Sony FX30 (S35 FX3)

[markr041]

1 hour ago, Django said:

Sorry I'm allergic to 60p uploaded footage. It shouldn't even be an option lol. 

Noticeable IQ drop in 4K120p. Alongside the window crop that's going to be a tough mode to shoot in.

As for the low-light it seems kind of average. 2500 ISO high base isn't a lot but its always nice its dual base.

Speedbooster would help the cam. Would like to see some FX30 footage paired with nice FF glass. 

I agree you can see the drop-off in 120P.

The 20mm f2 lens (night video) is nice glass, as is the 16-35mm (day video with slow motion), both FF. And with an APS-C sensor one is seeing mostly the center of the lenses where resolution is best. I do not think G-Master would make a big difference.

60P captures motion well. 24P does not. I do get that for telling a fictional story, 24P has some magic. But for videos aimed at conveying a sense of being there, where there is motion, 24P makes no sense to me. We all have our taste.

[MrSMW]

9 hours ago, bjohn said:

When I watch tests like this, it reminds me how much I dislike gratuitous slow motion.

Leave us wedding people alone!!!!! 😘

[Django]

1 hour ago, markr041 said:

I agree you can see the drop-off in 120P.

The 20mm f2 lens (night video) is nice glass, as is the 16-35mm (day video with slow motion), both FF. And with an APS-C sensor one is seeing mostly the center of the lenses where resolution is best. I do not think G-Master would make a big difference.

60P captures motion well. 24P does not. I do get that for telling a fictional story, 24P has some magic. But for videos aimed at conveying a sense of being there, where there is motion, 24P makes no sense to me. We all have our taste.

I don't know of a Sony 20mm F2. are you sure you don't mean the 20mm F1.8?

I'm not really a fan of Sony lenses. Too clinical. Much prefer the Sony Zeiss in E-mount, but that's personal.

I meant FF with a Speedbooster using cine or vintage lenses. Center sharpness isn't everything, most of the FF lens mojo comes from vignetting, diffraction, aberrations etc. Again totally personal.

As for 60p capturing motion well. Ughhh. No. It gives it the dreaded soap opera look. Use 30p if your panning a lot but never ever export on a 60p timeline. Just no.

Since you like dancing, here is a great example of a filmed dance sequence as far as motion with a global shutter S16 sensor in 24p:

hopefully it will make you change your mind 😉 

[markr041]

1 hour ago, Django said:

I don't know of a Sony 20mm F2. are you sure you don't mean the 20mm F1.8?

I'm not really a fan of Sony lenses. Too clinical. Much prefer the Sony Zeiss in E-mount, but that's personal.

I meant FF with a Speedbooster using cine or vintage lenses. Center sharpness isn't everything, most of the FF lens mojo comes from vignetting, diffraction, aberrations etc. Again totally personal.

As for 60p capturing motion well. Ughhh. No. It gives it the dreaded soap opera look. Use 30p if your panning a lot but never ever export on a 60p timeline. Just no.

Since you like dancing, here is a great example of a filmed dance sequence as far as motion with a global shutter S16 sensor in 24p:

hopefully it will make you change your mind 😉 

Sorry, f2 FE 28mm.

I have never watched a soap opera, but I do a lot of looking at real life, including viewing dancing on stage and in clubs. Also, sports, including skateboarding. Nothing I see moves as depicted at 24 fps. 60 fps seems to capture real-life motion best.

I like 24p for narrative films, which transport me *from* reality. The video is nice, and it is good art, not trying to depict reality.

As I said, deliberate distortions of motion or looks, via lenses with faults, is one form of achieving art. Conveying you-are-there reality is a different aim. Picasso distorts, and it is great art. I get it. 

For video that I take, I want natural light and real perspectives to create looks, not lens aberrations, distorted colorations, added grain, or choppy motion compensated by blur. (And fantasy set dressing, eg, teal and orange galore). But I respect using those as a way of achieving other looks. 

I don't think anyone less than age 30 knows what a soap opera look is, or cares. They do see lots of sports broadcast on TV in 60P. That's lots of motion. And no one complains of nausea.

Think of my videos as sports videography of non-sports activities, of humans and other species. Nicely framed, appropriately exposed (at least as aims). That's the aesthetic I like for my shooting. But those distorted fictional films I like too.

