Lenses for Alexa Mini LF

Eric Coughlin

Eric Coughlin

Veteran
So I seem to have topped out at the corporate and doc world in terms of equipment (Arri Amiras, C300 Mark IIs, and Canon CN-e zooms) and rates so I'm wanting to move moreso into the commercial world and perhaps some more features, so an Alexa Mini LF seems like a good move in that direction, followed by higher end lenses than what I currently have. I’m considering lenses to buy with it, and this is my rambling on the subject while wondering options to go with. My options are...

Fuji Premista 28-100 & 55-200 ($38k each)

Leitz 25-75 & 55-125 ($75k each)

Arri Signature Primes ($25k each)

Leitz Full Frame Primes ($45-$50k each)

I like sharp lenses and I hear Cookes aren’t as sharp or even as good optically as Arri or Leica, so I’m not really considering them. The EZ lenses and Zeiss compact zooms (which barely cover full frame) both moreso are mid-range zooms, so not really an upgrade.

I’ve read Leitz are a smaller company and less popular, so while great optically, part of the price increase has to do with lower volume rather than higher quality, so twice the cost of Arri doesn't necessarily mean better. It’s nice that Leica has a set of color matched zooms to go with the primes.

I keep reading great things about the Arri Signature primes, the price point at half of the Leitz is much easier to deal with, and the changeable rear optics are a cool feature. No color matched zooms available as of now. I wonder what people think of Leitz compared to Arri primes?

I’ve gotten very used to shooting on zooms that I feel like it’d be an adjustment to switch to primes. The Leitz zooms are quite expensive but I would imagine better optically than the Fuji’s. I’ve often heard Fuji described as “clinical,” but perhaps that’s more in reference to their Cabrio line and less so to the Premiere line which I’ve read great things about and which the Premistas are considered the full frame replacement for. That said, Angenuix seems to be king by far in terms of popularity on features and commercials. Even with the focal expanders Angenuix does not cover Alexa LF open gate, so perhaps it’d be worth waiting until Angenuix comes out with their own full frame zooms (aside from their current 24-290 which is too large and heavy for standard use).

The focal ranges of the Leitz zooms when divided by 1.4 (about the difference of shooting full frame) brings them out to in terms of equivalent Super35 field of view, an 18-54 and 39-89, which is somewhat similar to the range on my current Canon zooms, 15.5-47 and 30-105, which I’ve been pretty happy with. Premista comes out to 20-71 and 57-178, so a much larger range than the Leitz and having up to 178mm available would be pretty cool. Premista doesn’t go quite as wide. Fuji has a wide angle Premiere lens, so I feel like they’re missing a wide angle zoom from their Premista lineup, which makes me wonder if they’ll add one in the future.

So, if I've got say a $50k budget to start with, and can put an additional $50k towards lenses every six months, then what would be a good route to take?

The Premista 28-100 for $38k covers most of the needed focal ranges in one lens, so I feel like that may be a good place to start. Another route would be a couple Arri Signature primes, like a 40mm and a 21mm, then add a 125mm a few months after that, and keep building from there. There are 15 lenses in the set, obviously you can shoot a movie or commercial with just one lens, three seems like a bare minimum to have decent versatility, five or six (the same amount as a full range of CN-e primes) seems like a decent ending point, as I'm not sure as an owner/op if it'd ever be important to own all 15 given the price point, though if I can keep billing clients for the added focal lengths the more the merrier.

Getting both Premistas and say a wide angle (such as the 21) Signature prime is another way to go, giving a large focal range between the three lenses, and perhaps keeping to build the prime set from there. I wonder how well the Signatures and Premistas would match together.

Another option is the upcoming Angenieux full frame primes, similar price to the Arri Signatures. I guess it remains to be seen how well they'll compare to the Arri's, but I get the feelings that the Arris will be way more popular on the rental market, despite the color matching advantage that Angeniux would have if they come out with full frame zooms. And that's perhaps a big selling point for the Arri Signatures, is that while it will take some time for them to become better known, I feel they've got a really good future in terms of popularity and longevity ahead of them.

I don't typically rent out my gear without myself (dry hire), so I want this to have as an owner/op for commercial and narrative work. It seems primes are king in those worlds but I do really like working with zooms (as I often shoot on the fly, fast paced, and like to dial in my framing very precisely and vary it up from take to take at times), so while some clients will hire a DP and trust the DP's choice in equipment, others will want what is popular, so if primes are the standard for high end work, perhaps that's the better route?

