A_Urquhart

3 hours ago, kye said:

Any idea what the differences are from a technical perspective?  I've never heard of dual base ISO as distinct from native ISO.

Sorry, I didn't quite word it correctly. 

The Venice, FX9 and FX30 (apparently) all have true Dual Base ISO sensors. This means that at ISO 800 and 2500 (for the FX30), there is the exact same noise and dynamic range.

The FX6 and FX3 on the other hand have 'dual sensitivities' of 800 and 12800 but 12800 has more noise and less dynamic range than ISO800. They are not exactly the same. 

Article here explaining it better. https://sonycine.com/articles/what-is-dual-base-iso-/

Good article on the FX30. Sorry if it's already been posted.

https://www.xdcam-user.com/category/fx30/

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Yeah seems like once you equalize for DoF being the same on both the FX30 and FX3, then the FX3 has maybe just a half stop better low light than the FX30. Not much difference really between them if you'll be shooting at ISO values the FX30 does. 

For a lot of my use cases, I'll be using my old Metabone Speedbooster that I had for the FS7 on the FX30 with Leica R glass. Extra stop of light back and FF to boot. Makes the FX30 super flexible.

In addition, the Speedbooster means that the 4k 120p mode is now roughly APS-C crop. Winning!

I'm also liking the announced Meike EF to E mount adaptor with built in Vari ND. If the quality of the ND is good, I can see the FX30 replacing my 2 BMD P6K Pro's!

7 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

I mean it isn't terribly hard to throw on an ND especially with the FX6 where its built in. Easier to take away light than to add it. 

Doesn't quite work that way. There are plenty of times when shooting with the FX6 that I've found I need more ISO than 800 but really don't need 12,800. 12800 is not a native ISO on the FX6 sensor and there is noise. FX6 is Dual Base ISO...not dual native ISO. A lot of the times, I don't want to shoot at 12800 and use ND when what I really need is an ISO of around 3200.

For professional use, the closer native ISO's of the FX30 are far more usable. Sure, if you want to shoot by the light of the moon just because you can, then go for it but usually there is no need. Saying that, the FX30 looks quite usable at 12,800 especially with a bit of noise reduction in post.

ProRes422 is my flavour of choice. For most of the broadcast work I do which is sports documentary pieces the production house still prefers 1080p most of the time due to the fast turn around nature of these. We shoot during the week and the pieces get broadcast at the half time break during the sports telecast. 

For TVC's it's usually ProRes422 in 4K unless there is VFX involved and then it's ProRes 422HQ or very rarely BRAW.

For some corporate work I do that I cut myself, I was shooting ProRes422LT until I did a shoot where the wide shot of an interview setup that was on a motorised slider contained a lot of foliage and I found the image did not hold up well so I have gone to shooting ProRes422 for corporates as well.

10 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Has anybody seen any comparisons between the FX3 and FX30 at 12800 ISO?

As I have heard that the FX30 is a true dual ISO sensor, with both 800 & 12800 being equally clean. 

But the second sensitivity of the FX3 of 2500 ISO (i.e. basically the same as the FX30's once you adjust for equal DoF on both cameras!) I've heard isn't as clean as its lower base ISO? 

ProAV TV did a ISO comparison of the FX30, FX3 and Pocket6K Pro. Search their channel on YouTube.

On the FX6, I find the second base ISO of 12,800 to be too high. Too big a gap between the native 800 and 12,800 plus, I really never need to shoot anywhere near 12,800! 

FX30 dual native ISO's of 800 and 2500 is similar to the Venice that has 500 and 2500. much more usable range for those that shoot with lights when it's pitch black.

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Hundreds of thousands of euros???

Oh no, I bet ARRI spent tens of millions on development of the new ARRI 35 camera!

 

 

When I said 'camera' I meant 'sensor'. Even so, I'm sure it was far into the millions.