 

[markr041]

I also like widescreen aspect ratios:

Sony E 10-20mm f4. Slog3.

[Emanuel]

Thanks for your tests, mate, the fact you're using the same locations and shooting styles on both devices (FX30 and GoPro 11) is fairly helpful to realize how useful to buy each or only one of them may fit the bill.

I'd tend to go to the XH2S route though, for sure not because of the glass, oh well, definitely not when E-mount has become the new (affordable) mount for all as MFT before but, it is impossible to ignore tests like these of those dudes:

Rolling shutter tests are also very clear. Marginally superior AF doesn't handle the ticket per se.

This time no complaints on skin tones anyway nor oversharpened nonsense, good job Sony :- )

[Django]

@markr041 Never said anything about adding grain, blur or teal & orange. Just that a clinical lens at 60p gives a very un cinematic cheap video look. Like I said I'm allergic to it but it is subjective and perhaps even generational although I think people under 30 watch films and footage aside from sports in 60p. Your smartphone usually defaults at 30p which is a lot closer to 24p. 60p and above are usually slow-motion frame rates.

High frame rate viewing content is what is commonly referred to as the "soap opera effect" and is a feature some TVs now have on default by using interpolation and adding frames. Most people I know hate the effect and turn it off immediately. It's ok for news or sports but ruins any true 24p footage be it narrative work or not.

The irony though is that the motion that you perceive as close to "real life" is exactly what is so bothersome. In the video I linked the dancer actually expresses her feel about how dissatisfied she usually is about motion in her filmed performances. Surely the global shutter of that particular camera helps a lot but it only shoots 24p & 30p in 2K/FHD as its emulating Super16/film.

 Anyways, keep doing as you feel, you seem to be more into the news/sports aesthetic and that's a choice. I just find it a bit odd to buy a "cinema" camera for the "TV" "ENG" look. I don't think you'll find many FX series users shooting like that but again to each their own! If I may make a suggestion I'd advocate 30p as a good middle ground for yourself..and your audience.

[Emanuel]

Yet on 4K 120fps feature and those who need it, this is also not the best we're looking for in one way or another:

Obviously that crop doesn't help either when ISO 2500 is not enough to prevent annoying noise (such as this sample HERE) when under pressure of a higher frame rate.

The price especially in U.S. is very tempting though under those about 1,750 bucks @ the currency conversion of today, go figure if the ECB will increase the interest rates and we'll be back to USD 1.15, it will be difficult 'to invent' excuses... : D

In a couple of decades we came from the $100,000 mark for the F900 to the USD 1,750 FX30... not bad ;- )

 

[Emanuel]

*EUR 1750

LOL

[Emanuel]

To those born in the meantime or so : ) sorry nostalgic people like me but here's a sample found online (and definitely ignore that gigantic odd watermark) :

More info:

vintage pdf : D

Sony's museum (the 'Mark II' : )

3:1:1 8-bit tape. All  'began' there.

[markr041]

By request: An ISO 6400 4K Slog3 Video:

Every shot is at ISO 6400. Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f4 lens.

[markr041]

21 hours ago, Django said:

@markr041 Never said anything about adding grain, blur or teal & orange. Just that a clinical lens at 60p gives a very un cinematic cheap video look. Like I said I'm allergic to it but it is subjective and perhaps even generational although I think people under 30 watch films and footage aside from sports in 60p. Your smartphone usually defaults at 30p which is a lot closer to 24p. 60p and above are usually slow-motion frame rates.

High frame rate viewing content is what is commonly referred to as the "soap opera effect" and is a feature some TVs now have on default by using interpolation and adding frames. Most people I know hate the effect and turn it off immediately. It's ok for news or sports but ruins any true 24p footage be it narrative work or not.

The irony though is that the motion that you perceive as close to "real life" is exactly what is so bothersome. In the video I linked the dancer actually expresses her feel about how dissatisfied she usually is about motion in her filmed performances. Surely the global shutter of that particular camera helps a lot but it only shoots 24p & 30p in 2K/FHD as its emulating Super16/film.

