Sony FX30 (S35 FX3)

[A_Urquhart]

22 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Watched it along with 1/2 a dozen others.

True 'cinema' camera?

Probably not...

Content creator/wedding videographer's camera. I think very much so.

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

 

[Django]

24 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

While I think of it, I only found out very recently that there is a significant difference between the FX3 and the FX30 and it's not the sensor.

It's they removed the mechanical shutter.

Yes. Electronic shutter only with quite important rolling shutter and no drive mode, only single shot. No EVF.

If you are mainly stills oriented or even hybrid, the FX30 would be the last camera I'd choose. 

What about Canon? R6 mk2 + R7? Or is it the third party RF situation that is keeping you away? Seems like tamron zooms are your favourite lens options regardless the camera mount.

 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

Greg Fraser is apparently shooting his next feature "entirely" on the FX3

Cool. I am going to insist all my weddings from now on are 'Dune inspired' 😀

Seriously cool piece of filmmaking IMO.

OK, I know the budget is 100 gadzilion and there are green screens and crew of thousands yada yada yada, but still...

Yes, he may well be shooting it on FX3's and why not, but the lenses will be uber-expensive PROPER cinema ones. (Ie, not from Meike or 7 Artisans) 😆

2 hours ago, Django said:

If you are mainly stills oriented or even hybrid, the FX30 would be the last camera I'd choose.

Yep, but I only need one unit to be hybrid and the other two are 100% video. Having the ability to shoot stills in a pinch is a bonus and saves having to have a dedicated back up camera, ie, I could shoot on just 2 in an emergency and not 3. But choosing an FX30 as a hybrid and only piece of kit for such use, as a pro, no that would be a bit extreme! I am ONLY looking at a pair of FX30's in this regard.

2 hours ago, Django said:

What about Canon? R6 mk2 + R7? Or is it the third party RF situation that is keeping you away? Seems like tamron zooms are your favourite lens options regardless the camera mount.

Considered but all options considered, I prefer the other options. The R6ii kind of looks interesting but not actually looked properly yet. I am a bit put off by all the Canon shenanigans to be honest and find it difficult to keep on top of all the crippling. I just feel like an investment in Canon requires too much effort these days. Unless already invested in the system, but as what would be a Canon noob, no thanks.

But Tamron, yes, knocking it out of the park right now for me.

35-150mm f2/2.8 = big (ish) but not stupidly so and that focal range and ability for me to never have to change the lens on that unit (my mainly stills, occasional video at very specific times), is extremely appealing. 

20-40mm f2.8 = err, hello, perfect focal length for me as a wide stills and perfect video length APSC crop (30-60) also.

Also looking at the 11-20mm f2.8 (17-31 on the FX30) for gimbal use.

It will come down to what is the most important factor of all for me and that is how the whole system works and right now, Sony is my best option...

 

[Django]

14 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Yep, but I only need one unit to be hybrid and the other two are 100% video. Having the ability to shoot stills in a pinch is a bonus and saves having to have a dedicated back up camera, ie, I could shoot on just 2 in an emergency and not 3. But choosing an FX30 as a hybrid and only piece of kit for such use, as a pro, no that would be a bit extreme! I am ONLY looking at a pair of FX30's in this regard.

Ok so a pair of FX30s... plus an A7IV/A7S3/A7RV for hybrid stills then? 

15 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Considered but all options considered, I prefer the other options. The R6ii kind of looks interesting but not actually looked properly yet. I am a bit put off by all the Canon shenanigans to be honest and find it difficult to keep on top of all the crippling. I just feel like an investment in Canon requires too much effort these days. Unless already invested in the system, but as what would be a Canon noob, no thanks.

all the crippling? please explain because imo R6ii actually crushes A7S3/FX3/A7IV in quite a few areas and costs much less than the two first options.

Sony is the new Canon as far as cripple hammer is concerned.

The lenses are the only thing you'd have to think about if considering Canon.  

