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

[kye]

I'm seeing more and more FX30 videos on YT and they all seem to have the same overall 'look' as the other Sony cameras like the FX30 and A7S3 (and FX6 to some extent).  

The fact that YT people (who often can't colour grade to save their lives) are getting consistent results across a variety of conditions really speaks to the FX30 having similar capabilities to the rest of their 'cinema' line.

That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you think about the Sony look, but I firmly believe that how easy a camera is to use (both the camera itself as well as how easy it is to colour grade) plays a huge role in how good a camera is.  If something is the best camera in the world, but only one person on earth is talented enough to grade it to get better results than other cameras, then in practical terms, that camera isn't better than the others.

[Andrew Reid]

I don't understand why anyone would go for the FX30 over an X-H2. Am I missing something?

[kye]

8 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I don't understand why anyone would go for the FX30 over an X-H2. Am I missing something?

Not many Fuji-Bros on YT...  I suspect there will also be lens/ecosystem inertia holding people back from moving to Fuji.  

In a way, because everyone now "simply must have" pet-eye-detect PDAF, the idea of buying vintage/manual primes and adapting them has lessened quite a bit, which is sad because it would allow you to move to any mirrorless camera without having the issues of re-buying lenses etc - just buy a dumb adapter and you're done.

[Django]

I want a Fuji XH2S for the sensor, resolution, open-gate, ProRes, film simulations etc. 

But as a working pro, already invested in Sony ecosystem plus an FS7.. the FX30 makes better sense.

FX30 does have some nice features like Cine EI, LUT import & TC. Nice ergonomics, top handle with XLRs. Active cooling.

And yes, rock-solid AF. But I'd also adapt glass and use a speed booster.

It's just not very exciting, at all really. Completely utilitarian like most Sony cams. No real innovative features. A "new" old sensor. Sony aren't breaking barriers like Fuji, they are simply diluting their cine line. Making it more accessible. Most accessible ever, really. And that'll probably be enough for them to make bank. They also have bunch of A7III/A6xxx users that will upgrade to it, as FX3/A7S3 were above their budget. And FX3/A7S3/FX6/FS7 users that will add one as B-cam.

Those are the main purchasing scenarios imo.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I don't understand why anyone would go for the FX30 over an X-H2. Am I missing something?

If I was already in the Sony system I would.

In fact, if it had even just a tilt rather than a flip, I might have been tempted…

But for me and my needs, ultimately the XH2/XH2s combo does indeed ‘beat’ it.

I hope the new Tamron 20-40mm f2.8 comes to Fuji like the 17-70 has. Sony get first dibs on all this stuff! Won’t even mention the 35-150… 🤪

[Andrew Reid]

FX30 is soundly thrashed by the X-H2 under $2k but I can see why Sony are the new Canon - Trap people in the ecosystem with their lenses and adapters.

There must be a big profit margin on the FX30 because the Sigma Fp is same price and is full frame and internal RAW 4K!

[Django]

Even bigger profit margin on FX3. Same exact body, FF sensor, twice the price!

[TomTheDP]

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Nah, it is extremely rare for Netflix productions to be shot on film. 

But yes, a lot of Netflix shoots have been using the LF because 4K is forced upon them as a requirement. 

For productions without the forced requirement, then LF cameras are much less common. 

Hours don't matter for digital cameras. 
(how it was used is what matters)

 

I'd much much rather have an AMIRA than a Classic. (except for the cost 😕 ) 

Being able to use anamorphics is another reason an XT would go for more. 

Although there are Classics that do 4:3, but they tend to for a little more, and are never the cheapest. 

The PLUS does 4:3, the classic sensor is 16:9 unless they were doing upgrades at some point. You can get Classics fitted with the XR module, which gives you 2.8k RAW, but no 4:3 or 3.2k. 

The classic in my opinion is not a bad choice for small budget features. I just used one on a short 7 day feature and didn't find it getting in the way. I don't think people realize that the OG classic sensor is basically the same as the Alexa mini. I do plan on getting the Amira at some point, it is defiantly the best run and gun ARRI camera besides the 35. Although I think the Amira would still be better for shoulder rig setups. 

Yeah Netflix doesn't shoot film as far as I know of, but for big Hollywood it's the LF or Film usually. The Venice gets some use but even on Top Gun 2 it was only used for cockpit shots, the rest was film. I honestly think we'll see way less RED usage now that Arri has both the LF and 35 as 4k options, for higher end stuff that is. 

I am really just talking really high end Hollywood. Yes you get a lot of big indie films that win festivals shooting on the OG mini or RED. 

