Hey man, just wanted to thank you for your videos. I used to do manual labor as a home theater installer and I'd always have your videos playing which I worked. Over the past 6 months I've gotten my dream job as a video editor for one of the largest news RUclips companies and am getting more side work as a cinematographer than I have time. Thank you so much for your videos, they changed my life. Never stop uploading, your videos genuinely change people's lives. It changed mine, and I appreciate the information you give. Now that I have my foot in the door to video production, I'm working my way towards pitching a homelessness documentary to my employer. Building out my FX3 rig for a commercial shoot this weekend. Appreciate you man.
This test illustrates knowing what you need your camera for and finding the camera which handles those needs the best. If anything, you did actually prove you don't need an Arri while simultaneously proving the Arri quality lives up to its reputation.
The Alexa is the biggest piece of crap in the entire world , i have 3 of them in my studio and i never use any of them ,I just use my Canon r50 with the kit lens F/ 4.5-6.3 , Lmao >>> 💀🤣
the comparison it's unfair tho bc the Burano is kind of a middle ground between the FX9 and the Venice so you can't put it agains any Arri. I'm sure that the Venice or Venice 2 are far better with that rolloff than the Burano which is not even puposly built for this kind of scene is more for documentary stuff on the wild.
That dynamic range test was really the only thing I needed to see to make me unjustifiably want an Alexa. The way the highlights roll off is, dare I say, “cinematic” 👀
I bet you could take any of those other shots and expose them differently and get similar results. Yes the indoor parts would be noisier, but I bet not so bad that it wouldn’t make a nice image
You can achieve the same "rolloff" with practically any camera that shoots raw. Digital values rolloff, but instead clip hard like audio does when the ADC can't record more values, but you can apply a rolloff curve to the top of the signal to compress it. The thing that you actually seem to like is the high dynamic range itself
dynamic range doesn't really matter. If you're in a situation where an alexa camera can be afforded by the production, you'd also have a lighting crew to balance out shadows and highlights so that dynamic range wouldn't be needed. But that's the opinion of a 22 year old so take it as you will hahahhaa
In lab the camera DNR (@4k timeline, SNR=2): FX3: 11,5 EV FX9: 12 EV Burano: 13 EV Alexa 35: 15 EV Some cameras need underexposed, some overexposed to get best results. Preserve highlights makes noise in dark parts of scene. Overexposing highlights makes dark parts less noisier. Overall Alexa 35 is the king.
I also have a 6k gen 1, been using it a lot more recently and I remember why I loved the image! If you start shooting again I’d recommend exposing a lil darker than you think just for dynamic range and skin tones, when you bring up your false color just make sure that your shadows are a lil blue😂
Super helpful video, but I gotta say as an owner of an FX3, that the best way to move around with it is on top of a gimbal, and that makes it a great choice for steady shots.
37:35 Love the truth here! So many people argue over lab results and stats on paper, but what it comes down to is how much you love the shot. Seeing how great the lower cost cameras do just points to the testament of how great modern gear can be if you get out and use it!
As an FX3 user who was considering picking up a used FX9, I think I'll keep my money for now. Burano is way out of my range for now. Hoping we get an updated FX3 soon.
@@garyzhang I've used one a few times. What I want most out of the FX9 is 6K. And I love the IBIS in the FX3. So if they do an FX6 with IBIS and 6K, I'd hop on it for sure.
For those curious, while the Burano might not exceed in resolving much more detail in the highlights over the FX9, it's price is in the details you don't and can't often see in this kind of format of video delivery. It's extras come in the form of more Latitude and control for Post-Production, better details and less noise in the shadows (Better DR in the shadows not highlights), More accurate color reproduction, and better detail resolving codecs which is substantial for chroma work.
Even the additional ergonomical advantages over the Alexa for small crews/ solo ops sometimes get overlooked in the spreadsheets of tech specs versus real world applications like: lower power draw, lighter weight, faster startup time, IBIS, built in XLRs
Well to me fx3 is nothing but a very basic camera. No evf, 4k only, bad ibis it does not get more basic. To me it is overpriced for what iit is as well.
@@andersistbesserthat's MORE than what you'd ever need to create something which earns respect at film festivals. "For Sama", contender for best documentary feature was shot with a Canon 650d and Canon 7d, cameras far less capable vs an fx3. those didn't have a viewfinder while shooting video, shot in 1080p, max of 30fps at fhd, yet a masterpiece was created. any camera can be an insane powerhouse as long as you know how to use it to is maximum potential, to which the fx3 has a lot of
@@ryandobal basic stuff for basic guys.. in this time and age a camera needs open gate. Anamorphic stuff is on the rise and 16 or 17.9 is bad for social media as well. Sony is always behind and they only give you the bare minimum. But of course there are people who still have their mind in canon 7d times and thats ok.
Caleb Pike's Cineback on the FX3 would create a solid base for putting it on the shoulder. Gonna get that combo here soon, and I'm pumped. Especially after seeing how well the FX3 performs.
It depends on what look you want, how you do post, so many factors. The real reason you buy a more expensive camera is not only that it can do pretty shots, it's that it doesn't let you down when things are tough, and gives you latitude in post.
Just rented an Arri mini for a shoot next week and so stoked to give it a go! It’s over kill for what we are doing but the client requested it so i’m not complaining!!
My rule of thumb for prioritisation: Talent/subject > Lighting > Post > Lenses > Camera. The irony of the alexa, is that most of the people who use it have the least need for all that dynamic range. There's no way a film crew would shoot against a window like that, they'd add curtains, they'd neg the windows, or net them from the outside.
Don't forget to add to that a decent script. So much top notch production has the most brain dead shit scripts and no amount of FX and acting can change the fact you are polishing a turd haha
Strongly agree. In a narrative film context, it's so far under 0.1% of scripts that are even worth reading, much less shooting. So the #1 priority, whether it's script or subject for a documentary, so vastly overshadows everything that follows, it's not really worth talking about. This is just fun bro conversation around the campfire about gear. The irony is that you could buy a used Sony A7S, pocket the $89,000 for the Arri, and you still couldn't buy a good idea for a film with that money. Gear is expensive and ideas are priceless.
@@UncleSubBass I guess it goes both ways cause I have a script and have basically non existent budget. It's me and some friends trying to do it and we have a lot of challenges on that regard.
Your original contention was that with a good colorist you (the client) wouldn't be able to tell the difference. And I think that's generally true. In your tests we're looking at what seems to be very basic balancing and a default LUT, but with careful handling I think it would be even more difficult. Even the over-exposed shot - knowing the limits on your camera and with a good colorist at the end, you could almost certainly land close to identical results with the other cameras. You might need to underexpose foreground to protect highlights a little, but that can probably be ironed out fairly well in the grade. Also, in reality there are always things to pick up in A/B test like this, but in practice, presented with any one of these cameras alone would would find things to like and things to critique. But they all look fantastic overall.
Luc, these last couple of videos have been massively entertaining, educational and insightful. Thanks for sharing. I know it takes a while to put something this long together.
I guessed right on the walking scene. I wasn't looking for picture differences but for the jerky movements that usually happen with a light slr/mirrorless style body. However, I was surprised that the Alexa was so unstable too, even if it's the heaviest. Perhaps because it wasn't balanced so well in this setup.
