I prefer the noise of the R5C to the noise reduction of the FX3. Some people add "cinematic" noise in post-production, and I find that some noise from the camera in the recording can add life to the image, but aggressive noise reduction yields a plasticky look that is "anti-cinematic"
FX3 user here. I mostly stay under 2500 iso, and if I need to go higher I jump straight to 12800 with a variable ND. A lot of times I don't need the VND as the camera's dynamic range allows me to recover highlights. If you follow that method, you have clean footage from 800-25600 range which is insane. Just an argument for those who think the 3,200-10,000 range is a limitation of the fx3.
Actually the R5 has a hidden dual native capability that was not formally advertised as it is in the r5c as they are the same sensor. I see the exact same noise reduction at 3200 in my R5 and there are videos describing this phenomenon as well.
The R5C killed it before 12800ISO, and I watched the comparison on a mobile device (13promax) at the max resolution where noise is harder to tell, yet it was so extremely obvious on the Sony footage, and the R5C was so much cleaner than the FX3 before 12800ISO, I was blown away. And for someone like me, who never ever touches 12800ISO, the R5C is actually better in that range of “low-light” than the Sony counterpart. Canon killed it with the R5C. P.S. compare Gerald Undonde’s reviews of both R5C and A7SIII, the R5C is actually better in DR too in certain areas, that’s crazy as well since we know Canon was always crappy at DR. They really started to catch up.
In my experiences these Sony cameras aren't really useable outside their base ISO. I'm choosing either 800 or 12800 on the FX6 and using the ND for exposure as it's the only way to get a clean image.
Great comparison. I’ve seen a lot of people switching to Sony because of the low light but seems as though the Canon holds up really nicely in the mid range
I moved because of the low light, autofocus, easy to edit intra codec, portability and perfect for run and go and more... (coming from Blackmagic) never looking back, leagues ahead more functional (in my case)
Very surprised by how well the 5rC did. I, like you, don’t find myself filming in very dark locations so I’m now feeling like I don’t need to jump from Canon to Sony.
The R5C killed it before 12800ISO, and I watched the comparison on a mobile device (13promax) at the max resolution and the R5C was so much cleaner than the FX3 before 12800ISO, I was blown away. And for someone like me, who never ever touches 12800ISO, the R5C is actually better in that range of “low-light” than the Sony counterpart. Canon killed it with the R5C. P.S. compare Gerald Undonde’s reviews of both R5C and A7SIII, the R5C is actually better in DR too in certain areas, that’s crazy as well since we know Canon was always crappy at DR. They really started to catch up.
The original R5 actually does have dual base iso too. Canon just never advertised it.. but after they announced the R5C, I checked on my R5, and it's definitely there at 3200 as well. Great video.
Well said. Something that I think adds to this conversation is that the R5C I believe over/downsamples from a higher resolution into all of its 4K modes, which will definitely clean noise up. This is a big reason why I prefer to shoot in 6K for a 4K delivery. Not only can you reframe and/or stabilize in post, but it's also cleaner when downscaled. I have an A7Siii and won't personally use it over 1600 ISO unless I jump all the way up to that second gain stage, and yeah, I agree, the second stage at 3200 would be way more useful, if for no other reason it'll be less smeary.
Yes, the R5C oversamples from 8K for its 4K modes and this does play into why the R5C appears to have less noise than the FX3 at a lot of the ISOs. This is also true with the A7IV oversampling from 7K.
Perfect video! I only shoot up to 6400 and the canon outperforms the sony just like i thought. I have never gone past 8000 ever so 25000 is more than pointless.
I prefer the ISO ranges of the R5C. 12800 is still useable on the R5C but most of the best performance is in the 800-8000 range which is far more useful than 12800+ of the FX3, in my opinion, especially since 3200 - 10,000 is very noisy on FX3.
@@RayValdezPhotography Cameras will provide maximum dynamic range at its base ISO. I talk about that in this video ruclips.net/video/AWzqLE64TzI/видео.html
Very impressed and surprised at R5c. Totally with you on that being the more useful ISO range for my shoots. I thought R5c would be a compromise for dynamic range compared to the Canon C70 but that seems to not be much the case in yours and other test I have seen. Then I thought R5c is a compromised compared to Sony Low Light performance... not much the case either in regards to practical use ISO ability. My R5c comes in next week to pair with my RED EPIC and I very much look forward to testing and comparing. Thanks for this comparison video, Josh.
You're welcome. I agree, I continue to be surprised with the performance of the R5C against the C70 and FX3. I am really enjoying using mine. Hope your R5C comes in soon. Thanks for watching!
I prefer the FX3 for my line of work. I film weddings in documentary style so a lot of run-n-gun situations. I always use a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens because I don't have time to always change out my zoom lens to prime lens for low light. So when filming in low light, my iso will hit 6,400 to 12,000 half the times. So worth it to have great low light sensor for my videography style. If I was recording in control environments, my iso will never exceed 6,400. Besides that, I keep my variable ND filter on at all times because once again we do t have times to screw them on and off during special moments. Having a clean footage from iso 6,400 to 12,000 is pretty damn good for me.
