DougJensen

My a1 has overheated on me a couple of times here in the Florida sun, even when shooting 4K. I should design a tiny little umbrella for it that attaches to the MI-Shoe to keep it in the shade. 🙂 Heck, Alister could probably make one with his 3D printer, By contrast, my FX6 is always rock solid in all weather conditions and runs as cool as a cucumber

I'll give another thumbs up for X-OCN. I've been shooting with it for quite a few years already with my F55/R7 and it is, by far, my favorite codec. It looks great and grades out nicely in Resolve. Sometimes I use ST and sometimes LT, but I almost never bother shooting pure RAW anymore. I only wish it was an option on all my other cameras.

Coolest looking RV shot since Breaking Bad went off the air!

Thank you for the compliment. I have a house in Florida in for winters and one in New England for the summers, so over the course of the year, that gives me a good variety of wildlife to shoot in the evenings without going very far from home. In the spring and fall I like to travel out to the western National Parks as often as possible. Didn't make it this year, but planning an 8-week adventure this spring as part of my NAB trip. I have an RV so it is easy to be on the road for long periods of time and drag around whatever gear I want to bring. I don't bill myself as a wildlife cameraman, so nobody hires me to shoot wildlife. I shoot for fun, for camera testing, and to sell as stock footage. I feel fortunate to be doing what I love.

Thanks! Go hunting with a camera instead of a gun, that is my philosophy.

Okay, I had some time last night to download the new LUTs and play around with them in Resolve with some FX6 S-LOG3 footage I'd already graded once before. In addition to the Low-Contrast LUT, mentioned above, there are four others in the group from Mr. Pines: HI CON; 50-50 LUT; LOOK 1; and LOOK 2. My favorite LUT for the past couple of years has been a Venice LUT called called: S-Log3-S-Gamut3.Cine_To_s709_V200, so that is what I wanted to compare to the new LUTs. I stripped off all the grading from my previous session and started fresh. I duplicated a few shots on the timeline and then applied the various LUTs to the exact same scenes. I then jumbled them up so I didn't really know which one was which, unless I made the effort to dig into the settings. LO CON and HI CON are just supposed to provide a base to work from, so you can't really judge them on their own without further grading. And that makes comparisons a little harder to do. Nevertheless, my conclusion after poking around for about an hour, was that four of the new LUTs were okay and would make a good baseline to start grading from. The only one I didn't like was LOOK 2 because it was way too warm. I like warm footage, but this was too warm even for my taste. However, most of the time when I preferred one LUT over the others it turned out to be the old trusted V200 LUT. I don't see any compelling reason to change to the other LUTs, so V200 wins again . . . in my opinion. If someone else did their own testing and preferred one of the other LUTs I'd not try to talk them out of it. The differences are there, yes, but once you do the rest of the grading the differences don't matter too much. I hope that helps someone!

Julien, congratulations on the new Venice. I have given it serious consideration on many ocassions but still not pulled the trigger. I already have an R7 and plenty of AXM and SxS cards that I use with my F55, so it is very tempting. Very tempting. Let us know how it goes.

You won't get any disagreement from me. A 35mm prime on a FF camera is my favorite focal length for handheld shooting when I don't want to use the 24-105. The 24-105 is a very flexible lens, but it's nothing special. A fast 35mm with great AF hits the sweet spot.

Thanks for the heads-up. i wasn't aware of the new LUTs but I look forward to downloading them and experimenting with footage I already have in the can. I will report my opinion after I have one. 🙂 What about you? Have you tried them, and what did you think?