Same. I figured the handheld stability would give the size/weight of the camera away. But yeah. I was surprised by how shaky the Alexa was and the smoothest to my eye ended up being the FX9… can’t tell if that’s a testament to how well balanced the camera is, or the fact that Luc is so used to it. 32:05
The question is, 'Is it really a $90k difference in quality between the FX3 and Alexa. Call me crazy, but... not to my eye! 😅 Yes the Alexa is obviously better. Just not 90k better. And as someone else rightly pointed out, if you have the money for the Alexa, you have the money for the lighting crew who could balance out all those shots in the first place. I know it serves a purpose in the industry, but I'm hard pushed to say its that integral.
It is because of the engeneering required for getting the extra stops of dynamic range and consistent sensor temperature conditions. It's true you dont need an Alexa to deliver great professional work. In fact I would say that for independant productions the bigger most expensive cameras end up working against the projects, eating up a lot of money on storage, battery and assistants that would be better placed in front of the lens. Its always going to be better to invest the money on better actors, sets, lights, costume and sound thant in camera gear.
On a shot to shot basis, the Alexa had the most consistent skin tones, they looked very similar between all those scenes. In the last scene, the green leaves make the skin appear very pale, because green is the opposite color of magenta, but when you isolate the skin tones, they probably match the other scenes very closely.
It's not about the camera. Once you get to a certain point in the cinema camera range, there is usually little left to be desired. Yes the Arri camera is something else in the feel of the image (how it renders contrasts, skin tones and how it handles highlights and especially the gradient from nicely lit to overexposed is so, so natural and well made). You can easily lit the scene better to compensate for that. Run and gun is another thing. But Arri is not build for that either. Clarksons Farm was shot on Canon C70 and C500. Where Arri cameras excel is (as Luc mentioned) durability and consistency. A normal Mercedes Benz commercial has between 50 and 70 people on sent. Some of these people are very well paid. Some star might even be paid 100 000 dollars a day to be there. Imagine trying to save 300 dollars on that days camera fee and getting a camera other than Arri. If the camera would malfuncion you'd lose up to 50 000 an hour because of that. If Arri malfunctions no one loses their jobs.
I nailed the third one by the color on the wall. I think everyone liked B because of the warmer look. The hand-holding examples were super useful beyond "IQ". The summary, "bye Alexa," was a good real world round-up of features. By the way, this episode was also a good lesson in audio with the wandering mic in the frame and the shifts. Makes one realize how critical that is. Sound speed!
Took me a month of research to decide to buy the FX6 and FX3 when finally getting around to upgrading to 4K from my old Canon HD stuff that worked for me for so long. I absolutely made the right decision! These two cameras do everything I need, and then some! Of course now two years later, I want an FX9, because FX6 built up for shoulder work to me feels the same as building up a DSLR. Feels weird. I want a purpose built shoulder camera. I am hopeful the FX9 II comes around soon, and I will try to be an early adopter. I really have no interest in the Burano. I would rather have two FX9s, or one FX9 and $15,000 in glass. For now, making money with what I have, saving and also investing in glass, sound, and lighting.
Canon doesn't get enough love. Im rocking a C70 with a C100mkii as my BCam. Ive shot on a couple reality shows with it, and I'm shooting a feature doc with the C70 for all the live real world stuff and OTFs and all the sit downs are being shot on Red.
I’m a Sony shooter for 20 years but I’m thinking about the c80 because Sony is still behind the fence when it comes to internal raw and that is something I’m ready for
@@marcuswarren1320 I have before in the past but 90% of everything I shoot is finished in 1080. Plus I really only use it as backup footage when I have a second shooter. I was on a home reno show and had to use it for a week when I rented out the C70 and post grumbled because it only shoots in 4:2:0 and they were worried about pushing the colors to hard in post but the footage was just montage footage and you could only see a difference if you pixel peep. The show is only available on Max so like it's so freaking compressed by the time the end user sees it it didn't matter.
@@raksh9 that's a great question, so it has more to do with convenience. It's a ver small doc, I own a C70 and the Producer shoots Red, but he is a MUCH higher profile person in the industry than me and works on .much larger projects. I live and work mostly local and we are following this person over the next year. So the producer/director don't live in town and we've had a few occasions where I have had to run out and film something happening in the moment. So we decided to shoot all the OTFs and realtime stuff on Canon since I have readily available access to Canon equipment.
IRE is a measure of light in video often used to compare cameras, but it’s not ideal for comparing cameras that use different logarithmic curves. These log curves help capture detail in both bright and dark areas, and each camera brand handles them differently. For example, Sony cameras often capture more light in interior areas, causing backgrounds to appear overexposed. This impacts dynamic range tests (the ability to see details in both bright and dark parts of an image). Many RUclipsrs overlook these differences and treat IRE as a universal measure, leading to inaccurate comparisons that can mislead viewers about a camera’s true performance.
wow, loving these longer format videos. the last one, renting an alexa to set up the interview frame, confused me at first because i wasn’t used to this format now i’m beginning to see why you’re so successful as a doc cinematographer-i realize this is much closer to a doc than your usual format
Thank you for the test, great to see the difference. It would be interesting to see the results if you shot each camera exposed to get the best results for post production, and then have a colourist get the best result possible out of each camera. The bar scene with Alexa did show how it's potential in post production by the low amount of noise it had in the shadows, compared to cam A that probably needed to be exposed much higher and pulled down in post to get as clean shadows as the Alexa. Cheers!
While not professional in any sort of the word my $1,200 Blackmagic 4k and $500 Olympus Mk IV can make things that by my eyes look as good as anything I have seen recently. As a caveat though I do not own anything (TV, projector, or computer screen) personally that can replay better than standard 1080p HD. No friends and family have better than that either.
Im using an fx3 for about two years now and I was able to distinguish the fx3 every single time in the test. I love how „natural“ the fx3 looks and I think its absolutely INSANE that a 3k$ cam can even be compared to an alexa 35… think about that price difference & the versatility you get with the smaller form factor
In the blind test, the FX 3 was third once, second once, and first once, which makes it the second best overall, but it's still an underrated camera, because it seems the least professional. Still, for those on a budget, it's a great choice.
Amazing video. I'm sure you know, but for the FX3 camera you could build a rig that would feel and look quite similar to your FX9 one and be able to swap the FX3 in and out very quickly. Of course you won't have variable ND nor all those handy buttons etc.
Thanks for the video. One thing that supports your original premise - I do not think there was much of a different "look" or "feel" to any of the footage. In other words, the Sony cameras did not look like video compared to the Arri. The Arri just has a much better sensor which the price reflects! Now you can tell your client that the quote will be X times higher if they want to use the Arri!! Then you will see how serious they are.
ARRi has the Amira line which is more ergonomically focused on Solo operation and the Documentary filmmaking market. The Alexa line, even the mini, it's meant to be crew operated with at least an AC. If I had the moeny I'd probably go for the Amira.
Isn't that Cooke mini prime an S35 lens? Did you shoot the Sony cameras in crop mode? Wouldn't that mean the FX3 & FX9 were shot at 1080p and it wasn't an issue?
posting before I watch. I've viewed videos by RUclipsrs I respect get flabbergasted by the superior image off the sensor of Ari cameras. Gene Nagata bought a really old Ari a few years ago and was blown away. watching now.