I am still very interested to see where the Alexa 35 puts everything. It is a way better choice than both the mini LF or S35 mini, just in terms of handling. It's basically better in every way. For low budget you get higher ISO options that aren't as noisy, for bigger productions you have a camera that is suited way better for AC's, 32bit float internal recording. I suppose the price is still going to put it outside of a large amount of productions.

That said the Venice is actually similar to the Alexa 35 in terms of body design and you get compressed RAW and high iso options. It is a bit heavier, but with the benefit of full frame 6k or 4k S35 options. The Alexa 35 dynamic range kicks the Venice's butt though. 

ARRI is still the golden standard and I have to say I'd rather shoot with the mini or Amira than the Venice despite the downsides. I am kind of loopy though. 

[Django]

Not sure what all this ARRI talk is doing in a FX30 thread but ok I'll bite. 

Locally, I've notice ARRI Classics are sitting for weeks/months on the marketplace, basically until the price hits rock-bottom.

They're usually beat up as hell with very high mileage. I guess they're built like tanks but like second hand luxury cars I'm always weary of spending couple thousand and end up having an expensive paperweight if a major fail were to happen.

Not to mention the giant form factor, not very liberating. unless you're shooting (budget) feature films I can't imagine a scenario where you'd pull up with this type of rig in 2022 lol

[TomTheDP]

1 hour ago, Django said:

Not sure what all this ARRI talk is doing in a FX30 thread but ok I'll bite. 

Locally, I've notice ARRI Classics are sitting for weeks/months on the marketplace, basically until the price hits rock-bottom.

They're usually beat up as hell with very high mileage. I guess they're built like tanks but like second hand luxury cars I'm always weary of spending couple thousand and end up having an expensive paperweight if a major fail were to happen.

Not to mention the giant form factor, not very liberating. unless you're shooting (budget) feature films I can't imagine a scenario where you'd pull up with this type of rig in 2022 lol

I think it's just relating to the S35 sensors and the Alexa 35.

I have noticed Classics sitting for a long time, but it's the same with the XT or Amiras. The market for these types of cameras is a lot more niche. Of course the Classic is at the bottom of the barrel for ARRI cameras being the oldest and first one. 

In terms of projects where you use actual cinema cameras most of the rigs end up being pretty big and bulky. The Venice or Amira are pretty similar in size. I do use my classic for corporate stuff, I have even shot a wedding with it, albeit a short one. 

In terms of the FX30 though I do think the recent Fuji releases are more interesting and better in almost everyway. But for auto focus nothing beats Sony and if you need a B-cam for any of the Sony cine cameras again this is a great option. 

In terms of glass too it makes sense to stick to a single system unless you are just using all manual glass. 

Sony is kind of killing it if you look at their entire line up. From the A7S3 to the FX6 to the Venice. 

If I had to just rock with a single camera it would probably be the XH2S, though I do like my Sigma FP a lot. 

 

[Django]

52 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

In terms of projects where you use actual cinema cameras most of the rigs end up being pretty big and bulky. The Venice or Amira are pretty similar in size. I do use my classic for corporate stuff, I have even shot a wedding with it, albeit a short one. 

that use to be the case but I think since the C200, FS5 and now BM6K Pro, C70 or even FX6, that is no longer the case. They have great battery life so you can stay away from Vmount. Built-in NDs mean you can avoid a matte box. And stellar AF avoids the need for a follow focus rig. A lot of DPs do love to over rig their cameras and that's fine, just not my ethos. I usually strip them down to the bare minimum, I like fast energetic shoots to keep the momentum going. Obviously you can't do that with URSA Mini, RED & ARRI. You need a crew if you wanna be comfortable. Different scenarios. Different applications. Different results also.

52 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

In terms of the FX30 though I do think the recent Fuji releases are more interesting and better in almost everyway. But for auto focus nothing beats Sony and if you need a B-cam for any of the Sony cine cameras again this is a great option. 

In terms of glass too it makes sense to stick to a single system unless you are just using all manual glass. 

Sony is kind of killing it if you look at their entire line up. From the A7S3 to the FX6 to the Venice. 

If I had to just rock with a single camera it would probably be the XH2S, though I do like my Sigma FP a lot. 

Sony is definitely cornering the market, mostly in broadcast. A friend of mine just joined one of the biggest TV shows for fashion & music and told me it's all Sony now. Used to be AMIRA up until just a year ago. I'm not sure why they switched but could be weight related as he told me they alternate a lot in between sticks and shoulder rig. Or did they go FF? I hope to go visit the studios and find out more.

