How come expensive camera's look so much better?

[zerocool22]

Hi, 

Random question, how come camera's like the Arri Alexa, canon C500ii, red Raptor look so much better then canon R5 ii, canon C70, sony A7SIII, sony fx3, panasonic S5II? I mean the skintones just look so pleasing while on any other mirrorless camera's, the skintones always come out like yuk. And by the way technology is advancing I find it very strange that these companies arent able to deliver something price friendly that looks as good as something released in 2010 (arri alexa)! blackmagic has made some great advancements pricewise, but arent quite there yet I feel (or at least nog in the pockets or pyxis, allthough much better then anything in their price range, I do love the look of the blackmagic 12K OLPF).  

If its a sensor thing, surely those old sensors could be bought at cheap prices nowadays? Processing power seems out of the question. Protecting higher end camera's seems like the best answer. Also probably because they could sell more camera's that look nog as good, but have more features like for example the S5II has so many specs for the price. 

cheers

[Benjamin Hilton]

It's a combination of things. The sensors, processing, better processing due to bigger physical size so better separate of circuit boards, protecting higher end cameras etc. 

 

But all that said, the bulk of that amazing image comes down to the workflow. Pretty much all the content you see coming off of the high end cameras are shot for movies. These movies are not only using an Arri Alexa, they are using A-list talent, the best make-up people, talented DPs with the best lights, diffusion, camera filters etc. They are also using very very expensive lenses and filtratration. Then the final images are sent to very expensive post houses for color correction, grading, and sometimes exclusive film emulation. 

All that to say that yes, the expensive cameras are genuinely better than current more affordable offerings. But, they aren't as much better as you might think. The whole workflow of talent from A-Z is what makes a gorgeous image, not just the camera. 

[zerocool22]

15 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

It's a combination of things. The sensors, processing, better processing due to bigger physical size so better separate of circuit boards, protecting higher end cameras etc. 

 

But all that said, the bulk of that amazing image comes down to the workflow. Pretty much all the content you see coming off of the high end cameras are shot for movies. These movies are not only using an Arri Alexa, they are using A-list talent, the best make-up people, talented DPs with the best lights, diffusion, camera filters etc. They are also using very very expensive lenses and filtratration. Then the final images are sent to very expensive post houses for color correction, grading, and sometimes exclusive film emulation. 

All that to say that yes, the expensive cameras are genuinely better than current more affordable offerings. But, they aren't as much better as you might think. The whole workflow of talent from A-Z is what makes a gorgeous image, not just the camera. 

I just mean side by camera comparisons, the difference is night and day. (Not accounting different lights, actors, set design) just side by sides. Exact same setup.

[Benjamin Hilton]

6 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

I just mean side by camera comparisons, the difference is night and day. (Not accounting different lights, actors, set design) just side by sides. Exact same setup.

That's where sensor and processing comes into play. I would be curious to see this night and day difference though. While I am pretty nerdy with this stuff, these days advantage from high end cameras seems minimal when using the same lenses, lighting, grading pipeline etc. I for sure can see a difference, it's just not that stark. 

[zerocool22]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

That's where sensor and processing comes into play. I would be curious to see this night and day difference though. While I am pretty nerdy with this stuff, these days advantage from high end cameras seems minimal when using the same lenses, lighting, grading pipeline etc. I for sure can see a difference, it's just not that stark. 

Not sure if they used same lens in this case, but the difference is huge in this one.

 

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

Pretty much all the content you see coming off of the high end cameras are shot for movies. These movies are not only using an Arri Alexa, they are using A-list talent, the best make-up people, talented DPs with the best lights, diffusion, camera filters etc. They are also using very very expensive lenses and filtratration. Then the final images are sent to very expensive post houses for color correction, grading, and sometimes exclusive film emulation.

Is about the sum of it.

The camera is possibly…probably even the least most important part of the equation.

So why is Hollywood not shooting all their features on the S5II?

Because apart from the occasional ‘we did this with the FX3’, or, ‘shot on the iPhone X’, the entire industry is built around big & expensive cameras.

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

I just mean side by camera comparisons, the difference is night and day. (Not accounting different lights, actors, set design) just side by sides. Exact same setup

Pretty rare I expect.

[Andrew Reid]

Do they actually look so much better especially when you're looking at Youtube footage?

[newfoundmass]

I mean it's not really fair to compare an Alexa to any of these more affordable cameras. It's an Alexa for a reason. When you buy one you aren't just paying for the camera itself, you're paying for the decades of research and development that went into the image processing and color science that gives it that Alexa look. That's what you're paying for when buying any of those higher end cameras.

The other part comes down to the sensor, too. Higher end cameras have sensors that are specifically developed for them. That's a huge difference. While these lower end cameras have software and processing that is tweaked to work with sensors they buy, the higher end cameras use sensors that were designed specifically for those cameras.

Finally, there is a Luca Forsyth video that compares several cameras, ranging from the FX3 all the way to Alexa 35. His results were pretty surprising.

