Fuji X-T3 and X-T4 discussion

[mkabi]

1 hour ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Wtf? Do people on this forum even work in production? EVERYTHING with a budget I work on is Alexa with fast lenses close to wide open, big soft LED sources, and practicals that play as real scene lighting. Low light levels are the current flavor, not only for speed (HUGE on paid work where producers are trying to save pennies anywhere they can), but because at those intensities, lighting looks about the same to the eye as it will to camera, as opposed to high levels where you'll often have no idea of your ratios until you pull out a meter or a monitor. This also means controlling your sources, blocking light, and choosing visually conducive locations becomes more important than ever, as your keys aren't nearly bright enough to knock errant light down. 

Maybe we need to make a topic detailing current industry visual and sound techniques, just so we're all on the same page with how things are done now and what matters.

I think what he meant by saying "good lowlight capabilities are of no benefit for "big budget" shoots"

Its under the bigger umbrella of what he said earlier, i.e. "The filmmaking industry can be surprisingly traditional and risk adverse, one of the reasons why Arri Alexa cameras are so common place. Just because a camera is popular doesn't mean it is 'best'".

And, I'm just insinuating here... what he means is that if the Sony alpha cameras produced the same IQ and colour as the Alexa, but it gives the additional benefit of extreme low-light capabilities - the industry will still choose the Alexa. Regardless of the fact that the Sony gives the additional benefit of lowlight... 

[webrunner5]

Big time Producers, Directors are never going to go with something that is efficient as heck. The smaller the cast and crew is the less money they make. It is the same thing CEO's, Mangers do. The more people that are under them the more their salary is.  Everyone wants to build an empire. It is All about the money. Been the same way since the beginning of time. Hollywood Movies are probably the less efficient business in the world. But it blends in perfectly with the craziness of California.

[Snowbro]

7 hours ago, Attila Bakos said:

I don't have my X-T3 with me to confirm it, but check page 212 here: http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/x-t3/x-t3_omw_en_s_f.pdf

Everything I could find, says that is a boost for photos. It can shoot something like 30 fps in photos & needs boost enabled to AF during it. I wonder if it even helps anything at good ol 24p.

[Christof Haberle]

5 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Maybe we need to make a topic detailing current industry visual and sound techniques, just so we're all on the same page with how things are done now and what matters.

I am mainly a lurker here - mainly - but I'll decloak and will say "yes, please" for that one. It'd be much more interesting, and useful, than the gear debates. 

But I also know that those topics cost a lot of time, and might go up in flames easily - so I'd be thankful, but also understanding if it doesn't happen :).

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, thephoenix said:

and still it is an adapter not a speedbooster and or focal reducer, which means that all my lenses get x1.6

Sometimes I think the entire "crop factor" concept does more harm than good, at the typical person is better off just not thinking about it!

 

8 hours ago, thephoenix said:

good news only problem is the 1.6 crop, i like wide angle

Then just buy a Tokina 11-20mm f2.8, problem solved. 

[webrunner5]

3 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Sometimes I think the entire "crop factor" concept does more harm than good, at the typical person is better off just not thinking about it!

 

Yeah figuring about 80 bazillion movies have been made on a s35 sensor which has around a 1.5 crop.

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, mkabi said:

And, I'm just insinuating here... what he means is that IF the Sony alpha cameras produced the same IQ and colour as the Alexa, but it gives the additional benefit of extreme low-light capabilities - the industry will still choose the Alexa. Regardless of the fact that the Sony gives the additional benefit of lowlight... 

I really need to emphasis that "if" right there. 

 

7 hours ago, mkabi said:

I think what he meant by saying "good lowlight capabilities are of no benefit for "big budget" shoots"

And that wasn't me saying that. 

 

7 hours ago, mkabi said:

 Its under the bigger umbrella of what he said earlier, i.e. "The filmmaking industry can be surprisingly traditional and risk adverse, one of the reasons why Arri Alexa cameras are so common place. Just because a camera is popular doesn't mean it is 'best'".

 

Yup

3 hours ago, Christof Haberle said:

I am mainly a lurker here - mainly - but I'll decloak and will say "yes, please" for that one. It'd be much more interesting, and useful, than the gear debates. 

The problem is there are so so so many different types of "normal". 

There is normal on Reality TV vs normal on feature films vs normal on corporate shoots vs normal on TVCs vs normal on VR shoots vs normal on etc etc etc

Then within each "type" you can break it up on budget, as "normal" on big budget film is completely different to "normal" on a low budget indie film, and they're both different to a medium budget one in between them. (not even counting differences like how one shot indoors in a studio is going to be very different to one shot on location in a jugle, or how a romcom is going to be very different to a heavy VFX action film)

[thephoenix]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Sometimes I think the entire "crop factor" concept does more harm than good, at the typical person is better off just not thinking about it!