Fuji are killing it, and XH2S would also be my first choice today for personal camera and pet projects. But with no real upgrade path, limited ecosystem & outsider reputation.. Sony does feel like the best system right now as far as getting pro work in the industry. I still prefer Canon colors, ergonomics etc but their pricing isn't very competitive neither in pro bodies or RF lenses and their politics are lousy at the moment, they need a change in CEO or something.

[TomTheDP]

5 minutes ago, Django said:

that use to be the case but I think since the C200, FS5 and now BM6K Pro, C70 or even FX6, that is no longer the case. They have great battery life so you can stay away from Vmount. Built-in NDs mean you can avoid a matte box. And stellar AF avoids the need for a follow focus rig. A lot of DPs do love to over rig their cameras and that's fine, just not my ethos. I usually strip them down to the bare minimum, I like fast energetic shoots to keep the momentum going. Obviously you can't do that with URSA Mini, RED & ARRI. You need a crew if you wanna be comfortable. Different scenarios. Different applications. Different results also.

I don't really consider any of those cameras cinema cameras but maybe I am being snobby. If it can make it into a theater I guess you can't say it is not cinema though. 

[kye]

7 hours ago, Django said:

Not sure what all this ARRI talk is doing in a FX30 thread but ok I'll bite. 

It was to try and put the size of the sensor in perspective, considering that the vast majority of features and pro video work are still shot on S35.  Without a frame of reference that includes, well, reality, sensor size conversations quickly warp to another universe where nothing makes sense.

[TomTheDP]

To be fair the full frame craze may just be because the best sensors have been full frame. The RED Monstro was superior to the helium, helium had a green cast in the shadows. The Alexa LF sensor was superior to the S35 variant being higher resolution, smaller pixels, finer grain, better high iso performance. There was no S35 variant of the Venice, well you could shoot cropped in 4k, but again you get better performance with full sensor in 6k.

The Alexa 35 is now the best sensor on the market and is also S35. Interesting. 

Back to the FX30, the C70 kicks it's butt in everyway, but the AF on the C70 is subpar, I have seen it first hand. Would be nice if Sony was actually innovative and gave us an affordable S35 mini Cine Camera with ND's. Could be a lot worse though. 

[kye]

4 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

To be fair the full frame craze may just be because the best sensors have been full frame. The RED Monstro was superior to the helium, helium had a green cast in the shadows. The Alexa LF sensor was superior to the S35 variant being higher resolution, smaller pixels, finer grain, better high iso performance. There was no S35 variant of the Venice, well you could shoot cropped in 4k, but again you get better performance with full sensor in 6k.

The Alexa 35 is now the best sensor on the market and is also S35. Interesting. 

I disagree - those sensors are better because they're more recent.  The challenge is that 1) older FF cameras didn't shoot video, and 2) in stills cameras the FF cameras were the most expensive.

Most discussions also involve an element of "FF gives shallower DoF" only it's usually not spelled out like that, but instead it's phrased as "more cinematic" or some other nebulous thing that really just boils down to shallow DoF.  This is because FF lenses are made to have shallower DoF than lenses for other systems, but that's just a quirk of history rather than a fundamental limitation - they could have been made similarly for other sensor sizes but they just weren't.

FF does gather slightly more light, and all else being equal, that gives lower noise and therefore higher DR, but that means that in a decade or two we'll just be arguing about FF vs LF and the manufacturers will be trying to sell us 16K LF cameras and people will be saying how the cinema standard is FF (having forgotten about S35 completely) but the LF-Bros will be taking about how only the LF sensors can use AI to adjust the aperture to keep both eyes of a mosquito in focus at the same time and FF can't do that, and that's completely essential to them and that Sony will go bankrupt if they don't go LF dynamic mosquito aperture AF.

[TomTheDP]

2 minutes ago, kye said:

I disagree - those sensors are better because they're more recent.  The challenge is that 1) older FF cameras didn't shoot video, and 2) in stills cameras the FF cameras were the most expensive.

Most discussions also involve an element of "FF gives shallower DoF" only it's usually not spelled out like that, but instead it's phrased as "more cinematic" or some other nebulous thing that really just boils down to shallow DoF.  This is because FF lenses are made to have shallower DoF than lenses for other systems, but that's just a quirk of history rather than a fundamental limitation - they could have been made similarly for other sensor sizes but they just weren't.

