Affordable camera with internal 10bit 422 4K?

SJX said:
Funny didn't see it. Even used browser search.
Click to expand...

I was curious so I checked the FS5 II and they actually do not mention it on that one (they do mention HD's 10-bit).

IMO, maybe because there was a lot of outrage the camera didn't shoot 4K 10-bit for the asking price (and it was a very underwhelming second version of a model), so maybe marketing omitted that little 8-bit note.

___

And I don't know much about good ND filters, but I'm sure others do.

I've been using the same Tiffen variable ND for like 6 years because no one will notice a difference between a $100 and a $1000 ND filter.
 
Although it's probably not what you're looking for in small compact form but definately is the best bang for the buck IMO is the Sony FS700r with the Odyssey 7Q+. You can't go wrong with this combo for the price and what it can do,
 
SJX said:
But so the X-T3 is 10 bit or 8 bit 4k internally? You started like it did 10 but but then by the end I wasn't sure.Thanks.
Click to expand...

The X-T3 has 10-bit internally (for some modes). The point is that it's a good idea to test both cameras if budget is a major concern, as the A6400 is quite a bit lower cost vs. the X-T3 and has superior AF. Out of the camera Fuji looks to have better skin tones, however I've learned (as have many others so you can too!) how to deal with Sony color, so I wouldn't hold that against the A6400 or A7 III at this point. Sony's color has slowly been getting better with every release...

A6400 / A7 III / A9 AI AF:

I never had any major banding issues with the 8-bit A7S II and SLog2 + sgamut3.cine with +16 saturation. Again, was using 12-bit RGB 444 and now am using 8-bit YUV 422 in the same environment (green screen set in my home) and am getting better results with the 8-bit camera (green screen keying). It's not that 8-bit is better of course, it's that the 4K detail in the latter camera is better than the prior camera, and 8-bits (and YUV 422 vs RGB 444) isn't hurting the final result. For extreme grading, 10 or more bits will be helpful (which we don't need). Also remember the C300 and C100 punched above their weight with CLog and 8-bit codecs: https://nofilmschool.com/2011/11/latest-8-bits-canon-eos-c300 . So really important to test something like that 8-bit A6400 against the 10-bit X-T3 for your specific needs (again, for overall features and performance, I'd spend more and get the A7 III (if you don't need to super AI AF right away (A7 III gets it in April)).
 
NorBro said:
I was curious so I checked the FS5 II and they actually do not mention it on that one (they do mention HD's 10-bit).

IMO, maybe because there was a lot of outrage the camera didn't shoot 4K 10-bit for the asking price (and it was a very underwhelming second version of a model), so maybe marketing omitted that little 8-bit note.

___

And I don't know much about good ND filters, but I'm sure others do.

I've been using the same Tiffen variable ND for like 6 years because no one will notice a difference between a $100 and a $1000 ND filter.
Click to expand...

I probably looked FS5II then.

Tiffen variable ND is only $100?
 
SrtBrad said:
Although it's probably not what you're looking for in small compact form but definately is the best bang for the buck IMO is the Sony FS700r with the Odyssey 7Q+. You can't go wrong with this combo for the price and what it can do,
Click to expand...

This was my first idea. But while used FS700 is now cheap 7Q is not. Almost more than FS700. So I decide to look for alternatives. To be honest I don't need RAW. When I need really nice and cinematic footages I have another camera. I need something for more run and gun and quicker to use. RAW is not needed. Log is fine. So Prores or any codec with log and good DR in 4k 10 bit 422 is enough. So FS700 only advantage ins built in ND. Ergonomics are as bad as mirrorless anyway and I don't need RAW.
 
jcs said:
The X-T3 has 10-bit internally (for some modes). The point is that it's a good idea to test both cameras if budget is a major concern, as the A6400 is quite a bit lower cost vs. the X-T3 and has superior AF. Out of the camera Fuji looks to have better skin tones, however I've learned (as have many others so you can too!) how to deal with Sony color, so I wouldn't hold that against the A6400 or A7 III at this point. Sony's color has slowly been getting better with every release...

A6400 / A7 III / A9 AI AF:

I never had any major banding issues with the 8-bit A7S II and SLog2 + sgamut3.cine with +16 saturation. Again, was using 12-bit RGB 444 and now am using 8-bit YUV 422 in the same environment (green screen set in my home) and am getting better results with the 8-bit camera (green screen keying). It's not that 8-bit is better of course, it's that the 4K detail in the latter camera is better than the prior camera, and 8-bits (and YUV 422 vs RGB 444) isn't hurting the final result. For extreme grading, 10 or more bits will be helpful (which we don't need). Also remember the C300 and C100 punched above their weight with CLog and 8-bit codecs: https://nofilmschool.com/2011/11/latest-8-bits-canon-eos-c300 . So really important to test something like that 8-bit A6400 against the 10-bit X-T3 for your specific needs (again, for overall features and performance, I'd spend more and get the A7 III (if you don't need to super AI AF right away (A7 III gets it in April)).
Click to expand...