 

[zerocool22]

17 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

I mean it's not really fair to compare an Alexa to any of these more affordable cameras. It's an Alexa for a reason. When you buy one you aren't just paying for the camera itself, you're paying for the decades of research and development that went into the image processing and color science that gives it that Alexa look. That's what you're paying for when buying any of those higher end cameras.

The other part comes down to the sensor, too. Higher end cameras have sensors that are specifically developed for them. That's a huge difference. While these lower end cameras have software and processing that is tweaked to work with sensors they buy, the higher end cameras use sensors that were designed specifically for those cameras.

Finally, there is a Luca Forsyth video that compares several cameras, ranging from the FX3 all the way to Alexa 35. His results were pretty surprising.

 

The alexa does really stand out again. I would have guessed the burano would have done much better over the fx3, but he gap is closer in that case. 

 

But it has been 15 years since the arri alexa has been released, strange that sony nor canon cant beat an image from an 15 year old camera. Allthough they beat it on other fronts, but IQ wise..

[newfoundmass]

42 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

The alexa does really stand out again. I would have guessed the burano would have done much better over the fx3, but he gap is closer in that case. 

 

But it has been 15 years since the arri alexa has been released, strange that sony nor canon cant beat an image from an 15 year old camera. Allthough they beat it on other fronts, but IQ wise..

The Alexa 35 came out in 2022.

There were instances where I thought the FX3, a camera I do not particularly care for, looked better than the Alexa, like in the outside handheld shot. I was genuinely shocked when he showed the results there. And in the interview scene it was wild how close the FX3 was to the Alexa 35, though the Alexa did stand out more.

Ultimately the Alexa 35 is gonna have that secret sauce that helps make it stand out above every other camera in most situations, but in 2025 someone could absolutely take a sub $5000 camera, film a feature with it, and 99% of the people viewing it wouldn't know whether it was shot on an Alexa or Canon R5 II. Bo Burnham filmed his Netflix special "Inside" on a S1H and used other budget film equipment you can get on Amazon to do it. No one, outside of us camera nerds who paused and rewinded reflections of the camera and equipment like it was the Zapruder film, noticed or cared.

[Benjamin Hilton]

17 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

but in 2025 someone could absolutely take a sub $5000 camera, film a feature with it, and 99% of the people viewing it wouldn't know whether it was shot on an Alexa or Canon R5 II. Bo Burnham filmed his Netflix special "Inside" on a S1H and used other budget film equipment you can get on Amazon to do it. No one, outside of us camera nerds who paused and rewinded reflections of the camera and equipment like it was the Zapruder film, noticed or cared.

Especially the case if you use expensive lenses, filtration, and have a good post house handle the color

[fuzzynormal]

4 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Hi, 

Random question, how come camera's like the Arri Alexa, canon C500ii, red Raptor look so much better then canon R5 ii, canon C70, sony A7SIII, sony fx3, panasonic S5II? I mean the skintones just look so pleasing while on any other mirrorless camera's, the skintones always come out like yuk. And by the way technology is advancing I find it very strange that these companies arent able to deliver something price friendly that looks as good as something released in 2010 (arri alexa)! blackmagic has made some great advancements pricewise, but arent quite there yet I feel (or at least nog in the pockets or pyxis, allthough much better then anything in their price range, I do love the look of the blackmagic 12K OLPF).  

If its a sensor thing, surely those old sensors could be bought at cheap prices nowadays? Processing power seems out of the question. Protecting higher end camera's seems like the best answer. Also probably because they could sell more camera's that look nog as good, but have more features like for example the S5II has so many specs for the price. 

cheers

Still kind of amazing that the notion of buying your way into image quality with a camera is a thing these days.

What others have said.  Don't ignore the craft.  Swap out an ARRI with a GH1 in certain production environments and you'd be, like, "Holy shit!  That looks awesome!"

Three or four stops of DR does not a good image make.  It helps, but it doesn't make it.

A decade ago a bunch of cinematic heavyweights, Coppola and the like, did a popular test screening of hybrid camera tech at the time.  They were more than pleased with what the products, like a 5dII, were delivering.  If it was good enough for them in 2010's, what the heck are we worried about? 

Also, who remembers that one talented dude guy filming in 720p on a canon rebel?  I think his name started with a "Z"?  Beautiful stuff because he knew how to use it.  Would it have been better if it was an ARRI?  Of course, but would that really affect the narrative?

Anyway...

And then, yeah, add in a bunch of YT knobs playing with the gear without any deep wisdom about gaffing, camera moves, and storytelling --of course the video examples of hybrids'll end up looking like crap.

Here's an anecdote:  I'm currently editing a documentary with a decent budget.  The cinematographer on the shoots sucked balls.  He filmed with an ARRI and two different REDS along the way.  The ARRI has a look.  It comes out of the cam with a lot of "thickness" to use, you know?  Regardless, we recently had to hire a different guy to do a half day of pick up shots and he used his lowly GH5.  He knew how to find the right light, frame an interesting composition, and (thankfully) knew how to hold a mother-f'ing-shot longer than 2 seconds.  Grrrr.

Guess which footage looked better and was more useful?