I switched from R5 to FX3 because the R5 was always really noisy, even at native ISO. With R5C’s noise reductions options and dual iso… probably would have stayed Canon haha. Great video, my man!
@@creativegreats6924 i think all canons have noise reduction but the R5C has more advanced options on how it handles it instead of just some levels. It is called high iso noise reduction on DSLRs
The R5 has a dual iso at 3200 as well and the noise is not too bad in my opinion. That is subjective anyhow. I also use Topaz AI software that I can clean that up with if I choose to do so while at the same time increasing image detail for a 4444XQ transcode. That final image is fantastic.
i am a wedding shoot. I would like to see what the noise reducted 12800 and uplooks like because the r5c still holds more detail. i wonder if it balances the cameras out.
Hey Josh, hopefully you see this. I am REALLY considering the FX3. I have talked trash about SONY for a while, ever since I sold my A7s3. But shooting on the C70 and R3, I need a smaller rig... more run-n-gun for certain situations, and I am STRONGLY CONSIDERING, like as in I have one back-ordered right now from HOTROD and am next in line, and would like to know some things from ya -- since, you seem to be really knowledgeable as a Sony and Canon Shooter.... here are my questions: 1.) We all know A7s3 and Fx3 internals are extremely similar, if not the same... however, when I see side-by-side comparison it seems to me that the FX3 has just a TEENY TINY little color difference from the a7s3. I'd say an incredibly tiny amount of shift away from green/yellow into more magenta. What are your findings? Exactly 100% the same, or indeed there is just a little different color calibration? 2.) I really like your side-by-side grading of the Fx3 and the R5C... done very well. How did you do this? What did you do to grade it? Did you use a LUT? 3.) Dynamic Range and Highlight Rolloff is a major thing for me... as I believe it is probably one of the most important factors. How did the FX3 do against the R5C? More pleasing? less pleasing? Better DR? Worse DR? etc. Thank you so much before hand, this buying decision is incredibly important to me as I believe I might end up with four cameras... my current C70 and R3 combo, and then a smaller run-n-gun setup which would consist of an FX3 and A1. Thanks again. By the way, I can totally buy the Canon R5C right now, there is one available... the only reason I am thinking Fx3 is the size, weight, lens selection, and battery life, But, if the colors are a hangup for me. :(
Hey there! Thanks for watching the videos. I'll do my best with your questions. 1) I don't think there is any difference between the images of the FX3 and A7S3. The FX6 and A74 do have different images though. 2) I don't use LUTs. I grade everything by hand and did my best to match them. I am definitely not a color grading expert but I enjoy doing it and practice as much as I can. 3) I didn't do a side by side, but I think the R5C and FX3 have similar DR. You can't go wrong with any of these cameras. They are all awesome. You just need to learn their limitations and practice color grading. Good luck!
@@Josh_Sattin you rock for answering these questions. Ok follow up here then. I know I have Canons and it might make sense for a regular user to get another canon, I run a camera channel as well, so not the normal user, per say. I like the idea of having both Sony and Canon to cast a wider net, let’s say on their tech. But, I see you kept the FX3 along with your canons. Why did you keep the FX3 over the other Sonys? And battery life. In my observations it seems the FX3 is probably the better Gimbler, slide cam, run-n-gun camera and about twice as good on battery life? I.E. R5C = an hour tops. And fx3 is about two hours?
I don't have the FX3 anymore, but I preferred the FX3 over the A7S3 and A7IV because it just does everything for video so well. Full frame up to 4K 120, no overheating and has the XLR audio. It's just a work horse.
I would have been curious about how they compare if you max out the noise reduction in the R5c. After 12800 the R5c was noisier but still had more detail.
That would be interested to see, but there are too many parameters to check and compare. I mention in the video not being able to go into noise reduction tests. The idea was to see how they generally performed against each other. The extra detail comes from the 8K oversampling of the R5C. I don't expect the R5C to be even close to competing with the FX3 at 12,800 or above, even with extra noise reduction. Thanks for watching!
If you're an indie videographer/cinematographer on a budget, the second base ISO of 12,800 on the A7SII/FX3 helps when filming and lighting a scene. You can get by using lower powered lights if that's all that you have in your stable such as an Amaran 60d rather than lights that are more powerful and costly.
maybe a question. I want to buy. camera. I use it in movies and rap songs. Who is the best? I follow you, I will continue to support you canon 5rc ? sony fx30?
Very interesting… I def prefer range of R5c. Any plans of trying out the battery grip for R5c? And then how close in size would it get to c70? I’m really debating which way to go. C70 would be my dream camera if it was full frame… but it just feels annoying to have all this RF full frame glass that I can’t use to it’s full potential. 🙄🙄🙄🙄
I like the ISO range of the R5C better for me too. Yes, I actually just got the battery grip today. I might have to get a larger battery for certain gigs, but I tend to want things as small and simple as possible.