I always hear primes offer better quality (aside from just a faster T-stop), but I wonder how the top zoom lenses like the Fuji Premiers and Arri Master Zoom which are both around $100k compare to high end primes. Are primes really that much better in terms of image quality?


Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The Leitz (fomerly Leica) Thalia lenses are designed for larger sensors than the Alexa Mini LF, and as such is limited to T/2.6, while Leitz's upcoming full frame primes are T/1.8 (https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/09/17/leitzs-e500000-full-frame-vistavision-format-prime-lenses/). Interestingly, despite the larger image circle the Thalia's are actually lighter weight and cheaper than their upcoming full frame primes, but perhaps a lot of that is to do with being slower. At T/2.6 on a full frame camera, at that point I'd be asking why not just shoot on a T/2.8 zoom lens?

Kind of like the Cooke Mini S4/i's which are only T/2.8, and sort of the defeat one of the main advantages of a prime lens since they aren't faster than common zoom lenses.

Thalia's are a fast T-stop for an Alexa 65 size sensor, but not so much for full frame of the LF.

I get that the Cookes are popular, I just haven't read much positive things online compared to say Masterprimes, Leica, or Arri.
 
Last edited:
Where would you demo such gear? Fly or drive out to B&H in NY or Abelcine in Chicago? I never liked the idea of throwing away money on renting expensive gear just to demo it when there's so much information online from people who have experience with the equipment. Someone suggested going to a rental house and asking to demo the gear on site, but would rental houses really want to give out free tests of gear to people who never intend to rent it?
 
Last edited:
I think you need to decide whether you want to work primarily with primes or zooms - they're very different experiences.

I think one of the most exciting aspects of "large format", is that your T/2.8 zooms, now offer you the shallower DoF and greater subject isolation that you got from T/2 primes on S35mm.

That really is kind of a big deal. Because you get the speed and efficiency that zooms bring, with the shallow DoF aesthetic that was previously only the domain of prime lenses.

I would suggest you be very wary of comments on the internet when it comes to these things. Too few commenters actually know what they're talking about. Test the lenses before you buy them. It's too much money to spend sight-unseen.

Anyone who tells you Cooke lenses aren't sharp, doesn't know what they're talking about. Anyone putting Zeiss CZ.2s on the same level of optical performance as the EZ or CN-E zooms hasn't seen those lenses' projected (for distortion and CA the Zeisses are a clear step up from the other two). Anyone who thinks the breathing on Sigma Cine lenses renders them unusable, clearly can't have enjoyed any of the countless big budget movies shot on Cooke S4s, and must run in fright from any anamorphic film ever filmed (on anything other than Master Anamorphics).

You're not worried about brand/model recognition and rentability, which is great, because that leaves the playing field wide-open to you to choose what you want.

But that means you have to decide what it is you're actually looking for.

Zeiss Supreme Primes should also be on your "to see" list, they're fast becoming a go-to for LF production (here in Australia at least). And they create this gorgeous elliptical bokeh when close to wide-open.

If you're comfortable with zooms, the Fuji Premistas and the Zeiss CZ.2s seem like the ones to look at. The Zeisses are considerably lighter (which is nice), but the FIZ rings match up between lenses with the Fujis (which is irritating on the Zeiss). On the LF sensor, 28-80mm and 28-100mm are fantastic zoom ranges (for me at least) as they cover probably 90% of everything I do. So going for one of those for starters would probably be a safe starting point (if you can only have one to begin with).

Also, on LF, 21mm is Ultra-wide. So can add something like a Zeiss 21mm CP.3 to mix quite cheaply if you want a get-out-of-jail ultra-wide in the kit.
 
I agree with Grug. When you’re talking about this kind of money and this level of glass, you should be demo’ing the lenses and not just buying them sight unseen, because of stuff you’ve only seen or read on the internet. I would also be buying from a dealer like Abel, or Duclos or the like and not B&H. I buy plenty from B&H, but not cameras and lenses that cost as much as cars.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
The Leitz (fomerly Leica) ...
Click to expand...

Leica is a portmanteau for Leitz Camera (Lei-Ca).

Anyhow, since you're dipping your toes into the some rarefied air, you may want to read up on this from the professional cinematography magazines, not online video reviews. All of the choices are the tippy top of the cinema world anyway. The rest is a matter of taste.

PS. IMO, this is a very risky investment at this stage of your career and in your geographic area, especially considering what (still unreleased) FX-9 and C500 MK III should be able to do.
 