Thanks for the comparison between the two cameras. I’ve owned my a1 for about a year, but never really knew how it stacked up against the a7sIII. So I am now better informed. However, I must say that I strongly disagree with your statement: “So I guess if you're a bright, young cinematographer with $6,500 burning a hole in your pocket, don't waste your time with the a7sIII, be like the former Tesla engineer and go for the a1.” I know you’re speaking tongue in cheek, but just to be clear, for the benefit of other people reading this thread, that's a bad decision. In my opinion, as a budding “cinematographer”, she bought the completely wrong camera. If she had asked me for advice, I would have strongly pushed her towards the FX6 . The alpha mirrorless cameras are excellent, but they can’t compete with a true cinema camera . . . if cinematography will be the primary use of the camera. All the mirrorless cameras are primarily designed for still photography first and video is tacked on as a secondary mission. There are a ton of important reasons why respected film schools, such as Full Sail, give all their students their own FX6 rather than a mirrorless camera. Full Sail has literally purchased thousands of FX6 cameras (hard to believe!), so think of the money they could have saved by going with some Alpha cameras instead. But they didn’t. As an owner of both an FX6 and a1, I feel I’m in a good position to appreciate the differences between them, and I can honestly say the FX6 wins on almost every count. There are only two things about the a1 I prefer: First, the a1 comes equipped with an excellent OLED viewfinder, while the FX6 doesn’t have one at all. And second, when all other things are equal, the a1 has a little better picture quality due to the higher resolution sensor. If having slightly better picture quality trumps everything else, then yeah, the a1 is the winner. But for me, picture quality is just one of many criteria that must be considered when choosing a camera to shoot with. And the FX6 beats the a1 on every other point of comparison that matters to me, and to schools like Full Sail. Built-in electronic variable ND filterAbility to use a 3rd party EVF and have normal viewfinder info shown on itAbility to use an external monitor and have normal viewfinder info shown on itSuperior auto-focus modes and better overall performanceSuperior zebras and peakingPicture CacheSimultaneous use of Picture Cache and slow-motionCustom clip namingClip name shown on the LCD during shootingSDI and HDMI outTimecode for multi-camera shootsXLR jacks for audioExternal audio controlsShotgun mic mountTraditional external Gain and White Balance switchesLonger-life batteriesBetter playback controlProxy filesBetter ergonomics for shoulder-mount shootingThose are the things that came to my mind off the top of my head, and I’m sure there are other things I’m forgetting. My advice to anyone looking to enter the world of cinematography or television production, with hopes of being more than a one-man-band, is to invest in a true cinema camera. It’s worth it. Sorry to hijack the thread and turn it into a cinema vs. mirrorless debate! 🙂

Danny, are those your favorite lenses for super-35 or full-frame cameras? Or both? When I'm shooting run & Gun "documentary" style these days, I'm almost always going to be using my full-frame FX6 or full-frame A1. And 20mm on a full-frame camera is as wide as I would ever care to go, so the 16-35mm that you have doesn't fit my needs. In fact, I have the Sony FE 20mm f/1.8 G lens and it is so wide that I can count the number of times I've used it on one hand. My three most-used lenses are: Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 G Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS Between those three zoom lenses, I've got 99% all my bases covered. I wasn't a big fan of the 24-105mm when I first got it, but it has grown on me. It is a good solid workhorse lens that is great for handheld shooting. I also carry Sony's 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 for times when I want the nice shallow look you only get from a fast prime. I'll be interested to hear what other people have chosen, and why.

That's a good list, but I think you missed the three most important in-camera effects of all: Polarizers, Grads, and ND. They are also the hardest to replicate in post. But maybe they aren't creative enough for your list?

One of my favorite things to do is to grab one of my cameras, a couple of lenses, a tripod, and them go out and film wildlife for a few hours in the evenings, on the weekends, or even for a few days in a row if I have time for a vacation. Photographing or filming wildlife is perhaps one of the most challenging yet rewarding hobbies you can take up. And you don’t need to travel to far-away exotic locations or own an expensive camera to enjoy filming wildlife. Every time I go out shooting it’s different -- even if I’m returning to the same location I’ve been to a dozen times before. The lighting is different. The weather is different. And the wildlife I encounter is absolutely different every time. In fact, it is the variety and randomness of filming wildlife that keeps it fresh and challenging. I can get almost as much pleasure from shooting birds at a local park as I could get from going on an African safari. Okay, maybe that is over-stating it a bit, but it’s not that far from the truth – and it is a hell of a lot less expensive to film wildlife close to home. I suppose it’s a cliché’ to say that I’m “hunting” with my camera, but that’s really what it is. The main difference being that the animals all live to see another day, and, if all goes well, I will return home with some great video to post online, sell as stock footage, or to just enjoy watching in my living room. WHAT I do with the footage I shoot is far less important to me than the actual experience of shooting it. Although I own quite a few Sony cameras (F55, FS7, Z750 Z280, Alpha 1, a6300), my favorite setup right now for wildlife is my FX6 and Sony 200-600mm lens. It is a great combination that offers many advantages over other cameras and lenses. A few months ago, I started posting a series of videos called “This Week in Nature” on my YouTube channel – but now that I’m back home in Florida for the season things have gotten too busy to keep up that pace! So, this month I’ve taken my favorite shots from the month of November and combined them into a single video. It’s not going to win any awards, but it was fun to shoot and a lot of the footage will sell as stock. That’s what I call a success. Camera: Sony FX6 Viewfinder: Zacuto Gratical Eye Lens: Sony 200-600mm Tripod: Sachtler Aktiv8 head with Flowtech75 legs Format: 4K XAVC-I 23.98 Slow motion: 120 fps Shooting Mode: S-LOG3 Grading: DaVinci Resolve Studio