I doing cellar concerts for some time. And mostly you stick between 1600-8000 rarely any higher... I mean true 24fps 1/25 f1.2-2.8. And that is the segment where sony is not that great. However if you want to stick to 50fps, 1/60s... which is not a good idea for my kind of work (or any other kind of work with modern light sources)... since led light, fluorescent tubes and beamers typically running at 25hz (beamer) and 50-60hz... meaning your output will be ruined by the flicker-stripes. However I won´t get the R5 C since the difference in noise and dynamic range coming from the 5D MKV is not worth the extra $4000.
great comparison !... can you do a video about auto focus in 120fps .... i know r5c doesnt seem to have eye af ... was wondering how well the other options worked
I don't think I will make a video about that, but the autofocus works well in S&F, which is the only way to record 4K120. You just don't have eye AF. You still have the option of small box, large box and whole area. Seems to work the same as it does in normal (not S&F) mode.
It's best to try and stick to either base ISO depending on the situation you are in and then use aperture and NDs to get the right exposure. If you are in a well lit environment then use the lower base ISO. If you open the lens up all of the way and don't have any ND and its too dark, then bump up to the higher base ISO and adjust exposure with aperture and ND.
not FX3 but from my A7S3, FX6 experiences, current sony FF video machines are not good at ISO 3200 to 10000. I think they made their 2nd native ISO value too high. 12800 is good for night vision but can't say good for professional filmmaking. 6400 would have been more versatile.
Thing is, the Sony system has hardware noise reduction in play which you can see in the noise uniformity. So that makes it hard to compare fairly. Even without though, the R5C is doing damned well for all practical ISOs and in that I think the two circuit sensitivities are well placed. Especially considering it's delivering that performance at beyond true 4k (requiring 4 photosites per channel (R,G,G,B) on a bayer sensor..UHD pixels x 4 = 33.2mp minimum) rather than the 10-12mp the sony sensors are using- which aren't even capable of true 4k to begin with. Nevermind beyond that. They aren't really (fairly) comparable cameras for that reason.
The noise in the shadows on the FX3 is increasingly HORRIBLE from 2500 until it hits the second base ISO at 12800. Up until that point the R5C is markedly better than the FX3 in both noise and sharpness. I can see the merit for the FX3 in true low light filming environments where you don’t have control.
This feels so strange. Why does the fx3 have so much noise at lower iso and then gets cleaner suddenly at what I believe was 10000 iso? Isn't low iso supposed to be cleaner
All this hype about the Sony FX3/ A7s3 being called the lowlight king is VERY misleading and actually exaggerated! I OWN it (A7s3) and the Panasonic S5. What countless people who praise it don't seem to mention is that the A7s3 is pretty bad and noisy from ISO 1000 - 10000! I mean really noisy as hell much more than even some other fullframe cameras in said ISO range! Dead serious! Even the S5 has way cleaner & better video quality on ISO 3200 than the A7s3. I still recall how shocked I was seeing that & actually denied it until I decided to rent the A7s3 from a shop and saw the same results. People would then say, well just go above to the next base ISO which is over 10000. The problem then is the dynamic range is reduced and cameras employs DNR that makes the footage unacceptable - it looks fine on smartphones of cos bcos everything is small but view it on a big monitor and it's crappy. Everyone also keeps saying all the noise can be taken cared of some with DNR in davinci - this is also untrue and the footage still looks artificial - and yes I also know how to apply the settings. I seriously wonder how many cameras these people have actually used or they're just so overwhelmed by all the internet hype about it & just blindly succumb to it - yeah I'm looking at folks like you GeraldUD / DPreview / etc. It certainly is not a lowlight king for sure. I've also got a great tip - if you look at pro videos that are meant to showcase the 'clean' quality of the A7s3, you'll notice quite a number of them love to use iso 640! I'm thinking, really?? A lowlight king and you stick to only 640?? Wouldnt a lowlight king give you great results at ISO 6400? Turns out no. To balance things out I'll say the A7s3 IS good at highlight recovery - that hype about it at least is true.
@@Josh_Sattin Thanks for the quick reply Josh, i really love the color profile of canon camera somehow they feel more cinematic in a way. Thanks for this amazing review as well!
You really should 'overexpose' log... though 'overexpose' is a total misnomer except when it comes to applying a transform or LUT that's expecting a specific exposure. The log curve has a known clipping point, and you should expose right up to that point. Not doing so is wasting dynamic range. Appreciate the video though and would love to see one on a subjective 'grading experience' of Canon Log vs Sony Log. Canon's colors are subjectively much easier to work with... or are they?