DLD said:
IMO, this is a very risky investment at this stage of your career and in your geographic area, especially considering what (still unreleased) FX-9 and C500 MK III should be able to do.
Click to expand...

Those cameras can’t match ARRI color, DR, or skintones. There’s a few more years before computational camera cellphones take over the high end cinema market (pre-loading for future comments).
 
What about a 5 lens prime kit of Sigma/Tokina as a stopgap until you know exactly what you want?

You can see if you like working with primes in that environment (with crew and a specific camera) and you'd find out exactly what t-stop you need, without breaking the bank (so to speak!) while probably maintaining a decent resale value. Some themes may emerge, for example, faster lenses are the way to go, primes too slow on set, anamorphic could make you more money etc. plus you'll have more time to collect a database from the people hiring you.
 
jcs said:
Those cameras can’t match ARRI color, DR, or skintones. There’s a few more years before computational camera cellphones take over the high end cinema market (pre-loading for future comments).
Click to expand...

They aren't going to to match ARRI LF's in anything but convenience. On the other hand, they will beat it on price, especially if there's a need for an AC. But my main point was that LF + whatever high end glass Eric will go with might place him above the market that he is currently in. Unless he wants this gear to make own films, which is a whole different bowl of wax.
 
DLD said:
They aren't going to to match ARRI LF's in anything but convenience. On the other hand, they will beat it on price, especially if there's a need for an AC. But my main point was that LF + whatever high end glass Eric will go with might place him above the market that he is currently in. Unless he wants this gear to make own films, which is a whole different bowl of wax.
Click to expand...

Alexa (x) LF + top of the line lenses does put anyone in the top market. With talent and the right connections that market easily pays for that gear.
 
Honestly, no Producer is going to turn their nose up at a pair of Amiras and CN-E zooms for high-end commercial work or the kind of features you'll likely be starting off with. It's not going to happen. If the job demands primes, just rent them in as needed.

Add the Arriraw licence to your Amiras, and they can play with all of the big boys for any spherical jobs.

If the move into features and commercials goes well, and is absolutely crying out for even higher-end gear (it won't), then make the upgrade then. An LF isn't going to net you any work that you can't already get with an Amira. It's simply not something Producers are thinking about.
 
The idea here is to upgrade. Tokina Vistas, Zeiss CP.3s, Sigma, Canon, are all side-grades to the Canon CN-e zooms I already have. While I'm sure some clients will prefer primes over zooms, not many clients will insist on booking both primes and zooms for the same shoot. I'd been wanting to get CN-e primes for awhile, but I think one thing holding me back is that I'd end up getting booked with the primes INSTEAD of the zooms I already own, and thus make no more money off of the job then if I only owned the zooms and got booked with the zooms instead. Sure, it could open me to new clients, but I don't know that I'm really losing that many jobs by not having cinema primes available.

Sure there are risks, but the risks are small because I'm already making good money and can afford to risk losing money on an investment. It's not like I'm a recent film grad taking out a huge loan with no client base or portfolio; I never do loans for my gear aside from putting half of my first Amira on credit cards which I paid off in a reasonable amount of time. The first Amira I bought after making the same income for three years in a row with the C300s, then I bought the Amira for $50k, a risk, as I didn't have clients asking for it, and ended up tripling my income that year as a result of buying the camera. Then this year I bought two more Amiras and so far have been booked for only one multi-cam Amira shoot since buying them around nine months ago, so, perhaps a failed $50k (I bought them used) investment, however, since I got them used at cheap prices I can still sell them for as much or more than I bought them for, plus the one job I did multi-cam with them was a two day shoot at $6.3k per day, so with that I'd probably still come out ahead if I sold both of them. Considering you can sell gear at around 80% the cost of what you bought it at, it really doesn't take that many jobs before you'd start breaking even or profiting when taking the resale value into account.

So, always on to find ways to increase income, and my business model has long been to buy more expensive gear so I can charge higher rental and make more profit. From there, it's always just a matter of finding the clients who will pay the rates, and so far I've done quite well with that, and believe/hope I'll be able to as I move into the commercial world as well. Yeah, this gear would price me out of my current market which is mostly corporate and doc, so as mentioned the idea is to target the commercial world where I can charge say $8k-$10k per day as a DP coming with $300k of gear. As I said when I bought my first Amira, "Worst case scenario clients won't pay for this and I've got a super nice camera for my passion project short films." But it's really on me as far as my skills at marketing myself and my skills as a cinematographer to be able to land clients who will pay for the high end gear. In any case, I don't want to remain stagnant in my career, so a small risk is worth it for the sake of trying to grow.

