Other: FX6 tease

alaskacameradude said:
Interesting. The A7sIII has pretty much everything I want
except the built in variable ND. I was hoping the FX6 would
be an A7SIII with variable Nd. I do understand that would
possibly infringe on the FX9. But how to make the FX6
better than the A7SIII and not as good as the FX9?
Tough challenge for Sony. So if the FX6 is ‘different’ than
the A7SIII, I wish they would just at least announce the
specs so I could make a decision what to buy.....
Click to expand...

For me, as a run n' gun shooter, no internal ND is a deal breaker. I sold my FS5 because I thought I could get along using my A7III as a small "grab and go" verite camera. Its been a struggle. Especially following your subjects outside and vice versa...
 
scorsesefan said:
For me, as a run n' gun shooter, no internal ND is a deal breaker. I sold my FS5 because I thought I could get along using my A7III as a small "grab and go" verite camera. Its been a struggle. Especially following your subjects outside and vice versa...
Click to expand...

I use variable NDs for shoting weddings and verite. I use auto ISO when i need hands-free mid-shot adjustments like during a long livestream moving through different gallery rooms. In both cases I'd rather have eND. But i get by. I think that aperture ramping is the traditional solution
 
ahalpert said:
I use variable NDs for shoting weddings and verite. I use auto ISO when i need hands-free mid-shot adjustments like during a long livestream moving through different gallery rooms. In both cases I'd rather have eND. But i get by. I think that aperture ramping is the traditional solution
Click to expand...

The main issue is going from dark indoor lighting to Sunny outside.. Which variable ND filter do you use, Abe? I wish a CLEAR to ND8 filter existed LOL...
 
scorsesefan said:
The main issue is going from dark indoor lighting to Sunny outside.. Which variable ND filter do you use, Abe? I wish a CLEAR to ND8 filter existed LOL...
Click to expand...

Clear would be awesome.

I cant remember what 77mm vari nd i have, i think maybe tiffen...

I just bought the gobe 82mm 1 to 8.65 stop vari ND, so far so good https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1424390-REG/82mm_2Peak_Variable_Neutral_Density

At my last wedding i actually had to leave it on at night part of the time because my exposure landed me in the a7siii donut hole of noise (around iso 6400 to 10248 or whatever). So i put the nd back on so i could push up to 12800 where it gets cleaner.

8.65 stops outside can probably get you to 1.4 iso 160 1/50 even on a bright sunny day. 1 stop loss inside usually wont push you past your usable iso limit. As always ymmv
 
It's normal; it's how a dual-gain/native ISO system works (even though this camera doesn't officially offer it).

There's always that noisy area before the camera "resets" itself.
 
NorBro is correct. And while the noise at the few isos below the high native setting is still acceptable to me for event shooting, it feels like - why not go up and get cleaner? But generally cameras get progressively noisier and the A7SIII gets noisier again past 12800. Maybe it beats the a7iii by a stop for noise but I dont think more than that.

The canon DSLRs that I knew were kind of funky in that they were always cleaner at ISO multiples of 160 (160 320 640 1280 and so on). Something to do with how the cameras applied gain. So I would always increase by a full stop of gain. Not sure if that was true for all the Canons.
 
LennyLevy said:
I never heard of this noise donut hole. Could someone please explain?
Click to expand...

https://briansmith.com/philip-bloom-tests-sony-a7s-iii-dual-iso/

The A7SIII has a 2nd native ISO that is always 20x the base iso of the mode (640/12800 in log, 80/1600 in standard for example).

As you increase ISO from the base, it gets noisier until you reach the 2nd native ISO where it is cleaner again.

So, if you're one notch below the high native, you can get a cleaner picture by either going up or down. Hence, a donut hole of noise
 
I think it started with the Varicam that was 800/5000 and, even in well crewed pro sets, many DP's ran it at 5,000 but then brought it down to 2,500-3,200. Which was better looking than 800 going up to 1,600 and allowed them to use less light on the talent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top