With Sony, the image quality improves when you go from ISO 8000 to ISO 12800! Is the firmware somehow stupid or why it results in worse image quality for ISO 8000 and ISO 10000? It would be interesting to see image quality comparision of FX3 where you use ND glass to use high ISO ratings instead of using the official range between ISO 4000-12000 at all. I wouldn't be overly surprised if blocking 50% of the light and using higher ISO would result in improvement in image quality with this firmware.
@@MikkoRantalainen Depending on the quality of the ND filter, but probably yes. I try and avoid the middle ISO range. I often go up to 12,800 and then stop down the lens a bit if it is overexposed.
@@Josh_Sattin No. You're wrong. Canon doesn't say anywhere that the R5 has that base ISO, but it does. I can prove it. Tell me where to send the examples (pics or video, whatever you want). Canon R5 exactly the same does not have the ability to record video in C-LOG 2 (not in the description from canon and in the camera menu). But the R5 writes RAW exactly in C-Log 2. I can also prove this...
Maybe it was poor video quality, but it wasn´t seems to me that sony was clearly king in iso, it was better, but not vastly (again, according this video).
@@Josh_Sattin Ok, maybe it was not obvious just in youtube video (in this conditions it was noticible, but not some vastly). Well, sony had always good video iso performance.
having a native iso at 12,800 is far less useful for you everyday situations than a native iso at 3200. For instance, if you are a night shooter who likes to shoot videos using street lights and signs as light ambience, its perfect to use iso of 3200-6400 w/ a fast lens. But having to use 12,800 iso, you will need to really stop down or use a ND filter. Now if you are filming inside a building with a candle as your only light source. then yes, 12,800 would be fantastic. I'd rather have the R5C's 3200 native iso for my use cases.
The need for 12,800 would be for nightlife videography. In a venue or dark ambiance, high iso is almost necessary. At least for a street shooter shooting at night with street lights, they'd have the option of stopping down with NDs. For nightlife shooters, there's no option to add more light unless you use a light attachment which is tacky, annoying, and highly looked down upon lol.
I prefer the noise of the R5C to the noise reduction of the FX3. Some people add "cinematic" noise in post-production, and I find that some noise from the camera in the recording can add life to the image, but aggressive noise reduction yields a plasticky look that is "anti-cinematic"
FX3 user here. I mostly stay under 2500 iso, and if I need to go higher I jump straight to 12800 with a variable ND. A lot of times I don't need the VND as the camera's dynamic range allows me to recover highlights. If you follow that method, you have clean footage from 800-25600 range which is insane. Just an argument for those who think the 3,200-10,000 range is a limitation of the fx3.
Thanks, good to know.
Actually the R5 has a hidden dual native capability that was not formally advertised as it is in the r5c as they are the same sensor. I see the exact same noise reduction at 3200 in my R5 and there are videos describing this phenomenon as well.
Yes, R5 is cleaner at 3200 iso.
The R5C killed it before 12800ISO, and I watched the comparison on a mobile device (13promax) at the max resolution where noise is harder to tell, yet it was so extremely obvious on the Sony footage, and the R5C was so much cleaner than the FX3 before 12800ISO, I was blown away. And for someone like me, who never ever touches 12800ISO, the R5C is actually better in that range of “low-light” than the Sony counterpart. Canon killed it with the R5C. P.S. compare Gerald Undonde’s reviews of both R5C and A7SIII, the R5C is actually better in DR too in certain areas, that’s crazy as well since we know Canon was always crappy at DR. They really started to catch up.
In my experiences these Sony cameras aren't really useable outside their base ISO. I'm choosing either 800 or 12800 on the FX6 and using the ND for exposure as it's the only way to get a clean image.
Great comparison. I’ve seen a lot of people switching to Sony because of the low light but seems as though the Canon holds up really nicely in the mid range
Thank you. I agree, I like the Canon more in that mid range. It really depends on your filming situations though.
I moved because of the low light, autofocus, easy to edit intra codec, portability and perfect for run and go and more... (coming from Blackmagic) never looking back, leagues ahead more functional (in my case)
Very surprised by how well the 5rC did. I, like you, don’t find myself filming in very dark locations so I’m now feeling like I don’t need to jump from Canon to Sony.
Me too. R5C did great!
tats becoz he didn't switch off the light. u should watch ruclips.net/video/7RyiS-mrp1c/видео.html
The R5C killed it before 12800ISO, and I watched the comparison on a mobile device (13promax) at the max resolution and the R5C was so much cleaner than the FX3 before 12800ISO, I was blown away. And for someone like me, who never ever touches 12800ISO, the R5C is actually better in that range of “low-light” than the Sony counterpart. Canon killed it with the R5C. P.S. compare Gerald Undonde’s reviews of both R5C and A7SIII, the R5C is actually better in DR too in certain areas, that’s crazy as well since we know Canon was always crappy at DR. They really started to catch up.
The original R5 actually does have dual base iso too. Canon just never advertised it.. but after they announced the R5C, I checked on my R5, and it's definitely there at 3200 as well.
Great video.
Oh nice!
Came for this comment. Yep r5 did, just not made official until after r5c. Dynamic range definitely better on r5c.
