Leaderboard

So....any idea how 4k 50p at 6400 or above looks?

I've watched it a few hours ago and recognized your name and said to myself, this EOSHD fellow is going to follow the same pieces of street videography gear as I am : D Kudos to your tests, pal, this is indie shooting at its best : ) I guess I won't help myself to end buying a couple of each them: 4K 120fps GoPro 11 and now this FX30 and the lowlight performance of this thing make it priceless for the price of everything, glass you can couple included, my MFT Sirui anamorphics set via adapter and so on :- ) Nice days to be a shooter! - EAG

4K 30P Night video at ISO 2500 Slog3: Sony FE 20mm f2 lens. Some use of CIZ.

The stuff that bothers me about current online content, I could write a 10,000 page book about it... Camera tests (the ones that grab the most views that is) have become completely meaningless. They're just about undisclosed variables. Everything looks more or less the same and if there's a difference then you can be 99% sure it's due to a random undisclosed variable like somebody grading two LOG formats a bit differently, trying to match but not quite. Tells me nothing about the camera. Any subtly even big differences in texture between uncompressed Cinema DNG and silky smooth H265 just gets completely obliterated on YouTube and most people probably even watching it on a phone! It is like evaluating MP3 vs FLAC through a $10 bluetooth speaker. Completely pointless. The format is all so similar now as well. American YouTube clickweasels who chuck a cheap bit of eye candy in front of the lens and think the results are the definitive verdict on image quality! Manny has a model walking stiffly up to the lens and that is supposed to be definitive verdict on an AF system. Toneh has a pool table in Rec.709 colour profiles and that is supposed to say everything about high ISO performance. Not that simple now there is dual native gain circuits is it? This is where Gerald at least goes further than skin-deep, but it always ends up being a box specs reading or box ticking exercise that doesn't merge the technical data he collects with the creative appropriation of it through the eye of an artist or story-teller. So what REALLY looks best out of the Z9 and A1? All I get out of these videos is... slight colour differences? From different colour profiles? And different grades? Don't even mention what codec and modes they're comparing. Pointless shit. If you fall for this shit, you're enabling those high viewing figures. Wonder if what you're doing is just consumerism, entertainment. Nothing wrong with that. Just don't pretend anything otherwise or pretend it says anything useful about the current differences in camera technology and performance. We need a standard benchmark look for cinema as well to judge the mirrorless cameras by too. Perhaps in a useful camera test there should be an appreciation of the grain and texture of film, the imperfections of it, because everything looking technically perfect and clean is not really doing it for me.

OG C300. Looks amazing. A C300 and a proper colorist / subject will give you much better results than a C70 or C300 Mk3 without.

Seems an irresistible tool easy to fall in love, well, I can't wait to put my hands on these small handy beasts when street photography comes like that: