FX30 vs. fx3 (zve1) image discussion

[SRV1981]

I’ve seen this in a few videos, but when compared - the fx30 sensor seems dark, less DR? Maybe, like a washout look. 

Any thoughts? 
 

video 1: 

video 2:

 

 

[kye]

Most camera comparisons are pretty worthless because you're almost never compare two cameras in the real-world, and even if you are:

• They'll be from different angles, so will have different content
• They'll be colour graded, and matching cameras that shoot LOG is pretty easy
• Things like DR don't matter unless the scene has huge amounts of it, but this is rare these days
• Videos get compressed to within an inch of their lives by the streaming services, so anything subtle will get crunched
• You don't need to get that close in colour in order for people to not notice different camera angles not matching perfectly
• Even if camera angles don't match, it only bothers people if your film is completely crap
• A much more significant impact on your final film will be the features of the camera, as they make a different on set in terms of efficiency of shooting and your ability to spend any time savings on lighting, directing, etc etc

Trying to improve your film by concentrating on the minute differences in cameras is like trying to improve your paintings by concentrating on minute differences in your paint brushes.

[SRV1981]

11 minutes ago, kye said:

Most camera comparisons are pretty worthless because you're almost never compare two cameras in the real-world, and even if you are:

• They'll be from different angles, so will have different content
• They'll be colour graded, and matching cameras that shoot LOG is pretty easy
• Things like DR don't matter unless the scene has huge amounts of it, but this is rare these days
• Videos get compressed to within an inch of their lives by the streaming services, so anything subtle will get crunched
• You don't need to get that close in colour in order for people to not notice different camera angles not matching perfectly
• Even if camera angles don't match, it only bothers people if your film is completely crap
• A much more significant impact on your final film will be the features of the camera, as they make a different on set in terms of efficiency of shooting and your ability to spend any time savings on lighting, directing, etc etc

Trying to improve your film by concentrating on the minute differences in cameras is like trying to improve your paintings by concentrating on minute differences in your paint brushes.

Cool points but those screenshots and videos are comparing the images with same settings at the same time. There’s distinguishable differences and I find it interesting. 

[kye]

7 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Cool points but those screenshots and videos are comparing the images with same settings at the same time. There’s distinguishable differences and I find it interesting. 

Sure.

But we've known for a long time that different cameras have differences even with the same settings.

If one is brighter and the other is darker, but are basically identical if you adjust the settings to match the image, then does it really matter?  Like, if ISO200 on one is the same as ISO250 on the other, how does this impact you making a better film?

[kye]

Also, and I cannot emphasise this enough....

The image SOOC is like looking at the negative film SOOC.  It's not fit for direct display, it's not meant to be for direct display, and no-one really cares the differences in the SOOC image unless it appears in the final image.

Think of the post-production process as "developing" the image captured by the camera.

[bjohn]

3 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Cool points but those screenshots and videos are comparing the images with same settings at the same time. There’s distinguishable differences and I find it interesting. 

But objects in the footage from both cameras are the same size. If one camera is APS-C and the other is full-frame, and they were using the same lenses, those objects would not be the same size. So maybe the differences you're seeing are due to different lenses being used (or the same zoom lens on both cameras but at different focal lengths), or something was done in post. The person who did this comparison is introducing too many variables for it to be an informative test.

[ac6000cw]

6 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I’ve seen this in a few videos, but when compared - the fx30 sensor seems dark, less DR? Maybe, like a washout look. 

Any thoughts? 

I agree with the comments from Kye and bjohn.

I think you're getting a bit obsessive about small differences in DR, which in real world usage are unlikely to be significant (or that you'd notice after editing the footage).

The two cameras are a bit chalk vs cheese anyway - one is hybrid-targeted, with a higher res sensor, mechanical shutter, a viewfinder, and more control wheels. The other is much more a dedicated video camera with (in theory) better on-board audio, fewer control dials, no viewfinder etc.

When you are using a camera, I think things like how comfortable is to hold, how easy it is to operate the controls, how good the stabilisation is, can you customise the operation of the buttons and dials to suit your way of doing things etc., are far more important than small differences in performance. As an example, I held an A6700 in my hands a few days ago, and found it quite awkward to reach the 'record' button without moving my right hand from (for me) it's natural position on the grip. On my G9 and OM-1 I have the record function programmed to one of the front custom buttons (between the grip and the lens mount), which are under my fingertips when I've got my right hand around the grip.

If you're at the stage where you are seriously considering buying the A6700, FX30 or ZV-E1, either try and get to a store where you can hold them in your hands, or make sure you buy from a place where you can return it without a problem - you might really like it when it arrives, or the opposite....

[eatstoomuchjam]

Without watching the videos and just looking at the screenshots, it looks like the ZV-E1 was exposed about 2/3 stop brighter than the FX30.  Assuming that it's 10-bit footage with a decent codec, you will drag a single slider slightly to the right in post and the images will look much more similar.

It is likely that the ZV-E1 has slightly more DR than the FX30 (full frame vs aps-c of a similar generation).  In the relatively low-contrast scene that's shown, if the exposure is within a stop or so of (what I think of as) correct, you would never know or care.

[SRV1981]

7 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Without watching the videos and just looking at the screenshots, it looks like the ZV-E1 was exposed about 2/3 stop brighter than the FX30.  Assuming that it's 10-bit footage with a decent codec, you will drag a single slider slightly to the right in post and the images will look much more similar.

It is likely that the ZV-E1 has slightly more DR than the FX30 (full frame vs aps-c of a similar generation).  In the relatively low-contrast scene that's shown, if the exposure is within a stop or so of (what I think of as) correct, you would never know or care.