FF does gather slightly more light, and all else being equal, that gives lower noise and therefore higher DR, but that means that in a decade or two we'll just be arguing about FF vs LF and the manufacturers will be trying to sell us 16K LF cameras and people will be saying how the cinema standard is FF (having forgotten about S35 completely) but the LF-Bros will be taking about how only the LF sensors can use AI to adjust the aperture to keep both eyes of a mosquito in focus at the same time and FF can't do that, and that's completely essential to them and that Sony will go bankrupt if they don't go LF dynamic mosquito aperture AF.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

All the Alexa cameras before the 35 share the same sensor, the sensor just gets bigger and hence more resolution. Finer grain equals the appearance of less noise. Again the Alexa 35 changes this as it isn't the ALEV3 sensor. It's the cleanest and highest dynamic range Arri camera so far. This is what I find interesting. Will people choose the full frame LF which has worse high ISO performance, worse dynamic range, less color depth, and less accurate color reproduction just to get the FF FOV?

My point was this is the first time where the best sensor on the market is a S35 sensor with no sign of ARRI putting out a new FF sensor. We'll see what the big boys go with, time will tell. 

[FHDcrew]

Looks like the FX30 is a lot cheaper than we thought!

[Django]

7 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

I don't really consider any of those cameras cinema cameras but maybe I am being snobby. If it can make it into a theater I guess you can't say it is not cinema though. 

It's not really snobbery, it's the reality of a certain bubble "cine" world. That of ARRI/RED/VENICE.

Ironically, the very few theatrical releases I've done were shot with 5D3 (ML), C300mk2, BlackMagic Production Camera, FS7... albeit all low-budget documentaries/cinema vérité/art/festival films. And paradoxically, all my RED/ARRI shoots were for high-end commercials, TV, fashion/music videos. It's all relative. That's my reality.

To give further context, at Cannes this year films made with these cameras entered the competition:

C500mk2, S1H, A7S2, FX3, FX6, FX9 , A7III & iPhone 11X Pro (!).

https://ymcinema.com/2022/06/13/the-cameras-behind-cannes-2022-alexa-mini-still-dominates/

Mostly as B-cams & for documentaries but that is an interesting evolution. While the Mini still "dominates" those entries are the most surprising/interesting to me.

Budget, crew, clients pretty much drive what I'm going to use. The whole "cinema camera" term isn't really that relevant to me anymore personally. Yes, ARRI is the gold standard. But if an FX6, FX3, FX30 or iPhone better suits the project/budget then that's what will get used. I am attached to certain "cine" specs though.. shutter angle, DCI, I/Os, codecs, resolution, DR, rolling shutter etc. Luckily we're getting a lot of those in affordable bodies. 

Finally, "cinematic" image quality wouldn't be anything without lenses. The focus on these forums seems to be so tilted towards camera body brands, specs, sensor size etc.. but lenses can't be dissociated from the equation. It's really what may tie you to an eco system or a sensor size.

2 hours ago, kye said:

It was to try and put the size of the sensor in perspective, considering that the vast majority of features and pro video work are still shot on S35.  Without a frame of reference that includes, well, reality, sensor size conversations quickly warp to another universe where nothing makes sense.

Seems like the big boy cine cam discussion has sort of turned into Alexa Mini/35 vs LF/VENICE.

If you look at the above camera Cannes list, or Oscar list or Emmy list.. it's actually pretty split in between S35 & FF.

You can reference frame it however you want, the divide is the same no matter the category. Some DPs prefer S35 others FF.

While sensor generation and overall specs (DR, ISO, resolution) may play a part, I think that again, what lenses a DP wants to use plays a decisive factor in his sensor size camera choice.

We've already had similar discussions in the past. I like to use real world examples to illustrate my arguments so let me re quote what the Ozark DP had to say about his switch to Venice with FF Leica glass:

“I started as a still photographer on 35mm film,” described Kutchins. “It creates a feeling. For example, I can describe it like shooting Super 8 versus full-frame, I feel like I’m watching it in a box, from far away. As a viewer, I feel distant, even in a close-up. It’s nostalgic, but I don’t feel connected. TV lives in the world of a medium close-up. We never go really tight. In full-frame, you still feel close." As Kutchins described, they took older Leica R lenses and rehoused them, which gave them the ability to shoot wide open. 

“It opens so super wide. I was intrigued by it as we went down the wormhole with the family, in isolation and distrust. I was intrigued to use the wider aperture to create more character separation. I love the result. Both Armando and I were excited by the possibilities. We play with depth of field and with lenses to create a separation from character in the background. Even with a wide lens, you can feel the character coming into my space and coming into the living room.
That’s what we’re trying to do as filmmakers, create a presence in 2D space."

