Sony FX3 vs. Canon R6 for Video

[FHDcrew]

16 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

GH2 certainly had character. Distinctive colour science.

With the GH3 they switched to a Sony sensor for first time.

GH4 they modernised the image processor quite a bit for 4K.

GH5 I think has really nice colour science especially in 10bit but it is way more modern and clean.

GH6 is more of the same I think, whereas the OM-1 has more character. It's not just the sensor or colour profiles, or LOG and which LUT, but how the white balance is baked in as well.

Sometimes a bit of weirdness is good for character.

I tell myself that when looking in a mirror too!

Agreed about the GH2. Special image. A YouTuber named OWLBOT, who used a c100 mark ii for a long time, has an interesting video which touches on the unique look these older cams provide. He filmed it on an AF100 to prove his point. 

 

[webrunner5]

Yeah, I had one of those.  For the time they were pretty damn good. Learned a lot using it.

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

I think the color science was better on the GH2 with Hacks than is on the GH5.

I think more skilled DoPs were using the GH2 back then than today with the GH5. 

As back then GH2 was the best on offer short of spending big big time for a RED/ARRI

But now, why would a professional DoP shoot with a GH5 when they can get a FS7/C300mk2/EVA1 for cheap instead?

 

[SRV1981]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

If you have enough money to get an FX3 or a C70, then go for it. They're fine cameras. If you haven't seen it yet, @Oliver Daniel has shot a gorgeous music video on his FX3 and a7siii.

Personally, I didn't find anything WOW about the videos you posted. I don't want to be disrespectful to the filmmaker, they are fine videos and he is very talented/skilled...

But the second video you posted looked very video to me. They were all wide shots, stopped down and focused to infinity. Other than some cloud separation and color depth, I'd think almost any camera could capture that.

Check out Noam Kroll's website/instagram and see what he he's been capturing/grading with an X-T4 on his current feature film. It looks very high end. Even Fuji's Film Simulations have a pretty nice, SOOC look. I assume they may take a hit in DR, but that can be molded, a touch, in post with some aggressive curves.

I believe @kye has a similar video, to the beach one you posted, that he shot on an OG Pocket or Micro and it looks fantastic, maybe he'll repost it to give you an idea what can be accomplished with some care.

I've seen some really nice footage from the R6, so I'm sure it's very capable.

Also... what type of stuff are you looking to shoot? You've used the word cinematic a few times, so am I to assume you want to shoot narrative films?

 

[SRV1981]

Oh and this :

 

 

 

[kye]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

If you have enough money to get an FX3 or a C70, then go for it. They're fine cameras. If you haven't seen it yet, @Oliver Daniel has shot a gorgeous music video on his FX3 and a7siii.

Personally, I didn't find anything WOW about the videos you posted. I don't want to be disrespectful to the filmmaker, they are fine videos and he is very talented/skilled...

But the second video you posted looked very video to me. They were all wide shots, stopped down and focused to infinity. Other than some cloud separation and color depth, I'd think almost any camera could capture that.

Check out Noam Kroll's website/instagram and see what he he's been capturing/grading with an X-T4 on his current feature film. It looks very high end. Even Fuji's Film Simulations have a pretty nice, SOOC look. I assume they may take a hit in DR, but that can be molded, a touch, in post with some aggressive curves.

I believe @kye has a similar video, to the beach one you posted, that he shot on an OG Pocket or Micro and it looks fantastic, maybe he'll repost it to give you an idea what can be accomplished with some care.

I've seen some really nice footage from the R6, so I'm sure it's very capable.

Also... what type of stuff are you looking to shoot? You've used the word cinematic a few times, so am I to assume you want to shoot narrative films?

@SRV1981  Here's the video that Mercer is referring to - it was shot with the BMMCC in Prores.

The colour palette on the final film is golden/magenta, but the footage was all over the place with some shots being blue/yellow and some shots being quite green.  

I've seen footage from an Alexa where the film-makers hired the camera but didn't really know what they were doing (IIRC correctly they self-funded a feature but lived in a town/city where there isn't really any professional film-making done so they didn't have anyone around to learn from).  The footage was of a scene that was badly framed, not lit at all (and worse still didn't use the available light in a good way).  The result was that the shots looked like bad home video.  It literally looked like a random clip of two people sitting in a cafe.

The best camera in the world doesn't help you.

Perhaps to try and ram this point home, here are some camera tests where they exposed properly and applied the manufactures LUT, but did no colour grading.

The USD$16,000 Canon C500ii:

The $1500 Sigma FP:

The USD$6,500 Sony A1:

The USD$6,000 Red Komodo:

Notice how they basically all look the same, and how none of them look even remotely like a finished colour graded image?

