watching on a professional display, the arri has even with youtube compression better skin tone and rolloff, is it worth 97k more, probably not, but if i had to shot a feature film, i'd def prefer the better skintone and rolloff of the arri 100%. for a youtube video doesn't really matter what you use, a gh5 still or a7s2 still have more features than most people know how to use.
very interesting breakdown, I like how you didn't just focus on image quality but on the practicality of using the different cameras in different situations. Thanks for video!!
Yes, but it is a bit misleading... they would be used differently in those situations... alexa would have a focus puller sitting in a shaded area and watching on a big screen, for example... And, as the filter thing goes... burano and fx6 both have variable nd's. Now, what is the "misleading" part... the thing that you wouldn't use these cameras in the same situations the same way. For example, practically, let's say you'd like to use a7s3 in handheld on a gimbal but, with the need for a director, dp and focus puller to see the shot (if it was a narrative film type shoot) it would be quite more rigged to accomodate the sender (and with the hdmi which is not a happy solution), not to mention the batteries, focus motor, etc...
@@sbozinovicyou’re assuming the “different situation” requires the same amount of crew. Their “different situations” were interview vs b-roll but solo shooter.
The great equalizer is high-powered lighting, which has also come down in price. My 900w LED fresnel was $5k+ when I bought it ten(?) years ago. Now, you can get the equivalent or near it for half that. But you also have to know how to use those high-powered lights!
There is something to be said about the versatility of a small camera package. Everything becomes so much easier to do and you can feel a lot more free. The Alexa is designed for an entire camera department to setup and operate. In a world after The Creator used an FX3 for imax production, I don't think we really need to worry as much about which camera we shoot on.
You’re not wrong. Unfortunately, we’ve run into this weird window in time though where no one knows what to call a camera with a traditional photography centric design. Yes it’s mirrorless but so is the FX3, FX6, FX9, etc.. I honestly don’t know another short and quick way you can distinguish it as that style of camera body.
@@daltonbrowne7980the Sony is a mirrorless and the other two are cinema cameras. When most people refer to a mirrorless camera they are refering to a traditional dslr body that you hold in your hand. The fx6 and fx9 are cinema cameras that are meant to be part of a rig.
I really like the collegiate adult way of comparison that you had where you are all appreciating one another's techniques and equipment.. I have 2 of those cameras, and it's actually quite remarkable. How good quality and accessible kit is these days.
I actually prefer the longer DOF for the interview shots. Such shallow DOF looks obnoxious and jarring. The Canon does look nice too though. The Sony look at least on this model camera was the least pleasing and natural in all situations.
There certainly isn’t $97k (or even $7k) worth of difference between the cameras. We’ve plateaued for creators making anything other than a feature film.
We're certainly at the peak so far but plateaued? I'd say there's still some room to get even better, for example once global shutter becomes mainstream.
@@memostothefuture You can always add new features, etc... I'm simply talking about the image quality. The one place there's still room for improvement is dynamic range, which might actually be fixed with software, like on the iPhone and other phone cameras. But will regular viewers of film and other content notice? Nope. #plateau
@@misterdeity In pure image quality I have to agree. My ideal camera would have the size of an FX6, the color science of a Canon or ARRI, the autofocus of an alpha one, the menus of a Blackmagic, and the RAW format of a RED
I really enjoy the triple moderator style video, it showcases how every different camera has its uses.
10 дней назад
the shots made fram 6:45 and so on were just amazing ... just because it shows that it is not only the camera alone but also your time and how to move the camera. super heady rigs need heavy tripods, a team, everything needs to be big and you need a team to get all the stuff around ... and with the a7siii the shots looked more "pro" in less time and that is the reality of so many low budget productions. that is why i think that low budget productions can absolutely benefit from using lighter gear
That comes almost entirely down to Autofocus - and while I don't think anyone working with a full crew wants or needs autofocus, ARRI must be looking hard at developing/licencing some kind of autofocus if they ever want to make another Amira or such. Image quality is seeing diminishing returns over the last few years, and Arri have to catch up on other features at some point.