That settles it! FX3 for the win. I'm ignoring all other camera reviews for the next five years. I don't care they announce the Arri-Red-O-Venice 3000! (Who am I kidding? I'd HAVE to check that out!😂)
One of the main reasons I keep watching Luc. The absolute honesty. Non of this look what I have crap. And truth be told, I picked the FX3 most of the time in the test. I watched the video on my iPhone 14 so that may play a factor as well. Thats for the great work Luc, sucks you don’t live in Vancouver anymore. 😢
37:59 I’m not sure if this can be generalised to all Arri Camera as the Alexa 35 is the only Arri modern digital camera with 17+ stop of dynamic range. All the other (Alexa SXT, Alexa mini, Alexa LF, Alexa mini LF, Amira) have 14+ stop of dynamic range like the FX3 and FX9. And worst it’s not in all situations the Alexa 35 17 stop of DR are really noticeable by either pro and not pro! In conclusion the camera you need should have the 17 stop of DR of the Alexa 35, the low light capability of the FX3, the shape and weight of the FX9 and the button, I/O of the Burino.
would love to have seen the c400 thrown in here for testing. I know thats not your workflow but I think it will make a difference in the industry going forward
FX6 that wasn't included is really the best compromise of all cameras. Small, easy to use, reliable and with good enough image quality and functions. Not the best but usability is so great.
Glad to see that an affordable camera (for most of us) is among the contenders. The only test in which the Alexa did significantly better is a ridiculous situation ... If you had a production budget that included an Alexa but no lights to shape and correctly expose the subject ... 😳
It's interesting that it is a "ridiculous" situation, and yet the Arri still doesn't deal with that kind of dynamic range nearly as well as the human eye does. 🤔 Same as with microphones, there are always people who are impressed by the best gear because it's the best, but it still doesn't approach indistinguishable from our natural senses. So there will be better cameras yet, and people will buy them.
Why are the shadows darker on the arri window footage?. Is the exposure a bit different? I'm curious if exposure was bought down to where the shadows matched the arri on the Sony cams, the window detail would be closer... ?
Nice test. I'd be curious to see where and FX6 fell into the mix as well, but I can also see why it wouldn't really be in the running for your needs since it falls more on the FX3 end of the spectrum but has a lot of overlap with the FX9. It would also be interesting to hear how a colorist or editor working with the footage on the back end felt about each camera (can't really do that one blind) I feel like with minimal color grade the Alexa is a bit kneecapped in side by side since the main attraction is the deepness of the pixels, but it also brings with it some workflow considerations that might not fit into your normal workflow. Granted I think I'm more on the end of shooting and editing my own stuff than you generally seem to be.
Great video Luc! It would have been nice to see the Blackmagic Ursa Cine 12K going up against these. I got to guess about the same as you did except for the last test where I thought Cam C might have been the Alexa...
I shot with Sony (FS7) for a decade but I was not sure what camera to buy next. So I bought a couple of BMPCC's and a Panasonic S5 ii x as 'in between' camera's. I have the feeling that when shooting BMRAW, Resolve is able to pull back the highlights (or the camera is able to capture it) almost as good as the Alexa 35. And I still haven't figured out which camera should be my 'next big cam'. This review sure isn't helping 😆
Hi! BRAW on the s5iix is really beautiful. I have the full frame BM and also s5iix with BM video assist. Once you shoot braw on the s5iix it comes to live even more (it's really solid regardless... but when I test it against the BM... I always prefer the BM. I feel like the s5iix with BRAW is an amazing combo because it gives BRAW look, but lower noise, AND autofocus. Killer combo.
One of the big things I didn't see you talk about is data rates. At uhd 23.97 The arri (422hq) does 340GB per hour vs Sony (xavc-i) does 109GB per hour. On a remote doc shoot that really adds up.
Grab a few decent sub $1000 lights and everything is nearly identical. Have the footage colored by someone who is experienced in Resolve and there is near zero chance a client could tell. If it's not viewed in a theater we've essentially reached the point of diminishing returns. Thank you for the video and happy shooting everyone! Priorities, In Order, For Studio Work: 1) Glass 2) Lighting 3) Camera Priorities, In Order, For Doc Work (for another 1-2 years & then the priorities will match above): 1) Camera 2) Glass 3) Lighting
I can't believe how good the FX3 looked in the tracking shot! Insane. I'm curious about your Fuji zooms - do you use your FX9 in s35 mode all the time, or do you chop and change when you want to use s35 glass?
Super interesting video. I came into the video with some interesting expectations but nothing could have prepared me for the outcome. Thanks for the time and effort you put into doing this!
The window test was very informative, but I would love to see the same scene exposed for the window and then see how much you can pull out of the shadows and the skin tones in post. I totally understand given the differences in dynamic range between the Alexa and everything else that the shadows would be much noisier in the FX’s and the Burano probably but it would be interesting to see the side-by-side comparison of that. what could be brought out of the shadows if you’re exposing for the highlights?
Canon C400 not even in the conversation? Every pro and con, this camera has a ton of pros. I have one. It is sweet! Umm, you said FX3 was D @ 26:31 and it was the FX9 for the DR test. Vivian got it right. The bar shot had 3 Sony's and 3 very different colors and looks. Odd. The last test was Arri A because it was the only shot not to have too much green. Just my 2 cents.
Why not compare it with Canon, why not compare it with Red, Blackmagic etc. That was not the point of this video, Luc was just comparing it with a system that he is using versus industry standard that is Arri.
@@noisetin Ya can't compare to every camera. I get it. But if you're talking about the best options for DOC shooters TODAY... the C400 needs to be considered. Codecs, NDs, triple ISO (HUGE for Docs), Crazy good AF etc... on and on. I know Luc is vested in Sony. The comment section is for comments. So I'm playing the game. :D
I found this test very interesting. Unfortunately I don't use any of these cameras and chose Blackmagic Design as my go to A camera based on price, and lens mount (EF) as I used a Canon prior to the Blackmagic purchase. Would love to see a comparison between the FX9 and maybe the Blackmagic Pyxis which I was considering as my next purchase.
to the ergonomics department of the small fx3. My main workhorse is a slightly heavier Panasonic SH1 which does have a similar issure for "shoulder cam" shots. I just put a gorillapod on it and rest this on my chest/shoulder. Makes the camera totally weightless.
Just wanted to add to this: a lot of the prosumer cameras like FX3, FX6, 9 and even the burano to a degree are designed with a specific use case in mind. The FX3 is meant to be rigged on. Gimbal for lots of handheld with a great sensor and SteadyShot. The 6 is a tweener but has better ND control and is better in low light. Versatile because it’s still lightweight for Docu shooting. The Burano from what I can tell is meant to be a top of the line prosumer studio camera to make it more accessible in price than the Venice 2 and Alexa. But those cameras are meant solely for professional use not only because of range and gradability, but because they have all the necessary ports and features to support VFX, different sound and code needs and the ability to work in a professional environment relative to Terradek, Follow Focus and monitors. The Alexa is completely overkill for anyone not producing a major motion picture or TV show. The image quality may be slightly better but it’s built the way it is so when you’re spending 250 grand a day on an extremely high level shoot you can get all the bells and whistles for sound dept, camera dept, client and post. I guess my whole point in this post is not too rag on the comparisons of each test, but rather these are all tools and you use the tool that makes the most sense given the workflow. There is a reason they shot The Creator on the FX3. Workflow. And there is a reason Avatar 2 took so long to release- the underwater photography wasn’t up to par yet for what Cameron needed to shoot. Tools. Just a big tool bag. Great video though Luc. Appreciate how thorough the tests were.
