KnightsFan

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.

He must have a quiet voice. Mine have hard clipped several times, not even really shouting but just with actors talking with a bit of force. And it appears that the gain settings are applied to the output, so there's no way to mitigate clipping at the transmitter at all. Hopefully. Either Rode or Deity. Seriously all the they need is 32 bit float recording on the transmitter and it's an instant buy, professional or not. I can work around everything else, internal storage/batteries, non-locking connector, and even the weird looping recording.

Good to know. That seems kind of pointless, to be honest. Some real baffling decisions have been made with this product. 32 bit... from a 24 bit source. Backup track... after it's digitally clipped at the transmitter. Well, so much for my excitement. This is another baffling design choice. Have you compared to the original Wireless Go? The original definitely does NOT keep from hard clipping an actor with a bit of energy. If they didn't fix that, then my guess is these aren't intended for anything other than interviews speaking at conversational levels.

Ah, that would be a pity. If true then probably won't be useful for me, as I've had no issues with dropouts in my use case. Though the safety track would get to the same place, if it can do that on the transmitter side. It just means that the data, whether 16 bit, 24 bit, or 32, has not been compressed, for example into MP3. If 24 bit (god forbid 16 bit!) then it will have the same digital dynamic range and potential clipping as other recorders, no matter what you export. Maybe it can autocombine the safety track? That would get the same results, but offloading processing from realtime into post, since that's what any 32 bit recorder does already.

If it has backup recording on the transmitter, then reliability won't be as much of a deal breaker. I have the Wireless Go I. They've been 100% reliable at short distances, but I haven't used them at their limits. I have found them to sound fine. I've never done head to heads, but the results I got were every bit as good as from G3's and UWP's with kit mics... though it's not a direct comparison since it was different conditions, different actors, etc. I guess the takeaway is that they aren't bad by any means, sound-wise. One big disadvantage is that there is no locking 3.5mm connector on Go's though.

Whoa... why was 32 bit not more prominent on the news sites? Definitely going to get one of these at some point if it performs well in reviews. I wonder if the ADC actually has the headroom to take advantage of 32 bit though. It's easy to clip the Wireless Go 1 and as far as I could tell, the gain on the original only affects the output from the receiver. I also wonder how they got around the patents though, but as long as it works and is legal, it doesn't matter to me! I assume some of those quirks, like the loop recording, have to do with it?

Oh wow, I assumed that it could only record when transmission was disabled and vice versa. But that quote makes it seem like it's simultaneous? Maybe if the time stamps of the files don't match it gets around the patent? It says it starts recording as soon as it's connected, so I guess that would mean no start/stop button. I have no idea though. I'm certainly going to look out for more information, because that's a crucial feature! Some of the news stories also mentioned safety track recording as well, but I didn't see if that was on the recorder or output from the receiver. If it can record normal and -20 db safety track on the transmitter, while transmitting... instant buy.

That's not my point at all. Ideally a class will provide the best equipment possible. It's just not feasible for many film programs to have enough "higher end" cameras for large classes. Having high fidelity cameras doesn't hinder an instructor from teaching or grading composition and lighting, and narrative if the class covers that. Meh, it's not that I really care since I'm not getting one of these either way, I just think that there's disproportionate dislike towards EF mounts, compared to what's actually useful. It feels like car snobs talking about how stick shifts are marginally better when most consumers just want to drive from point A to B.

@tupp By software failure, I mean that if you have an existing protocol, like L, and translate to another protocol, such as EF, there is the very real chance that not every lens and camera will work. For example, Viltrox's EF to M43 adapter can control aperture, but not autofocus. Some lenses don't work at all. Adapters between different manufacturers will always have that risk. RF to EF is much safer, since the same company could make firmware updates on both ends to fix bugs that they missed in testing. I think that RF would be the only good option. E, L, and M43 would have a very high chance of failure in some combinations of adapters and lenses. I also suspect Canon isn't licensing RF to Blackmagic. As for mechanical failure, adding support screws would solve it, but would also require 1st party adapters since there is no standard for it. Z Cam did it, to their credit. I just don't know if it would really sell enough extra units to offset the cost. How many people do you really think would have bought on in L mount, but not EF? If Sony allowed it, E might have added some sales since there are numerous E mount lenses, but if you're targeting users who use EF lenses... I don't think the EF mount is a big hindrance.

There's a large swath of people who just want things to work with absolutely no hassle. I have friends who are very good at making movies--better than me, in fact--and are making a living from their art, but would be unable to go on ebay and buy a vintage lens because they can't wrap their head around adapters, and would end up ordering something incompatible. And personally, if I'm adapting to EF anyway... I don't mind an EF mount. I see no reason to add another point of mechanical and software failure. The chances of me ever needing a different mount are vanishingly small. Given the option, I'd probably go with a shallower flange for the exclusive reason of boosting to FF, if I ever wanted to. I'm just saying it's not a deal breaker since I'm 99.9% going to using EF anyway. Yeah true, absolute beginner classes will be handing out fixed lens camcorders, not Blackmagics. But an intro to cinematography class, or anything beyond the "Intro to Film & Video" lecture definitely could. I worked on 4(?) undergrad/grad thesis films in the past 5 years that used blackmagic cameras, and every one of them would have had an easier time with the P6K compared to the 2.5k's and Ursa minis that we did use. I'm not sure it's useful either to first learn about front filters, batteries, rigs, and rigamarole. It's not necessary to learning the art of filmmaking, and it's certainly something that can be taught if there is an interest. It's like asking screenwriting students to start out with typewriters.

In my opinion, this looks like an absolutely wonderful camera for people who want good images without complex rigs. Most of us here are very tech minded and love adapters, and external rig parts, but I don't think this style camera is aimed at us. No adapters, no front-of-lens ND filters, no rigged batteries (if you use the grip), no external monitor or recorder. I'm sure many schools will be buying these. Simple enough for intro classes, don't need to teach students how to rig it up just to use it, but still makes great images. IBIS would make it more handheld-friendly in some cases, sure, but would also increase cost. I suspect IBIS requires more engineering, R&D, and QC than any feature Blackmagic has. Add IBIS and the price goes up. For any planned shoot, a gimbal does a better job anyway. Even a wide set of handles with good balance makes up for it.