Great video. Just one correction. The noise floor isn't moving or getting squished down. The image is being recorded higher up where there is less noise. So youre recording up above the noise floor. Still an amazing sensor and love how sharp it is
The a6700 is terrible for low light, even compared to a 8 year old a7iii. Even overexposing at +1.7 with iso 2500 f.14 lens. So disappointing that there is noise no matter what you do, if shooting indoors
If you shoot 200 ISO in SLog3 you cut your highlights, that is why your zebras stop working. You literally clip before zebras will show it. BTW ISO 800 +2 EV is the same exposure as ISO 200 and 0 EV, but you cut some of color information in the shadows and also you don't touch your zebras which may cause you to clip too much without control. Shooting at the lower ISO is just a bad habit, you better overexpose on your base ISO.
Thanks for this helpful explanations! I would really like to see a test of the stabilization of the A6700 in video mode. But please not in "vlogger-style", walking and talking (we have enough of that). Just some landscape or other scenario (without moving subjects) with different focal lenghts.
I feel that shooting at ISO 800 and using Zebras (set at 94% which is the recommended for S Log 3/S Cinetone ) allow you to push your exposure until you see clipping (with the zebras) - better than using the meter which is taking some sort of overall average of the scene. Honestly I have not minded the noise in my FX 30 - in real world scenarios (not test charts) - and if you use a bit of Davinci NR and add a bit of grain in it is unnoticeable...
I really appreciate the effort in these kinds of videos man, they help so much to better understand the camera. Thank you so much and keep up with the great work! Greetings from Brazil!
On this camera, the dynamic range highlight is not that good. When you're filming the sky, it's completely blown out. You can actually notice that the sky is blown out with no blue cir definition, but what I mean by roll-off is that it goes between the highlights and back to the exposed footage and doesn't have a nice smooth transition between them. It's as if you're filming really well, and there's not a good transition between the blown-out spots and the sharpness of the blue sky. I noticed this difference when I did outdoor work with this camera on a sunny day and between the blue of the sky and the transformations on dynamic range when filming with this camera the sky.
It's the same story on every digital camera. When they clip, there is an obvious delineation. The difference is how far can they go before clipping. The FX30 isn't the best, but it's not bad at all. You just have to make sure that you don't clip if you can help it
great video! something i've been struggling to wrap my head around: knowing about the shifts in dynamic range depending on the ISO, wouldn't you then want to shoot bright/highlights with a high ISO and low light/shadows with a low iso? and then adjust in post? ex. if i'm shooting in a dark room, wouldn't shooting at a low iso allow me to get more information/dynamic range in the shadows? this seems to be contrary to popular opinion and traditional ways of thinking with ISO. or at least, to me. ;)
Yes, exactly as you said. It's a bit counterintuitive but that is how you maximize the dynamic range and noise performance of your sensor. Really, the idea of pushing your ISO for low light is when you just can't get a good exposure by other means
I guess anything that you want to emphasize or highlight the intricacies of movement that is otherwise too fast for the human eye/brain to see. I wouldn't say a sunset or sunrise unless there is something interesting moving in the frame. That would be better captured with a time lapse I think. Think about slo-mo replays of sports for instance. A hummingbird in flight.
You are a godsend for all Sony creators Phillip! Keep up the great work. One thing I've always wondered about using zebras. In order to use zebras accurately, do I have to turn off the display LUT on the FX30? If so, how do I accurately use zebras with the display LUT ON? Thanks for the awesome work you do!
Thanks! You can use the zebras with the LUT but the values change a little bit. You can use the trick I show in the video to find the clipping point with the LUT enabled versus with it off. If you want to set zebras for skin tones or middle grey, those values will also be different for the LUT versus no LUT, and you might just have to do a bit of research to find where those values are. Sony has good resources on its website. Also, if you pull up my video on Cine EI, I have common IRE levels for clipping, skin, and middle grey for S-Log 3 both with and without the LUT listed in the description
The FX30 can be pretty noisy in underexposed areas even in 24 or 30 fps, most problematically in shadow side of face/skin. I think it's a good idea to overexpose it by a stop or two whenever possible. And this is pretty much the reason that Cine EI exists
@@PhillipRPeck are you sure....I have a pair of FX30s...and a 10 bit monitor and never notice this...also...I thought the idea of overexposing was for the older Sony cameras like the a6400 a6300...older FX7...for the new cameras there is no need to over expose...there is a lot of info out there...