Yeah I was going to say at 3200 you can clearly see the image get better. Aslo a rt shooter myself!
i find clog3 on the r5 to be very noisy. i dont like using it.
@@RayValdezPhotography You need to shoot one stop over exposed on clog 3. This eliminates the noise issues
Well said. Something that I think adds to this conversation is that the R5C I believe over/downsamples from a higher resolution into all of its 4K modes, which will definitely clean noise up. This is a big reason why I prefer to shoot in 6K for a 4K delivery. Not only can you reframe and/or stabilize in post, but it's also cleaner when downscaled. I have an A7Siii and won't personally use it over 1600 ISO unless I jump all the way up to that second gain stage, and yeah, I agree, the second stage at 3200 would be way more useful, if for no other reason it'll be less smeary.
Yes, the R5C oversamples from 8K for its 4K modes and this does play into why the R5C appears to have less noise than the FX3 at a lot of the ISOs. This is also true with the A7IV oversampling from 7K.
Perfect video! I only shoot up to 6400 and the canon outperforms the sony just like i thought. I have never gone past 8000 ever so 25000 is more than pointless.
I prefer the ISO ranges of the R5C. 12800 is still useable on the R5C but most of the best performance is in the 800-8000 range which is far more useful than 12800+ of the FX3, in my opinion, especially since 3200 - 10,000 is very noisy on FX3.
I agree that it is more useful for me too, but not everyone. Some videographers need that super high ISO range.
@@Josh_Sattin is there any downsides to high iso like lower DR in log modes or just noise is the only issue.
@@RayValdezPhotography Cameras will provide maximum dynamic range at its base ISO. I talk about that in this video ruclips.net/video/AWzqLE64TzI/видео.html
Very impressed and surprised at R5c. Totally with you on that being the more useful ISO range for my shoots. I thought R5c would be a compromise for dynamic range compared to the Canon C70 but that seems to not be much the case in yours and other test I have seen. Then I thought R5c is a compromised compared to Sony Low Light performance... not much the case either in regards to practical use ISO ability. My R5c comes in next week to pair with my RED EPIC and I very much look forward to testing and comparing. Thanks for this comparison video, Josh.
You're welcome. I agree, I continue to be surprised with the performance of the R5C against the C70 and FX3. I am really enjoying using mine. Hope your R5C comes in soon. Thanks for watching!
Interesting test. I was surprised by the 3200-6400 range comparison. I thought the R5C did wonderfully in that range. Nice work.
Thanks! Yeah I was definitely impressed with the R5C in that middle range.
Crazy how at it changes at 10,000. Impressive!
Yeah, the high base ISO on the Sony is crazy cool.
You’re awesome for this comparison Josh. You’ve just earned a new subscriber here! Keep up the great work!
Thank you!
I prefer the FX3 for my line of work. I film weddings in documentary style so a lot of run-n-gun situations. I always use a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens because I don't have time to always change out my zoom lens to prime lens for low light. So when filming in low light, my iso will hit 6,400 to 12,000 half the times. So worth it to have great low light sensor for my videography style. If I was recording in control environments, my iso will never exceed 6,400. Besides that, I keep my variable ND filter on at all times because once again we do t have times to screw them on and off during special moments. Having a clean footage from iso 6,400 to 12,000 is pretty damn good for me.
I switched from R5 to FX3 because the R5 was always really noisy, even at native ISO. With R5C’s noise reductions options and dual iso… probably would have stayed Canon haha. Great video, my man!
Thanks! Yeah, Canon brought a lot to the table with this camera for sure!
yeha i stayed with canon. it just didnt make sense to rush and switch brands as if canon would never catch up.
The r5 didn't have in camera noise reduction? But the R5c does ?
@@creativegreats6924 i think all canons have noise reduction but the R5C has more advanced options on how it handles it instead of just some levels. It is called high iso noise reduction on DSLRs
The R5 has a dual iso at 3200 as well and the noise is not too bad in my opinion. That is subjective anyhow. I also use Topaz AI software that I can clean that up with if I choose to do so while at the same time increasing image detail for a 4444XQ transcode. That final image is fantastic.
Thanks for the comparison. I wish the tests were done outside with different light sources though.
Josh, seeing this range comparison is very helpful...thanks for this test. -Mike
You’re welcome. Thanks for watching!
What camera did you use to film the shot where you talk? I really like the skin color and the sharpness
Nice vid! Would love to see a video on the different settings of noise reduction on the R5C!
Great job, you really nailed exposure at all ISO levels!
Thanks!
i am a wedding shoot. I would like to see what the noise reducted 12800 and uplooks like because the r5c still holds more detail. i wonder if it balances the cameras out.
