Leaderboard

Have you considered a C200? With that said, if you can comfortably afford the C70, it may be the best bet for you. And with that said, I hate that Canon switched to the RF mount. Big, heavy lenses that cost a fortune does not appeal to me whatsoever, especially for mirrorless bodies. But I still like the DSLR form factor and still shoot ML Raw on my 5D Mark III, so I'm probably just a dinosaur. I guess a 1DX Mark III could be an option as well if you'd prefer using a mix-pre3 for audio.

Not sure if it's placebo or something in the compression used by consumer cameras these days but I definitely perceive a certain flatness and lack of colour density in many hybrid cameras and camcorders these days, and the common factor in most of them is Sony sensors. Out of all the consumer brands, Canon seems to stand out as being an exception in that regard. They seem to be capable of producing more rich tones straight out of the camera. I was also never that into the colour from the BMPCC4k with it's Sony sensor, compared to the Ursa image. It's been said many times on this forum, but I do wish manufacturers would focus less on 8k and more on getting colour right, after all Arri has been showing how to do it right for a decade now!

Or get the Sony FX6, the price is broadly similar to the C70

In my case, I didn't care for 4k when the first A7s was marketed as such, (which was of course a fat lie, as it required an external recorder) and for personal projects I don't see the need. Perhaps only for punching into a closer frame for talking heads. As one man everything, I do need a good AF. It doesn't have to be stellar. Just good and reliable so trying to find this fine line. In Greece the C70 will cost me 500 euros more than an A7siii + a 24-105, so I think I am torn between those two. This reviewer said good things about the c70 autofocus. Or perhaps save 2000 euros and get the A7iii, but not sure about it's video AF. Of course I loose the ergonomics and XLRs but as I said earlier, I think a 32bit float recorder might be better for my needs. Also I am not so sure about the preamps in the c70. This audio review has a lot of hiss when he is switching recorders. Mixpre-3 sound so much cleaner.

So I have been in the photographic field since 1985. My work in shooting has been mostly still. My only experience with cinematography has been numerous cinematographers who shoot film for an art service I provide, in its 22nd year as a service. I am making a transition back to shooting after putting my cameras down in 98. I got the strange idea to use anamorphic lenses for a shooting project by studying old projection lenses adapted for still shooting... So here I am. In all my years I had no notion of anamorphic [guess you can teach an old dog new tricks]. Scouring the web is how I ended up here. Thus far it has been trial and error. This project requires Sharpness! The 1st lenses I bought were ISCO. To shorten the story, I picked up a RED ultra-star. My research indicated that this lens was the sharpest [Modern anamorphics are out of my price range]. My tests indicated a sharpness issue with this scope. Was it just like that? Image samples online indicated no, It was a tack sharp scope. There was a post some years back on the KOWA and focus tweeking, but the ISCO red wasn't the same and I could find little info online to service these scopes. For normal cine use I suppose my scope was ok, it was just out of focus. This condition was bothersome for me. I could find no one to provide the information I needed to adjust this scope, nor could I find anyone to service it. After a few off the cuff replies, someone replied by email that the rear element might need adjusting, then went on to another discussion. I took this brief comment seriously, because I never heard it before. I am mechanically inclined, so I took the risk and dismantled the scope. The following is that adventure. My dangerous tinkering was successful and I post it here in case it helps someone else with the same problem - this info is not on this forum that I could find. First I took the front focus ring off. It is held in my a few small screws in the focus tube. Be careful when you slide the tube off. There are a small springs and ball barrings. The focuser dial is held in by a large retaining ring with a set screw. The focuser ring screws down off one of the brass guide plates. NOTE - The focus issue was not in this location on this scope, but should one need to put new grease in you would simply unscrew where the small guide brass plates are. I am fairly certain that focus issues with this ISCO involves the rear element alignment. This was the case with my lens. On the rear there are about 5 small set screws. Loosen them all up, but don't take them totally out [very small - easy to lose]. When loose the rear element holding dial becomes free. I discovered that this rear element is very critical in the focus, of not just this scope but likely most if not all scopes. The rear alignment is very critical for focus. [Ill assume that when manufactured this setting is dont on some fancy divise to set the focus.] At first I thought I might have ruined my lens until i realized that the placement was very crucial. Be sure you have a small screwdriver in hand with your camera on live-view, and make sure your adapter clamp is the kind you can slide the scope off easily. With the rear element loose, move it very slightly. Put it on the taking lens w/live view. Taking it on and off moving it either direction until the sharpness is tack-on. Set the closest set screw when the live view is sharp. Remove the scope and tighten the other set screws - Reassemble the scope. I hope this helps someone out. Thanks for reading. Dave Wood

