barefoot_dp

Everyone: Please Sony, give us an A7sIII with professional video features! If you do I will buy at least seven of them.
Sony: Ok, here it is!
Everyone: Meh it's just a rehashed A7sIII. This is lame and I'm not buying it. 

Why do you assume it's intentional crippling? If it's such an easy barrier to overcome, why has no other company done it yet? Maybe it's actually just beyond the current engineering and technological limitations, or not financially viable - but they want to give us the option to use it in some form anyway. 

Intentional crippling would be if they took the FX30 sensor, put it in the a6700 body and then DIDN'T include 4K120p. Then the same people screaming bloody murder about overheating issues would jump on here and complain about Sony intentionally withholding capabilities that they know the sensor has. You just can't win with some people.

As for making the limitations clear - who do you think writes the brief for all those Youtubers? That's how they make the limitations clear in 2023.

It's not a camera that interests me at all - It's not at all a professional cinema camera, so it's not for me. If other people can't afford a better alternative, then they'll have to learn to compromise. But to write off a camera that is not intended for your desired uses, because it's not capable of doing something no other competing camera can, is a little silly.

Why get so worked up about it then?

You clearly deflected the question as well; what other camera is there that offers 4K120 at that price? I can't think of any. Which means you're expecting Sony to solve a problem that nobody else has even attempted to (4K120p 10-bit in a very compact body at a very affordable price). The next cheapest (mirrorless) option I know of is the GH6, and to pull that off they had to have a smaller sensor, much larger body, and charge twice as much.

Looking at the videos so far it looks like overheating issues are limited to 4K120. So, if you ignore that mode entirely, you've still got a camera that is on par with the competition at that price, but with better AF. You just also have the option to occasionally get some shots at 4K120p.
And all this comes in a consumer photo camera. You can't be upset that a company won't blow their entire R'n'D budget trying to satisfy a few people who expect to be able to use it beyond what it is designed and advertised as (yet who won't buy it anyway).

I worked on medium-sized productions and have friends who worked on high-budget shows for HBO and Netflix. They only film RAW for VFX plates and everything else is in ProRes. 

Of all the high-end jobs I've worked on using Arri's, not one of them was shot in raw. And I've never shot a single raw clip on any of my ZCams. You'll get a much better end result by spending extra time focusing on production design and lighting than you will by switching in to raw mode - and bigger productions know this.

Prores is good enough for 95% of professional use (or 99% if 4444 is available). The people here who complain about any new camera that does not shoot raw are out of touch with reality.

Of all the high-end jobs I've worked on using Arri's, not one of them was shot in raw. And I've never shot a single raw clip on any of my ZCams. You'll get a much better end result by spending extra time focusing on production design and lighting than you will by switching in to raw mode - and bigger productions know this.

Prores is good enough for 95% of professional use (or 99% if 4444 is available). The people here who complain about any new camera that does not shoot raw are out of touch with reality.

Of all the high-end jobs I've worked on using Arri's, not one of them was shot in raw. And I've never shot a single raw clip on any of my ZCams. You'll get a much better end result by spending extra time focusing on production design and lighting than you will by switching in to raw mode - and bigger productions know this.

Prores is good enough for 95% of professional use (or 99% if 4444 is available). The people here who complain about any new camera that does not shoot raw are out of touch with reality.

Of all the high-end jobs I've worked on using Arri's, not one of them was shot in raw. And I've never shot a single raw clip on any of my ZCams. You'll get a much better end result by spending extra time focusing on production design and lighting than you will by switching in to raw mode - and bigger productions know this.

Prores is good enough for 95% of professional use (or 99% if 4444 is available). The people here who complain about any new camera that does not shoot raw are out of touch with reality.

If that works for Panasonic, then good on them. But the last company that did that got lambasted by just about everyone, with the common complaint being "They should just let us record until it overheats instead of artificially limiting it".

 I also think it's a bit laughable that you applaud Panasonic for releasing a camera with a limited 4K60p mode, in the same breath as critcising a camera that has a perfectly functioning 4K60p mode (according to reports so far). Seems like favouritism to me.
 
If someone tries to record a whole school play at 4K120p, that is user error.

If that works for Panasonic, then good on them. But the last company that did that got lambasted by just about everyone, with the common complaint being "They should just let us record until it overheats instead of artificially limiting it".

 I also think it's a bit laughable that you applaud Panasonic for releasing a camera with a limited 4K60p mode, in the same breath as critcising a camera that has a perfectly functioning 4K60p mode (according to reports so far). Seems like favouritism to me.
 
If someone tries to record a whole school play at 4K120p, that is user error.

If that works for Panasonic, then good on them. But the last company that did that got lambasted by just about everyone, with the common complaint being "They should just let us record until it overheats instead of artificially limiting it".