Hey Josh, hopefully you see this. I am REALLY considering the FX3. I have talked trash about SONY for a while, ever since I sold my A7s3. But shooting on the C70 and R3, I need a smaller rig... more run-n-gun for certain situations, and I am STRONGLY CONSIDERING, like as in I have one back-ordered right now from HOTROD and am next in line, and would like to know some things from ya -- since, you seem to be really knowledgeable as a Sony and Canon Shooter.... here are my questions:
1.) We all know A7s3 and Fx3 internals are extremely similar, if not the same... however, when I see side-by-side comparison it seems to me that the FX3 has just a TEENY TINY little color difference from the a7s3. I'd say an incredibly tiny amount of shift away from green/yellow into more magenta. What are your findings? Exactly 100% the same, or indeed there is just a little different color calibration?
2.) I really like your side-by-side grading of the Fx3 and the R5C... done very well. How did you do this? What did you do to grade it? Did you use a LUT?
3.) Dynamic Range and Highlight Rolloff is a major thing for me... as I believe it is probably one of the most important factors. How did the FX3 do against the R5C? More pleasing? less pleasing? Better DR? Worse DR? etc.
Thank you so much before hand, this buying decision is incredibly important to me as I believe I might end up with four cameras... my current C70 and R3 combo, and then a smaller run-n-gun setup which would consist of an FX3 and A1.
Thanks again.
By the way, I can totally buy the Canon R5C right now, there is one available... the only reason I am thinking Fx3 is the size, weight, lens selection, and battery life, But, if the colors are a hangup for me. :(
Hey there! Thanks for watching the videos. I'll do my best with your questions.
1) I don't think there is any difference between the images of the FX3 and A7S3. The FX6 and A74 do have different images though.
2) I don't use LUTs. I grade everything by hand and did my best to match them. I am definitely not a color grading expert but I enjoy doing it and practice as much as I can.
3) I didn't do a side by side, but I think the R5C and FX3 have similar DR.
You can't go wrong with any of these cameras. They are all awesome. You just need to learn their limitations and practice color grading. Good luck!
@@Josh_Sattin you rock for answering these questions.
Ok follow up here then. I know I have Canons and it might make sense for a regular user to get another canon, I run a camera channel as well, so not the normal user, per say.
I like the idea of having both Sony and Canon to cast a wider net, let’s say on their tech. But, I see you kept the FX3 along with your canons.
Why did you keep the FX3 over the other Sonys? And battery life. In my observations it seems the FX3 is probably the better Gimbler, slide cam, run-n-gun camera and about twice as good on battery life?
I.E. R5C = an hour tops. And fx3 is about two hours?
Also it’s a relief you can color match the two. I was a beta tester for CineMatch FCP. So I own the full program. But, maybe I’d use that too.
I don't have the FX3 anymore, but I preferred the FX3 over the A7S3 and A7IV because it just does everything for video so well. Full frame up to 4K 120, no overheating and has the XLR audio. It's just a work horse.
@@Josh_Sattin so you sold all your Sony gear for the Canon R5C and the C70?
I would have been curious about how they compare if you max out the noise reduction in the R5c. After 12800 the R5c was noisier but still had more detail.
That would be interested to see, but there are too many parameters to check and compare. I mention in the video not being able to go into noise reduction tests. The idea was to see how they generally performed against each other. The extra detail comes from the 8K oversampling of the R5C. I don't expect the R5C to be even close to competing with the FX3 at 12,800 or above, even with extra noise reduction. Thanks for watching!
If you're an indie videographer/cinematographer on a budget, the second base ISO of 12,800 on the A7SII/FX3 helps when filming and lighting a scene. You can get by using lower powered lights if that's all that you have in your stable such as an Amaran 60d rather than lights that are more powerful and costly.
loved the review, short, simple and direct...subscribed!!
Thanks!
maybe a question. I want to buy. camera. I use it in movies and rap songs. Who is the best? I follow you, I will continue to support you
canon 5rc ?
sony fx30?
It's really so helpful video for a Cinematographer, Thanks a lot 😊
You're welcome. Thanks for watching!
Damn it, R5C is such a beast !!
Agreed!
What do you think of the heating and the ventilation system of the R5C??
Very interesting… I def prefer range of R5c. Any plans of trying out the battery grip for R5c? And then how close in size would it get to c70? I’m really debating which way to go. C70 would be my dream camera if it was full frame… but it just feels annoying to have all this RF full frame glass that I can’t use to it’s full potential. 🙄🙄🙄🙄
I like the ISO range of the R5C better for me too. Yes, I actually just got the battery grip today. I might have to get a larger battery for certain gigs, but I tend to want things as small and simple as possible.
I use canon r6 for my RUclips videos. It is fantastic camera. I love it))))
it's a good video, but honestly in my experience it's not difficult to use 12800 on the A7S3 while still keeping most-to-all of the highlights indoors
Thanks for doing doing the comparison! Super helpful
You’re welcome. Thanks for watching!
Honestly, I would only use the FX3 in the vacuum of dark space, but then again I would just borrow the Jame Webb Space Telescope.