For me it is the way the pocket or the micro handles saturation on the top end. The example above is going to pure white in the highlights. The sun is golden at sunset. Here is a shot I took on the pocket a few years back, the second photo is Kodak 250d from a project I did last year. The 16mm film really has no clipping point in the highlights, so of course it looks better, but that characteristic of being able to easily push saturation in the highlights is there in the pocket as well. The version with contrast was graded by a colorist. Images are subject, but I would rather let the light fall naturally than create some sort of HDR looking image. This is why A/B comparisons are pointless and often tailored to fit the narrative. If you do something in the real world like shoot directly into the sun, this is what you get.

You're correct. I jumped back and forth, and should have clarified strictly video usage in that comparison to DSLRs. It will be no full fledged stills camera for sure. It does have it's uses. I just don't like the "useless" labeling it's been getting.

Internal audio is never going to match a mixpre. Practically once you mix it and apply noise reduction it’s all fine. The A73 auto focus is amazing with Sony lenses. One of the best in the market still. I’d also recommend the C200. You get 4K up to 60fps in a good 8 bit codec with wonderful canon color. It also has good AF, native EF mount, internal NDs, XLRs, SDI. You can record BRAW externally or prores RAW as well as Canon RAW lite internally.

I agree. If I could rewire my GH5 sensor so that every second pixel went to a different gain ADC circuit and the two signals were then combined to increase the DR coming off the sensor (how the Alexa works) then I wouldn't even think twice about it. Even if it meant sacrificing 75% or more of the pixels I have. A gorgeous image is a gorgeous image in whatever resolution. We've been working on the wrong things.

Bingo - found it: It's older than I thought... which is even more amusing because the VFX guy was asking for 8K before we even had it!

I'm familiar with those videos, although they were from a different time, when 2K was still a mainstream thing. The one I watched was more recent, and in the context of newer 4K / 6K and even 8K cameras. Obviously the ability to track things in 3D space accurately is pretty crucial if you're doing heavy VFX work like in Hollywood action blockbusters with a camera moving through a scene (say, on a boom) and then having to insert dozens/hundreds of 3D rendered objects into that scene, even extending to entire characters in the film. I've seen tracking and how it works in small proportions of a single pixel, which may have considerable impact on the location of something if the object is far away from the reference points. Obviously in cases like that having RAW 8K would be far nicer for the VFX team to reference rather than a blocky-by-comparison 2K image. This is, of course, talking about capture resolution, and not about final output resolution. I think there's a spectrum of shooters ranging from people who get everything right in-camera and almost won't even colour the footage, through to those who shoot for complete accuracy and want to do as much as possible in post. It will depend on your preferences, your budget (to hire a VFX team), and your schedule. He mentioned in the video that he applied a compression deliberately, in order to investigate what effects it would have on the image quality. He said he chose something akin to what gets streamed to peoples houses, or is in DSLR cameras. I'd guess something in the 25Mbps ballpark. It probably goes without saying that it's more difficult to tell the differences between resolutions if they're both going through a cheese grater at the end (or beginning!) of the image pipeline! Downsampling is definitely advantageous to overall image quality, for multiple reasons: a 4K sensor gives you a <4K image after debayering, so downsampling means drawing from more pixels on the input than you're pushing out the output, which helps random noise gets partially eliminated due to the averaging that occurs in the downsampling process One thing that is noteworthy though is that if you're shooting with a compressed codec, for example h264/5, that the artefacts are often X pixels wide (for example, regardless of the resolution, the 'ripple' on a hard edge is likely to be the same number of pixels wide) so in that instance you may be better off recording your files in-camera in a higher resolution and then downscaling in post, where the downscaling process can average out more of those artefacts. This is something that's likely to be situation and camera dependent, but is worth a test if you're able to. For example, shoot something in 6K and in 4K and put them both on a 4K timeline and see which looks cleaner, or 4K and 1080 on a 1080 timeline. The downside of this is that even if both resolutions had the same bitrate, and therefore file sizes, your computer will have to decode and then downscale more pixels from the higher resolution clip, increasing the computational load on your editing computer. Like with all things, do your own testing and see what you can see 🙂

Something that is quite interesting and I missed previously is the ‘pinch to zoom’ capability with no loss of quality giving a fixed focal length prime a 2.5x range. That is pretty neat. I think you have to come at this camera from another angle and that is what can it do instead of direct comparisons with anything else.

