A_Urquhart

Despite me complaining about the choice of CFExpress type A, the small body of the FX30 is a bit of a revelation to me. It's small in all the right dimensions except thickness which makes it far more comfortable to hold than any other mirrorless camera I have used from Sony or Fuji to date. After owning both the Pocket4k and 6K pro, there was no way I was going back to a camera with mini or micro HDMI. I don't like the Flip out screen...hated it on the GH3 I had years ago and still hate it. Give me a screen that just tilts up and down. I'm using a Metabones Speedbooster on mine at the moment for Full Frame. That makes the 4k 120p crop around APC-C. Most of my clients want Sony these days so the FX30 made perfect sense as a B or C Camera to the FX6 and FX9. I never would have made my money back on a Panasonic camera despite specs. I also wanted a camera that could shoot high quality APS-C for using most cine lenses which the FX30 excels at. As above, add Speedbooster and I have a Full frame camera which with the Leica R cine modded lenses, is absolutely tiny even with Speedbooster. Best of both worlds really and Sony has a much better range of available lenses and third part accessories. Despite the still awful menu's, I think I'll like this camera!

Got my FX30 a few days ago and time to buy some more CFExpress Type A cards..... Reminds me how much I hate that Sony went for Type A over Type B. Paying more than double for a card that is half the speed of type B. For the same price of one 160GB type A card I can get a 512Gb Type B card which is rated at double the speed. Sure, they're smaller but I would happily have gone a slightly bigger body to accomodate. Why Sony.....just why??

While this is kinda old news and not strictly FX30 related but with the similarities between the FX3 and FX30......Greg Fraser is apparently shooting his next feature "entirely" on the FX3. Normally I would agree that what people are calling 'cinema cameras' really aren't cinema cameras but merely marketing BS and Greg does call it what it really is: a 'prosumer camera' but this is blurring the lines I suppose. Go to 38:28 in

On the FX6, I have tried using 12800 and ND but have noticed the increase noise.

Sorry, I didn't quite word it correctly. The Venice, FX9 and FX30 (apparently) all have true Dual Base ISO sensors. This means that at ISO 800 and 2500 (for the FX30), there is the exact same noise and dynamic range. The FX6 and FX3 on the other hand have 'dual sensitivities' of 800 and 12800 but 12800 has more noise and less dynamic range than ISO800. They are not exactly the same. Article here explaining it better. https://sonycine.com/articles/what-is-dual-base-iso-/

Good article on the FX30. Sorry if it's already been posted. https://www.xdcam-user.com/category/fx30/

For a lot of my use cases, I'll be using my old Metabone Speedbooster that I had for the FS7 on the FX30 with Leica R glass. Extra stop of light back and FF to boot. Makes the FX30 super flexible. In addition, the Speedbooster means that the 4k 120p mode is now roughly APS-C crop. Winning! I'm also liking the announced Meike EF to E mount adaptor with built in Vari ND. If the quality of the ND is good, I can see the FX30 replacing my 2 BMD P6K Pro's!

Doesn't quite work that way. There are plenty of times when shooting with the FX6 that I've found I need more ISO than 800 but really don't need 12,800. 12800 is not a native ISO on the FX6 sensor and there is noise. FX6 is Dual Base ISO...not dual native ISO. A lot of the times, I don't want to shoot at 12800 and use ND when what I really need is an ISO of around 3200. For professional use, the closer native ISO's of the FX30 are far more usable. Sure, if you want to shoot by the light of the moon just because you can, then go for it but usually there is no need. Saying that, the FX30 looks quite usable at 12,800 especially with a bit of noise reduction in post.

ProRes422 is my flavour of choice. For most of the broadcast work I do which is sports documentary pieces the production house still prefers 1080p most of the time due to the fast turn around nature of these. We shoot during the week and the pieces get broadcast at the half time break during the sports telecast. For TVC's it's usually ProRes422 in 4K unless there is VFX involved and then it's ProRes 422HQ or very rarely BRAW. For some corporate work I do that I cut myself, I was shooting ProRes422LT until I did a shoot where the wide shot of an interview setup that was on a motorised slider contained a lot of foliage and I found the image did not hold up well so I have gone to shooting ProRes422 for corporates as well.

ProAV TV did a ISO comparison of the FX30, FX3 and Pocket6K Pro. Search their channel on YouTube. On the FX6, I find the second base ISO of 12,800 to be too high. Too big a gap between the native 800 and 12,800 plus, I really never need to shoot anywhere near 12,800! FX30 dual native ISO's of 800 and 2500 is similar to the Venice that has 500 and 2500. much more usable range for those that shoot with lights when it's pitch black.

When I said 'camera' I meant 'sensor'. Even so, I'm sure it was far into the millions.

