TomTheDP

No go right ahead The white balance was set the same on both cameras but yes they are a lot different in how they interpret it. The exposure looks a lot the same in REC709 but when switched to a log profile it looks a lot darker on the FP. Feel free to share stills of your grades!!

Resolution and dynamic range are lacking compared to the Nikon Z6 as well as low light performance. They give a nice image if the lighting is decent. Canon colors rock.

I believe both were at 640 iso

I am excited to hear your guys thoughts. The white balance and tint was quite different on the two cameras. The Alexa has a bit more texture I would say, the sigma a little cleaner.

@kye @OleB Here are some comparisons. One with pure tungsten, one with a 5600k and RED light, one daylight shadows, and one daylight sun. Hopefully these are helpful. Worst part of this is uploading to the drive takes like 12 hours lol. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1qxyxV-fFrBnyAh66joyRlgc2J6Xwbn7J?usp=share_link I actually did expose both cameras exactly the same as they looked similar at the same ISO. Outside shots were at F11-F16 and further adjusted with the shutter. Lenses were Meike 35mm on Alexa and Meike 50mm on the Sigma.

Yeah I know some shooters who still prefer the 5D over the likes of the Panasonic S1 or Pocket 4k. I am super happy with the performance of the Sigma FP which is only 12 bits. Maybe color depth beyond that isn't that important. Who knows

Honestly 12 bit RAW isn't a RED or ARRI competitor. To me that is the difference between a lot of lower end cameras compared to Venice, ARRI or RED. RED and Venice are doing 16 bit and the ARRI is 14 bit readout into a 12 bit log Prores or RAW. These other cameras are doing a 12 bit readout into 12 bit linear RAW. It isn't the same. Maybe I am being too spec obsessive though. If the image looks good you can't argue with it.

I'd probably do one exposing to what looks normal per camera, one exposing for highlights, and one where both are the exact same aperture/ND. I can say having used them together on jobs the Sigma is amazing in terms of image quality. The workflow is just a pain to where I wouldn't use it on most projects as a main camera. But it punches way above its price tag.

I could possibly borrow one. Would expose them at the same aperture?

I could do those tests for you next week and send you the files. The Sigma FP is really nice. Great color reproduction. It certainly doesn't have the dynamic range of an Alexa but that is ok. My biggest gripe with it is the micro HDMI which makes it scary for professional use.

I mean it is clearly just a marketing push. They need a reason to market new cameras to people. This is especially true in the market that these lower end cameras are being sold to. Companies continue to gimp features and push new features that don't even function properly.

$2500 for micro HDMI. RAW recording but we are gimped with Micro hdmi. I think I would rather go with the FX30 if I was to shoot RAW or use a monitor.

Looks awesome man

Interesting, you sometimes hear things like this but then see other cameras in the BTS. I remember seeing that this one film was shot with the RED Komodo and DZO optics and then seeing a RED Monstro with an ARRI Signature Zoom in some of the BTS. Sometimes it is true though. Steven Soderbergh shot "Let Them All Talk" entirely on the RED Komodo. It was a very indie film but it featured Meryl Streep, sooo. I think it was shot with all natural light. I generally favor RED cameras over prosumer Sony stuff for cinema. I heard something about the FX30 being able to do 16 bit RAW capture from an Atomos recorder, that could definitely put it close to a RED Komodo. No global shutter but probably better high ISO performance. I would also think state of the art auto focus could be an interesting feature to have.

I think high resolution is really more for applications like 3D or 360 cameras. Storage has gotten much cheaper and will continue to get cheaper. Cropping in post is useful, not terribly useful but also why not have the option. It is sort of like shooting in RAW, it has become a why not for a lot of people as it's so easy to do now vs 10 years ago. If 8k becomes cheap enough to shoot and process easily then most people will opt for it over 6k, 4k, or HD. Now as a delivery format I don't see much practical need for anything past 4k. As more and more people become tech savvy there will be less room for companies to push BS that makes no practical sense. OR maybe I am becoming too optimistic about humanity progressing lol.

Pretty cool, sounds like downsampled 8k to 6k isn't that feasible yet. I still think 8k is overkill for both video and photo. 6k sensors are awesome.

Compared to a RED shooting R3D

Interesting. Probably why Prores RAW off the A7S3 still looks weak compared to Redraw.

I agree, it is a great setup.

Let's say you are recording in camera, downsampling to HD from 4k in camera, like the original poster did. Even though your file is natively HD I still think rendering it in 4k, which makes YouTube upload it in 4k will give you a better result. The footage itself won't look any sharper, but the extra 40mbps YouTube gives 4k makes a difference. I am not saying you disagree, just clarifying my thoughts/experiences with YouTube. my 2 cents

Were you saying that downsampled 4k to HD uploaded to YouTube in HD will look better than a 1080p sensor shooting 1080p video uploaded to YouTube in HD? I'd test that out but I don't have any working SD cards for my BM micro.

Shallow DOF makes images look higher res, which in my opinion makes that example a poor one if you are saying YouTube 1080p compression doesn't degrade your initial capture.

I haven't found the 600 to be too heavy but the 1200 is a tank. If you don't need the light you don't need it but try setting up 4x 300w lights right next to each other to try to imitate a single light source. 300x lights seem to work for interview stuff even if its strongly backlit. Trying to light larger areas is a different story or trying to push light in from outside on a sunny day.

Shallow depth of field with nice lighting and super sharp lenses is maybe not the best representation of the struggle of HD compression on YouTube. Throw more movement, shadows, longer DOF and it really starts to fall apart IMO, at least compared to 4k. 10 vs 50mbps is going to make a difference. I have also noticed some content such as big studio film trailers seem to have a different quality HD than the standard uploader.

Yes this is what I meant to say.