 

Then just buy a Tokina 11-20mm f2.8, problem solved. 

problem is not crop itself, it is the fact that my focal lengh are not the same. crop is fine as you use the center of the lense.

probably will sell my 85 1.2 to buy the 85 1.4 stab

and for the tokina i think for wide angles 2.8 is not great so primes are better to me, which means buying new lense and wide angle opening faster than 2.8 and stabilized don't come cheap

[austinchimp]

15 hours ago, thephoenix said:

good news only problem is the 1.6 crop, i like wide angle

I'm using the Fringer with my Canon lenses. Yes the AF is a bit dodgy but the main benefit is being able to use IS. To cover the wide angle problem I'm planning to get the 10-24mm. I have the Canon 10-22 APSC which works well, but doesn't have IS, and even at those wide angles you still need IS in my opinion.

[thephoenix]

yes to me that is the main fuji weakness: the lenses.

they are really good for autofocus, build quality and sharpness but the lack of stab is a major problem to me

they could have compensate with is in the xt3 but they didn't, kinda stupid for a body that is clearly video oriented

and the big plus with canon lenses it that you can use them in tons of other equipment, lots of cameras use canon mount and there are lots of adaters

i am planning to get the bmpcc4k, i will use some of my canon lenses with a speedbooster, i couldn't use fuji lenses.

at least my canon lenses could be usefull for both systems

fuji x, so few lenses, almost no compatibility with other systems and no stab

they really need to work on that

 

[Kisaha]

A bit off topic again, but matches the previous conversation.

"The camera is only a small part of any production, and any camera, even an α7S II, can produce good results in controlled conditions in the right hands. To me, it looks like they just ended up making more work for themselves by having to build out enormous rigs to make the a7SII usable and functional on a movie set.

It’s slightly ironic that the production said they were interested in shooting with a very lightweight camera, yet they built it out to a size that makes it no smaller than what an ARRI ALEXA MINI or RED package would end up being. There is no doubt that the camera is capable of producing good results in the right hands, but this whole thing feels a little like it’s a publicity stunt to attract attention to a movie that hasn’t exactly received great reviews from film critics. It’s a bit of a pity that all the publicity surrounding this film is based on what camera they used and not that making a movie is a collaborative effort that depends on so many people and departments."

From the newshooter article about that A7Sii film, which by the way had an - almost - 10.000.000$ budget and is a Sony made and distributed film.

The article and comments are very interesting.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/05/the-possession-of-hannah-grace-a-feature-film-shot-entirely-on-the-sony-a7sii/

[Snowbro]

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

A bit off topic again, but matches the previous conversation.

"The camera is only a small part of any production, and any camera, even an α7S II, can produce good results in controlled conditions in the right hands. To me, it looks like they just ended up making more work for themselves by having to build out enormous rigs to make the a7SII usable and functional on a movie set.

It’s slightly ironic that the production said they were interested in shooting with a very lightweight camera, yet they built it out to a size that makes it no smaller than what an ARRI ALEXA MINI or RED package would end up being. There is no doubt that the camera is capable of producing good results in the right hands, but this whole thing feels a little like it’s a publicity stunt to attract attention to a movie that hasn’t exactly received great reviews from film critics. It’s a bit of a pity that all the publicity surrounding this film is based on what camera they used and not that making a movie is a collaborative effort that depends on so many people and departments."

From the newshooter article about that A7Sii film, which by the way had an - almost - 10.000.000$ budget and is a Sony made and distributed film.

The article and comments are very interesting.

https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/05/the-possession-of-hannah-grace-a-feature-film-shot-entirely-on-the-sony-a7sii/

I think this thread is fairly similar 

 

[frontfocus]

@thephoenix 

I don't really get your point. You are looking at the Fuji because you like Autofocus? But then you think about a bmpcc4k which is practically the opposite. There are adapters for EF to X, there is a speedbooster and there might be a metabones in the future. 
But most important, there will be a X-H2 for those who need IBIS. Personally I think the X-T3 is incredible value and part of that is, that they left the IBIS out. And can't complain about their lenses, I love their primes and they probably have two of the greatest zooms you can get for any system. 

[thephoenix]

i am into the fuji because it is a great versatile camera. i do both photography and video.

bmpcc4k is video only, not the same use

so far i don't know any speedbooster for canon ef to x, fd to x yes but these are old canon lenses (wonder why they did such a speedbooster...)

of course there will be a camera with ibis, but hey we cannot always wait 1 or 2 years for the next camera to be released.

never sais xt3 is bad, it is great, but it could be a killer if fuji had put ibis in it or had some stabilized lenses.

i've been using fuji for a very long time, still have a 645zi so no need to tell me they do great lenses, never said that, just said that when competitors have stabilized prime lenses and a wider range of lenses maybe it is time to do something about it. especially when the x mount is not really widely used.

