Sony FX30 released... 26MP S35 / APS-C version of the FX3

[PPNS]

8 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

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. 

reading this forum is so frustrating. why would you ever use a speedbooster on a s35 sensor (or ever really)? it's the most standard format for moving images. if you need "proper full frame" on s35, just shoot a stop wider than you would on FF, and open up your iris an extra stop, maybe add a stop of ND if you're clipping. that's it. there's nothing special about this sensor size.

if you want a 24mm t/2.8 on FF, just use the 18mm of the same lens set, and set it to t/2 to match the dof on the fx30 or xh2s. if you want to match a 24mm at t/1.5, then sure, that's most likely not possible, but it's not gonna look very nice anyway, is it?

how about just using the right lens set for the right camera, and being a bit more thoughtful, instead of bulking up your camera with oversized lenses and a low quality layer of glass in between?

how often do you need a dof thinner than t/2.8 on s35 (or t/4 on ff) for that matter? if most of the image is blurred out mush, i tend to assume its not worth watching anyway.

[IronFilm]

15 hours ago, independent said:

Let’s not get carried away, if production gets to that level, the fx3 will be used, not the fx30. 

Nope, not if they're using S35 lenses! (as is most likely to be so in general)

[TomTheDP]

3 hours ago, PPNS said:

reading this forum is so frustrating. why would you ever use a speedbooster on a s35 sensor (or ever really)? it's the most standard format for moving images. if you need "proper full frame" on s35, just shoot a stop wider than you would on FF, and open up your iris an extra stop, maybe add a stop of ND if you're clipping. that's it. there's nothing special about this sensor size.

if you want a 24mm t/2.8 on FF, just use the 18mm of the same lens set, and set it to t/2 to match the dof on the fx30 or xh2s. if you want to match a 24mm at t/1.5, then sure, that's most likely not possible, but it's not gonna look very nice anyway, is it?

how about just using the right lens set for the right camera, and being a bit more thoughtful, instead of bulking up your camera with oversized lenses and a low quality layer of glass in between?

how often do you need a dof thinner than t/2.8 on s35 (or t/4 on ff) for that matter? if most of the image is blurred out mush, i tend to assume its not worth watching anyway.

I'd say the biggest benefit is being able to fully utilize older stills lenses which are all designed for 35mm film. Razor thin DOF is also a lot of fun. But yeah in practical reality I rarely shoot at F2 on S35 let alone full frame. It is fun to do once in a while though. 

[Django]

5 hours ago, PPNS said:

reading this forum is so frustrating. why would you ever use a speedbooster on a s35 sensor (or ever really)? it's the most standard format for moving images.

maybe you need to put reading glasses on. he explained his work is mainly on FX6 & FX9 which are both FF cameras. he'd use FX30 as a b-cam so a speed booster makes sense to keep the same FoV and use the same FF lenses. 

plenty of FF cine lenses out now as well as large sensor cine cams from RED/ARRI. Sony's entire cine line from Venice down to FX3 is FF.

5 hours ago, PPNS said:

how about just using the right lens set for the right camera, and being a bit more thoughtful, instead of bulking up your camera with oversized lenses and a low quality layer of glass in between?

SMH. You must be new to lenses, my FF Leica M & Nikkor AIS glass are more compact than any modern APS-C lenses.

The extra glass from the speed booster can actually help reduce over sharpening from cameras like XH2S that have no OLPF. And the stop of light that you gain helps with S35 sensors poor lowlight performances.

He said he also plans to use S35 glass and so FX30 allows him to use both FF & S35 lenses, unlike the FX3.

5 hours ago, PPNS said:

how often do you need a dof thinner than t/2.8 on s35 (or t/4 on ff) for that matter? if most of the image is blurred out mush, i tend to assume its not worth watching anyway.

I love shooting wide open at f1.4 or even f1.2. obviously for specific shots requiring isolation or a dreamy feel but you have entire films like Army of the Dead that were shot FF on a Red Monstro wide open at 0.95 on Canon Dream lens rehoused in Leica M mount:

Rules are meant to be broken. And just to prove this isn't just a one off Hollywood phenomenon, here is 6.2K open gate footage from XH2S using a speedbooster with some shots done at f0.95 (lowlight footage from scene 4):

I think the image looks fantastic personally, FF aesthetic/bokeh yet still very detailed but without the over sharpness usually associated with Fujis.