Didn't watch the comparison video yet. But read a C5D review of X-T3. Not seeing much reason for GH5, A7SIII or any other mirrorless instead of X-T3 to be honest. XT-3 seems impressive for what it is and price.

Pros for my needs:

ALL Intra
10bit 422 4K
4K/60P 4:2:0 10-Bit internal
120 frames per second in full HD
Zebra pattern . Maybe all mirroless cams have now. But last time I used mirrorless was GH2. So this is good to have
AF. Is it actually good? Probably not Canon good but.
11.2 stops of DR. So more than A7SII or GH5. Almost as good as FS7. If C5D gave it that then it must be a 13-14 stop camera by DVXuser standards.:happy:
Good rolling shutter it seems. 9ms is better than A7SII and even FS7 and FS5.

Cons for my needs:

H265 codec and H264. Highly compressed right? Of course is nitpicking in this size and price. But not much else for the cons list so...
No internal body stabilisation system. I guess gimbal then. But seems every other competitor has it? No deal breaker though.
LCD seems limited. So for pro work it needs an EVF.
FAT32. Must be annoying having some files for a single take.
Recording time limit is a bit annoying. But I almost never need a 30 min. clip.

But none of cons are deal breakers for me. Worst is LCD.

But this tab confuse me:

pic_05.jpg

I see no 10bit 422 4k internally. But review says it does it.
 
Last edited:
SJX said:
Didn't watch the comparison video yet. But read a C5D review of X-T3. Not seeing much reason for GH5, A7SIII or any other mirrorless instead of X-T3 to be honest. XT-3 seems impressive for what it is and price.

Pros for my needs:

ALL Intra
10bit 422 4K
4K/60P 4:2:0 10-Bit internal
120 frames per second in full HD
Zebra pattern . Maybe all mirroless cams have now. But last time I used mirrorless was GH2. So this is good to have
AF. Is it actually good? Probably not Canon good but.
11.2 stops of DR. So more than A7SII or GH5. Almost as good as FS7. If C5D gave it that then it must be a 13-14 stop camera by DVXuser standards.:happy:
Good rolling shutter it seems. 9ms is better than A7SII and even FS7 and FS5.

Cons for my needs:

H265 codec and H264. Highly compressed right? Of course is nitpicking in this size and price. But not much else for the cons list so...
No internal body stabilisation system. I guess gimbal then. But seems every other competitor has it? No deal breaker though.
Only fixed LCD. So for pro work it needs an EVF.
FAT32. Must be annoying having some files for a single take.
Recording time limit is a bit annoying. But I almost never need a 30 min. clip.

But none of cons are deal breakers for me. Worst is fixed LCD.

But this tab confuse me:

View attachment 134760

I see no 10bit 422 4k internally. But review says it does it.
Click to expand...

Yeah I thought it did 422 10-bit 4K 24fps and 420 10-bit 4K at 60fps. If not, you'll never likely ever see the difference (perhaps for VFX)).
Again, suggest testing the X-T3 alongside the A6400 and/or A7 III before purchasing. Spec sheets don't tell you everything.
 
jcs said:
Yeah I thought it did 422 10-bit 4K 24fps and 420 10-bit 4K at 60fps. If not, you'll never likely ever see the difference (perhaps for VFX)).
Again, suggest testing the X-T3 alongside the A6400 and/or A7 III before purchasing. Spec sheets don't tell you everything.
Click to expand...

From the review I got impression it does 422 10 bit 4K internally. But I guess it doesn't:

Clear-codec-indication.jpg

It only says 422 for HDMI in this menu photo.

But if it doesn't, then is GH5 the only 10bit 422 internal 4K cheap camera? Pity it's only 4/3.
 
What do you class as affordable?
The Panasonic EVA1 has a a really strong choice of internal 10bit 422 codecs up to 4K, great camera
 
TubEfingers said:
What do you class as affordable?
The Panasonic EVA1 has a a really strong choice of internal 10bit 422 codecs up to 4K, great camera
Click to expand...

This is for sure not classed affordable here. :)
Must be same or cheaper than used FS700 + used Atomos or 7Q and better IQ or much easier to use. Or I probably just buy FS700 with recorder.
 
Last edited:
I did some more research. Seems with auto focus good enough to follow a person or a car, only option is GH5, XT-30 and X-T3 in this price range. Did I miss any other 10bit 4k internal camera in this price range? Is any Sony worth? I think they all 8bit internally? But fuji seems the most expensive of lenses.
 
Why don't you get an Atomos external recorder, which can be triggered by most cameras to record via HDMI, instead of limiting yourself? This is the only way you'll get 10 bit 422 at 4k at a reasonable price, I think.

