barefoot_dp

I'm not currently a Sony user but am looking at adding an FX30 as well (mostly for use in a waterhousing). If that's how people react when they see you without a Sony, it just shows how much Canon dropped the ball in the video department. They were the go-to for DSLR video since the 5DmkII, to the point where EF lens ownership was pretty much universal even among FS7 shooters. Of course the R5 seems to be a decent come back but they've got a lot of ground to claw back now.

I think we're at the point where the image from most new cameras is good enough. Most pros in the mid-sector (corporate, lifestyle, web videos, social content, docs, some commercials, etc) understand that once you hit a certain level of image quality, other factors are far more important. They'll be more concerned about things like: Can I hand the footage off to another editor/agency and they'll know exactly how to handle it? Can I hire eight of them locally at short notice for a multi-cam shoot? Does it still work if I need to shoot something that's not my regular style (this is where the Sony really shines as the FX6 is so versatile)? Will most AC's or 2nd shooters I hire know the camera well already? Are producers going to specifically be looking for owner/ops with this camera? If my lens gets smashed, can I find a replacement to buy/borrow/rent pretty quickly? These are the questions that form the difference between quality output, or a profitable business. These are the reasons why Sony dominates this particular market segment right now. The point I was making is that, unless you're providing all of these things to a user as well, then it's going to take a lot more than just offering 8K or "better colour" in order to convince them to buy something else instead. Pure image output matters more in the higher and lower ends. On the lower end, a lot of the logistical problems disappear as you're only every concerned about yourself, your own camera and your own workflow. And at the higher end, budgets allow for cameras that answer all the questions above while also providing the very best IQ possible. Panasonic probably realise this and know that trying to make an FX6 competitor would be an uphill battle.

Exclusively using it might be the reason you've had no problems. I can get it to look nice, but I can never get it to look "right" next to all the other cameras.

Random colours way too saturated. Really muddy shadows. Waxy skin tones. A simultaneous green and magenta tint to different parts of the image (how is that even possible?). And it always seems kind of hazy, as though there was condensation on the lens the whole time or something. This is with multiple different cameras and operators, both with log and various colour profiles, across different projects and in different lighting conditions and climates (from San Francisco to Sumatra). The first time I came across S1H footage was as the post supervisor on a series in Hawaii and I honestly thought it was a condensation issue. I was constantly checking his camera for signs of fog, even got him to change filter sets entirely in case that was the issue.

To each their own, but S1H has been one of my least favourite images to work with in post. That probably comes down to not enough time spent with it, but that is precisely where the FX6 hammers it - every decent editor/colourist has worked with S-log enough to be able to get a pretty decent image out of it. That matters in professional workflows, and no producer wants to hire a shooter who's going to have their post team scratching their heads or wasting time learning a whole new colour pipeline. Maybe the Panasonic CAN deliver a better image with careful grading, but 19/20 editors will deliver a better result in less time with the FX6. I agree that FX6 is only ok under $10K, but that's because it's actually playing under $6K now. It's only real competitor is the C70 but that's a big step away ergonomically. Other than that the BMPCC 6K/Z-Cam offer some similar capability but lack the out of the box functionality. It's already at a price point that is pretty hard to undercut.

I have no doubt they could exceed the FX6 as well. But that won't necessarily entice people away from the Sony ecosystem. The FX6 absolutely nails it's demographic. Those users don't want 8K because it's overkill and a pain for corporate stuff. They don't need raw because it's not necessary. They don't need better/different colour science because at this point everyone (pro) knows how to deal with Sony footage. They don't need indestructible build quality as they're not renting it out. They don't want it much smaller/lighter because then the ergonomics suck. So were could Panasonic offer something that is better than the Sony that the users are actually asking for? Really the only thing left is price - and even then it has to be SIGNIFICANT because (a) there's so many more Sony lenses around so you can find them much cheaper used, meaning the price of the system can still be lower even if the cam is priced higher, (b) the FX6 earns most shooters more money by being so heavily requested, so it's a better investment. They can easily make a better camera, it's just very hard to make a more attractive camera.