[TomTheDP]

3 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

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

 

Interesting, you sometimes hear things like this but then see other cameras in the BTS. I remember seeing that this one film was shot with the RED Komodo and DZO optics and then seeing a RED Monstro with an ARRI Signature Zoom in some of the BTS. 

Sometimes it is true though. Steven Soderbergh shot "Let Them All Talk" entirely on the RED Komodo. It was a very indie film but it featured Meryl Streep, sooo. I think it was shot with all natural light.

I generally favor RED cameras over prosumer Sony stuff for cinema. I heard something about the FX30 being able to do 16 bit RAW capture from an Atomos recorder, that could definitely put it close to a RED Komodo. No global shutter but probably better high ISO performance. I would also think state of the art auto focus could be an interesting feature to have. 

[MrSMW]

3 hours ago, Django said:

Ok so a pair of FX30s... plus an A7IV/A7S3/A7RV for hybrid stills then? 

A7RV for sure: 100% of my stills needs, plus the ability to provide some roaming video capability during ceremonies and speeches whilst the pair of FX30’s are doing static locked off duty.

3 hours ago, Django said:

all the crippling? please explain because imo R6ii actually crushes A7S3/FX3/A7IV in quite a few areas and costs much less than the two first options.

Maybe I am guilty of buying into the negative Canon hype wagon…

I quite like the pairing of R3 for video, R5 for stills and maybe an R7 for gimbal…but not sure about lenses.

Out of all the camera brands, I have had; Nikon, Fuji, Panny, Leica, Oly, Sony, but never owned a Canon, not even a compact!

I suppose what puts me off a little is the cost because though it’s not an absolute dealbreaker, it would be (by far) the most expensive set up!

[Django]

4 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

Maybe I am guilty of buying into the negative Canon hype wagon…

I quite like the pairing of R3 for video, R5 for stills and maybe an R7 for gimbal…but not sure about lenses.

Out of all the camera brands, I have had; Nikon, Fuji, Panny, Leica, Oly, Sony, but never owned a Canon, not even a compact!

I suppose what puts me off a little is the cost because though it’s not an absolute dealbreaker, it would be (by far) the most expensive set up!

Internet is strongly biased towards Sony. And for good reason as Sony has a grapple over the (sub-cinema) video industry.

That said they are no longer innovators in the mirrorless category and have become again imo the new Canon with a lot of segmentation and crippling and questionable policies as the FX30 Bloom rant section warrants (and he’s a Sony ambassador!).

CaNikon are now the challengers in the mirrorless market and tend to reclaim their leadership positions hence the agressive specs (R6 mk2 is clearly aimed at being an A7IV killer with false colour & focus breathing comp making their first appearance in a non cinema line camera for such purposes). 
 

It’s all good for us consumers though, competition is healthy!

As for cost, I don’t agree with your assessment. R3 is the equivalent of A1 and Z9 and costs about the same. 
 

R5 is the equivalent of A7RIV & Z7ii.

R6 the equivalent of A7IV/Z6ii.

R7.. vs Z5.. XT5.. FX30.

The bodies all around the same price.

Again it’s the lens system you gotta compare and where options and pricing become more singular.

[MrSMW]

I'll go do some math...

Not to disprove you but just see just what equivalent spec set ups might indeed cost me...

[ntblowz]

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

Maybe I am guilty of buying into the negative Canon hype wagon…

I quite like the pairing of R3 for video, R5 for stills and maybe an R7 for gimbal…but not sure about lenses.

Out of all the camera brands, I have had; Nikon, Fuji, Panny, Leica, Oly, Sony, but never owned a Canon, not even a compact!

I suppose what puts me off a little is the cost because though it’s not an absolute dealbreaker, it would be (by far) the most expensive set up!

I started with Oly, Pana and Sony (epl1, gh1 and nex 5n all the way to Gh5s/a73/FS5)  unlike most ppl who started with Rebel, and now I m sole Canon shooter, go figure! 