It really depends how your scene is lit. If there is a lot of contrast and underexposed stuff, the noise can be pretty apparent. The ability to overexpose a bit then bring it down helps clean up the image. But if you’re not finding any problems, then I wouldn’t worry about it
Sorry friend, last question, can't get out of my head. Such a clean, noiseless picture at iso 200. Maybe use the same trick with a regular 24/60 frames s-log3, set ISO to 200 or 400. Lose some dynamic range, but get a picture without noise in the mid and low.
Yes, absolutely. It's basically the same result that you get with Cine EI set to lower EI values. I've made a video on it. You don't really lose dynamic range, you just shift where the dynamic range is allocated. When you lower the ISO, the dynamic range shifts toward the shadows. When you raise the ISO, it shifts toward the highlights. Sony has a chart which shows the number of stops above and below middle grey as you shift the EI value (but the same thing happens with ISO). Blackmagic Design has similar charts that show its cameras dynamic range shift with changes to ISO. Both are handy to help you understand what's happening
Great guide; I had neglected to realize how the cropping-in from overcranking increases the noise profile. And thanks for #shotsfired calling out the rhetoric on dynamic range when using a log profile below base ISO. Ultimately the timeless wisdom to use as low an ISO as possible simply reigns (with the one exception that if you're at the borderline between dual-base ISOs, best to click up).
Thanks! Glad that even someone with as much knowledge and experience as you found something of use. I feel like the whole base ISO dogma is becoming an obsession with me. I need to get another hobby
@@PhillipRPeck That was a legit war for a while -- years went by with @alisterchapman lobbying Sony to hold their ground, and absolutely no cameras (including the noisy FS5/FS7) were allowed to go below 800 in S-Log modes. To the extreme, the once-promising RX0 wasn't even allowed to go below 1600 and it was noise hell. Chapman preached (and most hobbyists bought wholesale) the theoretical purity of the argument that Sony's log curves are reverse-perfected when applied only above the base ISO -- and he was technically correct in a utopian anesthetized alternate universe -- but much like politicians these days, Sony couldn't countenance people having the freedom to make intelligent minor tradeoffs (e.g., bad noise is far worse than imperceptible changes to dynamic range). The fact that Sony finally caved and now we see those bars above and below lower-than-base-ISOs, allowed in log modes, just proves that they had to eat their crow, and we deplorables are now allowed to take back control of our cameras. I don't think it's an unhealthy obsession; it's a case study in camera manufacturers walking that fine line between dumbing down features, versus giving owners total control of their purchases. Some companies do this better than others...
But you still have to overexpose when you are shooting below base ISO, don't you? I watched your other video on this topic several times 😅 but there is something about it, my brain can't handle, cause it's kind of counterintuitive: lets say you shoot a live concert with not the greatest lighting. Should I shoot below Base ISO to safe the shadows, cause they are omnipresent? On the other side, the whole point of low light monsters like the fx3 is the 2nd base ... That's something my brain gets wrapped around 😂
Dang, I'm not explaining it very well. Say you expose a scene at ISO 800. Then you change the ISO to 200. Now that scene is two stops underexposed, right? You have to re-expose so that the scene at ISO 200 has the same exposure as it did at 800. You're essentially over-exposing by 2 stops now. As for your second question, that's the eternal question. It's all about priorities. Crank the ISO if you need to in order to get the proper exposure. But keep the ISO as low as possible to keep the noise down. I think the ISO 12800 thing on the FX3/FX6/a7SII is overblown. I think Sony is accomplishing that "clean" image by adding a ton of noise reduction. It looks plasticky and lacks detail.
@@PhillipRPeck nah, you are doing great :) I just want to make sure, that the same principles apply - so always overexposing slog, even when shooting below base ISO. In this case, I will give it a try by not referring to the dual base iso values, when I'm shooting my next dark scenario!
What are the crop factors for 4k video and especially 4k120? I've seen information on the internet that say 1.19 and others that say 1.58. Is this to do with the apsc crop factor itself? Essentially if 4k60 has no crop then in my eyes that's 1.5 crop because that's the base crop factor of apsc. This is especially helpful to determine full frame equivalent focal lengths / field of view.