I'm skeptical of the Zeiss CZ zooms as their image circle I believe is just a tad below covering open gate on the LF, so I'd imagine very slight vignetting, perhaps not enough to worry about. The other problem I have is how cheap they are. The natural thought is, "If they're that cheap, they must not be high end." But perhaps more so from a business standpoint, I could not charge a higher rental rate for them than my Canon CN-e zooms which cost the same amount, even if they are better optically, so in terms of rental rate it's still a side-grade. Also, Charles Pappert mentioned not being a big fan of the Zeiss zooms.

The Leitz zooms at $75k would mean a hefty rental rate, but those are perhaps a bit high for my budget. I do wonder how they'll compare optically to the Premistas. The Premistas have a pretty sweet spot in terms of being twice the price of the CN-e or Zeiss zooms, so more affordable than Leitz but still able to charge significantly more for a rental rate. Based off of positive things I've read about the Premieres, I'd also imagine the Premistas would make a generally considered better image than the Zeiss zooms.

I'm not using all three FIZ that much, so Zeiss not matching up on those isn't much of a concern for me, but that lighter weight would be very welcome. With the Premistas on a Mini LF, I'd have to see if it would put it over the 24 lbs that my Amira with a CN-e zoom is, as if it does, then I'd need to upgrade my Steadicam Zephyr with its 24 lb capacity too, and Steadicam upgrades are not cheap. It's also great that Zeiss has that 15-30 zoom which Fuji really needs to add to their Premista lineup.

I haven't really looked or heard as much about the Zeiss Supreme Primes. Perhaps they're worth looking at more. Always nice to have matching lens set, the Supremes are a bit cheaper than Signature Primes, and perhaps if I bundled the zooms in with the Primes then the zooms being cheap wouldn't matter as far as rental value.

I've often had producers call my Amira an "Alexa Amira." Alexa certainly has more brand recognition than Amira. The Amira's RAW is limited to 2.8k, while the original Mini is 3.4K open gate and 4.5k on the LF, with 4.5k being a considerable amount more than 2.8k, not that resolution is super important, but it does make a difference. I feel Arri sort of did a disservice to the Amira in their original marketing as they marketed it as a doc camera when it's capable well beyond that. Then they originally marketed the Mini as a drone and gimbal camera and it ended up becoming A-cam on many big productions.

If I was producing a well budgeted project and two equally talented DPs were on a list to hire, and one had an Amira and the other a Mini LF (and an Amira), I'd go with the latter. Kind of a generic thing to say, but more specifically, the Mini LF will be the best camera available for commercial and feature work in my opinion, likely the most popular too, so to me it seems like a pretty solid investment and upgrade from an Amira that I think can land more clients who would have passed on the Amira. That said, I'm hoping to find a house to buy soon so by the time I've recovered financially from the down payment of that, perhaps by April, then the 4K Mini will be announced and I can then decide if that's worth considering or go ahead and pull the trigger on the LF around then.

I get hired because of my portfolio (demo reels) and the equipment I own. Owning higher end gear has gotten me onto bigger sets I would not have otherwise gotten on. It's worked well and now I see the Alexa Mini LF with higher end lenses as the next upgrade path to take. After that, it will be stealing an Alexa 65.

I worked with a sound guy recently who does well financially and who had gotten all the best gear, and was then sorta sad there was no way to upgrade anymore, so he moved on to buying other things that were not business equipment, such as life luxuries.

Are the rear filter blocks on the Signature Primes not a big deal? Seems like a pretty cool feature to get more versatility from those lenses.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
The idea here is to upgrade. Tokina Vistas, Zeiss CP.3s, Sigma, Canon, are all side-grades to the Canon CN-e zooms I already have. While I'm sure some clients will prefer primes over zooms, not many clients will insist on booking both primes and zooms for the same shoot. I'd been wanting to get CN-e primes for awhile, but I think one thing holding me back is that I'd end up getting booked with the primes INSTEAD of the zooms I already own, and thus make no more money off of the job then if I only owned the zooms and got booked with the zooms instead. Sure, it could open me to new clients, but I don't know that I'm really losing that many jobs by not having cinema primes available.