@@JojoJogetdid you see the test? Its almost impossible to justify expending 25k for a burano when you could have 99% quality (if not better) with the fx9 that is around 6-7k a second hand unit
@@JojoJogetand Arri is justified only if you have unlimited budget, if you are paying an actor 50k a day + all the people that work in a movie set then paying 1k rent a day for an alexa is nothing
Great job, thank you so much. Alexa is the best without a doubt, but it's really encouraging that FX3 comes as second best choice, which makes the job much easier for many videographers shooting in difficult conditions, and the FX3 is also the most affordable. The only remaining problem is with clients who have prejudices that a huge and expensive camera like a Hollywood production is necessary to meet their quality standards. The FX3 shows that it was no accident that the movie The Creator was shot with it.
So I’m brand new. Not even in the industry, just chosen to be the one in our company to create some documentaries and social media content for promotion. I chose the FX3 in all of them. The first one I did think the Alexa for the window, but I thought the skin of the person looked better on the FX3. Like your girlfriend, I hadn’t heard of any of the cameras before this video. This is only the 3rd vid I’ve watched in my research. But hey I’m just an FNG going from my iPhone and action cams. I think I’ll be going with the FX30 and if all goes well move up to the FX3 in a year or two if this second hand duty for work is still going on. If they are all that close, I’m comfortable no one will notice. For your situation, it just sounds like people are being picky and simply want to say it was filmed on the most expensive camera. Nice series, Thanks!
Really interesting to see that in some circumstances the cheaper cameras actually looked better to most people I would imagine though that with a little more time on the Alexa getting to know how to get the best from it that you could do better on those clips and it would be easier to pick it out, that said it does show just how far camera technology has improved in just the last few years that you can compare an fx3 to an Alexa and get it wrong. I use a7s3 and have been amazed at just how good a little camera it is especially with atomos and shooting raw.
The dynamic range test seemed rather questionable. What we'd really be interested in, is skin exposed at the lowest acceptable exposure (in terms of noise) and then seeing how much range a camera has above that. 70 IRE doesn't really mean anything as changing the ISO/ASA of the camera moves what might've been 70IRE at one ISO/ASA, to let's say 60IRE. And for those saying "but I use the camera's base ISO", that doesn't actually have a concrete meaning, it's just an ISO number the manufacturer recommends for having roughly equially as many stops above as below middle gray. How I would've run this test is: 1. Expose skintones as low as possible, but where I'm still happy with the noise levels, 2. Color correct the shots in post to look their best in terms of color balance and set skin tones to look roughly equal in brightness at that stage. --- When it comes to comparing the camera images with their default 709 LUTs, I guess it might make sense for a documentary shooter who can't afford a colorist, but generally I'd say not having the footage color corrected gives an unfair advantage to cameras with a stronger look built-in, such as the Alexa 35 (which isn't necessarily a good thing). This is my 2c from your friendly neighbourhood colorist and thanks for making this video! :)
The Alexa 35 has 8.5 stops of highlight latitude(stops above middle gray) at 800 ISO, while the Sony Cameras have 6 stops or just under 6 stops at 800 iso. The Alexa 35 also has better low light latitude than the FX6 and FX9. ( I haven't seen a direct comparison of the Burano and Alexa 35, but I'm guessing the Alexa 35 edges it out too). You could push up the noise to hold the highlights in the Sony Cameras, but the same is also true of the Alexa 35. Meaning the Alexa 35 could also hold the highlights- if pushed - in 2.5 more stops of contrast. ... As a thought experiment... pay attention to all the behind the scenes, uncontrolled lighting shots in this video. You will see high contrast/blown out windows( for example, 8 minutes 58 seconds into video, ruclips.net/video/1dRCyg1dbDw/видео.html). Now think how much better that shot would look with 2.5 more stops of highlight latitude.
There's something really weird with the grade on the Alexa footage. The gross muddy look could more be from not knowing how to deal with the footage from the 35. It seems to typically shift more green/blue which didn't come through at all
Comparing apples to apples, the Amira is actually considered Arri's "doc" style camera. And a bit closer in price to the FX9. I'm not familiar with the Amira firsthand but you may consider that one as well. That is if you want something truly comparable to the FX9 and still need to impress a client with the Arri brand.
A great comparison video for the higher end professional, thank you. But what's going on with the audio recording? I don't see a lav, so are you boomed? And was it cutting out a lot, because it sounds like it switches to a camera mic sometimes.
So much of this is shooting style. Some shooting styles would conceal the differences others would capitalize. But their shooting styles not compromises.
![Overrated: Camera features that don't matter [ft Gerald Undone]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SlLbkeNH9to/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey man, just wanted to thank you for your videos. I used to do manual labor as a home theater installer and I'd always have your videos playing which I worked. Over the past 6 months I've gotten my dream job as a video editor for one of the largest news RUclips companies and am getting more side work as a cinematographer than I have time. Thank you so much for your videos, they changed my life. Never stop uploading, your videos genuinely change people's lives. It changed mine, and I appreciate the information you give.
Now that I have my foot in the door to video production, I'm working my way towards pitching a homelessness documentary to my employer. Building out my FX3 rig for a commercial shoot this weekend. Appreciate you man.
Hope it went well!
love that man! you're doing great!!
Amazing. You've placed a $3k camera next to an Alexa and it looked ok! Need to see this on a PC but I am still impressed by the FX3.
its the lens**
(but yes the camera is nice, but lenses are more important)
This test illustrates knowing what you need your camera for and finding the camera which handles those needs the best. If anything, you did actually prove you don't need an Arri while simultaneously proving the Arri quality lives up to its reputation.
The Alexa is the biggest piece of crap in the entire world , i have 3 of them in my studio and i never use any of them ,I just use my Canon r50 with the kit lens F/ 4.5-6.3 , Lmao >>>
💀🤣
the comparison it's unfair tho bc the Burano is kind of a middle ground between the FX9 and the Venice so you can't put it agains any Arri. I'm sure that the Venice or Venice 2 are far better with that rolloff than the Burano which is not even puposly built for this kind of scene is more for documentary stuff on the wild.
That dynamic range test was really the only thing I needed to see to make me unjustifiably want an Alexa. The way the highlights roll off is, dare I say, “cinematic” 👀
I bet you could take any of those other shots and expose them differently and get similar results. Yes the indoor parts would be noisier, but I bet not so bad that it wouldn’t make a nice image
Doesn't look like he shot the Sony's in RAW. If he did I'm sure he could have made an equivalent image.
You can achieve the same "rolloff" with practically any camera that shoots raw. Digital values rolloff, but instead clip hard like audio does when the ADC can't record more values, but you can apply a rolloff curve to the top of the signal to compress it.
The thing that you actually seem to like is the high dynamic range itself
@@shueibdahir it’s the combination of the two, of course.
dynamic range doesn't really matter. If you're in a situation where an alexa camera can be afforded by the production, you'd also have a lighting crew to balance out shadows and highlights so that dynamic range wouldn't be needed. But that's the opinion of a 22 year old so take it as you will hahahhaa
As an aspiring (but non professional) and newly FX3 owner...I really like this video.
the FX 3 sucks
@@thesleep-official4115 🧌🧌🧌
@@thesleep-official4115judging by your other comments you seem like a hater. Hopefully you find joy in your camera hate filled heart ❤️
In lab the camera DNR (@4k timeline, SNR=2):
FX3: 11,5 EV
FX9: 12 EV
Burano: 13 EV
Alexa 35: 15 EV
Some cameras need underexposed, some overexposed to get best results. Preserve highlights makes noise in dark parts of scene. Overexposing highlights makes dark parts less noisier. Overall Alexa 35 is the king.