I cannot emphasise this enough, buying "the right" camera and expecting great looking images is like buying "the right" paints and expecting your paintings to be like Leonardo Da Vinci.

[IronFilm]

46 minutes ago, kye said:

I've seen footage from an Alexa where the film-makers hired the camera but didn't really know what they were doing (IIRC correctly they self-funded a feature but lived in a town/city where there isn't really any professional film-making done so they didn't have anyone around to learn from).  The footage was of a scene that was badly framed, not lit at all (and worse still didn't use the available light in a good way).  The result was that the shots looked like bad home video.  It literally looked like a random clip of two people sitting in a cafe.

Just google "student film arri alexa" then deep dive into finding videos with the least views! ha 🤣

As lots and lots of students have shot truly awful looking short films using their university's borrowed ARRI ALEXA. 

 

[IronFilm]

6 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Just google "student film arri alexa" then deep dive into finding videos with the least views! ha 🤣

As lots and lots of students have shot truly awful looking short films using their university's borrowed ARRI ALEXA. 
 

 

I'm guilty of that too! Heh, here is a film I shot for a Master's thesis:

Ok, it wasn't shot on an ARRI, as the Sony FS700 was the nicest camera they'd let us have (still darn nice for its time back then!) but I had a full set of nice Zeiss primes too. 

But meh, the end result is more a reflection of how few years of experience I had than anything else. It isn't a fair reflection of what the camera is capable of. 

[SRV1981]

2 hours ago, kye said:

@SRV1981  Here's the video that Mercer is referring to - it was shot with the BMMCC in Prores.

The colour palette on the final film is golden/magenta, but the footage was all over the place with some shots being blue/yellow and some shots being quite green.  

I've seen footage from an Alexa where the film-makers hired the camera but didn't really know what they were doing (IIRC correctly they self-funded a feature but lived in a town/city where there isn't really any professional film-making done so they didn't have anyone around to learn from).  The footage was of a scene that was badly framed, not lit at all (and worse still didn't use the available light in a good way).  The result was that the shots looked like bad home video.  It literally looked like a random clip of two people sitting in a cafe.

The best camera in the world doesn't help you.

Perhaps to try and ram this point home, here are some camera tests where they exposed properly and applied the manufactures LUT, but did no colour grading.

The USD$16,000 Canon C500ii:

The $1500 Sigma FP:

The USD$6,500 Sony A1:

The USD$6,000 Red Komodo:

Notice how they basically all look the same, and how none of them look even remotely like a finished colour graded image?

I cannot emphasise this enough, buying "the right" camera and expecting great looking images is like buying "the right" paints and expecting your paintings to be like Leonardo Da Vinci.

 

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

 

I'm guilty of that too! Heh, here is a film I shot for a Master's thesis:

Ok, it wasn't shot on an ARRI, as the Sony FS700 was the nicest camera they'd let us have (still darn nice for its time back then!) but I had a full set of nice Zeiss primes too. 

But meh, the end result is more a reflection of how few years of experience I had than anything else. It isn't a fair reflection of what the camera is capable of. 

I understand your points. They’re well reasoned. 
 

that said it feels like the argument is so far in one direction it’s like saying why buy a camera that can achieve a good look like this? Just buy a t3i? If there was no discernible difference between a gh6 and c70/fx3 then everyone should sell the latter and just buy the former. Or maybe just a hacked gh2 ? I get it - grading is important but the device matters too. 
 

I downloaded resolve and will be looking at tutorials this weekend !

[FHDcrew]

23 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

I downloaded resolve and will be looking at tutorials this weekend !

Great. Do realize that will even take time, you’ll have to work at it for a while to get good results. Just don’t expect to be able to watch a few tutorials, and then instantly be amazing at color grading. In the world of filmmaking this stuff just takes lots of time to master. YouTube is great, and helps a lot a long the way, though even with all the YT vids in the world it will still take time to get good at color grading, exposing, etc. 

[mercer]

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

 

I understand your points. They’re well reasoned. 
 

that said it feels like the argument is so far in one direction it’s like saying why buy a camera that can achieve a good look like this? Just buy a t3i? If there was no discernible difference between a gh6 and c70/fx3 then everyone should sell the latter and just buy the former. Or maybe just a hacked gh2 ? I get it - grading is important but the device matters too. 
 

I downloaded resolve and will be looking at tutorials this weekend !

Idk, it kinda feels like you're arguing with the people you've asked for advice because you've already made up your mind? Which is fine... go buy an FX3. As everybody has already said... it's a fine camera. But if you want advice, then listen to what people are telling you and asking you... what lenses do you own? What kind of video work do you want to do... personal, travel, documentary, music video, narrative.