Sure there are risks, but the risks are small because I'm already making good money and can afford to risk losing money on an investment. It's not like I'm a recent film grad taking out a huge loan with no client base or portfolio; I never do loans for my gear aside from putting half of my first Amira on credit cards which I paid off in a reasonable amount of time. The first Amira I bought after making the same income for three years in a row with the C300s, then I bought the Amira for $50k, a risk, as I didn't have clients asking for it, and ended up tripling my income that year as a result of buying the camera. Then this year I bought two more Amiras and so far have been booked for only one multi-cam Amira shoot since buying them around nine months ago, so, perhaps a failed $50k (I bought them used) investment, however, since I got them used at cheap prices I can still sell them for as much or more than I bought them for, plus the one job I did multi-cam with them was a two day shoot at $6.3k per day, so with that I'd probably still come out ahead if I sold both of them. Considering you can sell gear at around 80% the cost of what you bought it at, it really doesn't take that many jobs before you'd start breaking even or profiting when taking the resale value into account.

So, always on to find ways to increase income, and my business model has long been to buy more expensive gear so I can charge higher rental and make more profit. From there, it's always just a matter of finding the clients who will pay the rates, and so far I've done quite well with that, and believe/hope I'll be able to as I move into the commercial world as well. Yeah, this gear would price me out of my current market which is mostly corporate and doc, so as mentioned the idea is to target the commercial world where I can charge say $8k-$10k per day as a DP coming with $300k of gear. As I said when I bought my first Amira, "Worst case scenario clients won't pay for this and I've got a super nice camera for my passion project short films." But it's really on me as far as my skills at marketing myself and my skills as a cinematographer to be able to land clients who will pay for the high end gear. In any case, I don't want to remain stagnant in my career, so a small risk is worth it for the sake of trying to grow.

I'm skeptical of the Zeiss CZ zooms as their image circle I believe is just a tad below covering open gate on the LF, so I'd imagine very slight vignetting, perhaps not enough to worry about. The other problem I have is how cheap they are. The natural thought is, "If they're that cheap, they must not be high end." But perhaps more so from a business standpoint, I could not charge a higher rental rate for them than my Canon CN-e zooms which cost the same amount, even if they are better optically, so in terms of rental rate it's still a side-grade. Also, Charles Pappert mentioned not being a big fan of the Zeiss zooms.

The Leitz zooms at $75k would mean a hefty rental rate, but those are perhaps a bit high for my budget. I do wonder how they'll compare optically to the Premistas. The Premistas have a pretty sweet spot in terms of being twice the price of the CN-e or Zeiss zooms, so more affordable than Leitz but still able to charge significantly more for a rental rate. Based off of positive things I've read about the Premieres, I'd also imagine the Premistas would make a generally considered better image than the Zeiss zooms.

I'm not using all three FIZ that much, so Zeiss not matching up on those isn't much of a concern for me, but that lighter weight would be very welcome. With the Premistas on a Mini LF, I'd have to see if it would put it over the 24 lbs that my Amira with a CN-e zoom is, as if it does, then I'd need to upgrade my Steadicam Zephyr with its 24 lb capacity too, and Steadicam upgrades are not cheap. It's also great that Zeiss has that 15-30 zoom which Fuji really needs to add to their Premista lineup.

I haven't really looked or heard as much about the Zeiss Supreme Primes. Perhaps they're worth looking at more. Always nice to have matching lens set, the Supremes are a bit cheaper than Signature Primes, and perhaps if I bundled the zooms in with the Primes then the zooms being cheap wouldn't matter as far as rental value.

I've often had producers call my Amira an "Alexa Amira." Alexa certainly has more brand recognition than Amira. The Amira's RAW is limited to 2.8k, while the original Mini is 3.4K open gate and 4.5k on the LF, with 4.5k being a considerable amount more than 2.8k, not that resolution is super important, but it does make a difference. I feel Arri sort of did a disservice to the Amira in their original marketing as they marketed it as a doc camera when it's capable well beyond that. Then they originally marketed the Mini as a drone and gimbal camera and it ended up becoming A-cam on many big productions.

If I was producing a well budgeted project and two equally talented DPs were on a list to hire, and one had an Amira and the other a Mini LF (and an Amira), I'd go with the latter. Kind of a generic thing to say, but more specifically, the Mini LF will be the best camera available for commercial and feature work in my opinion, likely the most popular too, so to me it seems like a pretty solid investment and upgrade from an Amira that I think can land more clients who would have passed on the Amira. That said, I'm hoping to find a house to buy soon so by the time I've recovered financially from the down payment of that, perhaps by April, then the 4K Mini will be announced and I can then decide if that's worth considering or go ahead and pull the trigger on the LF around then.