I doing cellar concerts for some time. And mostly you stick between 1600-8000 rarely any higher... I mean true 24fps 1/25 f1.2-2.8. And that is the segment where sony is not that great. However if you want to stick to 50fps, 1/60s... which is not a good idea for my kind of work (or any other kind of work with modern light sources)... since led light, fluorescent tubes and beamers typically running at 25hz (beamer) and 50-60hz... meaning your output will be ruined by the flicker-stripes. However I won´t get the R5 C since the difference in noise and dynamic range coming from the 5D MKV is not worth the extra $4000.
Same sensor. Cvp tested it. R5 has dual iso
Nice. You matched the cameras well. You could easily shoot with both. When it's the last shot of the day and pitch black... FX3 to the rescue. :D
Thanks Scottie!
great comparison !... can you do a video about auto focus in 120fps .... i know r5c doesnt seem to have eye af ... was wondering how well the other options worked
I don't think I will make a video about that, but the autofocus works well in S&F, which is the only way to record 4K120. You just don't have eye AF. You still have the option of small box, large box and whole area. Seems to work the same as it does in normal (not S&F) mode.
@@Josh_Sattin great good to know !!!
Although canon is noisier, but looks more detailed.
How do you know which base iso to select ? And then which iso to select after selecting base iso?
It's best to try and stick to either base ISO depending on the situation you are in and then use aperture and NDs to get the right exposure. If you are in a well lit environment then use the lower base ISO. If you open the lens up all of the way and don't have any ND and its too dark, then bump up to the higher base ISO and adjust exposure with aperture and ND.
@@Josh_Sattin ohh ok , I thought we had to select a base iso, then select an iso 😂 I was confused
I usually use only base iso
not FX3 but from my A7S3, FX6 experiences, current sony FF video machines are not good at ISO 3200 to 10000. I think they made their 2nd native ISO value too high. 12800 is good for night vision but can't say good for professional filmmaking. 6400 would have been more versatile.
Which one would you recommend between the Canon R5C and Sony FX6?
They are pretty different cameras. FX6 is already pretty built out for video productions (XLRs, NDs, larger body, etc.). R5C can also take photos.
@@Josh_Sattin Thanks Josh! had not seen this comment! I love Canon and the colors but I always end up with a Sony 😄
Sony is on top
Thing is, the Sony system has hardware noise reduction in play which you can see in the noise uniformity. So that makes it hard to compare fairly.
Even without though, the R5C is doing damned well for all practical ISOs and in that I think the two circuit sensitivities are well placed. Especially considering it's delivering that performance at beyond true 4k (requiring 4 photosites per channel (R,G,G,B) on a bayer sensor..UHD pixels x 4 = 33.2mp minimum) rather than the 10-12mp the sony sensors are using- which aren't even capable of true 4k to begin with. Nevermind beyond that. They aren't really (fairly) comparable cameras for that reason.
I think it would be interesting to compare Canon R5C with Red Komodo.
I don't have a Komodo to do the comparison. Check out this video from Cam Mackey: ruclips.net/video/PltbzDD0rH0/видео.html
@@Josh_Sattin - thanks.
The noise in the shadows on the FX3 is increasingly HORRIBLE from 2500 until it hits the second base ISO at 12800. Up until that point the R5C is markedly better than the FX3 in both noise and sharpness. I can see the merit for the FX3 in true low light filming environments where you don’t have control.
How about the R3? Closer to the r5c or fx3?
ruclips.net/video/T7osqlmmXh0/видео.html
@@Josh_Sattin tks JOsh!
@@rodrigodeantonibrito You're welcome!
Canon skin colours cant be beaten!
This feels so strange. Why does the fx3 have so much noise at lower iso and then gets cleaner suddenly at what I believe was 10000 iso? Isn't low iso supposed to be cleaner
It has a dual base ISO of 640 and 12,800. So it cleans up when you switch from 10,000 to 12,800.
So if im shooting on c log 3 it's better to shoot on iso 800 rather than 100? I'm confused can anyone explain
Yes, you want to shoot at ISO 800 in Clog3. 800 is the base ISO for Clog3.
Hence why a cinematographers job is to add and modify light. Seeing 'more in the dark' is not necessarily a good thing.
All this hype about the Sony FX3/ A7s3 being called the lowlight king is VERY misleading and actually exaggerated!