 

 

[Django]

2 hours ago, kye said:

FF does gather slightly more light, and all else being equal, that gives lower noise and therefore higher DR, but that means that in a decade or two we'll just be arguing about FF vs LF and the manufacturers will be trying to sell us 16K LF cameras and people will be saying how the cinema standard is FF (having forgotten about S35 completely) but the LF-Bros will be taking about how only the LF sensors can use AI to adjust the aperture to keep both eyes of a mosquito in focus at the same time and FF can't do that, and that's completely essential to them and that Sony will go bankrupt if they don't go LF dynamic mosquito aperture AF.

No I don't think so. Medium format & Large Format have been existent in both photography and cinema for a number of decades, way before the digital revolution. They've been very popular within a niche but have remained just that, a niche.

The trend in the mainstream camera industry is towards compactness and that's where APS-C/S35 still stands a fighting chance. MF & LF lenses are just too big and too expensive to ever take over FF/S35.

And on the high-end cine front, with Alexa 35.. S35 looks like its got a bright future ahead.

[Kisaha]

8 hours ago, Django said:

It's not really snobbery, it's the reality of a certain bubble "cine" world. That of ARRI/RED/VENICE.

Ironically, the very few theatrical releases I've done were shot with 5D3 (ML), C300mk2, BlackMagic Production Camera, FS7... albeit all low-budget documentaries/cinema vérité/art/festival films. And paradoxically, all my RED/ARRI shoots were for high-end commercials, TV, fashion/music videos. It's all relative. That's my reality.

To give further context, at Cannes this year films made with these cameras entered the competition:

C500mk2, S1H, A7S2, FX3, FX6, FX9 , A7III & iPhone 11X Pro (!).

https://ymcinema.com/2022/06/13/the-cameras-behind-cannes-2022-alexa-mini-still-dominates/

Mostly as B-cams & for documentaries but that is an interesting evolution. While the Mini still "dominates" those entries are the most surprising/interesting to me.

Budget, crew, clients pretty much drive what I'm going to use. The whole "cinema camera" term isn't really that relevant to me anymore personally. Yes, ARRI is the gold standard. But if an FX6, FX3, FX30 or iPhone better suits the project/budget then that's what will get used. I am attached to certain "cine" specs though.. shutter angle, DCI, I/Os, codecs, resolution, DR, rolling shutter etc. Luckily we're getting a lot of those in affordable bodies. 

Finally, "cinematic" image quality wouldn't be anything without lenses. The focus on these forums seems to be so tilted towards camera body brands, specs, sensor size etc.. but lenses can't be dissociated from the equation. It's really what may tie you to an eco system or a sensor size.

Seems like the big boy cine cam discussion has sort of turned into Alexa Mini/35 vs LF/VENICE.

If you look at the above camera Cannes list, or Oscar list or Emmy list.. it's actually pretty split in between S35 & FF.

You can reference frame it however you want, the divide is the same no matter the category. Some DPs prefer S35 others FF.

While sensor generation and overall specs (DR, ISO, resolution) may play a part, I think that again, what lenses a DP wants to use plays a decisive factor in his sensor size camera choice.

We've already had similar discussions in the past. I like to use real world examples to illustrate my arguments so let me re quote what the Ozark DP had to say about his switch to Venice with FF Leica glass:

“I started as a still photographer on 35mm film,” described Kutchins. “It creates a feeling. For example, I can describe it like shooting Super 8 versus full-frame, I feel like I’m watching it in a box, from far away. As a viewer, I feel distant, even in a close-up. It’s nostalgic, but I don’t feel connected. TV lives in the world of a medium close-up. We never go really tight. In full-frame, you still feel close." As Kutchins described, they took older Leica R lenses and rehoused them, which gave them the ability to shoot wide open. 

“It opens so super wide. I was intrigued by it as we went down the wormhole with the family, in isolation and distrust. I was intrigued to use the wider aperture to create more character separation. I love the result. Both Armando and I were excited by the possibilities. We play with depth of field and with lenses to create a separation from character in the background. Even with a wide lens, you can feel the character coming into my space and coming into the living room.
That’s what we’re trying to do as filmmakers, create a presence in 2D space."

 

 

It doesn't convince me at all..his view is very respectable - obviously - but the argument is weak..he is just trying to mimic things of his subconscious and try to find reason for that.

We all have started with photos, by the way. My first experience with anything similar was the Zenit camera my father brought from Russia early-mid 80's. Still got it, and the 44mm.