Hi Julien, I question whether you really believe what you wrote. I've seen your demo reel on Vimeo at is fantastic. Excellent work through and through. But I wouldn't describe any of it as being darkly exposed. Every shot looks appropriately exposed to my eyes. I think the trend towards darker exposures is a big mistake and I don't care for the look of it at all. I'm put off by the unmotived dark exposures of Ozark, GoT, The Arrival, and other films that think it is the hip thing to do. I think it is a fad and will look as silly in the future as bell bottom pants and leisure suits look today. Yes, it is a creative choice by the filmmakers and they have every right to do things however they choose, but as a viewer, I don't buy it. I think it almost always looks awful. I don't understand why people have conflated dark exposures with being more "cinematic". Why put so much importance on using cameras that have the maximum dynamic range, and then crush the exposure like a VHS camcorder? It makes no sense. When I look at the films and TV show (past and present) that I truly admire, none of them are darkly exposed. None. Even films such as the Godfather that kind of have a reputation for being dark are not dark due to underexposure. Yes, many scenes have deep (motivated) shadows and dark lighting, but the overall picture isn't just flatly underexposed like we see on Ozark, GoT, The Arrival. There is a big difference between underexposing -- and lighting/shooting for a darker feel. You are correct that highlights hardly ever need to be pushed to 99 IRE, but that doesn't mean that the opposite extreme is the best choice, either. I believe an appropriate exposure should be in line with what the scene would have really looked like if you had been at that location and time of day. A dark alley at night should look dark. But nobody sits around in a room (especially in a business meeting or a restaurant) that is so dark you can barely see the the faces of the other people. What are we supposed to think, "Ooooh, this must be important filmmaking because it is so dark I can barely see anything. Cool.". I often wonder if the filmmakers think they can add drama just by playing on our fear of the dark? Are they hiding poor set construction or lack of production design? Are they too lazy, ignorant, or under-budgeted to use appropriate lighting? To make matters worse, this fad isn't just ruining many feature films and narrative television shows, I've noticed it is creeping into some regular multi-cam television shows too, such as Real Time with Bill Maher and Jimmy Kimmel Live. Those shows are underexposed, especially Bill Maher, by at least stop or two, and it looks like crap. Sometimes when they have a dark-skinned guest you can barely see the features of their face. Fortunately, I don't fancy myself a filmmaker or cinematographer. I work in the realm of broadcast television, sports, news, documentaries, reality TV, stock footage, and, god forbid, corporate video. And the majority of those clients still appreciate and demand a "correct" exposure. That's my counterpoint! 🙂

The only function that I use on the RM1BP remote is the RECORD button. I have it mounted down on the rods near my left hand so I can trigger recording without taking my hand off the grip. The wooden Ergo Cine grips that I'm using on the FX6 are really made for use with my F55. On the right-hand grip there is a built-in RECORD button for my thumb that works great with the F55, but the cable connection is not compatible with the FX6. I suppose I could get someone to make a custom adapter cable but I've gotten used to triggering record with my left hand instead. Sometimes I will mount the RM1BP on my tripod handle when I'm shooting wildlife wildlife, sports, etc. but not very often because I don't have any FF lenses that have servo zoom control and I already have better methods of focusing than the remote can provide.

