X-T3 vs A7III vs EOS R vs Z7 vs Pocket 4K - Video Quality Compared!

[thebrothersthre3]

He'd have better results if he shot in Slog2 or a cine2 or something. Slog2 was made for these types of cameras not slog3. Just because of this it wasn't a great comparison.

 

13 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

Been shooting a lot of run and gun video with the A73 for a new job lately, super impressed despairs shitty EVF and LCD. It’s so versatile. I haven’t seen anything better from the EosR yet. And the DR with stills is like a drug, so much latitude to push/pull shadows/highlights with high contrast shots like sunrise/sunsets. The AF is pretty amazing too. Not tempted by anything Fuji/Nikon/Canon at all. Going to a craft beer tasting with 40 breweries and then a seafood festival for some event coverage. The A73 will likely be the only camera I use. Though I need to rent a P4k....

chris

They do have amazing dynamic range. Although I've found my Fuji (xt20 and xt3) to have amazing dynamic range, same as the A6300. I can almost always expose for highlights and simply raise shadows and mids and get everything back.

[Andrew Reid]

15 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

super impressed despairs shitty EVF and LCD.

Come again?

[TurboRat]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Come again?

I think he meant 'super impressed despite the shitty EVF and LCD'.

[austinchimp]

7 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

He'd have better results if he shot in Slog2 or a cine2 or something. Slog2 was made for these types of cameras not slog3. Just because of this it wasn't a great comparison.

 

They do have amazing dynamic range. Although I've found my Fuji (xt20 and xt3) to have amazing dynamic range, same as the A6300. I can almost always expose for highlights and simply raise shadows and mids and get everything back.

This is my main concern with switching from using a Sony A7Rii as my main photo camera to going all in with Fuji. The dynamic range from the Sonys is unparalleled in photo or video in a camera of this size. I haven't used a Nikon D850 which I hear has exceptional DR in stills though.

The dynamic range of Sony cameras in video is really incredible - so useful in run and gun. The Fujis tend to blow the highlights or crush the shadows a low, perhaps in pursuit of a more contrasty filmic image, while the Sonys have more Alexa-like dynamic range and a more creamy modern look.

Having said that, I've been playing with some downloaded ungraded Fuji X-T3 log footage, and I feel most of the videos we're seeing have been graded in a particular way and crushed. You can actually achieve a more modern low-con look from the Fujis if you grade accordingly, and maybe avoid using the official Eternal LUT.

[Trek of Joy]

8 hours ago, TurboRat said:

I think he meant 'super impressed despite the shitty EVF and LCD'.

Yes. Despite. Was typing on my phone and missed the incorrect autocorrect. 

The LCD and EVF of the A73 are rubbish compared to the others. But IQ is amazing and the gen3 bodies are really nice to work with. Plus the Tamron 28-75 is a great run and gun lens.

As an overall hybrid package it’s tough to beat. 

Chris

[BasiliskFilm]

1 hour ago, Trek of Joy said:

Yes. Despite. Was typing on my phone and missed the incorrect autocorrect. 

The LCD and EVF of the A73 are rubbish compared to the others. But IQ is amazing and the gen3 bodies are really nice to work with. Plus the Tamron 28-75 is a great run and gun lens.

As an overall hybrid package it’s tough to beat. 

Chris

...Unless the Z6 can match it, plus with a decent EVF and backscreen. Admittedly the kit lens is an f4 (no Tamron, yet), which is a shame, but looks pretty good at what it does.

[Mako Sports]

New test out! 

 

[TurboRat]

1 hour ago, Mako Sports said:

New test out! 

 

Why is it that A7iii comes out on top of Max's tests while EOS R looks better than A7III in other tests lol

[Robert Collins]

39 minutes ago, TurboRat said:

Why is it that A7iii comes out on top of Max's tests while EOS R looks better than A7III in other tests lol

For lowlight, these results are pretty much as expected

The A7iii is full frame supersampled from 6k to 4k, the BMPCC is M43 (-2 stops), EOS-R FF sensor heavily cropped (-2 stops), XT-3 APSC (-1 stop) and the Z7 is high resolution sensor with pixel binning (a comparison with a Z6 would be fairer.)

[thebrothersthre3]

Are the Sony and Z7 brighter because they are full frame? 

The XT3 is pretty darn good up to 6400 iso. 

 

[Robert Collins]

44 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Are the Sony and Z7 brighter because they are full frame? 

The XT3 is pretty darn good up to 6400 iso. 

 

Nope the reason was touched upon in Max's video. There is no hard defined definition of ISO. All camera manufacturers 'understate' their ISO. So take a look at this chart from DXOmark for the A7riii...

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Sony/A7R-III---Measurements

You will see that what 'Sony' calls iso 200, is measured at iso 145 by DXOmark. Why do they do this? Well so people will say - very little noise at iso3200 - partly because the actual iso is 1600. You can go back and look at Canon 5D bodies and you will see the differential between real and Canon's iso has increased with every generation. Why? So that people can say 'at 6400 there is a half stop improvement over the old body' when it is more like a 1/4 of a stop and a 1/4 additional stop iso fudge.