Not really sure what the last few pages have been about? Are we trying to justify an APS-C sensor as being good enough for a Netflix or Theatrical release?

Maybe Arri should weigh in here on why they would have spent hundreds of thousands of euro on developing a new S35 camera that is not good enough for the big time. Maybe every rental house I know, that all have ordered and received their new S35 sensor Arri camera could also weigh in here? With so much $$ at stake, you'd think they all would have done some research to learn that nothing less than full frame is really acceptable today. 

If only Arri, the rental houses and top DP's watched YouTube reviewers .....a lot of money could have been saved by not buying or even developing a useless 'crop' sensor camera.  

😉

Also, when working professionally....it's not just about which camera has the best specs. It's about which camera is most accepted in a given workflow. 

For the broadcast documentary work I do, Sony is king here. Producers/Editors prefer working with two Sony Cameras than one Sony and one Blackmagic for example. Same workflow, same codecs etc. FX6 and FX9 are hugely popular so a Sony B Cam makes sense. 

For the higher end commercial work I do, It's pretty much all Arri. Surprisingly, when needing a B or C Camera for Car rigging or just general crash cam use, Blackmagic Pocket 6K Pro is is accepted my many. An FX3 or FX6 or even the FX30 just wouldn't fly with production houses shooting Arri but Blackmagic does. Not just because of the brand of camera, it's about the colour science, the codec (ProRes and BRAW more accepted in commercial world, XAVC more accepted in Broadcast world) etc. Sure, you can match the Pocket6K colour wise to the FX6 but if the production house doesn't have to in the first place because the two cameras are matched out of the sensor then they are going to prefer that workflow.  Broadcast content won't go through as extensive color grading as higher end commercial work so giving them two matched cameras saves them time in post.

So while many YouTubers lament over tech specs and pixel peeping, to most professionals what's technically the better camera is not what's most important. It's what camera will get you the most work and to get more work (apart from natural talent obviously) it helps if you have equipment that fit's the production houses workflows. My personal camera for holidays/kids shot is a Fuji X-T4 and I have been with Fuji since the X-T1 as I love them but they never make it out as a Cam because production don't know Fuji despite it being the better choice for some uses.

7 hours ago, kye said:

I often watch YT in various resolutions, from 4K to 480p, and I've noticed that the 1080p quality can be hugely variable.  Some content looks great and other stuff looks absolutely atrocious.  The only thing that seems to predict it is the quality of the camera, however we all know that better cameras are typically used by people who pay more attention to things like uploading at an increased bitrate etc, so it may not be the camera but something else from the image pipeline.

If they went 1080p-limited it would be great to see a bump in the associated bitrate, although I suspect that wouldn't happen.  For some reason everyone seems to allocate constant bitrate per pixel, completely ignoring the fact that screen size is a completely independent variable. 

Completely agree, higher bitrate 1080p over 4K

10 hours ago, PPNS said:

reading this forum is so frustrating. why would you ever use a speedbooster on a s35 sensor (or ever really)? it's the most standard format for moving images. if you need "proper full frame" on s35, just shoot a stop wider than you would on FF, and open up your iris an extra stop, maybe add a stop of ND if you're clipping. that's it. there's nothing special about this sensor size.

if you want a 24mm t/2.8 on FF, just use the 18mm of the same lens set, and set it to t/2 to match the dof on the fx30 or xh2s. if you want to match a 24mm at t/1.5, then sure, that's most likely not possible, but it's not gonna look very nice anyway, is it?

how about just using the right lens set for the right camera, and being a bit more thoughtful, instead of bulking up your camera with oversized lenses and a low quality layer of glass in between?

how often do you need a dof thinner than t/2.8 on s35 (or t/4 on ff) for that matter? if most of the image is blurred out mush, i tend to assume its not worth watching anyway.