The obsession with 4:2:2 4k may be misguided in the first place; you aren't going to have everything you want without the money to buy it so these details won't trump some other considerations I suspect you'll have. And still there will be the expense of adapting a DSLR to do what a cinema camera would do by rigging it out. I've been shooting with a GH4 and an Atomos Shogun Flame, and it works pretty well for my purposes. But I'd like to have better autofocus and have considered a C100 with the atomos flame on a fancy adjustable mount like the Zacuto Axis mini.
 
mothmachine said:
Why don't you get an Atomos external recorder, which can be triggered by most cameras to record via HDMI, instead of limiting yourself? This is the only way you'll get 10 bit 422 at 4k at a reasonable price, I think.

The obsession with 4:2:2 4k may be misguided in the first place; you aren't going to have everything you want without the money to buy it so these details won't trump some other considerations I suspect you'll have. And still there will be the expense of adapting a DSLR to do what a cinema camera would do by rigging it out. I've been shooting with a GH4 and an Atomos Shogun Flame, and it works pretty well for my purposes. But I'd like to have better autofocus and have considered a C100 with the atomos flame on a fancy adjustable mount like the Zacuto Axis mini.
Click to expand...

I already have a cinema camera that shoot 12bit 444. Not worried about rigging a mirrorless too much. If I need full pro rig I already have. This is for second camera. Atomos plus X-T3 will be same price as FS700 plus atomos basically. So like I said I rather get the FS700 combo and get internal ND and all other goods. It must be cheaper than FS700 plus recorder or is a no go. ;-)
 
SJX said:
I already have a cinema camera that shoot 12bit 444. Not worried about rigging a mirrorless too much. If I need full pro rig I already have. This is for second camera. Atomos plus X-T3 will be same price as FS700 plus atomos basically. So like I said I rather get the FS700 combo and get internal ND and all other goods. It must be cheaper than FS700 plus recorder or is a no go. ;-)
Click to expand...

I had an FS700- good value for slomo. X-T3 will provide superior color and especially 4K detail as well as low light. FS700 AF isn't really usable compared to the X-T3. I've gotten some of the best green screen keys from 422 YUV 8-bit vs. 444 RGB 12-bit, and if not doing very unique & critical VFX, you'll never see a practical difference between 420 and 422. The superior clean pixels and True 4K of the 420 X-T3 will key better than the aliased and somewhat low res 4K of the FS700 (only available recording externally. Need 6K pixels downsampled to 4K to get True 4K).
 
on the one hand, it looks like you're used to cinema camera style bodies, so leaning towards an fs5 would be more ideal.

On the other hand, i'm a fan of varying tools for varying projects. I tried the fuji xh1 and couldn't click with it. now i'm trying the GH5. i'm already very familiar and comfortable with the GH series so it's not much of a jump, and overall i think panasonic has one of the more intuitive and easy to get things done type menu and layout.

As for the m43 vs s35 debate. i was also hoping to stick to something 1.5 crop, but for my needs the GH5 ticks off more boxes than the competition. Don't discount the speedbooster option, both for s35 field of view, as well as low light. the m43 sensor is perhaps 2-3 times noiser at high iso than a comparable generation aps-c. But, a speedbooster and speedbooster xl get you 1+ stops of more light from the same glass, allowing you to keep the iso lower than a non-boosted option.

And full swivel screens FTW
 
For my needs FS5 is too expensive for what it offers.

GH5 vs X-T3 I'm leaning towards the fuji. The only thing GH5 has over fuji is 422 internal. But is m43, worse in low light, more noise, worse fov, needs speedbooster etc. It's already more expensive than the fuji and I will need to buy even more things for it. So after much reading it looks lie fuji or FS700 with recorder. Leaning heavy towards the fuji though. None of Sonys seems good for my needs. Some are too expensive and they all 8bit only.
 
SJX said:
For my needs FS5 is too expensive for what it offers.

GH5 vs X-T3 I'm leaning towards the fuji. The only thing GH5 has over fuji is 422 internal. But is m43, worse in low light, more noise, worse fov, needs speedbooster etc. It's already more expensive than the fuji and I will need to buy even more things for it. So after much reading it looks lie fuji or FS700 with recorder. Leaning heavy towards the fuji though. None of Sonys seems good for my needs. Some are too expensive and they all 8bit only.
Click to expand...

Sorry, i meant fs700. which by the way, ergonomically is up there with my least favorites.
On the same tangent, ergonomically i don't like the fuji, so it really depends on what you're doing with it. if low key/just the camera, i would strongly look at the gh5. if rigging up, then less difference.

don't forget the lack of IBIS on the fuji if that makes a difference to you. And don't discount that a speedbooster does lessen the gap in low light, and very nearly eliminates the 'worse' FOV. the viltrox brand is pretty darn cheap and i've been mostly happy with it.

It would behoove you to try before you buy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top