Alpha 7S III

In 5.9k and 6k Open Gate lowlight performance is even better and you can get away even with 25600. Sony and Lumix ISO is different and 12800 on Panasonic is brighter (and sharper) than same iso value on A7S3 or FX3. I agree about 24 mpxespecially with all social media requirments where even 10 megap

A6700 only has 800/2500, 12800 refers to FX3, A7Siii, that's why I'm afraid with my APS-C

Let me put on my tinfoil hat and get out the conspiracy yarn for a moment: For Sony cameras that don't have explicitly stated "base sensitivities" the generally agreed on way to determine the base ISO is the mentioned method of lowering the ISO until funny lines appear around the number. The lowest

Your only getting true clean low light with the higher base ISO with a high bitrate codec and or 12-bit raw to BRAW/ProRes RAW with NR off, and getting the most out of Slog in post. Clean lowlight seen in production is mainly folks using T1.2 glass or F1.8 zooms, give or take good use of environment

Is Sony still best for extreme low light? I'm a bit out of the loop on the performance of the recent cameras, because I have been working mostly in post-prod. A few years ago, I filmed some auroras with a Sony A7s II and while I was impressed with the low light performance, I disliked the NR treatme

To each their own but I wouldn’t do it. I own an A7siii and upgraded to the FX6 last year. I do a lot of Run and Gun and because of that, I absolutely love the versatility of the FX6 with the NDs. Low light is the same, I wouldn’t even bother comparing it. My a7siii ends up weighing more than my FX6

I shoot with the S1ii. All my seconds shoot Sony (A7S3 + FX3). First of all, the stabilization is much better with Lumix. But for me, I much prefer the image quality. The Sony footage just feels "thin" in comparison, especially skin. It's hard to put into words but skin tones on the Sony just feel o