Django pretty much covered all my responses but I'll emphasise that a Metabones speed booster is not a low quality piece of glass. People lump it in the same category as a lens doubler which is trying to stretch an image out and therefore you end up losing light and image quality. I'd bet my cameras that no one would notice when I had the speed booster in when it comes to image quality. The speed booster actually helps the image quite a bit and the image is indestinquishable from one shot without a speed booster (again, when it comes to image quality). Just because there is extra glass involved, does not mean the quality is being lowered.

Do you judge the quality of a lens based on how many elements it has? Surely a lens with 17 glass elements will be of lower quality than one with 15 elements? No. Extra glass does not always mean lower quality. 

Most of my work is with the FX6 and FX9 using Leica R lenses that have been cinevised. These lenses are tiny despite being full frame and the speed booster really doesn't add much bulk to the whole package. To be honest, these new FX3's (and therefore FX30's) are tiny bodies to start with and I actually prefer bulking them up a little to make them easier to handle when handheld. I also have the Sigma cine 18-35 and 50-100 and it will be great to be able to use these APS-C lenses as I love them both and not completely sold on FF for every job. 

I'm actually looking forward to the possibility of Sony (maybe!) releasing an FX60!!

As Django mentioned, The speed booster also helps with the lower ISO performance of the APC-C sensor compared to FF.  I don't shoot lowlight much and really never need anything close to ISO12,800 but the speed booster essentaily gives the FX30 native ISO's of 1600 and 5000. I like the much closer spaced native ISO's of this camera over the FF Sony sensors. 

No 4K on YouTube? No great loss. Nothing wrong with HD.

2 hours ago, Django said:

 But the biggest competitor to the FX30 is imo A7IV. Only couple hundred dollars more extra and you get a FF camera that has a S35 crop mode with less rolling shutter and much better low light sensitivity. Plus an EVF and full photo capability. Same 10-bit codec. Same log profiles. 

I

I'm not up to speed on Sony's A7IV specs but can it receive Timecode and output a custom LUT over HDMI? These are two pretty important features for me that I use daily on set. 

1 hour ago, kye said:

For me, if we're talking 'cinema' here, the biggest difference is in lenses and their coverage.  If you're buying lenses then the S35 lenses from Sony are smaller/cheaper/lighter, and if you're renting then the zillions of S35 cine lenses out there must be cheaper to rent than those with FF coverage.

I understand that the comments from others here also discuss the crop modes of FF cameras, which is also a logical comparison.

Words in the English language are constantly evolving, being co-opted for good and bad, etc, but I'm wondering if a new definition is evolving?

If you take an enormous step back, then you see that there's roughly the following categories for cameras:

• Smartphones
• Point-and-shoot (integrated lenses)
• Consumer video cameras (hand-held, integrated lens)
• Professional video cameras (ENG style)
• Hybrid mirrorless (often photo-first designs, typically quite ergonomic, no support for rigs)
• Cinema cameras (video-first or video-only, integrated fans, mounting points, etc)

Looking at things from this perspective, which is really the perspective of the 'content creator' who shoots with a variety of tools, the FX30 is more akin to a cinema camera.  If you're someone that exists solely in the world of the professional sets, the fact that Sony call something a "cinema" camera won't fool you at all and is a pretty inconsequential label to add to it.

You could make the argument that cameras like the R5 and GH6 and FX30 might be best put into an additional category rather than the ones I listed above, but if you had to choose then lots of cameras without these 'essential' features fit much better in the last category than any other.

Fair points! 

I still stand by my argument that anything that is labelled as a cinema camera MUST have shutter angle. There is absolutely no reason for Sony to omit this. 

How about Sony put Shutter angle only on the next A1 camera in both photo and video modes. Then listen to the photographers kick up a stink. They just wouldn't do it!

7 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

I'm agreeing with you. The FX30, if it's going to don the 'Cinema' tag, should have shutter angle and DCI. Two fundamentals of cinema shooting. 

I was merely saying that this proves the term 'cinema' camera is nothing more than marketing nonsense according to the manufacturers who tell us these are 'cinema cameras' but then omit very core fundamentals of Cinema shooting. 