When you do a comparison like Max's that uses 'same settings' - shutter speed, f stop, iso - greater amounts of 'iso fudge' end up as 'lower exposure'. As a general rule, smaller sensor cameras tend to 'fudge' their iso more than FF cameras. Take the Olympus EM1 for an example....

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II---Measurements

Iso stated by Olympus is iso200 while DXOmark's measured ISO is 83. So Olympus has fudged the ISO well over 1 stop and almost I stop more than the Sony. 

[thebrothersthre3]

31 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Nope the reason was touched upon in Max's video. There is no hard defined definition of ISO. All camera manufacturers 'understate' their ISO. So take a look at this chart from DXOmark for the A7riii...

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Sony/A7R-III---Measurements

You will see that what 'Sony' calls iso 200, is measured at iso 145 by DXOmark. Why do they do this? Well so people will say - very little noise at iso3200 - partly because the actual iso is 1600. You can go back and look at Canon 5D bodies and you will see the differential between real and Canon's iso has increased with every generation. Why? So that people can say 'at 6400 there is a half stop improvement over the old body' when it is more like a 1/4 of a stop and a 1/4 additional stop iso fudge.

When you do a comparison like Max's that uses 'same settings' - shutter speed, f stop, iso - greater amounts of 'iso fudge' end up as 'lower exposure'. As a general rule, smaller sensor cameras tend to 'fudge' their iso more than FF cameras. Take the Olympus EM1 for an example....

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Olympus/OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II---Measurements

Iso stated by Olympus is iso200 while DXOmark's measured ISO is 83. So Olympus has fudged the ISO well over 1 stop and almost I stop more than the Sony. 

Doesn't full frame gather more light the APSC or M43, meaning it should look brighter at the same shutter speed, fstop, and iso? 

If Sony was giving a false ISO, wouldn't it be darker then the others at the same setting?

[Robert Collins]

3 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Doesn't full frame gather more light the APSC or M43, meaning it should look brighter at the same shutter speed, fstop, and iso? 

FF gathers more light than a 'smaller sensor' because the 'sensor is bigger'. Theoretically, at the same shutter speed, f stop and iso - they gather the same amount of light 'per sqmm of sensor size' and 'exposure' should look the same.

If Sony was giving a false ISO, wouldn't it be darker then the others at the same setting?

What I said was that ALL manufacturers have a false iso. So while Sony's has a false iso, it isnt 'as false' as other manufacturers (which is why it tends to look brighter.) Fuji, for instance, is particularly well known for its 'false iso' which is why its 'exposure looks darker'.

 

[KnightsFan]

4 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Doesn't full frame gather more light the APSC or M43, meaning it should look brighter at the same shutter speed, fstop, and iso?

No-- ISO measures exposure (though as said before, different manufacturers measure differently), not gain. So the same ISO, shutter, and T-stop should give identical exposure, no matter what camera or lenses you use.

Larger sensors gather more light, and thus require less gain to reach an equivalent exposure compared to a smaller sensor. A FF sensor at 0db should give the same exposure (and thus the same ISO) compared to a MFT camera at 12db. You should see less noise on FF compared to MFT under the same conditions, because less gain is applied.

In the real world, there are other factors with sensor tech and processing. A given FF camera might not have exactly the 2 stop advantage we'd expect over a given MFT camera.

10 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

If Sony was giving a false ISO, wouldn't it be darker then the others at the same setting?

Yes... except they all fudge their ISO numbers.

[Mako Sports]

I wish Sony made it so you can change the Alpha mirrorless bodies to show Gain instead ISO, just like on their video cameras.

ISO is confusing and somewhat inferior to db gain. 

[thebrothersthre3]

7 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

No-- ISO measures exposure (though as said before, different manufacturers measure differently), not gain. So the same ISO, shutter, and T-stop should give identical exposure, no matter what camera or lenses you use.

Larger sensors gather more light, and thus require less gain to reach an equivalent exposure compared to a smaller sensor. A FF sensor at 0db should give the same exposure (and thus the same ISO) compared to a MFT camera at 12db. You should see less noise on FF compared to MFT under the same conditions, because less gain is applied.

In the real world, there are other factors with sensor tech and processing. A given FF camera might not have exactly the 2 stop advantage we'd expect over a given MFT camera.

Yes... except they all fudge their ISO numbers.

Thank you for the info, that makes complete sense now. Seems Sony is one of the more accurate ones. I wonder if they are consistent across all cameras though. 

[wolf33d]

Then people say Sony has zombie skin tones. Lol not bad Z7! 

[thebrothersthre3]

22 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

Then people say Sony has zombie skin tones. Lol not bad Z7! 

 

Z7 looks bright but doesn't hold much detail. 

[Mattias Burling]

Two under exposed, one zombie, one dying and a Canon.

[ND64]

Just now, Mattias Burling said:

Two under exposed, one zombie, one dying and a Canon.

He set WB manually at 4000. All of them has color balance problem in low light.