 

[frontfocus]

There is the kipon baveyes EF to Fuji speedbooster. Optically not the best, but it's available.
Stabilized zoom lenses? 10-24mm, 18-55mm, 18-135mm, 50-140mm, 55-200mm, 16-50mm, 15-45mm, 50-230mm, 100-400mm and the upcoming 16-80mm
stabilized primes? 80mm, 200mm

Yes, they are a young system and there are only something like 30 autofocusing lenses, but again, if the bmpcc4k is interesting, AF is probably not the highest priority. 

And we can always argue about what the competition has, Fuji has the outstanding MKX lenses if anybody is into video for real

[thephoenix]

As i Said before stabilized zoom why not but try finding one that opens wider than 2.8

Shooting videos at f4 or  5.6 when wide open  no thanks

 

Kipon seems to be poorly built  and af not so good... You should read reviews about It. It's terrible

Cine lenses, if i wanted ciné lenses why using the xt3 when the bmpcc4k Is just fine  ??

People buy the xt3 for its versality and the af

 

[frontfocus]

For me you are taking an approach with too much speculation, generalization and listening to others. 

Quote

People buy the xt3 for its versality and the af

So you work for Fujifilm and know their statistics about who buys the camera?
or how do you know what people want? While it has great autofocus, why can't one use a manual focus lens on it?

Quote

Cine lenses, if i wanted ciné lenses why using the xt3 when the bmpcc4k Is just fine  ??

Why shouldn't you, the MKX lenses are incredible. One might prefer the form factor or the viewfinder or is partly into photography. And just because you have manual focus lenses doesn't mean you can't have autofocusing ones too

Quote

Kipon seems to be poorly built  and af not so good... You should read reviews about It. It's terrible

Have you actually tried it or are you just repeating what someone on the internet said? 
To take your approach of repeating what others said, some say, the 6K downsampled images of the X-T3 are too sharp and that 2.8K upsampled are enough for Hollywood movies. So if the adapter isn't as sharp as others, that might even be beneficial if we just go by what some say

 

in the end it feels like your critique comes down to a single thing. A missing 16-45mm f/2.8 OIS. While that's totally comprehensible, there seem to be enough others, that don't feel this way. It's really nice to have all those OIS and IBIS systems out there, but to be honest, I feel like people are depending way too much on it. You can find warping artifacts in a lot of footage and it seems, that stabilization is part of the reason to this happening. There are other great ways to get steady footage and people shouldn't forget about that. 

[thephoenix]

you have your way to use this camera fine

just understand that some people use this camera for its af which is great.

i do a lot of handheld so yes i need af and stabilization, am i the only one ? i doubt it.

so for MY use (and i guess i am not the only one that want to use this camera for handheld video) the fuji lenses are not what i need and expect.

for the kipon, why spending money on a product that all tests say it is not good for video ? do you buy equipment when all say it is not worth it ? maybe you do but i don't have money to waste.

of course you can use manual and i guess you can do it with all cameras right ? i wonder why fuji did put af in this camera then

16-45 2.8 stab would be great yes but stabilized primes you be even better

yes there are some artifacts on some lenses, especially in backlight, but you can correct in post and i trust fuji to release great stab primes lenses

 

 

[Kisaha]

19 minutes ago, frontfocus said:

A missing 16-55mm f/2.8 OIS. While that's totally comprehensible, there seem to be enough others, that don't feel this way. It's really nice to have all those OIS and IBIS systems out there, but to be honest, I feel like people are depending way too much on it. You can find warping artifacts in a lot of footage and it seems, that stabilization is part of the reason to this happening. There are other great ways to get steady footage and people shouldn't forget about that. 

My take.

MK lenses are excellent, but Canon offers the cheap CN-E with full auto (coupled with the admittedly excellent dual pixel AF) and a few stabilization options, plus in built power zoom and extra handle if anyone wishes.

Sony offers the ultra cheap 18-110mm 4f that we use a lot, even in popular TV series shot with the FS7ii.

I personally detest "floating" IBIS shots, but a stabilized lens is a different thing altogether and is a must for video, especially on a workhorse video lens.

One of the reasons I am still staying on the NX system, because of the excellent 16-50mm 2-2.8f. It is a mix between the Sigma 18-35mm and a workhorse zoom.

[Snowbro]

Alright phoenix, the lens point has been beat to death now lol