I don't know what the exact number of the 4K 120 crop is. I failed high school math. But I did show the 4K120 image overlayed on top of the 4K 24 full sensor readout @ 00:28
So frustrating that this camera performs so horribly compared to the fx3. I know it's almost half the price but I was losing my mind trying to figure out why BASE iso on this camera was so awful in 120fps. That being said your ISO box explanation made a ton of sense and explains a lot.
if I remember correctly the ISO control for the a6700 is invariant only past 800, and heavily variant below that. Exposing a scene at 200 is likely to cause significant issues if you need to bring up shadows in post vs just shooting at 800, overexposed or not.
@@PhillipRPeckI was thinking about the lighting scenario when you don’t use a lot of light because it’s a dark and moody scene and you don’t want the whole background illuminated and majority of the shadows just clipped to black.. but that’s gonna be a low dynamic range scene so maybe for dark contrasty dramatic scenes like that it would be better to go straight to scinetone and minimal iso and over expose just slightly to bring it down in post a little and burry that noisy shadows completely? 🤔
@@KK-VLOG Yeah, that could be a good way to do it. You can also shoot lower ISOs in S-Log3 if you like certain LUTs or color space transforms. I think it's common for many filmmakers to assume that a high ISO is appropriate for low light scenes, but that's really only the case when you're not in control of the lighting. I think it's much more typical in bigger budget filmmaking to shoot with lower or base ISOs in low light scenes but actually light it how you want it or light it brighter than it will actually look once you've color corrected and color graded the footage
@@PhillipRPeck yeah it makes more sense to use slog even though we are loosing the dynamic range anyways just for the sake of better matching it with the rest for the footage that’s shot in full sensor mode. You are right most of the nighttime movie scenes are shot this way however I’ve noticed since you have cinema cameras with second base iso like the vencie some DOPs started to shoot more super low light scenes using just the available street light for example to make it more moody and realistic. But of course In 120p fx30 we don’t really have that usable second base iso. I had good result shooting 120 fps with a7s3 on the second base iso.. I love apsc I think it’s a sweet spot but with super low light scenarios full frame always has that edge..
Probably, but then you have all the image quality issues that come from 1080p on these cameras (FX30, a6700). Soft, smudgy, moire, aliasing. I'd rather have the much cleaner and crisp 4K 120 crop and just overexpose by 2 stops
@@PhillipRPeck It would be nice to see some examples. Most reviews I have seen in the past of Sony 1080 (10bit) haven’t been totally unusable. Whilst I agree the 1080 won’t be as good, by comparison to 4K, I have so many social media clients who require vertical content which I build in a 1080p timeline and export knowing Insta compresses the hell out of 4K, so my quality results are better using this method. For those jobs, a small amount of 1080 b-roll won’t be an issue.
If you find the results adequate for your projects, then go for it! I didn't say that the footage is unusable, I just think the quality of the 4K 120 is objectively better. But it has obvious downsides: huge crop & noise. If the 1080 120 works better for you, then by all means, use it. I have some comparisons on my channel already in different videos. You can see 4K 120 compared against 1080 120 in my FX30 vs a7IV video. I also have some shots of 1080p from the a6700 in my a6700 as a webcam video.
@@PhillipRPeck I am attempting to make a buying decision on this camera. So whilst I have used 1080 120 before, not with that crop, hence the questions. I’ll check out your other comparisons.
Such a great and easy to follow explanation of the issue. I'm not too experienced with S-log but for the future work, I'm looking at the A6700 because it's within my budget, and I'm going to shoot around 80% video. I'm still used to my trusty A7III for photography work. The only thing holding me back from just getting the A6700 is the overheating issue that's been all around YT lately, but I'm not going to shoot above 4K 25p when doing interviews and instructional videos (my main gig). In those situations I'm with a dummy battery (on the A7III and A6400 combined for two angles..) so I assume the A6700 will hold up there. The main two reasons to getting the A6700 are Auto Framing and 4K 120p for some B-rolls and these are only planned to be done in superb studio lighting situations. If I can livestream with it for longer periods (HDMI out to CamLink 4K) it'd be an extra bonus, but the A6400 is amazing for the headshot paired with the Sigma 16mm f1.4... So Phillip, are you aproving my choice..?