[A_Urquhart]

10 hours ago, PPNS said:

reading this forum is so frustrating. why would you ever use a speedbooster on a s35 sensor (or ever really)? it's the most standard format for moving images. if you need "proper full frame" on s35, just shoot a stop wider than you would on FF, and open up your iris an extra stop, maybe add a stop of ND if you're clipping. that's it. there's nothing special about this sensor size.

if you want a 24mm t/2.8 on FF, just use the 18mm of the same lens set, and set it to t/2 to match the dof on the fx30 or xh2s. if you want to match a 24mm at t/1.5, then sure, that's most likely not possible, but it's not gonna look very nice anyway, is it?

how about just using the right lens set for the right camera, and being a bit more thoughtful, instead of bulking up your camera with oversized lenses and a low quality layer of glass in between?

how often do you need a dof thinner than t/2.8 on s35 (or t/4 on ff) for that matter? if most of the image is blurred out mush, i tend to assume its not worth watching anyway.

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. 

 

[kye]

13 hours ago, PPNS said:

reading this forum is so frustrating. why would you ever use a speedbooster on a s35 sensor (or ever really)? it's the most standard format for moving images. if you need "proper full frame" on s35, just shoot a stop wider than you would on FF, and open up your iris an extra stop, maybe add a stop of ND if you're clipping. that's it. there's nothing special about this sensor size.

if you want a 24mm t/2.8 on FF, just use the 18mm of the same lens set, and set it to t/2 to match the dof on the fx30 or xh2s. if you want to match a 24mm at t/1.5, then sure, that's most likely not possible, but it's not gonna look very nice anyway, is it?

how about just using the right lens set for the right camera, and being a bit more thoughtful, instead of bulking up your camera with oversized lenses and a low quality layer of glass in between?

how often do you need a dof thinner than t/2.8 on s35 (or t/4 on ff) for that matter? if most of the image is blurred out mush, i tend to assume its not worth watching anyway.

Sadly, these forums are one of the most enlightened places online.

The current state of film-making is at an all-time low due to availability of equipment and popularity of outputs.  Is this a good thing or a bad thing, well, that's up to everyone to decide for themselves, but the average discussion online will very confidently tell you that:

• FF is better
• there are people who say sensor size doesn't matter, but they're basically triggered all the time and sound crazy
• you choose the colour science you want by buying the best camera (and half the people can't even spell LUT, let alone understand that you can colour grade to match cameras)
• the only measure of a camera is the resolution of the sensor
• the only measure of a lens is the size of the aperture
• the only measure of a lens is how sharp it is at its widest aperture
• the best lens if you're not on FF is the Sigma 18-35
• BM are the best cameras available
• BM owners don't know anything about anything and should be banned from owning cameras
• etc

If you think Hollywood is immune to these trends, then think again. It took a while for them to get FF fever, but they got it in the end, and when they talk about sensor size and lenses and shallow DoF it's just word-salad coming out of their mouths and they know about as little as the average social media bro with a FF Sony...

[A_Urquhart]

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.

[kye]

2 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

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.

Yeah, and people often forget that on productions where everything/everyone costs money then equipment is likely rented and the cost of the camera is virtually inconsequential in comparison to the costs (and delays) associated with having issues on set or in post.  It's pretty hard to justify anything that people aren't already familiar with, simply because it is another thing that can cause delays or go wrong and therefore cost the production money.

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

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.

Exactly, the $$$ speak loudest. 

The XH2S won't get you work like a FX6 would. 

6 hours ago, kye said:

Yeah, and people often forget that on productions where everything/everyone costs money then equipment is likely rented and the cost of the camera is virtually inconsequential in comparison to the costs (and delays) associated with having issues on set or in post.  It's pretty hard to justify anything that people aren't already familiar with, simply because it is another thing that can cause delays or go wrong and therefore cost the production money.