With that, of course there's a difference between a t3i and an FX3... but if you have zero experience color grading footage, then you would probably get better results with a t3i than you would with an FX3. sLog isn't the easiest Log profile to grade. So your R6, with a modified Neutral profile (ProLost Flat) would probably look better than the FX3. Also the GH6, shot in ProRes is probably on par with, or better than, the FX3. It will definitely have better stabilization.

As far as the C70... well now you're talking a different classification of camera. If you can afford one, have video experience, plan on using it for work, etc... then it could be a great choice. But then you may as well get a Red Komodo. But why stop there? For a bit more you could get a C500 Mark II... for a little more than that you can get a Red V-Raptor... a bit more you can get an Alexa... surely that's a better camera...

The point is that there's always a better camera. But cameras don't have a "cool" button. Roger Deakins, and others, would make video from a t3i look better than I would with an Alexa.

[SRV1981]

33 minutes ago, mercer said:

Idk, it kinda feels like you're arguing with the people you've asked for advice because you've already made up your mind? Which is fine... go buy an FX3. As everybody has already said... it's a fine camera. But if you want advice, then listen to what people are telling you and asking you... what lenses do you own? What kind of video work do you want to do... personal, travel, documentary, music video, narrative.

With that, of course there's a difference between a t3i and an FX3... but if you have zero experience color grading footage, then you would probably get better results with a t3i than you would with an FX3. sLog isn't the easiest Log profile to grade. So your R6, with a modified Neutral profile (ProLost Flat) would probably look better than the FX3. Also the GH6, shot in ProRes is probably on par with, or better than, the FX3. It will definitely have better stabilization.

As far as the C70... well now you're talking a different classification of camera. If you can afford one, have video experience, plan on using it for work, etc... then it could be a great choice. But then you may as well get a Red Komodo. But why stop there? For a bit more you could get a C500 Mark II... for a little more than that you can get a Red V-Raptor... a bit more you can get an Alexa... surely that's a better camera...

The point is that there's always a better camera. But cameras don't have a "cool" button. Roger Deakins, and others, would make video from a t3i look better than I would with an Alexa.

Discussing - not arguing - some of the flippant responses by those who want to prove that the camera doesn't matter anymore makes it seem that way.  I enjoy healthy discussion to better understand something.

I understand that using LUTs and grading will make a difference, my original comments/intent was to discuss the gear that would allow one to get cinema like looks with the reference material I provided (they're not using lights or a crew, just run-and-gun and grading).

[mercer]

26 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Discussing - not arguing - some of the flippant responses by those who want to prove that the camera doesn't matter anymore makes it seem that way.  I enjoy healthy discussion to better understand something.

I understand that using LUTs and grading will make a difference, my original comments/intent was to discuss the gear that would allow one to get cinema like looks with the reference material I provided (they're not using lights or a crew, just run-and-gun and grading).

Gotcha.

The FX3 will check a lot of those boxes, but it may not be as run and gun as you think. In that BTS video, you posted, the filmmaker used a gimbal in some of his shots, which may indicate that the IBIS isn't that great. I've never used one, so I can't speak to that. I'm sure it's acceptable, though.

With that said, if I was in the market for a camera in that price range, I'd consider the FX3. I like the form factor, the lowlight looks fantastic, and I think the video IQ would look amazing in B&W. Which is something I am looking for right now.  But there are other cameras that fit the criteria... the S5 is a fine camera and is only $1499 right now. There probably isn't a better deal on the market. I also like the X-T4, although it's probably not as good in lowlight.

Good luck in your search. Resolve is a great program, but it can be complicated. Luckily, there are a ton of resources available at your fingertips. 

[SRV1981]

5 minutes ago, mercer said:

Gotcha.

The FX3 will check a lot of those boxes, but it may not be as run and gun as you think. In that BTS video, you posted, the filmmaker used a gimbal in some of his shots, which may indicate that the IBIS isn't that great. I've never used one, so I can't speak to that. I'm sure it's acceptable, though.

With that said, if I was in the market for a camera in that price range, I'd consider the FX3. I like the form factor, the lowlight looks fantastic, and I think the video IQ would look amazing in B&W. Which is something I am looking for right now.  But there are other cameras that fit the criteria... the S5 is a fine camera and is only $1499 right now. There probably isn't a better deal on the market. I also like the X-T4, although it's probably not as good in lowlight.

Good luck in your search. Resolve is a great program, but it can be complicated. Luckily, there are a ton of resources available at your fingertips. 