In addition to earning a living working in television/video production for the past 40 years, it is also my hobby. There’s nothing I enjoy more than just getting out and shooting for the fun of it – with no client to answer to or deadline to meet. Wildlife, sports, and airshows are probably my favorite things to shoot with long telephoto lenses, but I’ll take any opportunity to shoot something that has “photogenic” action. Parades are fun because it is one of the things where I can use wide-angle lenses and get in close to people and shoot whatever I want without people wondering what the hell I’m doing in their face. Everyone is in a great mood, having a good time, and enjoying the experience --- instead of watching me work. So, last Saturday I shot the annual Veterans Day parade in Orlando, Florida. I had shot it once before in 2019 with a FX9 Sony loaned me, and some of that footage has earned enough from stock footage sales that it could have paid for the camera!! This time I shot the parade with my FX6, in what I call my “full hand-held configuration” mode. Just me, the camera, and a small backpack, drifting around the route wherever I felt like going. The FX6 is so small and compact it is really a joy to shoot with. I encourage anyone to get out and shoot for yourself sometimes. You build your shooting skills, get to know your gear better, and maybe come away with some stock footage to sell. 😊 Camera: Sony FX6 Lenses: Sony 24-105 f/4 and Sony 20mm f/1.8 Mode: S-LOG3 Format: 4K XAVC-I / 29.97 @ 60 fps Grading: DaVinci Resolve 18

All good information, Danny, I’ll just add one of my own tips. Many time-lapse shots look best if they contain some smooth-flowing blurred motion instead looking like a series if snapshots. For example, you might want to do a time-lapse of traffic and have the vehicles blurred as they move down the road. This is especially effective with streaks from headlights or taillights of the cars. Or you might want a time-lapse where the movement of people walking on a city street are blurred. This is a cool effect if you have someone standing stationary for the duration of the time-lapse (maybe looking at their phone or a map) while the chaos of city life buzzes all around them. The FX6 does not have the traditional “SLOW SHUTTER” mode you that usually find on other Sony cameras, but you can get the same effect by simply dialing the shutter speed down below the camera’s current frame rate. For example, if your camera is set up to shoot 29.97p and you dial the shutter speed slower than 1/30th, then you have entered what would traditionally be called the camera’s “slow shutter mode” . . . 2 frames . . . 4 frames . . . 16 frames . . . down to as many as 64 frames of light accumulation. This concept is easier to grasp if you express the shutter speed as fractions instead of “frames”. This list assumes that a 29.97p recording format is being used. The numbers would be slightly different for other frequencies. 2F = 1/15 sec. 3F = 1/10 sec. 4F = 1/8 sec. 5F = 1/6 sec. 6F = 1/5 sec. 7F = 1/4 sec. 8F = 1/4 sec. 16F = 1/2 sec. 32F = 1 second 64F = 2 seconds So, a bigger number equals a longer exposure, and that is what causes movement to become blurred. A slower shutter speed also means more light will captured, so the FX6’s electronic variable ND filter comes in really handy to help you ensure a perfect exposure. You can even use the Auto ND feature to allow the camera to seamlessly adjust the exposure during a time-lapse with changing lighting conditions – if you want. Personally, I prefer not to let the exposure change during a time-lapse, but that is a creative decision. I even like to use slow-shutter when I’m shooting clouds or a landscape because it will tend to blur blur out any fast-moving birds or bugs that inevitably fly through my shot. Without slow shutter a bird will suddenly appear as a dot on one or two frames, and have to be erased in post. But if I I’m using a super slow shutter speed, birds and bugs will usually be blurred out and not visible at all. So, if you want to capture a smooth-flowing time-lapse you'll almost always want to use some measure of Slow Shutter with Interval Recording. That’s what I do, and I love the look.

And you couldn't afford to pay me what I would charge to watch Blair Witch a second time. I'd rather sit in an empty room and watch paint dry.😵

Alister, those are some great looking images. I'd love to see some footage of the performance if you are ever able to post anything. What options do you have for focusing the FR7? I assume it must have Face/Eye detect, but what about full manual, touch-tracking, or push-auto? Can any of those be done remotely? What device are you using to operate the camera?

