Fx30

[PannySVHS]

That youtube video above is almost unworthy of being posted by a beloved forum member such as Django. "Biggest flaw", what clickbait nonsense. Lowlight on the FX30, as we have noted before, is about one stop less than the modern FF counterparts. So it is a lowlight achiever in S35 terms, better than C300II, than FS7. No mushyness but "grain". Great lowlight camera. No mushyness is a novelty, not many cameras offer in that price range, nor timecode, nor pro reliability and such.

Now, C70 in RAWlight is the overall lowlight cinema champ after the classic Alexa Alev sensor and very close regarding quality of colour rendition, latitude and dynamic range, if I trust the judgement from german testsite slashcam and heresay from dop buddies. Same sensor as C300III. For the money, trust Ironfilm and others, FX30 is not to beat as a pro S35 B or A video cam in the Sony system.

[SRV1981]

4 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

That youtube video above is almost unworthy of being posted by a beloved forum member such as Django. "Biggest flaw", what clickbait nonsense. Lowlight on the FX30, as we have noted before, is about one stop less than the modern FF counterparts. So it is a lowlight achiever in S35 terms, better than C300II, than FS7. No mushyness but "grain". Great lowlight camera. No mushyness is a novelty, not many cameras offer in that price range, nor timecode, nor pro reliability and such.

Now, C70 in RAWlight is the overall lowlight cinema champ after the classic Alexa Alev sensor and very close regarding quality of colour rendition, latitude and dynamic range, if I trust the judgement from german testsite slashcam and heresay from dop buddies. Same sensor as C300III. For the money, trust Ironfilm and others, FX30 is not to beat as a pro S35 B or A video cam in the Sony system.

Love this response.  Makes me think, at times, if you can afford to get the video camera that’s best for you and worry about photo secondarily - if you can - it’s the way to go! 

[newfoundmass]

13 hours ago, IronFilm said:

The FX30 has low light performance people would have given their kidney for a decade or two ago. 

The fault is with the user, not the camera, if you can't get good images out of it. 

Yeah, it's yet another example of how spoiled we are.

I came from the world of camcorders, so people talking about M43 being terrible in low light made me chuckle.

[newfoundmass]

8 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

This video was helpful thanks! Makes me feel the fx30 is good enough for most situations, including lowlight with the right lens pairing.  

I'm not sure about this.  We're not living a decade ago and for those who don't have more than themselves and no lighting - ISO performance and options today are what's relevant.  Fault with the user ... could you unpack how that plays out in lowlight as a single operater?

Advancements in technology are great, but people are becoming slaves to it. Lets say for arguments sake the FX30 has very poor low light performance (it doesn't) but it fits your needs perfectly otherwise. What do you do? Decide to keep looking/wait until the "right" camera comes along, or do you buy it because it's the best overall option and work around it's low light performance by carrying a small light or two?

I've been doing video for 25 years, since I was 13 years old. One of the first things I learned was how to adapt and get around limitations. To me that's a big part of what we as videographers and filmmakers do. We are problem solvers! 

So yeah, when seeing people complain about a camera's lowlight performance because it can't see in the dark or gets grainy at ISO 3200 it makes some of us start asking "what are we doing here?!" There are 100s of affordable little lights that can easily fit into any bag. Grab a few of them and just start shooting!

 

[Django]

5 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

That youtube video above is almost unworthy of being posted by a beloved forum member such as Django. "Biggest flaw", what clickbait nonsense. Lowlight on the FX30, as we have noted before, is about one stop less than the modern FF counterparts. So it is a lowlight achiever in S35 terms, better than C300II, than FS7. No mushyness but "grain". Great lowlight camera. No mushyness is a novelty, not many cameras offer in that price range, nor timecode, nor pro reliability and such.

Now, C70 in RAWlight is the overall lowlight cinema champ after the classic Alexa Alev sensor and very close regarding quality of colour rendition, latitude and dynamic range, if I trust the judgement from german testsite slashcam and heresay from dop buddies. Same sensor as C300III. For the money, trust Ironfilm and others, FX30 is not to beat as a pro S35 B or A video cam in the Sony system.

Well sorry to disappoint ya mate, but what isn't clickbait on YT these days? 🙃 Title aside, I think his point is fairly valid, let's face it S35 has generally been at a disadvantage when it comes to low-light vs FF so having access to these new APS-C T1.05 lenses can certainly help mitigate low-light and shallow DoF when compared to FF. Yet another solution may be to use a speed booster.

