aaa123jc

Yes indeed. Though from my experience, profiles of other brands (like Nikon) don't improve the images as dramatically as the fuji ones. Maybe the emulations of fuji profiles are better made? Adobe put in more effort? Like Django has said, the XT5 uses a different sensor than XT4. IMO the autofocus of fuji in stills is great and usuable in video mode. Just don't expect it has Sony or Canon's level of AF. The newer models like XT5 should have better AF, if only slightly. ISO performance is again behind Sony technically. However, the fuji usually handles noise in a more pleasing manner. Some recipes even work better in high ISO. Unless you shoot in really really high ISO, I believe its ISO performance will be good enough, especially for photos.

The unique SOOC look comes from both the different sensor technology and those film simulations. If you just import the raw files into lightroom and using adobe color science, the color is just kinda decent. Then, you change the color profile to those film simulations and the difference is night and day. It's almost a magical moment. That's why I buy a fuji camera for stills (mostly for causal use though). For video, eterna is a decent starting point, if you don't plan on shooting Log. The XT5 and X2Hs are great cameras with a lot of features, but it really comes down to if you need those high end features. Personally I choose my fuji camera based on look and erogomics, since the color sciene is terrific regardless of the model. That's why I sold my XT4 and got a XE4 instead. The only feature I ever miss is the IBIS.

The FS7 really is a legendary camera. IMO it deserves to have its own chapter in camera history. I maybe biased though, as an owner of two, the FS7 and the FS7M2. 😄 The image quality of the FS7 sensor still holds up, especially with good lighting. No client has ever complained about the images I produced with it. Not to mention other profesional features like SDI. Both of my FS7 are easily some of the best pruchase I have made ever.

I can only comment on Sony cameras. I have very little experience with modern cameras from other brands. TBH, basically any newer Sony camera(within 2-3 years) is going to be great at lowlight. I would recommend A7M4 because it is also a terrific stills camera, and in terms of image quality or high iso performance, quite similar to the A7S3. You don't need a high base of ISO 12800 to shoot in darker condition. For the most part, the high iso performance of the A7M4 is more than enough. It is FF too. I personally use the FX30. Despite it being Super 35 and "only" ISO 2500, I can still shoot night scenes with it with only street lights and the results are at least acceptable. As long as there is some kind of light source, any capable modern Sony camera can give good result in lowlight. My other even older camera, FS7M2, does decent in lowlight too. And that sensor is anicent, comparing to the A7M4. Also, you can always clean up some of the noise in post. I really like the denoise in Davinci Resolve.

This maybe the case, and it helps marketing as well. Putting a professional sensor into a consumer (or prosumer) model makes the camera much easier to sell. But yeah, for those vloggers who often shoot at environments where absolutely no lighting is allowed and whose work doesn't require a good image, rather it's more important to get the shot, good ISO performance can be a big plus. I think enthusiasts who just want to film their family or daily lives will also appreicate the extra lowlight capability. Though back to the topic, I don't think the FX30, FX3 or the A7S3 is necessarily a perfect choice for those users. Unless they want a camera that they can grow their videography and filmmaking skills with.

Great idea! Have played with the EOS-M with Magic Lantern before but have not used the raw capability. Maybe its enough to justify getting a 5D2 too. Always want to buy one but couldn't convice myself to do it. 😄

Obviously, everyone's needs are different. If one has to shoot almost always in very dark situation with absolutely no way to setup even the smallest of lights, like a newshooter, then he must have the camera with the best lowlight quality. The FX30 is good enough in lowlight, as long as there is some light in the scene. Of couse it will do very poorly in pitch dark situation, but the same can be said for A7S3. Great in lowlight doesn't mean you don't have to light the scene. When we use the A7S3 at ISO 12800 setting on set of the short film, we still have to do porper lighting. You need light to produce a good image. Great lowlight capablity is not the substitute for lighting. Anyway, a cameraman has to adapt to the situation. In a lot of tight spaces or very poorly lit condition, even a small LED light panel can make the difference. Those are very cheap and portable, not luxurious at all. There are many differences that make the A7S3 or FX3 the better camera than the FX30, such as FF look, no 4K120P crop. The lowlight advantage is there but IMO not as important as many other factors.

