Leaderboard

Also, when working professionally....it's not just about which camera has the best specs. It's about which camera is most accepted in a given workflow. For the broadcast documentary work I do, Sony is king here. Producers/Editors prefer working with two Sony Cameras than one Sony and one Blackmagic for example. Same workflow, same codecs etc. FX6 and FX9 are hugely popular so a Sony B Cam makes sense. For the higher end commercial work I do, It's pretty much all Arri. Surprisingly, when needing a B or C Camera for Car rigging or just general crash cam use, Blackmagic Pocket 6K Pro is is accepted my many. An FX3 or FX6 or even the FX30 just wouldn't fly with production houses shooting Arri but Blackmagic does. Not just because of the brand of camera, it's about the colour science, the codec (ProRes and BRAW more accepted in commercial world, XAVC more accepted in Broadcast world) etc. Sure, you can match the Pocket6K colour wise to the FX6 but if the production house doesn't have to in the first place because the two cameras are matched out of the sensor then they are going to prefer that workflow. Broadcast content won't go through as extensive color grading as higher end commercial work so giving them two matched cameras saves them time in post. So while many YouTubers lament over tech specs and pixel peeping, to most professionals what's technically the better camera is not what's most important. It's what camera will get you the most work and to get more work (apart from natural talent obviously) it helps if you have equipment that fit's the production houses workflows. My personal camera for holidays/kids shot is a Fuji X-T4 and I have been with Fuji since the X-T1 as I love them but they never make it out as a Cam because production don't know Fuji despite it being the better choice for some uses.

If the video will be used only on YouTube you can use most of music, but you will not be able to turn on monetization and YouTube will turn on monetization and give the revenue to the music copyright older. So, you can use a Lady Gaga song with no problem, but you get advertisement on the video and you get zero revenue.

I recently saw a video with a sponsorship that lets you license normal music - not sure if it's the same one but it seems like that's a thing now.

This one offer license option for mainstream music https://lickd.co/

Exactly, the $$$ speak loudest. The XH2S won't get you work like a FX6 would. Exactly, compared to the total budget of a production then many times the cost difference between renting a P6K vs ARRI could be trivial, a rounding error.

Sadly, these forums are one of the most enlightened places online. The current state of film-making is at an all-time low due to availability of equipment and popularity of outputs. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, well, that's up to everyone to decide for themselves, but the average discussion online will very confidently tell you that: FF is better there are people who say sensor size doesn't matter, but they're basically triggered all the time and sound crazy you choose the colour science you want by buying the best camera (and half the people can't even spell LUT, let alone understand that you can colour grade to match cameras) the only measure of a camera is the resolution of the sensor the only measure of a lens is the size of the aperture the only measure of a lens is how sharp it is at its widest aperture the best lens if you're not on FF is the Sigma 18-35 BM are the best cameras available BM owners don't know anything about anything and should be banned from owning cameras etc If you think Hollywood is immune to these trends, then think again. It took a while for them to get FF fever, but they got it in the end, and when they talk about sensor size and lenses and shallow DoF it's just word-salad coming out of their mouths and they know about as little as the average social media bro with a FF Sony...

Django pretty much covered all my responses but I'll emphasise that a Metabones speed booster is not a low quality piece of glass. People lump it in the same category as a lens doubler which is trying to stretch an image out and therefore you end up losing light and image quality. I'd bet my cameras that no one would notice when I had the speed booster in when it comes to image quality. The speed booster actually helps the image quite a bit and the image is indestinquishable from one shot without a speed booster (again, when it comes to image quality). Just because there is extra glass involved, does not mean the quality is being lowered. Do you judge the quality of a lens based on how many elements it has? Surely a lens with 17 glass elements will be of lower quality than one with 15 elements? No. Extra glass does not always mean lower quality. Most of my work is with the FX6 and FX9 using Leica R lenses that have been cinevised. These lenses are tiny despite being full frame and the speed booster really doesn't add much bulk to the whole package. To be honest, these new FX3's (and therefore FX30's) are tiny bodies to start with and I actually prefer bulking them up a little to make them easier to handle when handheld. I also have the Sigma cine 18-35 and 50-100 and it will be great to be able to use these APS-C lenses as I love them both and not completely sold on FF for every job. I'm actually looking forward to the possibility of Sony (maybe!) releasing an FX60!! As Django mentioned, The speed booster also helps with the lower ISO performance of the APC-C sensor compared to FF. I don't shoot lowlight much and really never need anything close to ISO12,800 but the speed booster essentaily gives the FX30 native ISO's of 1600 and 5000. I like the much closer spaced native ISO's of this camera over the FF Sony sensors.

FX30 has a number of improvements over FX3 (oversampled 4K, double LCD resolution, focus breathing comp) but also some cons mostly on the stills side (no mechanical shutter, no drive mode). So as a hybrid FX30 isn't interesting. The best thing is the price, half that of FX3 while in the same exact body. FX3/FX30 vs A7S3: The FX line have TC, LUT support (allowing you to bake in a custom LUT), cine EI and of course the body with mount holes, tally lights, top handle with XLRs. And active cooling so less overheating. The only tradeoff is the EVF loss. Another option is the XH2S. You get your EVF and full photo specs. And on the video side a stacked sensor giving you great DR, low RS as well as 6.2K open gate, DCI 4K, ProRes, Film simulations etc.

maybe you need to put reading glasses on. he explained his work is mainly on FX6 & FX9 which are both FF cameras. he'd use FX30 as a b-cam so a speed booster makes sense to keep the same FoV and use the same FF lenses. plenty of FF cine lenses out now as well as large sensor cine cams from RED/ARRI. Sony's entire cine line from Venice down to FX3 is FF. SMH. You must be new to lenses, my FF Leica M & Nikkor AIS glass are more compact than any modern APS-C lenses. The extra glass from the speed booster can actually help reduce over sharpening from cameras like XH2S that have no OLPF. And the stop of light that you gain helps with S35 sensors poor lowlight performances. He said he also plans to use S35 glass and so FX30 allows him to use both FF & S35 lenses, unlike the FX3. I love shooting wide open at f1.4 or even f1.2. obviously for specific shots requiring isolation or a dreamy feel but you have entire films like Army of the Dead that were shot FF on a Red Monstro wide open at 0.95 on Canon Dream lens rehoused in Leica M mount: Rules are meant to be broken. And just to prove this isn't just a one off Hollywood phenomenon, here is 6.2K open gate footage from XH2S using a speedbooster with some shots done at f0.95 (lowlight footage from scene 4): I think the image looks fantastic personally, FF aesthetic/bokeh yet still very detailed but without the over sharpness usually associated with Fujis.

reading this forum is so frustrating. why would you ever use a speedbooster on a s35 sensor (or ever really)? it's the most standard format for moving images. if you need "proper full frame" on s35, just shoot a stop wider than you would on FF, and open up your iris an extra stop, maybe add a stop of ND if you're clipping. that's it. there's nothing special about this sensor size. if you want a 24mm t/2.8 on FF, just use the 18mm of the same lens set, and set it to t/2 to match the dof on the fx30 or xh2s. if you want to match a 24mm at t/1.5, then sure, that's most likely not possible, but it's not gonna look very nice anyway, is it? how about just using the right lens set for the right camera, and being a bit more thoughtful, instead of bulking up your camera with oversized lenses and a low quality layer of glass in between? how often do you need a dof thinner than t/2.8 on s35 (or t/4 on ff) for that matter? if most of the image is blurred out mush, i tend to assume its not worth watching anyway.