Also C300ii & FS7 are fairly old cameras, even the Alexa Classic/Mini was never really considered a "lowlight cinema champ". It gets noisy above 800 despite its huge latitude. Its a camera meant for controlled environments. In this sense, the FX30 could potentially beat it at its 2500 higher base ISO. But the Alexa sensor uses DGO tech not dual base ISO so really apples and oranges. And the C70's DGO handles differently than the Alexa ALEV, cleaner shadows but harsher highlight rolloff.

I'm also not sure what you mean by FX30 is one stop less than "modern FF counterpart"?  Because the A7S/FX3/FX6 FF sensor surely is more than one stop better at high ISO with its 12800 higher base ISO vs 2500. Depends what value we're comparing.

Now of course in the end noise tolerance is subjective and some cameras have more pleasant noise than others. NR is also a big factor. One positive thing about the FX30 is it apparently has less aggressive NR than its FF Sony counterparts.

[92F]

On 4/18/2023 at 2:48 PM, Django said:

Those attributes go without saying but I disagree about motion being "negligible for the viewer". 

If you have a +120hz TV from Samsung or LG its quite easy for you to test: activate clear motion (which artificially doubles the frame rate) on your favourite indie classic and watch it get ruined with disgraceful soap-opera effect.

You talked about emulation nothing to do with what was filmed ... it's your TV the problem turn it off

So a film shot in 24p on Osmo Pocket on your weekend purchases is more cinematic than a film shot with a Full Frame camera in 50 or 60p in Log...?!?

I think you should open a new topic on it... and have a good day

[92F]

On 4/18/2023 at 2:48 PM, Django said:

Those attributes go without saying but I disagree about motion being "negligible for the viewer". 

If you have a +120hz TV from Samsung or LG its quite easy for you to test: activate clear motion (which artificially doubles the frame rate) on your favourite indie classic and watch it get ruined with disgraceful soap-opera effect.

You talked about emulation nothing to do with what was filmed ... it's your TV the problem turn it off

So a film shot in 24p on Osmo Pocket on your weekend purchases is more cinematic than a film shot with a Full Frame camera in 50 or 60p in Log...?!?

I think you should open a new topic on it... and have a good day

[Django]

3 hours ago, 92F said:

So a film shot in 24p on Osmo Pocket on your weekend purchases is more cinematic than a film shot with a Full Frame camera in 50 or 60p in Log...?!?

yep 24p footage will aways look more cinematic than 60p footage as far as motion no matter the camera, sensor size etc. not sure what is so hard for you to understand.

3 hours ago, 92F said:

I think you should open a new topic on it... and have a good day

No, I'm just replying to people like you that keep quoting me on the subject. 

It's ok btw, we don't have to agree but if this topic upsets you so much, just stop arguing about it like the other guy did. we had already moved on until you came back to it..

[Emanuel]

The low light concern going on this camera is basically focused on crop 4K 120p for that purpose from the crop format per se already, I guess : ) Hence the YT video above-posted.

[Emanuel]

I meant I guess this is the reason why people complain or worry about this camera, not exactly because its low light capabilities. The crop for getting slowmotion.

On the other hand, for the newer ZV-E1 FF camera people will have access to 4K 120p with a minimum restriction under a meaningless crop but the concern then will be the overheating issues from the Sony's hammer... Phew :- )

 

[SRV1981]

12 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Advancements in technology are great, but people are becoming slaves to it. Lets say for arguments sake the FX30 has very poor low light performance (it doesn't) but it fits your needs perfectly otherwise. What do you do? Decide to keep looking/wait until the "right" camera comes along, or do you buy it because it's the best overall option and work around it's low light performance by carrying a small light or two?

I've been doing video for 25 years, since I was 13 years old. One of the first things I learned was how to adapt and get around limitations. To me that's a big part of what we as videographers and filmmakers do. We are problem solvers! 

So yeah, when seeing people complain about a camera's lowlight performance because it can't see in the dark or gets grainy at ISO 3200 it makes some of us start asking "what are we doing here?!" There are 100s of affordable little lights that can easily fit into any bag. Grab a few of them and just start shooting!

 

Everyone's needs are different.  As stated, some folks don't have the time/luxury/desire to setup external lighting and having a competent camera for lowlight would be very helpful.  If the noise was not a distraction/noticeable then i'd agree with you.  That said, I am unsure if it is on the FX30.  I'll have to dig in deeper to see how the fx30 compares in lower lit conditions to the fx3/a7siii to see if it is really a noticeable difference.  