We can (and should!) chase the tech if that's what floats our boats, but real creatives don't really give too much of a rip about the tech.  "Is it working? Good. Let's tell this story."  They make it happen with what they got.

[Benjamin Hilton]

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Not sure if they used same lens in this case, but the difference is huge in this one.

 

It's funny on your example, I thought for sure the second camera was the Alexa. Turns out it was the other way around. I'm not sure what you're seeing in the Alexa image in that comparison that looks better to you, to me the FX3 looks much better. That is solely due to user error more than likely though, I think the Alexa had a WB issue in that test. 

[newfoundmass]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

It's funny on your example, I thought for sure the second camera was the Alexa. Turns out it was the other way around. I'm not sure what you're seeing in the Alexa image in that comparison that looks better to you, to me the FX3 looks much better. That is solely due to user error more than likely though, I think the Alexa had a WB issue in that test. 

I thought it was obvious that the first was the Alexa as the image just looks more organic, though I can't put my figure on why. I don't think either looked particularly great though. I assume that has more to do with location and lighting.

[zerocool22]

4 minutes ago, newfoundmass said:

I thought it was obvious that the first was the Alexa as the image just looks more organic, though I can't put my figure on why. I don't think either looked particularly great though. I assume that has more to do with location and lighting.

Yeah cant explain it either, it looks more organicw seems to have this 3d pop, skintones dont bother me. I really dislike the reds in skintones of panasonic camera's. It looks like people have infected skin.

Sure you can correct it or try to correct it in post. But god damn if it comes out that good straight of camera is so underrated. Each time I edit intervieuws I get bothered by panasonic skintones. Sure it could be that their skin sucks, but arri or canon just seem to fix it in camera. And c500ii or alexa footage helps me enjoy editing footage, while editing panasonic interviews especially make me hate the footage fast. 

[zerocool22]

56 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

It's funny on your example, I thought for sure the second camera was the Alexa. Turns out it was the other way around. I'm not sure what you're seeing in the Alexa image in that comparison that looks better to you, to me the FX3 looks much better. That is solely due to user error more than likely though, I think the Alexa had a WB issue in that test. 

It just pops. can't explain it. I could look at it forerever, while the fX3 looks bland/boring

[Benjamin Hilton]

Just now, zerocool22 said:

It just pops. can't explain it. I could look at it forerever, while the fX3 looks bland/boring

I think that's just a slight contrast difference. Although I'm not arguing the FX3 always looks as good as the Alexa haha, just in that example to me

[zerocool22]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Do they actually look so much better especially when you're looking at Youtube footage?

Yes and no, would it make a difference to 99.9% of the people viewing? No
Would it make a difference to the guy editing the video? 99.9%

Maybe I get bothered too much too fast while editing. But editing clips that stand out, vs clips that are ok, but I need to adjust a lot takes too much fun out of the job for me. 

[Andrew Reid]

5 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I mean it's not really fair to compare an Alexa to any of these more affordable cameras. It's an Alexa for a reason. When you buy one you aren't just paying for the camera itself, you're paying for the decades of research and development that went into the image processing and color science that gives it that Alexa look. That's what you're paying for when buying any of those higher end cameras.

The other part comes down to the sensor, too. Higher end cameras have sensors that are specifically developed for them. That's a huge difference. While these lower end cameras have software and processing that is tweaked to work with sensors they buy, the higher end cameras use sensors that were designed specifically for those cameras.

Finally, there is a Luca Forsyth video that compares several cameras, ranging from the FX3 all the way to Alexa 35. His results were pretty surprising.

 

There's a massive problem with all these tests.

In the old days of GH2 vs RED, obviously the gap was pretty big, but you could still light a scene for the GH2's limitations, and fool Coppola into thinking it's a cinema camera.

Now everything is 10bit LOG or RAW.

So in these sort of tests you are basically watching a grading test and a test of the editor's ability to match the cameras.

I mean the difference with the ALEXA is clearly there, but had you exposed for the window on the FX3 and lifted the shadows, it would be a lot closer.

The difference between the BURANO / FX9 and FX3 is so small as to be practically zero, yet the price difference is many thousands of dollars / pounds.

Besides, I also think that the way we watch these tests makes a further mockery of it all.

Aside from being mega compressed, YouTube has no facility to download the original files, and now the original files are so enormous in 8K RAW or whatever... It doesn't even make sense to look at the original files other than to crop really close in and pixel peep.

99% of us don't have a display technology in our home to do justice to the source material... either not big enough, or not bright enough.

So in a nutshell...

Difference between $3k (even some $1k like used S1H) cameras and $25,000 has never been smaller in terms of image quality. The ALEXA still has a dynamic range advantage, but it's only a few stops and not noticeable in every use case.

An X-H2 10 bit LOG 8K image for $1.5k is likely overkill for your display without pixel peeping or cropping.

When engrossed in a movie it's unlikely an audience will even see a difference between the BURANO or a $1k mirrorless camera, yes even on a cinema screen.

[Andrew Reid]

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

It just pops. can't explain it. I could look at it forerever, while the fX3 looks bland/boring

It's 100% in the grading.

Why would the FX3 look like anything in particular... it's LOG.