For work, I use the Sony FS7mk2 and FX30. Before I purchased the FX30, the second camera was the FS700. For causal photography, I use the Fujifilm X-E4. Such a lovely experience. Before covid I used the Sony A7mk3, but I sold it after there was no photo jobs at all. I still keep my Nikon D810 though. It's ancient, yet still takes beautiful photos. And I wouldn't sell it because of all the memories we shared. Probably the only camera I refuse to sell.

I've never worked in feature films, let alone direct one, but have worked in a few very low budget short films for some local film competitions. They are 25-30 mins long each and the highest budget one still cost under USD$8K. Of course it is made possible because I'm not living in the US. Things are generally slighter cheaper here. Basically, we need to gather a small group of aspiring individuals, perferably friends, who are willing to work long hours for free. Everyone has to multi-task on set. It's almost required to have crew that can fill in multiple posistions. The same applies in post production. Luckily, we just have some simple VFX so it's doable. Also, have to make a lot of compromises. That means very strict and tight schedule. All were shot in under 3-5 days. Crew members had to fill in for extras or even acted as important side characters. Had to walk around the city to find the cheapest places to shoot. Much of the costumes were brought from stores that have a return policy. Most importantly, tons of arguements regarding budget allocations by every departments. Needless to say it's quite a stressful and gruesome experience. I can't imagaine making a full feature film with only $30K.

The FX30 is great. A perfect camera for me. Originally bought it to use alongside my FS7M2. Now, if the job doesn't require the bigger camera, I'll just use the FX30. The FX30 is so much lighter and image is also better. The pricing is great too. Much more affordable than the FX3. Super 35 is not an issue for me because I'm too poor to switch to all full frame lenses. But if you want a hybrid, keep in mind it doesn't have mechanical shutter. Still very decent for taking some snapshots. Also 4K 120P has big crop. If you film a lot of slow motion, get the A7S3 or the FX3 instead.

I agree with the technical specifications. The tricks I can't say for certain though. It looks to me that cinematic mode does more harm than good at the moment. It may depends on how limited the knowledge of that person. Anyways I haven't had a chance to test out this camera, so I'm just speculating. If the ZV-E1 indeed can give someone with limited knowledge the ability to produce professional result, it's going to be a VERY BIG DEAL, but perhaps not so great for us professionals.😅

Haven't been following the camera market for a while and then this ZV-E1 appears. WOW. What a camera. Obviously I'm not their target audience so it makes sense that I find it uninteresting and too expensive. That cinematic mode sounds cool until you look at the image and it looks really bad. Almost like the picture effect of older sony cameras. The AI framing thing looks much more practical and interesting but I'm sure it's not yet ready for professional work. A season filmmaker can make great videos with this ZV-E1, no doubt. But on the hands of newbiew vloggers or regular people who want a travel camera, the ZV-E1 isn't going to give them better results than much cheaper cameras.

I recently purchased a tiny set of microprime (5 lenses). I've only done some minor testing though. Still I think for the price, they are very very nice. They are compact and quite well-built. The focus ring is pretty smooth. The images are beautiful, with a slight vintage feel, but the lenses are not very sharp, especially at the widest aperture. It really depends on your taste or the project.

Unfortunately, looking professional does matter to some clients. They have to look for something to justify hiring an "expensive" videographer. But I also believe it is more important to have a camera set up that works for you. Rigging up the camera to impress at the cost of usability is stupid, IMO. I don't really have this problem because I usually bring my FS7, but I've seen people rig up their mirrorless camera to a point where it is absurdly big and heavy to use properly. The client may be impressed by his look. I highly doubted the client will be impressed by the video he made though.

It's amazing to see what people are doing with this little camera! The EOS M always has a place in my heart. For some unknown reason, it just comes with great colors. It only requires some minimal effort to get it to look good in my taste. Not to mention you can install Magic Lantern and add in many useful features. Anyway, a camera which can shoot RAW costing around $100 is unbelievable. It's unfortunate I had to sell it last year. Maybe one day I would buy it back and play with the RAW feature more😅.