6 hours ago, Emanuel said:

The low light concern going on this camera is basically focused on crop 4K 120p for that purpose from the crop format per se already, I guess : ) Hence the YT video above-posted.

I'd say my concern is more of 4k 24p.

[Emanuel]

15 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I'd say my concern is more of 4k 24p.

Then you're fine : ) Obviously knowing what you're doing, don't ask it from a slow aperture coupled with ;- )

[aaa123jc]

18 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Everyone's needs are different.  As stated, some folks don't have the time/luxury/desire to setup external lighting and having a competent camera for lowlight would be very helpful.  If the noise was not a distraction/noticeable then i'd agree with you.  That said, I am unsure if it is on the FX30.  I'll have to dig in deeper to see how the fx30 compares in lower lit conditions to the fx3/a7siii to see if it is really a noticeable difference. 

Obviously, everyone's needs are different. If one has to shoot almost always in very dark situation with absolutely no way to setup even the smallest of lights, like a newshooter, then he must have the camera with the best lowlight quality.

The FX30 is good enough in lowlight, as long as there is some light in the scene. Of couse it will do very poorly in pitch dark situation, but the same can be said for A7S3. Great in lowlight doesn't mean you don't have to light the scene. When we use the A7S3 at ISO 12800 setting on set of the short film, we still have to do porper lighting.

You need light to produce a good image. Great lowlight capablity is not the substitute for lighting.

Anyway, a cameraman has to adapt to the situation. In a lot of tight spaces or very poorly lit condition, even a small LED light panel can make the difference. Those are very cheap and portable, not luxurious at all.

There are many differences that make the A7S3 or FX3 the better camera than the FX30, such as FF look, no 4K120P crop. The lowlight advantage is there but IMO not as important as many other factors.

 

[SRV1981]

3 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

Obviously, everyone's needs are different. If one has to shoot almost always in very dark situation with absolutely no way to setup even the smallest of lights, like a newshooter, then he must have the camera with the best lowlight quality.

The FX30 is good enough in lowlight, as long as there is some light in the scene. Of couse it will do very poorly in pitch dark situation, but the same can be said for A7S3. Great in lowlight doesn't mean you don't have to light the scene. When we use the A7S3 at ISO 12800 setting on set of the short film, we still have to do porper lighting.

You need light to produce a good image. Great lowlight capablity is not the substitute for lighting.

Anyway, a cameraman has to adapt to the situation. In a lot of tight spaces or very poorly lit condition, even a small LED light panel can make the difference. Those are very cheap and portable, not luxurious at all.

There are many differences that make the A7S3 or FX3 the better camera than the FX30, such as FF look, no 4K120P crop. The lowlight advantage is there but IMO not as important as many other factors.

 

To the point you agreed about needs are different - do you think they're putting the a7s3 sensor in a consumer ZV-E1 because the majority of those users don't light scenes etc and need good ISO performance in challenging situations?

[newfoundmass]

22 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Everyone's needs are different.  As stated, some folks don't have the time/luxury/desire to setup external lighting and having a competent camera for lowlight would be very helpful.  If the noise was not a distraction/noticeable then i'd agree with you.  That said, I am unsure if it is on the FX30.  I'll have to dig in deeper to see how the fx30 compares in lower lit conditions to the fx3/a7siii to see if it is really a noticeable difference.  

I'm not trying to lecture you, so forgive me if it comes off that way, but I don't know that you're getting the point that I was trying to make. 

How do you think we used to film in a low light situation when running and gunning with cameras that were infinitely worse at it than even a modern M43 camera? As @IronFilm said, the FX30 is miles ahead of what we had available to us back then, but people were still able to run and gun with those cameras in low light situations because we knew how to get around that limitation. Back then though we didn't have the luxury of owning LED pocket lights that cost under $100 and could easily be added to the camera's hot shoe. 

Is the hassle of carrying a small Aperture light when you need it really worth spending more on a FX3/A7Siii for those low light situations? For some I guess it is? Just seems silly to me.

[SRV1981]

6 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I'm not trying to lecture you, so forgive me if it comes off that way, but I don't know that you're getting the point that I was trying to make. 

How do you think we used to film in a low light situation when running and gunning with cameras that were infinitely worse at it than even a modern M43 camera? As @IronFilm said, the FX30 is miles ahead of what we had available to us back then, but people were still able to run and gun with those cameras in low light situations because we knew how to get around that limitation. Back then though we didn't have the luxury of owning LED pocket lights that cost under $100 and could easily be added to the camera's hot shoe. 