I appreciate this response a lot.  I'm glad I created this post and the subsequent discussion/debate.  I am going to:

 

1. Work on exposing/grading my Canon R6 footage

2. Consider a video-centric replacement (I'd love the C70 but it is a bit bulky for run/and/gun-travel)

3. Consider the FX3 or R5C for video centric and the Fuji X100V for photo due to its portability (could bring it to dinner/bar/travel/anywhere and not have the hassle of changing lenses etc.)

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Idk, it kinda feels like you're arguing with the people you've asked for advice because you've already made up your mind? Which is fine... go buy an FX3.

Yeah that happens a LOT of times in various forums, I'm sure you've noticed it too. 

People have an idea of what they want, and just want confirmation of their choice, looking for feedback which matches their own opinions they've formed. 

The worst are those who come and ask "what camera should I buy, should I get XXX_Camera??" when they have already purchased XXX_Camera! haha 🤣

  

34 minutes ago, mercer said:

the S5 is a fine camera and is only $1499 right now.

yeah, is awfully hard to argue against a camera which is 98% as good at well under half the cost!

 

And besides, if a person buys an FX3 today, within a couple of years time it will feel "super outdated" (bit of sarcasm there!) when the S1Hmk2 or X-T5 comes out! 

If a person is going to feel that so soon, why not just get the S5 now instead? 

[IronFilm]

28 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

2. Consider a video-centric replacement (I'd love the C70 but it is a bit bulky for run/and/gun-travel)

See in my subjective opinion, the C70 is fantastic for run&gun / travel, because it is so small and compact!

But that's coming from my perspective of working on professional crews. 

That's why there are often no clear cut answers to anything, it all "depends". 

A freaking damn ALEXA LF is "compact" to one person, while another person's definition of compact won't ever be any bigger than a Sony RX100!! 

Same applies to lots of other measures you're judging a camera on. 

[SRV1981]

48 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

See in my subjective opinion, the C70 is fantastic for run&gun / travel, because it is so small and compact!

But that's coming from my perspective of working on professional crews. 

That's why there are often no clear cut answers to anything, it all "depends". 

A freaking damn ALEXA LF is "compact" to one person, while another person's definition of compact won't ever be any bigger than a Sony RX100!! 

Same applies to lots of other measures you're judging a camera on. 

Excellent point.  Great way to validate multiple perspectives.  I have to continue to work with the R6 before I make a decisions, which is aided by the supply-chain issues (FX3 and X100V are both out of supply everywhere).

What draws me to the X100V is the fact that it could easily brought to a bar and not be a pain to use; the FX3, maybe the R5C, have a similar level of ergonomics and form factor that may increase the motivation for me to use in non-professional settings (stealth mode) compared to other Hybrids.

[TomTheDP]

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 

I'm guilty of that too! Heh, here is a film I shot for a Master's thesis:

Ok, it wasn't shot on an ARRI, as the Sony FS700 was the nicest camera they'd let us have (still darn nice for its time back then!) but I had a full set of nice Zeiss primes too. 

But meh, the end result is more a reflection of how few years of experience I had than anything else. It isn't a fair reflection of what the camera is capable of. 

Bruh this looks pretty damn good.

 

7 hours ago, kye said:

 

I've seen footage from an Alexa where the film-makers hired the camera but didn't really know what they were doing (IIRC correctly they self-funded a feature but lived in a town/city where there isn't really any professional film-making done so they didn't have anyone around to learn from).  The footage was of a scene that was badly framed, not lit at all (and worse still didn't use the available light in a good way).  The result was that the shots looked like bad home video.  It literally looked like a random clip of two people sitting in a cafe.

The best camera in the world doesn't help you.

 

I get and agree with your point but that film probably would have looked a lot worse on a T3i.

[Django]

@SRV1981 

You keep bringing up the X100V.. it's a neat camera but really not as small as most may think, A7S3 is actually less large (and FX3 would be as tall without the EVF):

Stick a pancake lens and an FX3 would be rather similar dimensions with the benefit of IBIS & FF.

Of course you'll be missing the faux-Leica look and manual controls which are part of the charm.

Just saying.

 

[SRV1981]

5 minutes ago, Django said:

@SRV1981 

You keep bringing up the X100V.. it's a neat camera but really not as small as most may think, A7S3 is actually less large (and FX3 would be as tall without the EVF):

Stick a pancake lens and an FX3 would be rather similar dimensions with the benefit of IBIS & FF.

Of course you'll be missing the faux-Leica look and manual controls which are part of the charm.

Just saying.

 

That is a good point - I will consider that; not having to have/change lenses and the baked in JPG look is an appeal when hanging with friends/family