 Anyways, keep doing as you feel, you seem to be more into the news/sports aesthetic and that's a choice. I just find it a bit odd to buy a "cinema" camera for the "TV" "ENG" look. I don't think you'll find many FX series users shooting like that but again to each their own! If I may make a suggestion I'd advocate 30p as a good middle ground for yourself..and your audience.

I think you are really stuck in your ways, and a bit confused. Lens aberrations, added grain, 24 fps and colorations like o & t are the same thing - they distort reality: why did you stop at lens distortions? All of these are completely appropriate for art and fictional narratives. I am all for it!

You also are confused by labels : It does not make a difference what the label is for a camera. The features are what count. And the main advantages of the fx30 "cinema" camera perhaps ironically are precisely high frame rates - it has 4K 60P that is oversampled, unlike most cameras; eg, the fx3. It has 4K 120P, not pixel-binned (eg, the R5). And another key advantage of this APS-C camera is that there are a lot of compact near-par focal *power* zoom lenses available for it, so one can smoothly follow action while shooting, as is necessary in shooting sports, bicycling, skateboarding, running, competitive events and even people walking, shot appropriately to capture that action realistically at 60P. And 10bit color and Slog3 all aid in capturing reality better.

Your discussion of TV's adding frames for 24P video is completely irrelevant to actually shooting at 60P. That is surely not meant to capture real-life motion. I would hate that "effect" too; I also hate pickles. Just adds confusion to the discussion. Shooting at 60P is not the "soap opera" effect of artificially adding frames to 24p films.

Yes, people under 30 watch films. I watch films. I have no problem watching films in 24P - as I said 24P takes you *from* reality, which is what I want in watching fiction. I also might find it odd to see a film in 60P. But for depicting real life movement, dance or walking, you are just plain wrong touting 24P.

24 fps has a long history, just like film. Now we have TV and video, which has a shorter history, as do high frame rate cameras. Embrace what we can now do that we did not or could not do before. It is not a threat to what you like, perhaps based on just what you are used to. And, again, I like the 24p filmic aesthetic, but I am not restricting myself to emulating it when it is inappropriate - I am not making narrative, fictional stories. I am not trying to take people away from reality, rather I am bringing a real-life setting to them, artistically (at least that is the aim). 4K, 8K, HDR, 60P all now available to best depict reality. Probably you dislike all of those - they are not what Edison shot.

You should not impose a very narrow and old filmic aesthetic on anyone's videos. 

[Emanuel]

5 hours ago, markr041 said:

By request: An ISO 6400 4K Slog3 Video:

Every shot is at ISO 6400. Sony FE PZ 16-35mm f4 lens.

Thanks!

I've also found this sample here:

 

[Emanuel]

I don't know guys... but this Sony entry looks like to me the most all round unbeatable cam under $2000 as of now against the usual direct contenders GH6 (sample) & my fav X-H2s (sample) to even lack a basic focus tracking feature in 2022 despite their (other) strengths we all already know:

Obviously a camera is not only its AF capabilities (no crop 4K 120fps against the X-H2s 1.29x and FX30 1.38x crops) makes GH6 to be unique and X-H2s surely trumps as hybrid the FX30 without mechanical shutter is not, let alone the rolling shutter performance) but when we have a few of capture devices already, we need something to justify a new all round camera purchase, isn't it? ; )

[Emanuel]

*Obviously a camera is not only its AF capabilities, no crop 4K 120fps (against the X-H2s 1.29x and FX30 1.38x crops) makes GH6 to be unique and X-H2s surely trumps as hybrid the FX30 without mechanical shutter is not -- let alone the rolling shutter performance, but when we have a few of capture devices already, we need something to justify a new all round motion picture camera purchase, isn't it? ; )

[Django]

12 hours ago, markr041 said:

I think you are really stuck in your ways, and a bit confused. Lens aberrations, added grain, 24 fps and colorations like o & t are the same thing - they distort reality: why did you stop at lens distortions? All of these are completely appropriate for art and fictional narratives. I am all for it!

You also are confused by labels : It does not make a difference what the label is for a camera. The features are what count. And the main advantages of the fx30 "cinema" camera perhaps ironically are precisely high frame rates - it has 4K 60P that is oversampled, unlike most cameras; eg, the fx3. It has 4K 120P, not pixel-binned (eg, the R5). And another key advantage of this APS-C camera is that there are a lot of compact near-par focal *power* zoom lenses available for it, so one can smoothly follow action while shooting, as is necessary in shooting sports, bicycling, skateboarding, running, competitive events and even people walking, shot appropriately to capture that action realistically at 60P. And 10bit color and Slog3 all aid in capturing reality better.