I get hired because of my portfolio (demo reels) and the equipment I own. Owning higher end gear has gotten me onto bigger sets I would not have otherwise gotten on. It's worked well and now I see the Alexa Mini LF with higher end lenses as the next upgrade path to take. After that, it will be stealing an Alexa 65.

I worked with a sound guy recently who does well financially and who had gotten all the best gear, and was then sorta sad there was no way to upgrade anymore, so he moved on to buying other things that were not business equipment, such as life luxuries.

Are the rear filter blocks on the Signature Primes not a big deal? Seems like a pretty cool feature to get more versatility from those lenses.
Click to expand...

Will you have to join a union at some point if working on larger sets? I’d look into official and unofficial policies to make sure it won’t affect your plan.

If you move full time into commercials/features you can sell all of your lights to take the edge off purchasing the most expensive lenses.
 
GA is a right to work state, though I work in many other states too. I did lose one $2500 job this year because I wasn't union. Think the DP union costs around $11k for initial entry fee. I imagine I would join the union at some point, I just don't know when.

I only currently own like $15K of lighting gear and don't see myself ever selling that. I still produce my own films so will always need a fully rounded kit of equipment including audio, etc. We must not forget that filmmaking is a hobby too, well, except for those unfortunate souls who only think of it as a job.

I know Charles Pappert owns various lighting gear which I imagine he makes some rental money off of on the higher end sets he works on. I personally have no qualms with taking rental money from the gaffer; as Charles had said the DP is the head of the production crew so gets first dibs on renting out their gear. I plan to add more lights in the future as my package now is pretty good for small spaces but I'd like to be able to light larger spaces and I hate renting gear, particularly for unpaid projects.

Passion projects are a great way to build your portfolio and skill set, and I would never want to completely rely on some unpaid gaffer friend with their gear showing up in order to make a film.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
GA is a right to work state, though I work in many other states too. I did lose one $2500 job this year because I wasn't union. Think the DP union costs around $11k for initial entry fee. I imagine I would join the union at some point, I just don't know when.

I only currently own like $15K of lighting gear and don't see myself ever selling that. I still produce my own films so will always need a fully rounded kit of equipment including audio, etc. We must not forget that filmmaking is a hobby too, well, except for those unfortunate souls who only think of it as a job.

I know Charles Pappert owns various lighting gear which I imagine he makes some rental money off of on the higher end sets he works on. I personally have no qualms with taking rental money from the gaffer; as Charles had said the DP is the head of the production crew so gets first dibs on rental gear. I plan to add more lights in the future as my package now is pretty good for small spaces but I'd like to be able to light larger spaces and I hate renting gear, particularly for unpaid projects.
Click to expand...

What would that look like if you're working on a commercial/feature that requires a ___ton lighting package? At that level it seems like an all or nothing situation, rather than you owning lighting equipment and therefore receiving a discounted rate because you're using a mixture of your equipment and the what's on the truck. What about specialty units that not even Gaffers own e.g. a 2k xenon? You'd be able to make a strong case for adding that to many productions.

But you're right, you should keep the lighting equipment for smaller shoots/personal projects because just for the access to that gear.

Sorry, don't mean to derail the lens thread either.
 
Eric, instead of LF, have you considered a used Alexa (not sure if it's XLT or ST) with internal 4K upscaling?

Amira has the same feature but Alexa has more horsepower, I believe.
 
A friend of mine bought an Alexa Classic and found that despite the image being great for narrative projects he was DPing (he was coming front Red), no one wanted to pay to rent the camera as it was considered old tech. The newer but inferior image quality Reds he owned still rented out more. He later sold the Classic and bought a used Amira.

The Mini is much more popular now than the SXT. I still see the SXT used on bigger productions that don't mind the size and weight, but overall the Mini is more popular.

So no, I wouldn't consider an SXT or Classic. I also wouldn't want to deal with that size, weight, or double the battery draw. I don't believe the SXT offers upscaling to 4K like the Mini and Amira do. It has more SDI outputs, and I forget what other advantages it offers. For the LF, it goes up to 150 fps instead of the Mini LF which caps at 90 fps. The SXT I believe is limited to 120 fps, so less than the Amira and Mini at 200 fps.

I don't know why people keep making suggestions on how to save money; the whole point here is to buy more expensive gear so I can charge a higher rental rate and make more profit. You can't rent out a Sony FX-9 body only for $2k per day. If I was considering a heavier duty Arri it'd be the Alexa LF for $100k, but again I don't want to deal with the size, weight, and power draw, and the Mini LF will be a much more popular camera.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top