The only way Panasonic can compete with the FX6 is on price. And it would have to be a significant difference to sway people away from the Sony. Putting all your R&D budget towards making a camera that is just as good as the FX6, just so that you can sell it for significantly less, is a hard pitch.

Not specifically Black Friday... but most retailers have had big reductions on Godox gear for the past couple of weeks. You can get a Knowled M600D for the same price as most ~300W units. Wish I'd waited a few extra days before pulling the trigger on my Forza 720 - I could've paid about 45% less for a very similar light.

I thought this was an area we might have seen a bit more jockeying in by now - especially as the flagship model battle has entered 1200W territory, I thought 600W might become the new budget battleground. I couldn't wait much longer so folded and bought a Forza 720. I'm hoping we see the Nanlite FS line get extended into the 600W or even 900W range. They've really hit a great price/performance/feature point with those ones. I think the FS300 is one of the best value lights on the market, and if they can hit that same balance with higher output, it'll be a big winner.

I 2nd the 2 above - Wandering DP and Epic Light Media. The Aputure youtube channel have a lot of good tutorials and "Gaffer and Gear" has some fantastic info on lighting too. Also - probably even more importantly if you're trying to make a living out of it - research SEO (particularly local SEO). Having an effective website that actually generates leads is far more important for making a living than knowing how to shoot like Daniel Schiffer, or how many Skypanels were used on the latest Audi commercial.

Is this simply because the only (or the most convenient) lights they have are fresnels? Or is there some other reason. Yes, as I said I do use panels as well. But this discussion is about getting equivalent output/quality as a COB keylight with a large softbox - this light can't compete in that respect. Doesn't mean it doesn't have it's purpose. Yes, it's all relative. But the original question did quantify what soft light means in this particular discussion - the equivalent of a 4x4 silk or large softbox in very close proximity to a talking subject (so with the exception of some parrots, that would suggest a human-sized subject!). Yes, as I mentioned you can do that, but not at equivalent prices to most COB lights that I am aware of (any decent 300W LED panels under $500?). If budget wasn't a consideration I'd just get an LS1200D rather that wondering what the most output I can get out of my current lights is!

Thanks Mark. In regards to points 1 & 3, and taking in to account Scotchtape's comments above, how would a fresnel compare to a bare COB (with a dish)? Would you not run in to the same issue Scotchtape mentions, that you need to back the Fresnel further from the wall or scrim in order to get an acceptable sized beam - resulting in more light loss than if you'd just put the bare COB closer to the bounce/scrim?

He literally says in that video that the light is too harsh on its own. I own and use a couple of 1x1s and they are simply not large enough for a soft key. They're great for backlights, quick 'n' dirty portable/field/battery setups, or even as an eye light outdoors, but if you want soft light they come nowhere near competing with a COB light pushed through a softbox or scrim (at equivalent prices). Of course you can use a panel with a scrim or reflector too but most simply do not have the power. It's fine for his indoor setup, where he doesn't have to balance any ambient light and has a fairly tight frame so the light can be just a few feet from his face, but I doubt the setup he's demonstrating in that video would work in very many real scenarios (eg setting up an interview in front of a window in a cluttered office space).

I'm yet to find an affordable LED panel that offers the same size source/softness as a 4x4 diffusion frame (let alone a larger butterfly!).

Hi All, Just contemplating adding a few bits and pieces to my lighting kit and was wondering about fresnel lenses. From what I've read (ie what is advertised) they actually increase the light output over the bare bulb by focusing it all on one place - does this mean a COB LED would give more output with a fresnel pointed towards say a 4x4 silk, than it would just mounting a softbox directly on to the light? Or am I missing something? I can see that being a big benefit, not only for getting the most out of the lights but also being able to put them further away from the subject where fan noise will not be a problem (while still having the diffusion nice and close to the subject). Anybody got practical experience with this?