Me sitting here with a 6k blackmagic that hasnt filmed a single thing in 2 years. My real job is killing me😂
The struggle is real my friend 😅
I also have a 6k gen 1, been using it a lot more recently and I remember why I loved the image! If you start shooting again I’d recommend exposing a lil darker than you think just for dynamic range and skin tones, when you bring up your false color just make sure that your shadows are a lil blue😂
Amen! Also I need to stop watching RUclips and get off my butt.
If you are up for it I’ll start a challenge to hold us accountable.. ;
this weekend film one living thing in your yard or park.
Same brother. Same
Super helpful video, but I gotta say as an owner of an FX3, that the best way to move around with it is on top of a gimbal, and that makes it a great choice for steady shots.
Such a great and down-to-earth comparison. Thank you for the work you put in and that you shared it, this is rare to find on YT.
37:35 Love the truth here! So many people argue over lab results and stats on paper, but what it comes down to is how much you love the shot. Seeing how great the lower cost cameras do just points to the testament of how great modern gear can be if you get out and use it!
As an FX3 user who was considering picking up a used FX9, I think I'll keep my money for now. Burano is way out of my range for now. Hoping we get an updated FX3 soon.
Jepp. I just wish they would bring out a updated version soon. Since the a7v is going to be the next one, it’s probably going to be end of 2025:(
Gotta say thou: internal nd is amazing for run and gun.
Fx6 would be a good upgrade
@@garyzhang I've used one a few times. What I want most out of the FX9 is 6K. And I love the IBIS in the FX3. So if they do an FX6 with IBIS and 6K, I'd hop on it for sure.
For those curious, while the Burano might not exceed in resolving much more detail in the highlights over the FX9, it's price is in the details you don't and can't often see in this kind of format of video delivery. It's extras come in the form of more Latitude and control for Post-Production, better details and less noise in the shadows (Better DR in the shadows not highlights), More accurate color reproduction, and better detail resolving codecs which is substantial for chroma work.
Even the additional ergonomical advantages over the Alexa for small crews/ solo ops sometimes get overlooked in the spreadsheets of tech specs versus real world applications like: lower power draw, lighter weight, faster startup time, IBIS, built in XLRs
The FX3 is such an insane powerhouse of a camera
Well to me fx3 is nothing but a very basic camera. No evf, 4k only, bad ibis it does not get more basic. To me it is overpriced for what iit is as well.
@@andersistbesserthat's MORE than what you'd ever need to create something which earns respect at film festivals. "For Sama", contender for best documentary feature was shot with a Canon 650d and Canon 7d, cameras far less capable vs an fx3. those didn't have a viewfinder while shooting video, shot in 1080p, max of 30fps at fhd, yet a masterpiece was created. any camera can be an insane powerhouse as long as you know how to use it to is maximum potential, to which the fx3 has a lot of
@@andersistbesser lol
@@ryandobal basic stuff for basic guys.. in this time and age a camera needs open gate. Anamorphic stuff is on the rise and 16 or 17.9 is bad for social media as well. Sony is always behind and they only give you the bare minimum. But of course there are people who still have their mind in canon 7d times and thats ok.
@@andersistbesserthe sensor readout speed is good in FX3, also the IBIS isn’t that bad, the true beauty is its insane low light capabilities
Caleb Pike's Cineback on the FX3 would create a solid base for putting it on the shoulder. Gonna get that combo here soon, and I'm pumped. Especially after seeing how well the FX3 performs.
I would buy two FX9s or 5 FX3s before buying a Burano ever.
amen
Good point of view.
All this problems are so easy to fix now days whit Davinci, spending that money on Alexa, it so hard to justify now days.
Every DP who has actually used one loves them.
@@MrMe69420 I know right, all iv heard were praises from ppl who have used it .
It depends on what look you want, how you do post, so many factors. The real reason you buy a more expensive camera is not only that it can do pretty shots, it's that it doesn't let you down when things are tough, and gives you latitude in post.
Just rented an Arri mini for a shoot next week and so stoked to give it a go! It’s over kill for what we are doing but the client requested it so i’m not complaining!!
My rule of thumb for prioritisation: Talent/subject > Lighting > Post > Lenses > Camera. The irony of the alexa, is that most of the people who use it have the least need for all that dynamic range. There's no way a film crew would shoot against a window like that, they'd add curtains, they'd neg the windows, or net them from the outside.
Same. So many people encumber themselves with big rigs and are so slow they make boring crap
arri代表的是信仰。是工作人员面对它时的敬畏之心
Don't forget to add to that a decent script. So much top notch production has the most brain dead shit scripts and no amount of FX and acting can change the fact you are polishing a turd haha
Strongly agree. In a narrative film context, it's so far under 0.1% of scripts that are even worth reading, much less shooting. So the #1 priority, whether it's script or subject for a documentary, so vastly overshadows everything that follows, it's not really worth talking about. This is just fun bro conversation around the campfire about gear. The irony is that you could buy a used Sony A7S, pocket the $89,000 for the Arri, and you still couldn't buy a good idea for a film with that money. Gear is expensive and ideas are priceless.
@@UncleSubBass I guess it goes both ways cause I have a script and have basically non existent budget. It's me and some friends trying to do it and we have a lot of challenges on that regard.
Your original contention was that with a good colorist you (the client) wouldn't be able to tell the difference. And I think that's generally true. In your tests we're looking at what seems to be very basic balancing and a default LUT, but with careful handling I think it would be even more difficult. Even the over-exposed shot - knowing the limits on your camera and with a good colorist at the end, you could almost certainly land close to identical results with the other cameras. You might need to underexpose foreground to protect highlights a little, but that can probably be ironed out fairly well in the grade.
Also, in reality there are always things to pick up in A/B test like this, but in practice, presented with any one of these cameras alone would would find things to like and things to critique. But they all look fantastic overall.
Luc, these last couple of videos have been massively entertaining, educational and insightful. Thanks for sharing. I know it takes a while to put something this long together.
This definitely confirmed that an FX3 would completely meet my needs! Thanks for the video and all the work it took to create it!
I'm glad it helped!
I guessed right on the walking scene. I wasn't looking for picture differences but for the jerky movements that usually happen with a light slr/mirrorless style body. However, I was surprised that the Alexa was so unstable too, even if it's the heaviest. Perhaps because it wasn't balanced so well in this setup.
Same. I figured the handheld stability would give the size/weight of the camera away. But yeah. I was surprised by how shaky the Alexa was and the smoothest to my eye ended up being the FX9… can’t tell if that’s a testament to how well balanced the camera is, or the fact that Luc is so used to it. 32:05
The FX3 has IBIS, maybe it was enabled? All the other cameras don't have IBIS.
Thank Luc for this INTERESTING & PRACTICAL comparison of Arri, Sony Burano, Sony FX3, Sony FX9. For my shooting FX3 is perfect.
The question is, 'Is it really a $90k difference in quality between the FX3 and Alexa. Call me crazy, but... not to my eye! 😅 Yes the Alexa is obviously better. Just not 90k better. And as someone else rightly pointed out, if you have the money for the Alexa, you have the money for the lighting crew who could balance out all those shots in the first place. I know it serves a purpose in the industry, but I'm hard pushed to say its that integral.
90-25=65k better maybe? Lol. Jk. But that dynamic range is beautiful.
90k better depending on what the application is.