I really take internet with grain of salts especially all the Sony Hype trains on YouTube where they really magnified the plus and barely talk about negatives at all!

The basic RF lens is still pretty cheap, and I still uses ef lens (if I cant get work's RF trinity that is). It also funny to me because in the beginning mirrorless users (include me) say you can adapt any lens so that a good advantage, and now it's all ohh it better to use native, adapting lens is bad. Funny how they changing the narrative 🤣  While I still open to use any lens as necessary ha! (Like those fancy anamorphic)

[IronFilm]

7 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Out of all the camera brands, I have had; Nikon, Fuji, Panny, Leica, Oly, Sony, but never owned a Canon, not even a compact!

You're missing a Pentax as well! Perhaps set a challenge to do a wedding with a pair of Pentax 645Z 😉 haha

Nearly 8 years old, but still a good read: https://philipbloom.net/blog/pentax645z/ 

  

7 hours ago, Django said:

Internet is strongly biased towards Sony. And for good reason as Sony has a grapple over the (sub-cinema) video industry.

They do quite well at the high end (VENICE) and low/mid end (FX6/FX9) for cinema as well. 

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, ntblowz said:

It also funny to me because in the beginning mirrorless users (include me) say you can adapt any lens so that a good advantage, and now it's all ohh it better to use native, adapting lens is bad. Funny how they changing the narrative 🤣  While I still open to use any lens as necessary ha! (Like those fancy anamorphic)

Maybe it is because in the earlier years of mirrorless then were were all doing manual focus.

That was much more normal and accepted. 

But in the last few years there has been a growing rise of people (to Panasonic's detriment!) believing that autofocus ability is all that matters. And of course autofocus ability is usually better with native lenses, than with adapted lenses. 

That could be where the shift of "native is better". 

And maybe another small factor, is how even with purely manual lenses, in only recent years we're seen an explosion of fairly good and very cheap native mount manual lenses. Thus yet another reason to go native, rather than adapt lens. 

[MrSMW]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

You're missing a Pentax as well!

I was born in the 70’s but don’t still live in that era 🤔

To be fair, they aren’t on my radar. I believe they have a couple of pretty decent DSLR’s but otherwise are not players in the mirrorless market?

[kye]

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Maybe it is because in the earlier years of mirrorless then were were all doing manual focus.

That was much more normal and accepted. 

But in the last few years there has been a growing rise of people (to Panasonic's detriment!) believing that autofocus ability is all that matters. And of course autofocus ability is usually better with native lenses, than with adapted lenses. 

That could be where the shift of "native is better". 

And maybe another small factor, is how even with purely manual lenses, in only recent years we're seen an explosion of fairly good and very cheap native mount manual lenses. Thus yet another reason to go native, rather than adapt lens. 

Considering the economics, I'd suggest that the shift towards AF and native lenses is (at least partially) due to manufacturers taking advantage of naive consumers by pushing these self-serving concepts in order to sell more lenses and lock users into their own ecosystems.

I say 'naive' because huge numbers of internet users want AF and cinematic images, despite the fact that cinematic images are generated mostly by adapted manual lenses.

[Django]

42 minutes ago, kye said:

Considering the economics, I'd suggest that the shift towards AF and native lenses is (at least partially) due to manufacturers taking advantage of naive consumers by pushing these self-serving concepts in order to sell more lenses and lock users into their own ecosystems.

I say 'naive' because huge numbers of internet users want AF and cinematic images, despite the fact that cinematic images are generated mostly by adapted manual lenses.

You seem to be forgetting a major chunk of hybrid shooters: still photography. That is what those AF lenses are first and foremost intended for. They usually only double as video lenses. Nobody is "naive" when buying AF lenses or wanting solid AF performance. Everything isn't a conspiracy to take advantage of you lol.