Not really sure what the last few pages have been about? Are we trying to justify an APS-C sensor as being good enough for a Netflix or Theatrical release? Maybe Arri should weigh in here on why they would have spent hundreds of thousands of euro on developing a new S35 camera that is not good enough for the big time. Maybe every rental house I know, that all have ordered and received their new S35 sensor Arri camera could also weigh in here? With so much $$ at stake, you'd think they all would have done some research to learn that nothing less than full frame is really acceptable today. If only Arri, the rental houses and top DP's watched YouTube reviewers .....a lot of money could have been saved by not buying or even developing a useless 'crop' sensor camera. 😉

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.

Completely agree, higher bitrate 1080p over 4K

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.

No 4K on YouTube? No great loss. Nothing wrong with HD.

I'm not up to speed on Sony's A7IV specs but can it receive Timecode and output a custom LUT over HDMI? These are two pretty important features for me that I use daily on set. Fair points! I still stand by my argument that anything that is labelled as a cinema camera MUST have shutter angle. There is absolutely no reason for Sony to omit this. How about Sony put Shutter angle only on the next A1 camera in both photo and video modes. Then listen to the photographers kick up a stink. They just wouldn't do it!

Continued........ For me, 70% of my work requires Sony cameras which are generally FX9 and FX6 so this will be a B-Cam to those and will probably live on a gimbal. I prefer the APS-C sensor of the FX30 to the Full frame one on the FX3. I can't put Super35 lenses on the FX3 as doing so forces you to shoot HD when in crop mode. I can put both Super35 AND Full Frame lenses on the FX30 and with an EF to E mount speed booster I get proper Full frame. To me, It's a much more versatile camera regardless of price. I also have the P6K Pro and was disappointed when it was announced to have an EF mount negating the use of many adaptors and speed boosters. The 6K Pro gets used as a B Camera to Arri Alexa and Amira so I will keep it but I feel that BMD is going to have to step up it's game now that Sony has the FX30. Sure, It doesn't natively shoot RAW but most productions still don't want BRAW so I'm in ProRes most of the time. Will be interesting to do a side by side....

I'm agreeing with you. The FX30, if it's going to don the 'Cinema' tag, should have shutter angle and DCI. Two fundamentals of cinema shooting. I was merely saying that this proves the term 'cinema' camera is nothing more than marketing nonsense according to the manufacturers who tell us these are 'cinema cameras' but then omit very core fundamentals of Cinema shooting. Sony should be applauded for this camera but it should be a slow clap until they add shutter angle and DCI.

And they have the nerve to call it a 'Cinema Camera'. I mean, one of the fundamentals of cine shooting is shutter angle but then.....we all know these mirrorless cameras that get called 'Cinema Cameras' aren't really proper cinema cameras. Just a phrase penned my marketing suits really. This is a video camera! Anyway, rant over......I think the FX30 looks great. With the EF to E Mount speed booster I have left over from my FS7 days, I can easily make this camera full frame if needed so at the price point, I'm not really seeing anything not to like about it.

It's a Fly by wire lens isn't it? If so, then no matter if it's in AF or MF motors 'could' make the adjustment even if it's in MF. Either way, this looks like a great lens for video. Well done Fuji.

The Alexa 35 should build up quite a bit smaller than the Mini for general shooting. The problem with the Mini is that it wasn't designed to be operated on the shoulder or even on sticks. It was a small body for Steadicam, Gimbal or Drone shots. Thus, to make it work, you needed to add a cage and battery plate but due to the design of the body, the battery plate is always quite far away from the back of the camera. The new Alexa 35 doesn't have this issue so should be a much better form factor despite the possible weight increase in batteries. Battery plate directly mounts to new Alexa 35 Alexa Mini solution: (Not so Mini any more)

It's easy to clean that cable up with some clever cable management (unlike the photo). A good 1st AC will sort that out quick smart. Having a cable means it can be adjusted and placed anywhere on the camera quickly and easily. The current Alexa Mini is pretty easy to solo operate really. Such a great menu system and most of what you need is accesible by the buttons on the EVF/screen This may have been mentioned already but I genuinely am curious about the following..... Why isn't anyone here seriously complaining about the lack of IBIS, Auto focus or the fact that it isn't Full Frame? Is it because the camera is so far out of reach price wise that you just don't care? So, when other companies make cameras that are not too far away from this image wise such as Z-Cam, Blackmagic etc (I know the Alexa trumps them image wise, but I have used Pocket Cameras as B_Cams to Alexa Minis in the past without too much issue), do people complain that those camera don't have IBIS, AF and FF just because they are priced in reach of people who need those features without really realising who those cameras are aimed at? Is the Problem with other manufacturers the fact that they price their cameras too cheap? We seem willing to accept the lack of features in a $75,000 camera but when someone comes along and gives us 70% of that camera in a much cheaper package, we wine about it not having feature XY&Z. Not wanting to stir the pot, just genuinely interested as to how people think.

Sounds like most of your gear is sitting unused. It doesn't really matter what you shoot nothing on, it will all look like nothing. 😜

Some nice images does not make a cinematographer (or DP). Nice videography.....sure.