Sony should be applauded for this camera but it should be a slow clap until they add shutter angle and DCI. 

Continued........

For me, 70% of my work requires Sony cameras which are generally FX9 and FX6 so this will be a B-Cam to those and will probably live on a gimbal. I prefer the APS-C sensor of the FX30 to the Full frame one on the FX3. I can't put Super35 lenses on the FX3 as doing so forces you to shoot HD when in crop mode. 

I can put both Super35 AND Full Frame lenses on the FX30 and with an EF to E mount speed booster I get proper Full frame. To me, It's a much more versatile camera regardless of price. 

I also have the P6K Pro and was disappointed when it was announced to have an EF mount negating the use of many adaptors and speed boosters. The 6K Pro gets used as a B Camera to Arri Alexa and Amira so I will keep it but I feel that BMD is going to have to step up it's game now that Sony has the FX30. Sure, It doesn't natively shoot RAW but most productions still don't want BRAW so I'm in ProRes most of the time. 

Will be interesting to do a side by side....

4 hours ago, Django said:

 

Not true: Canon R5C has shutter angle, Panasonic GH series also. FX3/FX30 are half-ass attempts and not 100% worthy of the FX line imo. R5C remains the benchmark with full cinema line OS.

I'm agreeing with you. The FX30, if it's going to don the 'Cinema' tag, should have shutter angle and DCI. Two fundamentals of cinema shooting. 

I was merely saying that this proves the term 'cinema' camera is nothing more than marketing nonsense according to the manufacturers who tell us these are 'cinema cameras' but then omit very core fundamentals of Cinema shooting. 

Sony should be applauded for this camera but it should be a slow clap until they add shutter angle and DCI. 

On 10/1/2022 at 2:54 AM, DFason said:

I've now used Sony for years. I still dont understand why they can't add shutter angle. At least give us 1/48 instead of 1/50. My biggest gripe is the motion cadence. 

And they have the nerve to call it a 'Cinema Camera'. I mean, one of the fundamentals of cine shooting is shutter angle but then.....we all know these mirrorless cameras that get called 'Cinema Cameras' aren't really proper cinema cameras. Just a phrase penned my marketing suits really. This is a video camera!

Anyway, rant over......I think the FX30 looks great. With the EF to E Mount speed booster I have left over from my FS7 days, I can easily make this camera full frame if needed so at the price point, I'm not really seeing anything not to like about it. 

On 6/9/2022 at 1:29 AM, Jay60p said:

Yes, need more footage from people who know what they are doing.

For example, only one demonstration of the new 18-120 zoom specifically seems to show

parfocal zooming when in manual focus:

It needs to stay in focus with AF off, otherwise any AF camera with an AF zoom could be called "parfocal", (until the

AF jumps, and then it isn't.)

All the other Youtube demos I've seen obviously have the autofocus on, which shows occasional small vibrations in the image as the focus-by-wire motors are activated.

Same with the old exposure stepping. It is in all the other youtube demos except this one.

Need more reliable demos.

 

It's a Fly by wire lens isn't it?

If so, then no matter if it's in AF or MF motors 'could' make the adjustment even if it's in MF. 

Either way, this looks like a great lens for video. Well done Fuji.

30 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I think the difficult part with ALEXAs is just all the factors adding up, by itself any one isn't a deal breaker though. 

But they are:

No easy access to quick audio changes. (not true for the AMIRA)

No built in ND filters. (not true for the Mini cameras and AMIRA)

The heavy weight, which in turns makes all the support equipment heavier too! (Although the Mini cameras are again of course smaller, and the AMIRA is somewhat slightly slimmer than the full size ALEXAs by a tad)

Needing a human chain of batteries supplied to it to keep it on and running (I exaggerate a little! ha, but yeah, the battery demands are quite a bit heavier than anything you'd be used to).