Yes, however sorry to repeat myself but what's the point of the Sigma Fp being just another A7R IV clone? We don't need another copy cat. Not denying the Sony offers a lot of spec for the money if you need a 60MP full frame camera with good 4K. But the Sigma Fp-L offers something different... at least for those who recognise that it's an artist's camera for studio, landscape, portraiture... and for videographers... whereas the Sony is more of an all-round work tool for pros and commercial work. The Sigma offers better colour science, more flexible grip designs, smaller size, internal RAW video, phase-detect AF for L-mount lenses, and there's many other differences to the Sony. It is aimed higher than the original Fp, so of course there's the higher price. The rolling shutter issues and lack of mechanical shutter does hold it back for certain types of shoots, that's for sure. However it is just the first of the future breed of all-electronic cameras. Global shutter cameras will outnumber mechanical shutter cameras in a few years time. They should do a version with the Sony A9 sensor next, faster readout. I think the Fp-L is in the top 5 for image quality... GFX 100, A7R IV, Leica SL2, Fp-L, EOS R5... all good sensors and ultimate in stills resolution. So maybe the price, being lower than all of those is not so bad after all. And it comes in a very small box, with very wide feature set and nice modularity. Besides you get to support directly a family run business which is in it for us and their employees rather than to line the pockets of shareholders.

The S5 (S1H/S5 also) outperform it in usable latitude. Sure IMATEST loves heavily denoised footage like from the A7sIII or C70, but the IQ is quite bad on these cameras in comparison. The Pocket 6K (Pro), S5/S1H/S1 and Komodo are the best cameras in that regard under $10,000. Here's a nice exposure comparison chart from Slashcam:

Yeah I find their dynamic range readings helpful sometimes. I think where it fails is reading the shadows properly. The readings become inaccurate when noise reduction comes into play and of course how much noise is acceptable is also a subjective thing. This is where it gets really confusing as the URSA shadows really fall apart especially due to the fixed noise pattern and the URSA is also weaker in the highlights. So I have no clue why the reading for the P6K is so low compared to the URSA. The P6K does about 2 stops more in the highlights than the S1H or A7S3. The question is, are the Pocket shadows that much worse than the S1 or A7S3 to warrant such a low rating? I'd say the dynamic range on all three cameras are very similar. IMHO the only camera that really punches above the rest in terms of dynamic range is the C70. The S1, A7s3 and P6K are all great but also all in the same league or at least relatively close with the P6K and S1 in the lead by a little. I think the original FP is a compelling camera. CDNG is probably the best form of video recording(highest quality*) 12 bit CDNG Full frame is pretty compelling. The lack of full HDMI is a bummer though. I'd love to test the camera with an under and over test to see how it actually compares to the S1 or A7S3. I'd imagine it should be similar as they all use Sony sensors. But maybe Sigma did something weird to gimp it.

Good to read some common sense. I really don't get the need for even more resolution. Or certainly not as a priority. Quite a few years ago, when 4K was new. There were so much more sceptics. Lot's more people downsizing the importance of resolution. I mean this in a good way. But now it seems like almost everybody got convinced by the resolution marketing. I remember reading an article going from 2K to 4K, where they did a cinema screen test. The increase in resolution was only visible from the first few front seats. I do understand the practicality when it comes to slightly reframing or being able to virtual dolly with a push in. But that's not how they market it at all, and thats not how the people get convinced. The Alexa and the Sony F35 are both still the best when it comes to digital cinema camera's. Colour science, dynamic range and motion cadence over these 4K, 6K and 8K buzzwords. And let's not forget, an easy workflow. Both the Alexa and Sony F35 suffice with a simple LUT to make them look good (cinema good). To keep it on topic It doesn't tick all of your boxes but it's quite a bit cheaper, Yiomo have you thought about a Sony pmw F3 ?

On the OG FP its full frame 4k, binned.