 I also think it's a bit laughable that you applaud Panasonic for releasing a camera with a limited 4K60p mode, in the same breath as critcising a camera that has a perfectly functioning 4K60p mode (according to reports so far). Seems like favouritism to me.
 
If someone tries to record a whole school play at 4K120p, that is user error.

Not sure it’s about ethics - at all. It’s profit. Want all day video? Buy an fx30/fx3/fx6. 
 
Want a hybrid ? Buy an a7iv/a6700/a7C 
5 years ago I’d be in shock to have these options and quality 
This
in fact I’d be happy getting the a6700 for hybrid use and if demands dictate more - grab a used fx30 for long form video. Best AF in the game, best DR at price points, best log profile at price point, easy single lens mount with cheap 3rd party options. 
 
as a non-paid user of these products I’m very happy with this

Why do you assume it's intentional crippling? If it's such an easy barrier to overcome, why has no other company done it yet? Maybe it's actually just beyond the current engineering and technological limitations, or not financially viable - but they want to give us the option to use it in some form anyway. 

Intentional crippling would be if they took the FX30 sensor, put it in the a6700 body and then DIDN'T include 4K120p. Then the same people screaming bloody murder about overheating issues would jump on here and complain about Sony intentionally withholding capabilities that they know the sensor has. You just can't win with some people.

As for making the limitations clear - who do you think writes the brief for all those Youtubers? That's how they make the limitations clear in 2023.

It's not a camera that interests me at all - It's not at all a professional cinema camera, so it's not for me. If other people can't afford a better alternative, then they'll have to learn to compromise. But to write off a camera that is not intended for your desired uses, because it's not capable of doing something no other competing camera can, is a little silly.

Why get so worked up about it then?

You clearly deflected the question as well; what other camera is there that offers 4K120 at that price? I can't think of any. Which means you're expecting Sony to solve a problem that nobody else has even attempted to (4K120p 10-bit in a very compact body at a very affordable price). The next cheapest (mirrorless) option I know of is the GH6, and to pull that off they had to have a smaller sensor, much larger body, and charge twice as much.

Looking at the videos so far it looks like overheating issues are limited to 4K120. So, if you ignore that mode entirely, you've still got a camera that is on par with the competition at that price, but with better AF. You just also have the option to occasionally get some shots at 4K120p.
And all this comes in a consumer photo camera. You can't be upset that a company won't blow their entire R'n'D budget trying to satisfy a few people who expect to be able to use it beyond what it is designed and advertised as (yet who won't buy it anyway).

Why get so worked up about it then?

You clearly deflected the question as well; what other camera is there that offers 4K120 at that price? I can't think of any. Which means you're expecting Sony to solve a problem that nobody else has even attempted to (4K120p 10-bit in a very compact body at a very affordable price). The next cheapest (mirrorless) option I know of is the GH6, and to pull that off they had to have a smaller sensor, much larger body, and charge twice as much.

Looking at the videos so far it looks like overheating issues are limited to 4K120. So, if you ignore that mode entirely, you've still got a camera that is on par with the competition at that price, but with better AF. You just also have the option to occasionally get some shots at 4K120p.
And all this comes in a consumer photo camera. You can't be upset that a company won't blow their entire R'n'D budget trying to satisfy a few people who expect to be able to use it beyond what it is designed and advertised as (yet who won't buy it anyway).

They already released the version that doesn't.
 

The obsession with IQ is getting out of hand here, 10bit, 12 bit, 14 bit seems to be negligible from the tests.  Story, set design, lighting, sound, music, framing, lenses, etc. are more important then bit depth imo. Possession of Hannah grace 8bit 422(a7sii), 8bit 422 knock knock (1dc) and others released in festivals, streaming platforms proves that.  Obviously people are biased and want the best possible and that’s great but 14 bit image isn’t everything to the overall average audience (same with 8k).  All things subjective, filmmakers can shoot with whatever they want.

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.

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.

Tell me about it, I was there for the whole DSLR video revolution. But then Sony came in with the mirrorless FF revolution with A7S in 2015 and boy did it take long for Canon to join in and catch up. EOS R (2018) had that weird 1.7x crop. Then R5/R6 (2020) were plagued with overheat issues. I mean it basically took until 2022 (R5C/R6ii/R7) to start having non overheating no compromise hybrids from Canon. Like we're just finally there in Canon land, so yeah of course they lost a lot of ground in the mirrorless video sector. They've been trashed in this forum alone for years, still have somewhat of a bad rep. 
Panny are in their own world I feel. Very loyal customer base. Mostly solo indie shooters. I know a few jumped over to BM. They have been ultra slow to adapt to PDAF needs so I think lost a few others to competition but with S5ii and on-going releases will probably gain them back. Solo operators really like their cameras and I understand why. Great video features, reliable hardware, always at a competitive price.

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.

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.


 

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!

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).