Interesting. Thanks for this view! Is it possible that at the same ISO, we’d see this color or DR difference? Meaning the creators are using ISO as the equalizer rather than exposure x/y axis?

[kye]

4 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Interesting. Thanks for this view! Is it possible that at the same ISO, we’d see this color or DR difference? Meaning the creators are using ISO as the equalizer rather than exposure x/y axis?

Tony Northrup did a video, probably over a decade ago now, comparing ISO between cameras and found that in the same exact situation different cameras give different exposures at the same ISO, up to almost a stop.  IIRC his test was meticulous using the same lens etc and he was shooting RAW, so there was no in-camera processing etc.

His conclusion?

It doesn't matter...  because of all the reasons people have posted above.

[eatstoomuchjam]

Yeah - as kye said, ISO is not invariant between cameras.  In theory, it should be - as the name implies, there is actually an ISO standard (ISO 12232) for how sensitivity of a digital medium should be measured (and before it, there was one for how sensitivity of film should be measured), but either the digital spec is insufficiently exact or different manufacturers just choose to ignore some or all of it.

This is one of the reasons that side by side camera shootouts tend to devolve to pointless arguments and bickering in the comment section.  There are too many variables.  Similarly, the t-stops marked on different cinema lenses aren't fully consistent between vendors in how much light they transmit.  I haven't found them to be radically different (not nearly as much as with f-stops!), but there can be noticeable differences.

[ac6000cw]

9 hours ago, kye said:

Tony Northrup did a video, probably over a decade ago now, comparing ISO between cameras and found that in the same exact situation different cameras give different exposures at the same ISO, up to almost a stop.  IIRC his test was meticulous using the same lens etc and he was shooting RAW, so there was no in-camera processing etc.

His conclusion?

It doesn't matter...  because of all the reasons people have posted above.

Something that people tend to forget is that products will have a performance tolerance range (nothing is perfect) so if you tested say 100 nominally identical cameras there would be performance and 'calibration' differences between them. I suspect that at the low-price end of things, per-unit testing doesn't go much beyond functional tests with a few basic performance tests and adjustments, with more detailed performance testing only done on a random sample basis (to check/ensure ongoing production quality). As chip datasheets often say about some spec parameters - 'performance guaranteed by design' i.e. we don't production test this performance parameter, or 'not 100% tested' i.e. we only do random sample testing of this. The 'analog' performance of image sensors, in terms of things like noise levels will vary - so you might be lucky and get a camera with a better than average sensor or unlucky and get a worse one - but most will be close to average.

Consumer/Prosumer cameras are not intended to be calibrated scientific instruments (and supplied with 'traceable' calibration certificates as a consequence), so it doesn't surprise me that the same nominal exposure settings can produce different results on different cameras (especially between brands). Lenses can also have noticeable performance differences between samples of the same lens (de-centering is a common problem) - Lensrentals have highlighted this in some of the articles on their website.

[SRV1981]

Insightful posts and ideas. I just think if you look at the videos you’ll see a pattern that’s much simpler - the sensor for fx30 and a6700 appears to be darker or have a less pleasing look compared to FF. But it could also be the glass etc. seems easier to achieve a desirable look on a7iv/fx3 sensor than fx30/a6700. 

[ac6000cw]

1 hour ago, SRV1981 said:

Insightful posts and ideas. I just think if you look at the videos you’ll see a pattern that’s much simpler - the sensor for fx30 and a6700 appears to be darker or have a less pleasing look compared to FF. But it could also be the glass etc. seems easier to achieve a desirable look on a7iv/fx3 sensor than fx30/a6700. 

If you prefer the 'look' from a particular camera, then I guess you should buy that one...

But as soon as you take it outdoors under a broken cloudy sky and press the record button, the angle, intensity and colour of the ambient light will be constantly changing, giving you an ever changing palette of 'looks' that you didn't ask for... which as Kye suggested above you'll have to adjust for in post anyway to get a cohesive 'look'.

(I was once on the top of a mountain pass, looking down a wide valley, in the aftermath of a storm the day before. The fast moving thick clouds meant it would change from bright sunshine to deep shadow every few seconds. It produced very dramatic lighting - and some nice stills and video - but setting camera exposure settings was almost a lottery...)

[MrSMW]

I wouldn’t even be slightly concerned about any such minor discrepancies.

Yes, there is getting it right in camera, ie, technique (including lighting) and there is bound to be some fiddling in post to ‘equalise’ the output between any combo of bodies and lenses etc.

Just bring some drone footage into the mix and there’s something else to ‘equalize’.

I’d be far more concerned with how the tools feel to work with; weight, ergos etc.

Sony, Nikon, Lumix, Canon…it’s not difficult to match it, never mind keeping it in brand.

Unless you tell folks or ask, no one ever knows what you shot it on.

And outside of nerds like us, no one cares!

[SRV1981]

Do you consider it bad if someone wants to bake a LUT to avoid grading and post processing? 

[eatstoomuchjam]

There's nothing wrong with baking in a LUT if that fits your goals.

If you're handing off the footage to someone else to color/grade, they might resent you for it, though.  As long as that isn't the case, the only thing that's really "wrong" is failing to get the shot/look that you wanted.

[MrSMW]

10 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Do you consider it bad if someone wants to bake a LUT to avoid grading and post processing? 

There is no such rule either way.

[SRV1981]

That’s good to know then if the fx3 sensor looks better with less work than fx30. That said ZVE1 just dropped to $1898 in US on BH

[sanveer]

Is it true that the FX30 has worse dynamic range than the G9ii and X-H2S?