The constant referencing to cinema production is the only "naive" argument here. Cinema production work in hyper controlled environments with staging and actors that move only if/when director decides. They have huge crews including assistants and focus pullers. Whereas 98% mirrorless hybrid shooters are solo working in uncontrolled environments, shooting real scenes: people, animals, vehicles, kids, live events, low light etc. All scenarios that strongly benefit from AF. 

If you're truly into cinematic images, workflow and anti-AF, anti-IBIS etc then simply don't buy a hybrid camera. Get a cine camera. If you're on a budget get a Blackmagic, some vintage manual lenses. You'll be set. But no need to discredit the majority of users out there that value things like AF. 

[IronFilm]

Redshark just put out their review of the FX30:

https://www.redsharknews.com/sony-fx30-reviewed-a-gateway-drug-to-sonys-cinema-line 

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I was born in the 70’s but don’t still live in that era 🤔

To be fair, they aren’t on my radar. I believe they have a couple of pretty decent DSLR’s but otherwise are not players in the mirrorless market?

Pentax has made attempts at the mirrorless market. But each have been a little odd. 

There was their Q Series (basically smartphone sized sensors, but with interchangeable lenses) and another "mirrorless camera" which was still using the K Mount!! (but mirrorless...)

50 minutes ago, Django said:

You seem to be forgetting a major chunk of hybrid shooters: still photography. That is what those AF lenses are first and foremost intended for.

Sure, and in the stills worlds then they've always talked a lot about using native mount lenses. That has always been a lot more normal in those circles. 

But we're talking about forums such as EOSH/dvxuser/dvinfo/etc, where are video focused, it is only in more recent  years that there has been a heavier push for users to go all in with native lenses. 

52 minutes ago, Django said:

The constant referencing to cinema production is the only "naive" argument here. Cinema production work in hyper controlled environments with staging and actors that move only if/when director decides.

lol, yeah right, sometimes that is true!

But very often it is all kinds of random chaoticness, and we just have to roll with the punches. There are many 1st ACs who never get focus marks these days, haven't in years. That's simply not the type of TV Series they work on. 

54 minutes ago, Django said:

Whereas 98% mirrorless hybrid shooters are solo working in uncontrolled environments, shooting real scenes: people, animals, vehicles, kids, live events, low light etc.

And all of those "real scenes" has been shot with manual focus for many many years. 

How do you think Reality TV for instance gets shot? Do you think they've been always using autofocus all these years? Do you think each of those cameramen get to have their own 1st AC?? 

No, and no. 

[Django]

27 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

And all of those "real scenes" has been shot with manual focus for many many years. 

How do you think Reality TV for instance gets shot? Do you think they've been always using autofocus all these years? Do you think each of those cameramen get to have their own 1st AC?? 

No, and no. 

Reality TV? hardly the benchmark for quality.. I never watch it. But its my understanding they use many cameras with some form of director/showrunner. There is massive editing too so mis focus should never be a visible problem. I'm also pretty certain they are using C300s & Sony FS/FX series these days which have critical AF but feel free to enlighten me if otherwise. In any case we're far away from the solo run & gun shooting scenario.  

[kye]

2 hours ago, Django said:

You seem to be forgetting a major chunk of hybrid shooters: still photography. That is what those AF lenses are first and foremost intended for. They usually only double as video lenses. Nobody is "naive" when buying AF lenses or wanting solid AF performance. Everything isn't a conspiracy to take advantage of you lol.

When I wrote that I was only thinking of video, yes.

Of course, unless you're shooting sports or wildlife then most AF is pretty good these days.  The GH5 AF is quite unreliable for video, but for stills it's pretty good.  

In terms of conspiracies, there are none.  The common theme of my posts is that manufactures are shafting their consumers as much as they can to maximise their profits as much as they can - that's not a conspiracy, that's basic economics!  I don't like it, but that doesn't make it a conspiracy.

2 hours ago, Django said:

Whereas 98% mirrorless hybrid shooters are solo working in uncontrolled environments, shooting real scenes: people, animals, vehicles, kids, live events, low light etc. All scenarios that strongly benefit from AF. 