No info/controls on the operator side (except for the AMIRA).

So the ALEXA 35 with the Sonosax module mostly addresses all of those points, except for the battery demands which has got heavier than ever. 

The Alexa 35 should build up quite a bit smaller than the Mini for general shooting. The problem with the Mini is that it wasn't designed to be operated on the shoulder or even on sticks. It was a small body for Steadicam, Gimbal or Drone shots. Thus, to make it work, you needed to add a cage and battery plate but due to the design of the body, the battery plate is always quite far away from the back of the camera. The new Alexa 35 doesn't have this issue so should be a much better form factor despite the possible weight increase in batteries.

Battery plate directly mounts to new Alexa 35

Alexa Mini solution: (Not so Mini any more)

On 6/3/2022 at 11:11 AM, Andrew Reid said:

The design of the hybrid screen / EVF module is extremely lovely.

But is there a way to get rid of the unsightly cable?

You'd have thought it could be attached directly without wires.

It's easy to clean that cable up with

some clever cable management (unlike the photo). A good 1st AC will sort that out quick smart. Having a cable means it can be adjusted and placed anywhere on the camera quickly and easily. 

9 hours ago, kye said:

IIRC you've said in the past that the Alexa needed multiple people to really operate it (or at least that it wasn't a good fit for solo operators) - I remember reading somewhere in the ARRI marketing that they wanted the 35 to be an all-around camera good for all kinds of work. 

Do you think its design supports that?  Would this be usable for a solo operator?

The current Alexa Mini is pretty easy to solo operate really. Such a great menu system and most of what you need is accesible by the buttons on the EVF/screen

This may have been mentioned already but I genuinely am curious about the following..... Why isn't anyone here seriously complaining about the lack of IBIS, Auto focus or the fact that it isn't Full Frame? Is it because the camera is so far out of reach price wise that you just don't care? 

So, when other companies make cameras that are not too far away from this image wise such as Z-Cam, Blackmagic etc (I know the Alexa trumps them image wise, but I have used Pocket Cameras as B_Cams to Alexa Minis in the past without too much issue), do people complain that those camera don't have IBIS, AF and FF just because they are priced in reach of people who need those features without really realising who those cameras are aimed at? Is the Problem with other manufacturers the fact that they price their cameras too cheap?

We seem willing to accept the lack of features in a $75,000 camera but when someone comes along and gives us 70% of that camera in a much cheaper package, we wine about it not having feature XY&Z.

Not wanting to stir the pot, just genuinely interested as to how people think.

On 12/28/2021 at 5:02 AM, PannySVHS said:

Hallo dear friends,

in these rough times we all are happy to enjoy calm and joyful moments of comfort and peace of mind. The silly camera game belongs in that category of escaping the harsh reality once in a while. Even if we don´t own, rent nor use cameras a lot, we still like to fancy and, well, debate them.

I am myself guilty of owning a Sony PMW F3 and having not used it other than two lazy blinks out of my window. For one and a half year, nothing, still nothing filmed yet! I bought a BMMCC a couple weeks ago and have only shot some test footage once. Owning two FS700, having used one of them (or was it the other:) only twice in two years! My Shogun Flame is still waiting for its cage, because I dont wanna spend the money. It´s still being unused as a recorder and as monitor. My S1 has performed a bit but not much. Lenses are an even worse story! Isco 16 2x unused, Tevidon lenses ununsed, Vivitar 90mm F2.5, Tokina 28-70 2.6 and so on!

And still I am asking myself about the Varicam LT, because of its rep as a "real" camera. I am fascinated by both, the underdog and affordable cameras and the notion of a real cinema camera like Alexa, Red cameras, Sony Cinealtas and Varicams.

So what do you think? Is the Varicam LT giving me so much more imagewise than a S1? What does it have over URSA Broadcast G2 or Mini Pro G1? Why do I fancy owning one, when not having used my other cameras for real? Two topics in one.:) cheers

Sounds like most of your gear is sitting unused. It doesn't really matter what you shoot nothing on, it will all look like nothing. 😜

Some nice images does not make a cinematographer (or DP).