It is because of the engeneering required for getting the extra stops of dynamic range and consistent sensor temperature conditions. It's true you dont need an Alexa to deliver great professional work. In fact I would say that for independant productions the bigger most expensive cameras end up working against the projects, eating up a lot of money on storage, battery and assistants that would be better placed in front of the lens. Its always going to be better to invest the money on better actors, sets, lights, costume and sound thant in camera gear.
On a shot to shot basis, the Alexa had the most consistent skin tones, they looked very similar between all those scenes. In the last scene, the green leaves make the skin appear very pale, because green is the opposite color of magenta, but when you isolate the skin tones, they probably match the other scenes very closely.
It's not about the camera. Once you get to a certain point in the cinema camera range, there is usually little left to be desired. Yes the Arri camera is something else in the feel of the image (how it renders contrasts, skin tones and how it handles highlights and especially the gradient from nicely lit to overexposed is so, so natural and well made). You can easily lit the scene better to compensate for that. Run and gun is another thing. But Arri is not build for that either. Clarksons Farm was shot on Canon C70 and C500.
Where Arri cameras excel is (as Luc mentioned) durability and consistency. A normal Mercedes Benz commercial has between 50 and 70 people on sent. Some of these people are very well paid. Some star might even be paid 100 000 dollars a day to be there. Imagine trying to save 300 dollars on that days camera fee and getting a camera other than Arri. If the camera would malfuncion you'd lose up to 50 000 an hour because of that. If Arri malfunctions no one loses their jobs.
I nailed the third one by the color on the wall. I think everyone liked B because of the warmer look. The hand-holding examples were super useful beyond "IQ". The summary, "bye Alexa," was a good real world round-up of features. By the way, this episode was also a good lesson in audio with the wandering mic in the frame and the shifts. Makes one realize how critical that is. Sound speed!
Took me a month of research to decide to buy the FX6 and FX3 when finally getting around to upgrading to 4K from my old Canon HD stuff that worked for me for so long. I absolutely made the right decision! These two cameras do everything I need, and then some! Of course now two years later, I want an FX9, because FX6 built up for shoulder work to me feels the same as building up a DSLR. Feels weird. I want a purpose built shoulder camera. I am hopeful the FX9 II comes around soon, and I will try to be an early adopter. I really have no interest in the Burano. I would rather have two FX9s, or one FX9 and $15,000 in glass. For now, making money with what I have, saving and also investing in glass, sound, and lighting.
Does your fx9 have any relevant advantages above the fx6 for what you do?
You could rig fx3 to fit on your shoulder, right?
Yes, and you could use an easyrig with the alexa to make it easier to handle.
or just get an fx6
@@berendvanrossum4585 he did mention it in the video and said he thought it wouldn't help much for his type of shoots
Fx3 is the best option for 99% of us. Clearly.
Canon doesn't get enough love. Im rocking a C70 with a C100mkii as my BCam. Ive shot on a couple reality shows with it, and I'm shooting a feature doc with the C70 for all the live real world stuff and OTFs and all the sit downs are being shot on Red.
I’m a Sony shooter for 20 years but I’m thinking about the c80 because Sony is still behind the fence when it comes to internal raw and that is something I’m ready for
Why use a different camera for the OTF's and sit downs? Just curious.
Are you uprezing the C100 MkII footage or shooting everything in 1080?
@@marcuswarren1320 I have before in the past but 90% of everything I shoot is finished in 1080. Plus I really only use it as backup footage when I have a second shooter. I was on a home reno show and had to use it for a week when I rented out the C70 and post grumbled because it only shoots in 4:2:0 and they were worried about pushing the colors to hard in post but the footage was just montage footage and you could only see a difference if you pixel peep.
The show is only available on Max so like it's so freaking compressed by the time the end user sees it it didn't matter.
@@raksh9 that's a great question, so it has more to do with convenience. It's a ver small doc, I own a C70 and the Producer shoots Red, but he is a MUCH higher profile person in the industry than me and works on .much larger projects. I live and work mostly local and we are following this person over the next year. So the producer/director don't live in town and we've had a few occasions where I have had to run out and film something happening in the moment. So we decided to shoot all the OTFs and realtime stuff on Canon since I have readily available access to Canon equipment.
Love using the FX3 for my channel its a BEAST!
IRE is a measure of light in video often used to compare cameras, but it’s not ideal for comparing cameras that use different logarithmic curves. These log curves help capture detail in both bright and dark areas, and each camera brand handles them differently. For example, Sony cameras often capture more light in interior areas, causing backgrounds to appear overexposed.
This impacts dynamic range tests (the ability to see details in both bright and dark parts of an image). Many RUclipsrs overlook these differences and treat IRE as a universal measure, leading to inaccurate comparisons that can mislead viewers about a camera’s true performance.
wow, loving these longer format videos. the last one, renting an alexa to set up the interview frame, confused me at first because i wasn’t used to this format
now i’m beginning to see why you’re so successful as a doc cinematographer-i realize this is much closer to a doc than your usual format
Thank you for the test, great to see the difference. It would be interesting to see the results if you shot each camera exposed to get the best results for post production, and then have a colourist get the best result possible out of each camera. The bar scene with Alexa did show how it's potential in post production by the low amount of noise it had in the shadows, compared to cam A that probably needed to be exposed much higher and pulled down in post to get as clean shadows as the Alexa. Cheers!
This video is insane and I can't wait for the next one, subbed
While not professional in any sort of the word my $1,200 Blackmagic 4k and $500 Olympus Mk IV can make things that by my eyes look as good as anything I have seen recently. As a caveat though I do not own anything (TV, projector, or computer screen) personally that can replay better than standard 1080p HD. No friends and family have better than that either.
Im using an fx3 for about two years now and I was able to distinguish the fx3 every single time in the test. I love how „natural“ the fx3 looks and I think its absolutely INSANE that a 3k$ cam can even be compared to an alexa 35… think about that price difference & the versatility you get with the smaller form factor
In the blind test, the FX 3 was third once, second once, and first once, which makes it the second best overall, but it's still an underrated camera, because it seems the least professional. Still, for those on a budget, it's a great choice.
Amazing video. I'm sure you know, but for the FX3 camera you could build a rig that would feel and look quite similar to your FX9 one and be able to swap the FX3 in and out very quickly. Of course you won't have variable ND nor all those handy buttons etc.
Thanks for the video. One thing that supports your original premise - I do not think there was much of a different "look" or "feel" to any of the footage. In other words, the Sony cameras did not look like video compared to the Arri. The Arri just has a much better sensor which the price reflects!
Now you can tell your client that the quote will be X times higher if they want to use the Arri!! Then you will see how serious they are.
ARRi has the Amira line which is more ergonomically focused on Solo operation and the Documentary filmmaking market. The Alexa line, even the mini, it's meant to be crew operated with at least an AC. If I had the moeny I'd probably go for the Amira.
Isn't that Cooke mini prime an S35 lens? Did you shoot the Sony cameras in crop mode? Wouldn't that mean the FX3 & FX9 were shot at 1080p and it wasn't an issue?
Wow! I haven't seen the whole video yet, but I immediately felt the urge to THANK YOU for such an incredible comparison! Great job!!!
Thanks a lot!
posting before I watch. I've viewed videos by RUclipsrs I respect get flabbergasted by the superior image off the sensor of Ari cameras. Gene Nagata bought a really old Ari a few years ago and was blown away. watching now.
That settles it! FX3 for the win. I'm ignoring all other camera reviews for the next five years.