There's no question in my mind that the FX6 offers the best auto-focus capability of any video camera ever made by any manufacturer. But you can't just take the camera out of the box and use the default settings. I was on my way home last Sunday afternoon from another shoot when I noticed quite a few people riding Jet Skis on a local river. So, I took the opportunity to experiment with shooting some 4K high-speed action footage (120 fps) without ever touching the manual focus ring on my 200-600mm lens and 2.0x teleconverter, which is equivalent to a 1200mm lens). Everything in this video was shot over a period of about 45 minutes without ever using manual focus. I would just tap on the camera's LCD to tell it where I wanted to focus and then the camera would take over. Sometimes the camera would even automatically switch over to Face Detect auto-focus when people became prominent in the frame. I think the AF did an amazing job and it rarely missed. BTW, I've cut these clips short just to make a more interesting highlights video, but almost all of the clips run for 15-20 seconds . . . with perfect focus. In case you're interested in learning about my FX6 auto-focus settings and techniques, I've posted a video I produced last spring after firmware 2.0 was released. Camera: Sony FX6 Lens: Sony 200-600mm with 2.0 teleconverter Tripod: Sachtler Aktiv8 head and Flowtech75 legs Codec: 4K XAVC-I @ 23.98 Slow-motion: S&Q MOtion @ 120 fps Shooting Mode: S-LOG3 Grading: DaVinci Resolve

I've never seen A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night and The Love Witch (I'll add them to my watch list), but the other three are definitely worthy of being on the list. My own list of most cinematic horror films would have to include The Shining, the original Halloween, Zombie Land, and Young Frankenstein. Although, I guess it is debatable whether the last two are horror or comedy, but, either way, they look GREAT! My vote for worst . . . Blair Witch Project. Unwatchable, in my opinion.

When first-time users of Sony cameras get into post, they are often surprised to discover that some of their clips have 4 channels of audio, and some will have 8 channels, depending on the recording format they have chosen. XAVC-L clips are always recorded with 4 tracks of audio, even if some (or all) of those tracks are silent. And XAVC-I clips are always recorded with 8 tracks of audio, even though channels 5 through 8 are only available if you’re using a studio deck, such as Sony's XDS1000 Professional Media Station. As every editor knows, working with clips in post that have a bunch of unwanted audio tracks can make for a messy timeline. So, one of the most common questions I get when I’m out doing training is if there is a way to reduce the number of channels the camera records. Unfortunately, the answer is no, there is nothing you can do onboard your camera to record fewer tracks. But the good news is that it is very easy to strip off any/all of the unwanted audio channels in post before you drag the clips onto your timeline. Here’s how to do it with Adobe Premiere: 1) Import your clips into a new bin. 2) Select all the clips in the bin that you want to change . . . then right-click on any clip . . . and choose “Modify > Audio Channels.” 3) A dialog box will appear that allows you to configure the audio channels however you want. You can even strip off all the audio tracks if you don't want them. I usually choose “2” for the number of tracks and “Mono” for the channel format. 4) Click “OK,” and all of the clips in the bin that were selected will be instantly changed with no re-rendering or other hassles. And since it’s non-destructive, you can always restore the missing audio channels if you change your mind later. 5) Drag the clip(s) to the timeline and commence editing.

Well, it is that time of year again when my summer travels are over and I'm back home in Florida for the winter . . . just like a migrating bird! I am pleased to report that there seems to be a lot more birds around, even at this early date, than we had in the last couple of years. That is really good news. I shot this video last year during the first few weeks I had my FX6, using a couple of manual-focus Canon lenses. Now, when I watch this video I think how much easier it would have been to shoot with the Sony 200-600mm and 70-200mm that I own today. I'd never think of going out to film wildlife without those two lenses.

I think the FR7 is the coolest camera to come along in awhile. I'm on the lookout for a shoot that will give me a good excuse to buy one.

Those are some excellent tips, Danny. I have a couple more to add to the list. First, when I switched to Sachtler Flowtech tripods one of the unexpected benefits was how much shorter they were than my older O'connor sticks. About 8"-10" shorter, which is small enough that I can remove the head (just as you do) and then the legs will fit diagonally in a regular suitcase. No longer to I have to travel with a big tubular case, or take a smaller/lighter tripod and sacrifice performance on the shoot. I can shove the sticks in a suitcase and then fill the rest of the space with other gear or my clothes. Second, I have started putting Apple AirTags in my cases in case any of my luggage ever comes up missing. Fortunately, that has not happened since I started using the AirTags, but I now travel with a little more peace of mind. Finally, not really a tip., but my favorite carry-on is a CineBages CB25 Revolution Backpack. It not only holds a camera body, viewfinder, batteries, lenses, computer, iPad, etc. and is still really comfortable to wear. I highly recommend it.