I use the C300 MkIII and noticed how the Alexa shots on the easyrig were not level. That, to me, is a big problem that I solved on my Canon with the Full Frame Camera bubble level. Sony is doing much better here in that they have an electronic level in the viewfinder, which oddly Canon does not do with cinema cameras but does have on DSLRs. I was hoping to see Arri have that solved as well. Another reason I love the Canon are the rock-solid pre-ams. They are 24bit, not yet 32bit float, but they never let me down. This is a huge difference e.g. to the RED ecosystem, whose audio I consider unreliable. Sony is doing a good job here and I was wondering how the Alexa would perform here.
I think its pretty fair to be honest. We all know that the Alexa will look the best in terms of colour and image quality, there's no real argument against that. But I think it highlights the important point of it will not always be the right camera for the job.
Proof that there’s no ‘it’ camera anymore. Every camera can do it. I was curious what you did with the C500II after the A35 upgrade. Glad to see it still getting screen time! Produces really lovely images
You never need to do "quality comparisons for these cameras" because the context of use of all these as so different. You wouldn't shoot an Arri by yourself, you would definitely use a crew and bigger lighting setups to get your $$ worth, you need a bigger budget to even make it worth shooting on it. As you can see it looked quite similar to the other cameras, esp the c500II, obviously the context matters of how to use it. Tv show, movie with million $ bugets, you can max the camera out the way it was designed to. You would use the C500II for raw recording in mid to low budget commerical, journalistic/corporate projects - great for production houses as it's pricier; and as he said, it gives you more I/O options. It will definitely lift your game from the smaller cameras, but you will need to charge more. And the A7s3 you would use for smaller solo shoots, low-budget docos / corp films, vlogs; great for run & gun, night time filming, brolls; i use this mostly for my shoots but the budgets are also quite low. It was used for The Creator film (basically) and it looked good, but they had the massive money for travel, locations, crew, lighting, SFX which most ppl dont have. All to say: Context Matters.
@@EpicLightMedia I did like the video btw, dont mean to criticize, it did help me see the diff of quality between the a7s3 and C500II, which is quite large. As a sony user, you sold me on the C500II its such a beautiful camera and the image is soooooo nice.
I didn't like the Arri on the indoor shot, but the outdoor shot was beautiful. The overexposure test said a lot. I am in the Canon family but use cinema glass for the most part. I tone down Canon saturation and reduce the yellow-red tones a lot. I like the Canon indoor shot but not outdoors. I like the Sony indoors but not outdoors. Were the same lenses used?
They look the same.... Which is good. Theres just not a HUGE difference. Also, you can rig the cameras to do any job, but you cant tear down the big ones to be smaller....
Cameras have pretty much plateaued. they're all equal at this point. now It's just about who really knows how to make a feature film?Who really has skills and who doesn't bottom line.
Actually I'm confused. the previous video you made about comparison with the alexa showed a much bigger difference that I don't see in this one. In the same time, it's a good new, I know I still can do great shoot with my old sony
While this was interesting it, in my opinion failed to take into account RU-vid compression for the low light comparison. On the screen I was watching this on there was so little visual difference in the low light test that I found it difficult to call the Sony the winner. To be honest either a much lower light comparison should have been done or it should have been zoomed in on the areas on noise difference. Likewise on the outside shots, while they all demonstrated some pros and cons of the particular type of shooting, it was also abundantly clear the Sony was clipping the clouds behind the high tension tower int eh background, where as the Alexa didn't feel like it was or at least was rolling off in a pleasing enough way to mask it, and while the C500 was shooting with less clouds in it's shots it felt like the dark areas of the trees were crushed, which could have been due to the grade, but on the Alexa the shadows still contained tons of tree details. Likewise the Sony also felt a bit more crushed in the darker areas of the trees, but not quite as badly as the c500 seemed; however, my point is while this was a fun comparison there were a lot of image details that stood out to me in each shot that weren't talked about that could have been brought up again to help emphasize how the differences still play into their consideration even when the primary test was focused on other things during outdoor, high dynamic range shooting. I think the best over all comparison was the first shot as in a controlled situation they can all look very similar particularly after a grade, and if one wants a bokeh-licious blur then the Full Frame is going to offer the most blur.