Thank you! I'm still figuring out the limitations of the a6700 so I don't think I can give a definitive recommendation. I did some overheating tests but that was before the new firmware so I'm not sure how much that has improved things (if at all). With that said, my initial experiences are a little concerning. I think recording 4K 24/25p is mostly pretty doable in reasonable conditions. But it seems that using the HDMI out causes the camera to overheat much (much) quicker. Mine overheated in less than 30 minutes of just being on and recording about four or five quick 20 second or so clips when outputting a signal over HDMI (in 4K120). So it might not be a good livestreaming camera via HDMI to a capture card. There is the option of livestreaming via the USB-C direct from the camera but I haven't tried that yet. I know Josh Satin has made an in depth video testing out the a6700 and overheating. I haven't watched it yet but he is usually thorough. If it were me and I needed a reliable camera for video, I'd pass on the a6700 and opt for the FX30, especially since you already have the a7III for photos. The a6700 has some cool tech with the AI autofocus and auto reframing, but the FX30 will be rock solid reliable as a video camera. They have the same image quality, same 4K60, 4K100/120, HD240 options and the FX30 also has the 4K DCI and 48 fps S&Q modes but it's missing the AI autofocus and reframing. It can take photos but of course it's more limited than the a6700. I hope that helps. Hit me up with any more questions.
Overheating issue has been fixed with the latest firmware update. It has for me anyway. I had it from launch day here in the uk since 28th July and it was overheating. There wasn’t a definitive time you could get recording without it cutting out but since the update that’s been rectified. I’ve had a solid 2 hours of recording
@@PhillipRPeck Thank you for such a detailed reply above. I could let go the long livestreaming sessions over HDMI out, and now that the overheating is solved both according to @richardcousinsmedia3814 and @VictorLaforteza who even recorded an update video about it, I'm almost at pulling the trigger.
Depends. If you want to record in a base frame rate of 120, in either XAVC-S or HS, you can do it with a V60 card. If you want to record 4K 120 in S&Q in either of those codecs, you need a V90 card. If you want to record XAVCS-I, you can only do it in S&Q mode and for that you'll need a CFExpress-A card
Hi Phillip! Thanks for the walkthrough, this was exactly what I needed :) Question: Does the same apply for shooting in 25 or 50 fps as well? As in, if I shoot ISO 200, could I get a cleaner picture by not shooting base ISO in lower frame rates? Thanks!
Yes. Absolutely the principle is the same regardless of frame rate or crop factor. Obviously, the difference won't be so pronounced or obvious as it is with the 4K120 crop in the FX30/a6700, but you'll always get less noise at lower ISO (in photos as well)
thanks for a great description - I have the 67k for 120 sports action, and wonder if you if there's a way to set Shutter > 1/120 for slow shutter 120fps action (eg. 1/80s) ? It's possible eg on the A9 series, but not the 6700.
@@m11kan I have a specific requirement to use a slow shutter speed because of the composition of the image. Intentional blur needs to be created for part of the image
If you're going to slow it down to a 24 or 30 fps timeline, probably 1/250... But I'm not sure if it really matters all that much. Try them both out and see how it looks
@@PhillipRPeck Did some tests. Following your advice set iso to 200 the picture is clear of noise. Dropped water in a cup, 1/250 looks better, the drops are more fragments as a separate object, they are not blurred. Thanks again.
@@he3amo Awesome. That's a good test case to figure out shutter speed. Whenever you have small particle-like objects with fine detail, a fast shutter will make those details more visible: snow, rain, explosions with debris, water splashing, etc., etc.
I was looking for this exact information. I have the a6700 and use it mostly for video. While I know it shares the same sensor with the FX30, it never occurred to me to expand my search by typing FX30 instead of a6700. Thanks for this video.
@@PhillipRPeck My bad. I wasn't specific enough. I was looking for a test on noise when shooting under SLog3's base ISO (800). For instance 800 vs 200. Because my use-case is not 120 fps I ignored your video for a couple of days. I'm just shooting 4K 30fps. And I just dismissed 120fps as noisy, cropped or lower quality
A LOT of people are mistakenly sticking to 180° “rule” without putting in any thought. You should be keeping the shutter open as long as possible at these frame rates. The 180 thing is bull dust - only works at low frame rates. 60fps and higher you are always better to use a 360 ie fully open shutter.