I think you've oversimplified this.  I shoot in some of the least controlled situations around and switched to manual focus because the AF didn't choose the right thing to focus on, not because it couldn't focus on the thing it picked.  The more chaotic a scene the more things there are to choose from and the less chance the AF will choose correctly.

The way I see it, it's the middle of the spectrum that benefits most from good AF:

• if you have complete control of the scene then MF is probably fine
• if you have a simple scene like an interview then AF is great because it will be reliable in choosing what to focus on and can track your subject as they move forwards and backwards, or a scene where you have a bridal couple standing clear of other objects and people and you're filming them from a gimbal, etc
• if you have too much chaos then the AF will lose more shots by choosing the wrong thing than MF would miss by not hitting the target

People keep forgetting that focus is a creative element, one of the elements that is used to direct the viewers attention and experience over the course of your final edit, not a purely technical aspect.  

The GH5 AF is spectacular at focusing, it's crap at choosing which thing to focus on.  That's the broader challenge...  People talk about Eye-AF, but notice that they test AF with only one person in frame?  There's a reason for that, and it's not that camera reviewers on YT don't have any friends 🙂 

2 hours ago, Django said:

If you're truly into cinematic images, workflow and anti-AF, anti-IBIS etc then simply don't buy a hybrid camera. Get a cine camera. If you're on a budget get a Blackmagic, some vintage manual lenses. You'll be set. But no need to discredit the majority of users out there that value things like AF. 

I'm none of those things, I'm into this thing that people don't seem to have heard of, it's called "getting the shot".

I get more shots with MF because I know what I want to focus on.  The Canon R3 mode where the AF point moves around by looking at your eye would probably be the only AF system that would meet my needs, and if that was available in a camera within my budget then I'd happily swap to that.  I'd probably miss the ability to have live control on how fast the focus transition was, but it would still be a better outcome because I'd miss less shots.

I get more shots with IBIS because I shoot in situations where even OIS can't compensate (OIS doesn't stabilise roll, for example), and those shots are unusable.

If you've somehow concluded that I'm anti-AF then you've (once again) misinterpreted what I'm saying.  I'm saying that AF isn't perfect, and that sometimes it gets in the way of the shot.  As a member of the "get the shot" club, I'm against that.  If you're in situations where AF will help you get the shot, then cool, I'm all for it.  
If manufacturers want to push AF as the only acceptable way to operate, that's fine with me up until they start limiting MY ability to get the shot, which does happen.  Thus my posts talking about the downsides of it.  Mistaking some mild criticism of a technical function for trying to "discredit the majority of users out there that value things like AF" is, quite frankly, preposterous. 

2 hours ago, Django said:

The constant referencing to cinema production is the only "naive" argument here.

Well, if that's your argument, then you're agreeing with me.  Camera YT, and all the camera groups that I can find online, idolise all the things that are associated with cinema.  Colour science is best when it's like film (no-one is talking about getting that VHS colour science), lenses are best when the aperture is fastest (people aren't talking about which lenses go to F32 vs F22 in order to get that deep-DoF fuzzy camcorder look), etc etc.  

Besides, EOSHD seems to be a rare sanctuary of people who know things.  Most other groups only seem to talk about shallow-DOF, LUTs, and how to get your camera and the Sigma 18-35 to balance on your gimbal, and never get beyond that.

[Django]

19 minutes ago, kye said:

I think you've oversimplified this.  I shoot in some of the least controlled situations around and switched to manual focus because the AF didn't choose the right thing to focus on, not because it couldn't focus on the thing it picked.  The more chaotic a scene the more things there are to choose from and the less chance the AF will choose correctly.

I know you're not going to want to hear this but perhaps the problem is that your cameras AF system is sub-par and/or that you haven't mastered it. Like I was saying earlier, even the best AF isn't magic. It should never be in full auto-pilot. AF is a tool that needs to be controlled by the operator. I never let the camera AF choose who it focuses on, I am always in control. 