Is the hassle of carrying a small Aperture light when you need it really worth spending more on a FX3/A7Siii for those low light situations? For some I guess it is? Just seems silly to me.

All good points! I guess I’m one of the members here that are enthusiasts but don’t do it professionally and wouldn’t want to use lights for the most part. Everything you said and others is sensible.  I’m just wanting a sub 3k video on a Sony that is good in LL 

[aaa123jc]

7 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

To the point you agreed about needs are different - do you think they're putting the a7s3 sensor in a consumer ZV-E1 because the majority of those users don't light scenes etc and need good ISO performance in challenging situations?

This maybe the case, and it helps marketing as well. Putting a professional sensor into a consumer (or prosumer) model makes the camera much easier to sell.

But yeah, for those vloggers who often shoot at environments where absolutely no lighting is allowed and whose work doesn't require a good image, rather it's more important to get the shot, good ISO performance can be a big plus. I think enthusiasts who just want to film their family or daily lives will also appreicate the extra lowlight capability.

Though back to the topic, I don't think the FX30, FX3 or the A7S3 is necessarily a perfect choice for those users. Unless they want a camera that they can grow their videography and filmmaking skills with.

[MrSMW]

8 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I guess I’m one of the members here that are enthusiasts but don’t do it professionally and wouldn’t want to use lights for the most part.

Pro or non-pro, reconsider it.

For years I went naked priding myself on being a ‘natural light shooter’, but recently I have seen the light. Literally.

At all times indoors and low light, I use at least one LED light and quite often a second.

I use one super lightweight light stand plus a table top tripod.

Neither the Rotolight Neo 3 or Falconeyes are exactly THE last word in lighting, but they do the job I need them to do which is most fill lighting for naturally back lit subjects.

They take seconds to put up and I rarely move them once set.

On camera, video or stills, I have a pair of tiny 4x AA powered LED’s off Amazon that cost about 30 each.

So even if the former is too much for you, I would at least consider the latter and use it on camera or off plonked on a piece of furniture or something.

Even simple things like a plate of food are transformed by a tiny light sitting on the table pointing at it on a flat plane angle.

Takes seconds, costs peanuts.

[SRV1981]

11 hours ago, aaa123jc said:

This maybe the case, and it helps marketing as well. Putting a professional sensor into a consumer (or prosumer) model makes the camera much easier to sell.

But yeah, for those vloggers who often shoot at environments where absolutely no lighting is allowed and whose work doesn't require a good image, rather it's more important to get the shot, good ISO performance can be a big plus. I think enthusiasts who just want to film their family or daily lives will also appreicate the extra lowlight capability.

Though back to the topic, I don't think the FX30, FX3 or the A7S3 is necessarily a perfect choice for those users. Unless they want a camera that they can grow their videography and filmmaking skills with.

This is exactly what I’m saying. Well said. What cameras would you recommend for those who fit this description?

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Pro or non-pro, reconsider it.

For years I went naked priding myself on being a ‘natural light shooter’, but recently I have seen the light. Literally.

At all times indoors and low light, I use at least one LED light and quite often a second.

I use one super lightweight light stand plus a table top tripod.

Neither the Rotolight Neo 3 or Falconeyes are exactly THE last word in lighting, but they do the job I need them to do which is most fill lighting for naturally back lit subjects.

They take seconds to put up and I rarely move them once set.

On camera, video or stills, I have a pair of tiny 4x AA powered LED’s off Amazon that cost about 30 each.

So even if the former is too much for you, I would at least consider the latter and use it on camera or off plonked on a piece of furniture or something.

Even simple things like a plate of food are transformed by a tiny light sitting on the table pointing at it on a flat plane angle.

Takes seconds, costs peanuts.

Thanks. Well said. Do you have any videos of you doing this ?

[MrSMW]

7 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Do you have any videos of you doing this ?

Working on it!

Last year, I shot and produced 32 (all weddings by the way so if that bores you, look away now!) and I was a little sporadic in my use of lighting for all kinds of reasons*

Early, but slow start this year and kicking myself I did not start as I meant to go, ie, again, not full use as intended.

Next job, next week, I am going to light light light it and keep on doing so for the future.

This is the way.

*Mainly long lay off over Winter and first couple of jobs always a bit rusty. That’s my excuse anyway… 🤨