As much as I like these, a bit of clickbaity videos, and use them in debates with my friend that are more "dinosaury" than me, they always feel a bit... lacking and a bit misleading. I know that it isn't the point of these clips, but, somehow I miss the proper comparison... like in the real use situations these cameras were made for. Something in the lines of putting the a7s3 in a real narrative, film situations, for example... with all the requirements needed... and watching how it copes - from start to finish. Why? Here is the example... I was sitting by when a guy did a product shot with a7s3 on a gimbal and it was great... until he needed some focus racking. He asked me to touch focus on his monitor since both of his arms were needed to hold a gimbal for that particular shot. That kind of things...
The A7S3 internal codec looks over sharpened and the heavy internal noise reduction is the only thing making it look better when underexposed. I found the FX6 to be noiser than my Alexa Classic when underexposing it. The FX6 doesn't have the heavy internal NR that the A7 has.
All cameras are great now, somehow they can not touch any Alexa, not even 14 year old Classic. Why? Because Alexa is built by the industry and put $100k of best tech inside coupled with 120 years of film knowledge...thats why...when compare them in hard grade high dynamic range scenes everyone else will be rubbish
Arri has the best color, but it need losts of power to charge that cmos. The noise performance of high iso is not as good as mirrorless. Mirrorless has small bodies and use small batteries. To prevent overheating, most mirrorless use less power on their cmos and image processing which makes the dynamic range worse. Some mirrorless use phase detection af that sacrifice image qualities. Bsi cmos have better low light performance but worse color than normal cmos. Arri is filmmaking specialist. Mirrorless is budget Jack of all trade.
@@user-gb7wf6if9v true, but other cameras fail in colour shift and noise patterns in high dynamic scenes, red turning orange or green or yellow casts, etc. when you shoot all project and your colour stays the same that is huge time saving and yes, it gets noisy past 1600 ISO but easily cleans in NR while still resolving resolution and colour staying consistent. In fact, reason why it has widest dynamic range is because of that, while other cameras can see detail they do not retain colour. FX3 serious sensors are closing in same as Sony Venice/Burano...Alexa 35 is different Monster, still too date 2010 Classic is the King
lol, all I have seen lately is iPhone 15 pro max log footage RU-vid videos, comparing it to every camera imagined. There is no excuse camera wise for being without. Cameras are not the issues, original thought is. With the big studios going from 40 movies a year to 8 each, we need more eager, hungry young film makers making more content, that isn’t RU-vid based. I personally own a Panasonic Gh5, Sony a7sIII, pocket 4k, a7III, I’m not hurting for cameras. Original thought well… that something else.
It's a meaningless test. In order to show the dynamic range in the images taken, there must be very bright and very dark spots. This way, you can more easily show the difference in quality between cameras.
RED's iffy, but Arri's fine. They've been around for 100 years and have had very few misses with their products. Also, they have many other products that definitely make them more money than selling or renting cameras. For a long time Arri has made some of the best lenses and lights around.
Alexas and most other Arri gear is aimed at the high end market and at productions with a full crew. Those productions aren't going to routinely rely on a more fragile plastic camera with fewer connections, less scope for useful accessories etc however comparable the basic image you get from them. For the most part those productions aren't even buying the gear outright, they are renting. Why? Because saving a few thousand on a camera isn't worth the delays of making do with a camera which is less than optimal for the job they are doing. Time is money on such a set - enormous money - and the risk of spending extra minutes fiddling with an inappropriate camera or hours lost in breakdowns isn't worth the difference in camera cost. Will major productions use smaller cheaper cameras where appropriate for a shot? Certainly, but not as the main camera. Are cheaper cameras great for smaller, lower-budget, productions? Absolutely and the images in the final image might be as good as that in a major studio production and certainly more than good enough, but the peace of mind for a major production is more than worth the cost. Why do major corporations tend to pay for expensive computer software with paid support when often there is a freeware alternative which can produce indistinguishable results? For most of us sitting at home or working in tiny operations using the freeware occasionally it's great. But for the corporation, the freeware might need more training than the industry standard, the process might be a bit more fiddly and take extra time and if something goes wrong there is no immediately available support - and meanwhile thousands of dollars, if not millions, are being wasted. It's the same difference with cameras.
@@johnnhoj6749 That's the old model. If a Hollywood Imax sci-fi movie can be shot with an FX 3 and a DJI drone, and audiences can't tell, the writing is on the wall.