 

22 minutes ago, kye said:

The GH5 AF is spectacular at focusing, it's crap at choosing which thing to focus on.  That's the broader challenge...  People talk about Eye-AF, but notice that they test AF with only one person in frame?

Again you should always be in charge of who or what the AF focuses on, not the camera. Canon's DPAF allows you to select what subject Eye-AF focuses on so having multiple people in a frame is not a problem. This is not the case with FUJI's human AF detection hence why I've been saying it is flawed.

26 minutes ago, kye said:

I'm none of those things, I'm into this thing that people don't seem to have heard of, it's called "getting the shot".

I get more shots with MF because I know what I want to focus on.  The Canon R3 mode where the AF point moves around by looking at your eye would probably be the only AF system that would meet my needs, and if that was available in a camera within my budget then I'd happily swap to that.  I'd probably miss the ability to have live control on how fast the focus transition was, but it would still be a better outcome because I'd miss less shots.

I haven't yet used R3 so can't comment on the Eye-control AF but from what I've heard it isn't fail proof either. The best method of choosing what subject the AF focuses on is still either the joystick (or touch sensor thing on R3) or my favourite since EOS R is using the back LCD as a giant touch pad while your eye is on the EVF. You can even select the region of the LCD if like me you are left-handed. You get a red marker in the EVF (like a mouse cursor) that you target at your subject and the AF then engages. It is the fastest AF select method I've found, much better and faster then the old sluggish AF point manoeuvres with the joystick. 

There are also a ton of other specific AF settings and techniques that I won't go into but it gets pretty deep and its all about "getting the shot". I'm not bad with MF but once you've mastered a solid AF system its usually way superior to MF for getting shots except for controlled rack focus and even there things are getting crazy good with breathing comp and such.

33 minutes ago, kye said:

If you've somehow concluded that I'm anti-AF then you've (once again) misinterpreted what I'm saying.  I'm saying that AF isn't perfect, and that sometimes it gets in the way of the shot.  As a member of the "get the shot" club, I'm against that.  If you're in situations where AF will help you get the shot, then cool, I'm all for it.  

Try it before you knock it is all I'm saying. CaNikon & Sony AF have gone long ways in video AF and it doesn't sound like you have experience with such systems to make the argument that MF is superior. 

[kye]

56 minutes ago, Django said:

I know you're not going to want to hear this but perhaps the problem is that your cameras AF system is sub-par and/or that you haven't mastered it. Like I was saying earlier, even the best AF isn't magic. It should never be in full auto-pilot. AF is a tool that needs to be controlled by the operator. I never let the camera AF choose who it focuses on, I am always in control. 

 

Again you should always be in charge of who or what the AF focuses on, not the camera. Canon's DPAF allows you to select what subject Eye-AF focuses on so having multiple people in a frame is not a problem. This is not the case with FUJI's human AF detection hence why I've been saying it is flawed.

I haven't yet used R3 so can't comment on the Eye-control AF but from what I've heard it isn't fail proof either. The best method of choosing what subject the AF focuses on is still either the joystick (or touch sensor thing on R3) or my favourite since EOS R is using the back LCD as a giant touch pad while your eye is on the EVF. You can even select the region of the LCD if like me you are left-handed. You get a red marker in the EVF (like a mouse cursor) that you target at your subject and the AF then engages. It is the fastest AF select method I've found, much better and faster then the old sluggish AF point manoeuvres with the joystick. 

There are also a ton of other specific AF settings and techniques that I won't go into but it gets pretty deep and its all about "getting the shot". I'm not bad with MF but once you've mastered a solid AF system its usually way superior to MF for getting shots except for controlled rack focus and even there things are getting crazy good with breathing comp and such.

Try it before you knock it is all I'm saying. CaNikon & Sony AF have gone long ways in video AF and it doesn't sound like you have experience with such systems to make the argument that MF is superior. 

Good points.