I don't care they announce the Arri-Red-O-Venice 3000! (Who am I kidding? I'd HAVE to check that out!😂)
Congratulations on 10K subscribers 🎉
This is my pic for most important influencer Filmmaking video of the year.
One of the main reasons I keep watching Luc. The absolute honesty. Non of this look what I have crap.
And truth be told, I picked the FX3 most of the time in the test.
I watched the video on my iPhone 14 so that may play a factor as well.
Thats for the great work Luc, sucks you don’t live in Vancouver anymore. 😢
37:59 I’m not sure if this can be generalised to all Arri Camera as the Alexa 35 is the only Arri modern digital camera with 17+ stop of dynamic range. All the other (Alexa SXT, Alexa mini, Alexa LF, Alexa mini LF, Amira) have 14+ stop of dynamic range like the FX3 and FX9. And worst it’s not in all situations the Alexa 35 17 stop of DR are really noticeable by either pro and not pro!
In conclusion the camera you need should have the 17 stop of DR of the Alexa 35, the low light capability of the FX3, the shape and weight of the FX9 and the button, I/O of the Burino.
would love to have seen the c400 thrown in here for testing. I know thats not your workflow but I think it will make a difference in the industry going forward
You forgot to try the venice 2, especially considering it is the best that sony has to offer at the moment.
client works with ARRI, hence the rental choise
@@gabriel-mckeeyes but he also rented the burano, which is not as good as venice 2
@@ektorthebigbro maybe for budget reasons? (Renting high-end gear is *not* cheap) Or he was curious about the Burano? He didn't say...
This video had me locked in and didn’t even realize that it was that long. Great job 👍 very very interesting video. I like these kinds of comparisons
FX6 that wasn't included is really the best compromise of all cameras. Small, easy to use, reliable and with good enough image quality and functions. Not the best but usability is so great.
this was a great video! it’s been a while since a youtube video made me stuck around for a full 40 minutes
Glad you enjoyed it!
coming from an mkbhd fan, this video was fantastic to watch
Glad to see that an affordable camera (for most of us) is among the contenders.
The only test in which the Alexa did significantly better is a ridiculous situation ...
If you had a production budget that included an Alexa but no lights to shape and correctly expose the subject ... 😳
It's interesting that it is a "ridiculous" situation, and yet the Arri still doesn't deal with that kind of dynamic range nearly as well as the human eye does. 🤔 Same as with microphones, there are always people who are impressed by the best gear because it's the best, but it still doesn't approach indistinguishable from our natural senses. So there will be better cameras yet, and people will buy them.
Fx3 for the win! In comparison plus price?!
I can care less about internal ND ill just put a variable one on the lens
Why are the shadows darker on the arri window footage?. Is the exposure a bit different? I'm curious if exposure was bought down to where the shadows matched the arri on the Sony cams, the window detail would be closer... ?
This is the best video in terms of showing me how much better DR is on Alexa vs sub 30k Sony cams.
Nice test. I'd be curious to see where and FX6 fell into the mix as well, but I can also see why it wouldn't really be in the running for your needs since it falls more on the FX3 end of the spectrum but has a lot of overlap with the FX9. It would also be interesting to hear how a colorist or editor working with the footage on the back end felt about each camera (can't really do that one blind) I feel like with minimal color grade the Alexa is a bit kneecapped in side by side since the main attraction is the deepness of the pixels, but it also brings with it some workflow considerations that might not fit into your normal workflow. Granted I think I'm more on the end of shooting and editing my own stuff than you generally seem to be.
Difference are not only image quality, also usability, reliability.
Great video Luc! It would have been nice to see the Blackmagic Ursa Cine 12K going up against these. I got to guess about the same as you did except for the last test where I thought Cam C might have been the Alexa...
Wow! I came to see how the Alexa destroyed... and it turned out to be the best FX3 ad I've ever seen. hahahaha
I shot with Sony (FS7) for a decade but I was not sure what camera to buy next. So I bought a couple of BMPCC's and a Panasonic S5 ii x as 'in between' camera's. I have the feeling that when shooting BMRAW, Resolve is able to pull back the highlights (or the camera is able to capture it) almost as good as the Alexa 35. And I still haven't figured out which camera should be my 'next big cam'. This review sure isn't helping 😆
Hi! BRAW on the s5iix is really beautiful. I have the full frame BM and also s5iix with BM video assist. Once you shoot braw on the s5iix it comes to live even more (it's really solid regardless... but when I test it against the BM... I always prefer the BM. I feel like the s5iix with BRAW is an amazing combo because it gives BRAW look, but lower noise, AND autofocus. Killer combo.
Hmm, does this grand me my own permission to buy the Bm Video Assist?
Fx3 takes you anywhere! Even with all the accesories and stuff… love that camera for many reason
One of the big things I didn't see you talk about is data rates. At uhd 23.97 The arri (422hq) does 340GB per hour vs Sony (xavc-i) does 109GB per hour. On a remote doc shoot that really adds up.
LUC BACK WITH ANOTHER VIDEO!! 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Love getting to see people operating cameras. Very interesting and useful!
Glad you liked it!
Thanks for taking the time to make this.
Grab a few decent sub $1000 lights and everything is nearly identical. Have the footage colored by someone who is experienced in Resolve and there is near zero chance a client could tell. If it's not viewed in a theater we've essentially reached the point of diminishing returns. Thank you for the video and happy shooting everyone!
Priorities, In Order, For Studio Work:
1) Glass
2) Lighting
3) Camera
Priorities, In Order, For Doc Work (for another 1-2 years & then the priorities will match above):
1) Camera
2) Glass
3) Lighting
I can't believe how good the FX3 looked in the tracking shot! Insane. I'm curious about your Fuji zooms - do you use your FX9 in s35 mode all the time, or do you chop and change when you want to use s35 glass?
I'm running out of excuses with my Sony a 7S3. The FX three with the same sensor held up. Pretty darn well. Enjoy the entire program.
For what it's worth. I'm not a camera expert but a director and i aced this test.
Colors is generally the giveaway.
Super interesting video. I came into the video with some interesting expectations but nothing could have prepared me for the outcome. Thanks for the time and effort you put into doing this!
I'm glad you enjoyed it!
The window test was very informative, but I would love to see the same scene exposed for the window and then see how much you can pull out of the shadows and the skin tones in post. I totally understand given the differences in dynamic range between the Alexa and everything else that the shadows would be much noisier in the FX’s and the Burano probably but it would be interesting to see the side-by-side comparison of that. what could be brought out of the shadows if you’re exposing for the highlights?
Next time! Agree it would be interesting
What about sending the FX9 to be repaired? Or selling it as “for parts” to a hobbyist who is willing to tinker?
Super informative video. Just stumbled upon it and watched the full 40 minutes! How long does the FX9 take to turn on?
Canon C400 not even in the conversation? Every pro and con, this camera has a ton of pros. I have one. It is sweet! Umm, you said FX3 was D @ 26:31 and it was the FX9 for the DR test. Vivian got it right. The bar shot had 3 Sony's and 3 very different colors and looks. Odd. The last test was Arri A because it was the only shot not to have too much green. Just my 2 cents.
Why not compare it with Canon, why not compare it with Red, Blackmagic etc. That was not the point of this video, Luc was just comparing it with a system that he is using versus industry standard that is Arri.
