Which camera would you use more of?

[Zachadoodle]

Once you get to the professional level, would you rather use a cinema camera like the Arri mini, or use a Sony FX6 or any other camera?

I would use the Sony FX6 with an arri lut built in. My reasoning for that is that I want to use the least amount of lights while having the most flexibility with a camera. True there are many creative reasons to not use built-in camera features, but for me an independent filmmaker the FX6 saves time, money, and resources on set on paper. It is similar to the RED Gemini except with more flexibility with low-light settings. If an actor is complaining about a hot light at 400 ASA, I can just pop in the FX6 bring in an LED and lower the setting of the LED and then set the ISO to 12,800 ISO. Much more comfortable for the actor and the image still looks good. The auto focus is decent too so if I was an actor and had to use myself while using the camera, I could pop in an auto focus lens and then have the lens focus on me really well while I'm moving all about in the scene.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Once you get to the professional level, would you rather use a cinema camera like the Arri mini, or use a Sony FX6 or any other camera?.

It totally depends on what someone is shooting and how they like to work. Some cameras are better suited for certain shooting situations than others. That's why most of us own multiple cameras. But more important than which camera is being used is mastery of that camera. Understanding the basics of exposure, composition, white balance, focus, and even knowing how to keep horizons level, are far more important than which camera someone is using. An experienced professional with a cheap camera will out-shoot a novice with an expensive camera 100% of the time.

 

[rob norton]

Once you get to the professional level, would you rather use a cinema camera like the Arri mini, or use a Sony FX6 or any other camera?

I would use the Sony FX6 with an arri lut built in. My reasoning for that is that I want to use the least amount of lights while having the most flexibility with a camera. True there are many creative reasons to not use built-in camera features, but for me an independent filmmaker the FX6 saves time, money, and resources on set on paper. It is similar to the RED Gemini except with more flexibility with low-light settings. If an actor is complaining about a hot light at 400 ASA, I can just pop in the FX6 bring in an LED and lower the setting of the LED and then set the ISO to 12,800 ISO. Much more comfortable for the actor and the image still looks good. The auto focus is decent too so if I was an actor and had to use myself while using the camera, I could pop in an auto focus lens and then have the lens focus on me really well while I'm moving all about in the scene.

If appropriate for the project, it doesn't matter what tools get used. At some point, an fx6 with an actor shooting themselves with minimal lighting is not a money saver, it's money poorly spent. There are of course exceptions, but to move the needle at the higher level (sales, completing a brief, audience engagement), elevated production values are required.

Any way of working is at least worth considering, but it should also be easily let go of if it's not going to let you achieve what's expected.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Once you get to the professional level, would you rather use a cinema camera like the Arri mini, or use a Sony FX6 or any other camera?

I would use the Sony FX6 with an arri lut built in. My reasoning for that is that I want to use the least amount of lights while having the most flexibility with a camera

Once you get to the professional level, you have many factors to contend with that may be different than the indie filmmaking level. Each camera has its own nuances and I select the appropriate camera for a given job based on that. I also like the flexibility of high ISO, so I leverage that with a Varicam when I need it (on a budget, or Venice if budget is not as much a concern). If that's not necessary, then Arri.

The paradigm of a lower-wattage unit with higher ISO camera is a solid one, I was an early adopter of that mentality shooting on stage six or seven years ago at 2000 ISO to effectively more than double the punch of a given unit. However this doesn't always mean less lights, just lesser wattage. Notice I'm not saying "smaller lights"--the size of the light source is a specific parameter. Yes, an 8x8 Neewer flat panel at 12,800 ISO might equal a 5K at 400 ISO, but it's a far smaller light source and thus a different quality of light (and spectral response, but that's another discussion). If one is starting with a completely dark set, the number of lights to achieve a desired effect remain the same regardless of ISO. If you are just looking for general ambience and don't care about practicals blowing out, sure, crank up the ISO and shoot with little to no supplemental lighting.