higher quality codecs make the next generation fp's very promising. Perhaps something to finally replace my NX1!

Fair point, but I would never shoot uncompressed raw video on anything so as far as I am concerned the fp is 8 bit only. Ridiculous data rates well beyond the point of diminishing returns. I used to shoot Raw on a 5D3, but back then it was HD so only 80 MB/s, and there were no photo/video hybrids with anything else decent. The recording options on an S1/S5/S1R or even an XT3/4 on the APS-C end are much preferred. I'd welcome a photo only camera if it did it really well with a reasonable price, like a foveon with good ergonomics. I'd probably get one of their old foveon cameras just for fun if they used L mount actually.

I have to agree with Gerald a bit actually. It's not a bad camera, but it's expensive considering the feature set. I almost exclusively use an EVF for photography, so with the cost of the (really cool and well designed) EVF, it's the price of an A7r4, and more than a typical S1r on ebay. I'd have to see tests in photo mode I suppose, but the slow readout and lack of mechanical shutter make it less than ideal for photos also. That's maybe not a deal breaker... but with the a7r4 at the exact same price I don't know why I would get an fp L. Then on the video side, I wouldn't consider anything without 10 bit, log, or 4k60 anymore. Panasonic set the full frame expectation that high. Anything less, and it's purely a photography device. So it comes out to not really doing what I want for photos or videos, and not being less expensive either. The other concern that Gerald mentioned was a lack of enough buttons and dials, which is clearly visible. You can add a grip, but you can't add dedicated wheels for ISO, shutter, and aperture. On the positive side, though, the fp L sits in a unique space for being very small with very high MP. So if those are your concerns, then fantastic! I hope they find the audience for that. I guess I'm more the audience for the original fp since I don't need a 60 MP sensor. I also truly believe that Sigma is very innovative and will continue to make better products, so maybe by the time I can get back out in the real world, they'll have an fp 2 that will tick every box for me.

If you do a CST, the values shouldn't clip. All of Resolve's processing is 32 bit float, so you only get clipping if you do an operation that has a hard ceiling or floor, like applying a LUT. I processed all my HLG XT3 footage with a CST to linear -> WB -> CST to Rec709 and never got any clipping. That is to say, it visually clipped in the monitor, but the data was still there are was operated on properly Really you should never use a LUT for transforming color space unless you are forced to by poorly designed software. Even a 64x64x64 LUT has only 262,144 entries -- a frighteningly small number compared to 16 million 8-bit YUV colors. The lower resolution your adjustment has, the less you can do before showing artifacts. And going from Log or HLG to linear is a massive adjustment. Maybe? I guess if it looks good I don't really care if it's exactly precise. I just know that the typical method that some other software uses, which is to apply scalar gain to the gamma-encoded RGB values, looks really bad. I agree. I don't think they are "there yet" for general use by any working professional, but are certainly one of the most exciting camera companies to watch right now. They have little problems, like needing 2 dongles for timecode, no SDI, weird audio clipping problems (possibly fixed in firmware? I haven't tested), and messy menus. But their core product is so far ahead of any of their competition, many people are willing to put up with it. I'm sure their next generation will be great.

@kye 1. White balance is just linear gain on R G and B channels. I don't know the formulas for deriving Kelvin and Tint values. So after CST to linear, you could adjust gain values until it "looks right" and it should be correct though you don't know the Kelvin/Tint values--(if you're editing footage that doesn't have the original values in metadata, that wouldn't be possible anyway). Personally, I've found Resolve's WB values work as expected after a CST to linear. No idea if it's mathematically sound as proper linear gain at that point, but I did some basic tests comparing to in camera WB and it looked right to me. But now that I have an M4, I can just use WB sliders on the plugin and save some steps in the node graph as well. 2. I haven't heard that and am not sure how/if it changed. I've barely touched a physical camera since Covid broke out, so my Resolve 17 use has been solely for editing animations.

@majoraxisJust noting for those curious... The color plugin doesn't use LUT's, it uses color transforms. The nice part is it transforms to linear color before applying your adjustment, and then out to whatever you specify. So the white balance and exposure adjustments are actually correct, instead of incorrectly applied to non-linear data. Also by not using LUTs, it has none of the resolution or clipping problems that they would bring. The color plugin is another great reason to use Z Cam--outside of using Blackmagic color in Blackmagic's software, it's one of the best ways to maintain proper color management. (Pro-tip: for any footage, convert to linear for WB adjustments! It's the reason why "raw allows WB adjustments"... really being Raw has nothing to do with it, it's just that it's linear so it's mathematically correct. That and no compression artifacts, in the case of lossless raw.)

Ah yes, I was wondering if this was a bot.

If I had $1k to spend on a photo/video hybrid, I'd go with a used XT3. They are easy to find in the $850-$900 range. Directly compared to the NX1 (same sensor as the NX500), the XT3 has more detailed video, much more dynamic range, lower rolling shutter, much better ISO performance, and a larger variety of good color profiles, all of which look great. Photos have slightly fewer MP, but other than that there are no downsides for photography in my experience. I'm not a fan of the XT3's ergonomics, but I think it's pretty similar to the NX500. Samsung's menus are better though. The downside though is the screen doesn't flip out, so it's not ideal for vlogging. Having not used any of the cameras you listed: - Sony ZV1 and G7X have a fixed lens. That would be pretty limiting. If you wanted, for example, to have a macro shot in a vlog, any interchangeable lens camera can do that with a cheap extension tube, but you'd be out of luck with a fixed lens. - M50 has a massive crop in 4k. I would consider this a 1080p only camera. Canon's are usually pretty reliable and easy to use, but I wouldn't want a 1080p camera at this point, not for that price. - Sony A6100 might be okay, but I've really disliked the A6xxx series. But honestly not a bad option. I would rather have the NX500 than an A6100 though, to be completely honest. - Fuji XT200 would be good, if you want to save off the XT3. It has a flip out screen as well. This might be my pick from your list for vlogging and photography. Might want to check the AF performance reviews though, as that's not something I'm familiar with on this model.

The bolded part is the catch unfortunately. Definitely need to be able to monitor it. Also it's over twice the price per channel. Maybe worth it for remote monitoring and remote start/stop, but not for a glorified bodypack recorder. Might as well use a Tascam DR10 with the safety track.