@@noisetin Ya can't compare to every camera. I get it. But if you're talking about the best options for DOC shooters TODAY... the C400 needs to be considered. Codecs, NDs, triple ISO (HUGE for Docs), Crazy good AF etc... on and on. I know Luc is vested in Sony. The comment section is for comments. So I'm playing the game. :D
He’s looking for his own personal life
@@LouisLuzuka I get that. :D
@@scottievee330 😍
I found this test very interesting. Unfortunately I don't use any of these cameras and chose Blackmagic Design as my go to A camera based on price, and lens mount (EF) as I used a Canon prior to the Blackmagic purchase.
Would love to see a comparison between the FX9 and maybe the Blackmagic Pyxis which I was considering as my next purchase.
to the ergonomics department of the small fx3. My main workhorse is a slightly heavier Panasonic SH1 which does have a similar issure for "shoulder cam" shots. I just put a gorillapod on it and rest this on my chest/shoulder. Makes the camera totally weightless.
It's impressive how the FX3 holds up pretty well. Is truly the ultra budget king
Just wanted to add to this: a lot of the prosumer cameras like FX3, FX6, 9 and even the burano to a degree are designed with a specific use case in mind. The FX3 is meant to be rigged on. Gimbal for lots of handheld with a great sensor and SteadyShot. The 6 is a tweener but has better ND control and is better in low light. Versatile because it’s still lightweight for Docu shooting. The Burano from what I can tell is meant to be a top of the line prosumer studio camera to make it more accessible in price than the Venice 2 and Alexa. But those cameras are meant solely for professional use not only because of range and gradability, but because they have all the necessary ports and features to support VFX, different sound and code needs and the ability to work in a professional environment relative to Terradek, Follow Focus and monitors. The Alexa is completely overkill for anyone not producing a major motion picture or TV show. The image quality may be slightly better but it’s built the way it is so when you’re spending 250 grand a day on an extremely high level shoot you can get all the bells and whistles for sound dept, camera dept, client and post. I guess my whole point in this post is not too rag on the comparisons of each test, but rather these are all tools and you use the tool that makes the most sense given the workflow. There is a reason they shot The Creator on the FX3. Workflow. And there is a reason Avatar 2 took so long to release- the underwater photography wasn’t up to par yet for what Cameron needed to shoot. Tools. Just a big tool bag. Great video though Luc. Appreciate how thorough the tests were.
Burano is either severely overpriced or does not have enough features for the price. Very strange camera.
So why isn’t the Arri considered overpriced then?
@@JojoJogetDynamic range
@@JojoJogetdid you see the test? Its almost impossible to justify expending 25k for a burano when you could have 99% quality (if not better) with the fx9 that is around 6-7k a second hand unit
@@JojoJogetand Arri is justified only if you have unlimited budget, if you are paying an actor 50k a day + all the people that work in a movie set then paying 1k rent a day for an alexa is nothing
What solution are you using ot mount the 5 inch monitor onto the rods?
Great job, thank you so much.
Alexa is the best without a doubt, but it's really encouraging that FX3 comes as second best choice, which makes the job much easier for many videographers shooting in difficult conditions, and the FX3 is also the most affordable.
The only remaining problem is with clients who have prejudices that a huge and expensive camera like a Hollywood production is necessary to meet their quality standards. The FX3 shows that it was no accident that the movie The Creator was shot with it.
informative content thanks Luc.
So I’m brand new. Not even in the industry, just chosen to be the one in our company to create some documentaries and social media content for promotion. I chose the FX3 in all of them. The first one I did think the Alexa for the window, but I thought the skin of the person looked better on the FX3. Like your girlfriend, I hadn’t heard of any of the cameras before this video. This is only the 3rd vid I’ve watched in my research. But hey I’m just an FNG going from my iPhone and action cams. I think I’ll be going with the FX30 and if all goes well move up to the FX3 in a year or two if this second hand duty for work is still going on. If they are all that close, I’m comfortable no one will notice. For your situation, it just sounds like people are being picky and simply want to say it was filmed on the most expensive camera. Nice series, Thanks!
Really interesting to see that in some circumstances the cheaper cameras actually looked better to most people I would imagine though that with a little more time on the Alexa getting to know how to get the best from it that you could do better on those clips and it would be easier to pick it out, that said it does show just how far camera technology has improved in just the last few years that you can compare an fx3 to an Alexa and get it wrong. I use a7s3 and have been amazed at just how good a little camera it is especially with atomos and shooting raw.
How long prior to you shoot did you do this camera test?
The dynamic range test seemed rather questionable. What we'd really be interested in, is skin exposed at the lowest acceptable exposure (in terms of noise) and then seeing how much range a camera has above that. 70 IRE doesn't really mean anything as changing the ISO/ASA of the camera moves what might've been 70IRE at one ISO/ASA, to let's say 60IRE. And for those saying "but I use the camera's base ISO", that doesn't actually have a concrete meaning, it's just an ISO number the manufacturer recommends for having roughly equially as many stops above as below middle gray.
How I would've run this test is:
1. Expose skintones as low as possible, but where I'm still happy with the noise levels,
2. Color correct the shots in post to look their best in terms of color balance and set skin tones to look roughly equal in brightness at that stage.
---
When it comes to comparing the camera images with their default 709 LUTs, I guess it might make sense for a documentary shooter who can't afford a colorist, but generally I'd say not having the footage color corrected gives an unfair advantage to cameras with a stronger look built-in, such as the Alexa 35 (which isn't necessarily a good thing).
This is my 2c from your friendly neighbourhood colorist and thanks for making this video! :)
The Alexa 35 has 8.5 stops of highlight latitude(stops above middle gray) at 800 ISO, while the Sony Cameras have 6 stops or just under 6 stops at 800 iso. The Alexa 35 also has better low light latitude than the FX6 and FX9. ( I haven't seen a direct comparison of the Burano and Alexa 35, but I'm guessing the Alexa 35 edges it out too). You could push up the noise to hold the highlights in the Sony Cameras, but the same is also true of the Alexa 35. Meaning the Alexa 35 could also hold the highlights- if pushed - in 2.5 more stops of contrast. ... As a thought experiment... pay attention to all the behind the scenes, uncontrolled lighting shots in this video. You will see high contrast/blown out windows( for example, 8 minutes 58 seconds into video, ruclips.net/video/1dRCyg1dbDw/видео.html). Now think how much better that shot would look with 2.5 more stops of highlight latitude.
Bro, I love your approach to explaining things in the simplicity of it.
Glad it was easy to understand!
It's so hard to let go of the belief that you're the better filmmaker with the more expensive camera.
There's something really weird with the grade on the Alexa footage. The gross muddy look could more be from not knowing how to deal with the footage from the 35. It seems to typically shift more green/blue which didn't come through at all
Would love to see a comparison between a RED KX and a FX6 or FX9. With the big RED price drop, could be a cool comparison.
A new Forsyth video, yes! :D
Comparing apples to apples, the Amira is actually considered Arri's "doc" style camera. And a bit closer in price to the FX9. I'm not familiar with the Amira firsthand but you may consider that one as well. That is if you want something truly comparable to the FX9 and still need to impress a client with the Arri brand.
A great comparison video for the higher end professional, thank you. But what's going on with the audio recording? I don't see a lav, so are you boomed? And was it cutting out a lot, because it sounds like it switches to a camera mic sometimes.
So much of this is shooting style. Some shooting styles would conceal the differences others would capitalize. But their shooting styles not compromises.
if yall dont wanna watch the whole thing, SBN3 made an amazing summary in about 7 minutes