Nice videography.....sure.

1 hour ago, kye said:

While the lines between videography and cinematography are continuing to blur, there are a number of aspects where the two differ greatly.  AF being one, and resolution being another.

The responses on almost all Internet forums quickly reveal that the membership are videographers, not cinematographers.  This makes sense, as the sheer quantity of video content (social media, weddings, corporates, marketing, most of TV productions, etc) overwhelms the amount of content created for cinematic release, probably by a factor of thousands or millions to one.

Agreed.

The lines are further blurred because 95% of people out there who call themselves ‘cinematographers’ really aren’t. They are videographers. 
There is so much more to cinematography than just pointing a camera…..just because you own a Red  doesn’t make you a ‘cinematographer’ but that’s a discussion for another post. 

Only took half a dozen posts to get on to AF......or lack thereof 🤦‍♂️

High end cinema cameras don't really need AF.

For a start, there aren't many lenses out there used in cinema that have internal focus motors. 

Secondly, there is a thing called a 1st AC or 'Focus Puller' that is usually on set when a camera of this calibre is used. 

Thirdly, there are plenty of manufacturers such as Arri, CineRT, Teradek RT, Preston etc etc that are working on and already provide AF in their lens control systems that CAN be used with manual cine lenses.

Pulling focus is part of the narrative, until a lens or AF System can read a script, I don't thing AF will be common in Cinema.

Lastly, Imagine watching a film on the big screen.......I would MUCH prefer to see the organic way a Focus puller finds focus to how many AF systems occasionally hunt and snap into focus. It would look awful on the big screen and extremely distracting.

I'm not against AF all together.....it has a time and a place but in a camera like this? I don't think so.

An autofocus system on a true cinema camera can be used to complement the Focus Puller and used in certain cases. It is part of the focus pullers tool kit and therefore I believe, that it should be incorporated into the lens control system rather than the camera itself. 

25 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 

Thus the Ronin 4D will only be used for very niche usages. 
 

 

There is a huge market that sits between high end cinema and DSLRs on RS2 Gimbals. The 4D will be perfect for that market.  It’s not niche. 
 

Again, the Lidar waveform is the feature I’m most excited about. I do a mix of operating and Focus Pulling probably around 30/70 respectively and this Lidar waveform is what I have asked other companies for.

DJI’s implementation looks amazing so I’d love for them to release a professional follow focus system based on this technology but with a hand unit that is more in line with ones from Arri, Preston or TeradekRT rather than the dinky systems dji has released in the past. 

26 minutes ago, kye said:

I guess what I'm saying is, it's a CINEMA camera.  Therefore, VIDEO shooters will fail to understand what it's for, why it's so expensive, and that it wasn't designed for them.  

 

Yep!

I don’t think the price would be considered expensive for what you get. 
let’s compare : 

- full frame camera body that records in ProRes or 6K RAW . Shall we compare it to Z Cam E2 F6? That’s $4000USD

- Ronin 2 gimbal $900

- Tilta float system (for stabilizing 4th axis) $1800

-5” 1000nit monitor (Shinobi) $300

- Lidar system (the one for RS2 is $200 but this looks much better) $200

So around $7200 for the above which is a much clumsier, bulkier setup. And  you would need to spend much more than that to get everything to interface so I’m going lean on this setup by not including things like ND filters as the 4D has internal)

The D4 6k is 7199 and it’s a much more complete and easy to use package. The biggest issue really is because it’s an all in one design, if you have an issue with the gimbal that means your camera is unusable as well and vice versa. Also, cameras date quicker than gimbals but it looks as you can replace the camera and gimbal assembly on these pretty easily so hopefully when dji release a new 12k (😝) sensor you can update just it and the gimbal assembly.