Perhaps the first thing I should say is that I've never declared that MF is superior, just better for me, and better for some people, although probably a minority at this point.  I'm trying to engage in a more nuanced discussion, rather than it just being one-sided.  Nothing is all-good or all-bad, and everything depends on perspective.

In terms of "getting the shot" the situation is more complicated than just AF.  The primary one, for me, is shooting stable hand-held footage.  No point slightly improving my focusing hit-rate if I'm going to lose more shots to shake than I gain by having better focus.

I find that shooting MF with left-hand under the lens gripping the MF ring and right-hand on the cameras grip is a pretty good approach if the camera is lower than eye-level.  
If it's above eye level then I'll normally be lifting it high above my head and so I'll normally close the aperture a bit and pre-focus and then hold onto something near the end of the lens that doesn't move in order to keep my two hands as far apart as possible.  I don't normally miss focus on these and the screen is normally too small for anything except composition so this setup probably doesn't matter either way.
My favourite position is looking through the EVF with left-hand doing MF and right-hand on the grip (like above), and I'll be getting three points of contact.  Stabilisation isn't normally a big issue in this setup as I wouldn't normally do this unless I was stationary, whereas the other setups are often when I'm walking or squatting or holding the camera out at arms length etc.

There's no good way I've seen to use touch-AF on the screen while also stabilising the camera with both hands, so that doesn't beat MF in terms of getting the most shots.  It also doesn't work when using the EVF (pretty sure I'm pressing the screen with my face at this point too!).  I could potentially use the thumb of my right-hand on a joystick, although that would really lessen the grip from that hand as it would really limit the amount of pressure I could apply with my thumb so I wouldn't really be holding the camera much with that hand.

Thinking about it now, MF loses me far less shots that stabilisation does.  If it was the other way around then I could absolutely see that my cost/benefit assessment of AF would change substantially.  

The other thing to consider is that, at least in my eyes, imperfect MF still has a loose kind of human feel that suits the content that I shoot, but when AF misses focus or is in the process of acquiring focus the aesthetic just isn't desirable.
I tend to miss focus or fail to track a subject when there are lots of things happening and lots of movement, so it suits the vibe.  If I have a second or two to adjust aperture and focus then I don't miss those shots.  
When AF misses a shot it just seems really at odds with the aesthetic that the rest of the image is creating.  Watching AF pulse, or rack focus either too fast or too slowly always seems so artificial, like a robot having a mal-function.  Also, I'm not sure how many AF mechanisms are able to ease-in?  They seem to rack at one speed and instantly stop on the subject, or pulse momentarily (which is worse).  This is probably made worse when the focus speed is set too high, but I'd suggest it's still a factor.

"Getting the shot" isn't just making sure it's exposed and focused properly and not too shaky, it's about getting the shot that has the most chance of making the final edit.  Getting the technical things right are the bare-minimums in this context and only get a shot to survive the assembly stage of the edit, it's the subject matter and the aesthetic that determine if the shot makes it to the final edit, and if the shot is interesting then technical imperfections can be tolerated.  
I can imagine that if you're shooting commercially, the equation between technical imperfection and aesthetic is very different, so would generate different decisions based on different trade-offs.

[Django]

36 minutes ago, kye said:

There's no good way I've seen to use touch-AF on the screen while also stabilising the camera with both hands, so that doesn't beat MF in terms of getting the most shots.  It also doesn't work when using the EVF (pretty sure I'm pressing the screen with my face at this point too!).  I could potentially use the thumb of my right-hand on a joystick, although that would really lessen the grip from that hand as it would really limit the amount of pressure I could apply with my thumb so I wouldn't really be holding the camera much with that hand.

Like I explained above, since EOS R you can use parts of the LCD as track pads (similar to a laptop). so you can have the bottom right or bottom left (works for me as a lefty) of the LCD tracking the AF point with your thumb while still having a firm grip with both hands AND your eye on the EVF. 

As for stabilisation, well that's another main area where AF comes in handy.. I'm talking about gimbal work of course.