I OWN it (A7s3) and the Panasonic S5. What countless people who praise it don't seem to mention is that the A7s3 is pretty bad and noisy from ISO 1000 - 10000! I mean really noisy as hell much more than even some other fullframe cameras in said ISO range! Dead serious! Even the S5 has way cleaner & better video quality on ISO 3200 than the A7s3. I still recall how shocked I was seeing that & actually denied it until I decided to rent the A7s3 from a shop and saw the same results. People would then say, well just go above to the next base ISO which is over 10000. The problem then is the dynamic range is reduced and cameras employs DNR that makes the footage unacceptable - it looks fine on smartphones of cos bcos everything is small but view it on a big monitor and it's crappy. Everyone also keeps saying all the noise can be taken cared of some with DNR in davinci - this is also untrue and the footage still looks artificial - and yes I also know how to apply the settings. I seriously wonder how many cameras these people have actually used or they're just so overwhelmed by all the internet hype about it & just blindly succumb to it - yeah I'm looking at folks like you GeraldUD / DPreview / etc. It certainly is not a lowlight king for sure. I've also got a great tip - if you look at pro videos that are meant to showcase the 'clean' quality of the A7s3, you'll notice quite a number of them love to use iso 640! I'm thinking, really?? A lowlight king and you stick to only 640?? Wouldnt a lowlight king give you great results at ISO 6400? Turns out no. To balance things out I'll say the A7s3 IS good at highlight recovery - that hype about it at least is true.
Why not just use 640 during the day and bright conditions and 12,800 all other times with an ND? Why do you need to use the whole range?
@@jaymills1720good point
why 12800 iso smoother than lower rates???
The FX3 has a dual base ISO with the second base at 12,800.
what are the 2 base iso for r5c?
800 and 3200
@@Josh_Sattin Thanks for the quick reply Josh, i really love the color profile of canon camera somehow they feel more cinematic in a way. Thanks for this amazing review as well!
Nice one!
Thank you!
You really should 'overexpose' log... though 'overexpose' is a total misnomer except when it comes to applying a transform or LUT that's expecting a specific exposure. The log curve has a known clipping point, and you should expose right up to that point. Not doing so is wasting dynamic range. Appreciate the video though and would love to see one on a subjective 'grading experience' of Canon Log vs Sony Log. Canon's colors are subjectively much easier to work with... or are they?
I prefer to better Performance in a range up to 6400. I do weddings and there was never the need to go 10000+ Iso. Ok I do Greek weddings.
ディティールの保持性で見るとR5Cの方が圧倒的に良いですね
With Sony, the image quality improves when you go from ISO 8000 to ISO 12800! Is the firmware somehow stupid or why it results in worse image quality for ISO 8000 and ISO 10000?
It would be interesting to see image quality comparision of FX3 where you use ND glass to use high ISO ratings instead of using the official range between ISO 4000-12000 at all. I wouldn't be overly surprised if blocking 50% of the light and using higher ISO would result in improvement in image quality with this firmware.
The A7S3/FX3/FX6 have a dual base ISO of 800 and 12,800. The image definitely cleans up at 12,800.
@@Josh_Sattin If you use ND2 filter and lighting that would match ISO 6400, do you actually get better image quality with ISO 12800?
@@MikkoRantalainen Depending on the quality of the ND filter, but probably yes. I try and avoid the middle ISO range. I often go up to 12,800 and then stop down the lens a bit if it is overexposed.
when wanna compare low light, u need to first switch off the light.
For 90 percent of use cases the ISO range of the R5C is far superior.
For me yes. Not for everyone though. I know a lot of wedding videographers that really need that super high ISO range.
@@Josh_Sattin or just use an ND and stay at 12,800. Why do you need 3200 or 6400? There doesn’t seem to be any superiority.
R5 have a second iso - is 3200 like on the r5c
Canon does not state that the R5 has a second base ISO, just the R5C.
@@Josh_Sattin No. You're wrong. Canon doesn't say anywhere that the R5 has that base ISO, but it does. I can prove it. Tell me where to send the examples (pics or video, whatever you want). Canon R5 exactly the same does not have the ability to record video in C-LOG 2 (not in the description from canon and in the camera menu). But the R5 writes RAW exactly in C-Log 2. I can also prove this...
Maybe it was poor video quality, but it wasn´t seems to me that sony was clearly king in iso, it was better, but not vastly (again, according this video).
The Sony FX3 is significantly cleaner at ISO 12,800 and up.
@@Josh_Sattin Ok, maybe it was not obvious just in youtube video (in this conditions it was noticible, but not some vastly). Well, sony had always good video iso performance.
Why can’t canon just make a good lowlight camera!? All they have to do is make native iso 12,800 and it will completely blow Sony out of the water
having a native iso at 12,800 is far less useful for you everyday situations than a native iso at 3200. For instance, if you are a night shooter who likes to shoot videos using street lights and signs as light ambience, its perfect to use iso of 3200-6400 w/ a fast lens. But having to use 12,800 iso, you will need to really stop down or use a ND filter. Now if you are filming inside a building with a candle as your only light source. then yes, 12,800 would be fantastic. I'd rather have the R5C's 3200 native iso for my use cases.
The need for 12,800 would be for nightlife videography. In a venue or dark ambiance, high iso is almost necessary. At least for a street shooter shooting at night with street lights, they'd have the option of stopping down with NDs. For nightlife shooters, there's no option to add more light unless you use a light attachment which is tacky, annoying, and highly looked down upon lol.
Both gr8 cameras. I think if you are not happy with this, you are to fussy.😂
Low light king says who 😂