Your discussion of TV's adding frames for 24P video is completely irrelevant to actually shooting at 60P. That is surely not meant to capture real-life motion. I would hate that "effect" too; I also hate pickles. Just adds confusion to the discussion. Shooting at 60P is not the "soap opera" effect of artificially adding frames to 24p films.

Yes, people under 30 watch films. I watch films. I have no problem watching films in 24P - as I said 24P takes you *from* reality, which is what I want in watching fiction. I also might find it odd to see a film in 60P. But for depicting real life movement, dance or walking, you are just plain wrong touting 24P.

24 fps has a long history, just like film. Now we have TV and video, which has a shorter history, as do high frame rate cameras. Embrace what we can now do that we did not or could not do before. It is not a threat to what you like, perhaps based on just what you are used to. And, again, I like the 24p filmic aesthetic, but I am not restricting myself to emulating it when it is inappropriate - I am not making narrative, fictional stories. I am not trying to take people away from reality, rather I am bringing a real-life setting to them, artistically (at least that is the aim). 4K, 8K, HDR, 60P all now available to best depict reality. Probably you dislike all of those - they are not what Edison shot.

You should not impose a very narrow and old filmic aesthetic on anyone's videos. 

Some strong reactions here. First off, I'm not imposing anything. I even concluded with "keep doing what you feel".

I was merely just trying to explain to you why 60p footage is bothersome to some people.

It is not just an "old film aesthetic" lol. 24p/25p/30p is standard. It's what 99% of the videos you see on Youtube are uploaded in. 

60p & 120p are high frame rates generally used in cine cams to over crank and be slowed down. I use them all the time..for slow-motion.

As for TVs adding frames to "smooth" motion it is absolutely relevant as what is does is double the frame rate, meaning 24p/25p/30p footage becomes 48p/50p/60p (and 60p -> 120p). 

Finally FYI I absolutely embrace imaging technology. I'm a working professional filmmaker/videographer. I only deliver 4K content to every platform you can think of. I shoot mainly in 10-bit Slog/Clog. I have a latest gen mirrorless that shoots 4K60p/120p. A Sony FS7 cine cam. A 6K iMac Pro. 60" 4K OLED TV etc. I'm not some old geezer with a film projector shooting black & white rambling about the good old days while smoking a pipe lol.

Anyways, hope we can get off the wrong foot. You sound a little upset by my comments but they were not meant to harm your preferred "aesthetic". Keep doing you my man it's all good! 😉 

[Django]

5 hours ago, Emanuel said:

*Obviously a camera is not only its AF capabilities, no crop 4K 120fps (against the X-H2s 1.29x and FX30 1.38x crops) makes GH6 to be unique and X-H2s surely trumps as hybrid the FX30 without mechanical shutter is not -- let alone the rolling shutter performance, but when we have a few of capture devices already, we need something to justify a new all round motion picture camera purchase, isn't it? ; )

GH6 & XH2/XH2S shoot ProRes which is a very nice plus codec wise. They also do 6K/8K & XH2S even does open-gate.

Those are the main new features that trump the FX30. The Sony has... better AF. 

XH2S excites me a lot more. Stacked sensor, true hybrid, 6.2K open gate, Xtrans sensor & Fuji film emulations.

But FX30 makes more business sense for me as an FS7 user. Plus I do value strong AF.

[Emanuel]

If you need AF, no new codecs will give you the trick. Bring unusuable shots to life instead, yes. As well on the other hand, a faster readout will, with an improved rolling shutter. No need to compare apples to oranges either, a hybrid can be a motion picture camera but not much the opposite.

[Django]

The AF on Fuji is actually pretty good, just not Canon/Sony level good.

[Emanuel]

On 11/22/2022 at 1:18 PM, Django said:

The AF on Fuji is actually pretty good, just not Canon/Sony level good.

Pretty good?... Are you serious? I wouldn't call it this 'pretty good':

To say 'just not Canon/Sony level' is pure semantics... ; )