Exactly, compared to the total budget of a production then many times the cost difference between renting a P6K vs ARRI could be trivial, a rounding error. 

[kye]

This video is a colourist putting an FX30 shot through a relatively strong grade, so might be useful for those curious about how much the footage holds up in post with qualifiers etc..

TLDR; it held up.  Like almost all modern cameras that shoot 10-bit log.  He was surprised that the WB and skin tones were dead on, which apparently other Sony cameras are bad at.

[Django]

yup saw that one in my feed this morning.. as he says at the very end though "we haven't tested out mixed lighting where a lot of the time the camera will break apart". especially true with Sony footage in my experience. but its encouraging, Sony definitely seem to improve CS, WB, skin tones etc on each generation.

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The XH2S won't get you work like a FX6 would. 

certainly true for broadcast and any production house that favours Sony. I know I bought my FS7 for that type of work even though it was technically an "old" camera, its still an industry standard. and the FX30 is shaping up to be the perfect b-cam (or even a-cam). I'm warming up to it. 

that said, let's not forget all the freelancers, content creators & web delivery production teams that don't need to bend to a specific manufacturer. that's a huge chunk of the market actually and where we start getting into spec wars. R6/R7, FX30, A7IV, XH2S, GH6, A7SIII, FX3, R5/R5C, Z9, FX6, C70 etc all start to compete with one another.

[Thpriest]

7 hours ago, Django said:

R6/R7, FX30, A7IV, XH2S, GH6, A7SIII, FX3, R5/R5C, Z9, FX6, C70 etc all start to compete with one another.

You forgot the S5 which is a better all rounder and cheaper than most of the above.

[TomTheDP]

On 10/7/2022 at 9:34 AM, Django said:

yup saw that one in my feed this morning.. as he says at the very end though "we haven't tested out mixed lighting where a lot of the time the camera will break apart".

RIP

[newfoundmass]

On 10/6/2022 at 11:36 AM, Django said:

I love shooting wide open at f1.4 or even f1.2. obviously for specific shots requiring isolation or a dreamy feel but you have entire films like Army of the Dead that were shot FF on a Red Monstro wide open at 0.95 on Canon Dream lens rehoused in Leica M mount:

And the film suffered because of it, I think. Sorry, just had to say it! 

[ade towell]

Ha yes couldn't make it  through that film, was such a disconnect between the characters and their environment - reminded me of the early days of the 5d mk2 when everyone was filming everything wide open - just because you can doesn't mean you should

[newfoundmass]

5 hours ago, ade towell said:

Ha yes couldn't make it  through that film, was such a disconnect between the characters and their environment - reminded me of the early days of the 5d mk2 when everyone was filming everything wide open - just because you can doesn't mean you should

It's like Zack Snyder was possessed by Tony Northrup! Too much toneh! 

[Django]

Say what you will I give him props for even attempting that..  its not like if it was an Ingmar Bergman film.. the flick was so over the top it just added another level of surreal. 

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Django said:

Say what you will I give him props for even attempting that..  its not like if it was an Ingmar Bergman film.. the flick was so over the top it just added another level of surreal. 

Yes and I think that was kind of the point.

As with any strong technique/gimmick/call it what you will, if it is only used at certain times it can jar.

If it’s used throughout, same as a color grade, it just becomes part of the whole.

We did watch the movie on Netflix and of course it was utter trash, but I have to confess I didn’t remember it being shot with such a large aperture!

[newfoundmass]

The thing is, in any film that's meant to take place in a post apocalyptic environment, that environment is like another character ESPECIALLY when it's something as iconic as Las Vegas. You really kind of squander that though when it's all just a blur in the background of every shot. 

I found it obnoxious, and felt that it hurt the film. It's also one of the few times I've seen normal people notice shallow depth of field (though they didn't use that terminology) and talk about it.

[Django]

Meh Vegas is overrated, plus the whole point was to rip it to pieces, annihilate, nuke it. The shallow DoF was the character in itself. Call it a played out gimmick, fine, but it was never done before at 100% in a feature. I do get how it could annoy people though, especially those that can't stand shallow DoF. 

..Uh what camera was this thread about again?