Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Should I upgrade to M-X sensor?

Guys, is there any sample of highlight streaking issue for MX that you can attach as sample for us to see ?
 
Thanks gays for your advices! I am in documentary work and I do not rent. Also, I am very pleased with my R1 footage. Now I want to get Fixed lens Scarlet as well. This is background of my dilema - upgrade or Scarlet - there is no money for all of it!
 
Rick Darge said:
With M-Sensor, I would rate 200-500, most of the time at 320. For ENG stuff, I never liked to go past 640. 2% of the time I might have went to 800 and 0.0001% I would go to 1000, oh godddddddd my eyesss!!!

With MX-Sensor, I rate it at 200-1600, most of the time at 800. Night exteriors at 2000. Sometimes, for fun, 3200.

Best part is being able to expose at 800 and bring back your highlights or easily push your shadows. You have a lot more flexibility in post with this new rating benchmark
Click to expand...

I think this is the best response yet. Thank you.

Also I think that some of the folks on here assume that everyone that has purchased a RED is working with huge budgets or their personally rich. For someone like myself and many others $6000 thousand dollars for this upgrade, that can't be recovered when going for Stage 3, is something to think about. Its not a "No Brainer". Especially when I shoot in the outdoors during daylight 99% of the time.

My question is, if your shooting in perfect afternoon/morning light, with your ISO at 320, and your exposure at F 5.6/F 8, would the MX produce a superior image over the M? Or does the MX just work better in super low light?

If it is a far more superior image in perfect light than its something I will consider. I will also have to play my cards on when the Epic Stage 3 is available. If I go and spend an extra $6000 on the MX and the Stage 3 becomes available in the next 8-12 months I would be bummed. That "No Brainer" $6000 dollar upgrade might not be something I or many others need right now.

Maybe I am missing something though. Please chime in and let me know. Thanks for the info!!!!
 
dustin lindgren said:
Also I think that some of the folks on here assume that everyone that has purchased a RED is working with huge budgets or their personally rich. For someone like myself and many others $6000 thousand dollars for this upgrade, that can't be recovered when going for Stage 3, is something to think about. Its not a "No Brainer". Especially when I shoot in the outdoors during daylight 99% of the time.

My question is, if your shooting in perfect afternoon/morning light, with your ISO at 320, and your exposure at F 5.6/F 8, would the MX produce a superior image over the M? Or does the MX just work better in super low light?
Click to expand...

The MX sensor has about 2 more stops of dynamic range. I would suggest that when you are shooting outside this is the most important place to have more dynamic range.

Yes. $6000 is a lot, but so is pulling out HMI's on a shoot to fill in shadows.

If you are a doc shooter, then you sometimes just go for the shadow detail (if it is faces in the shade on a sunny day) and let the highlights go. With the MX this problem isn't eliminated, but you will be capturing more image information. As a DP I can only see this as an advantage - and an advantage worth the $6000.
 
dustin lindgren said:
I think this is the best response yet. Thank you.

Also I think that some of the folks on here assume that everyone that has purchased a RED is working with huge budgets or their personally rich. For someone like myself and many others $6000 thousand dollars for this upgrade, that can't be recovered when going for Stage 3, is something to think about. Its not a "No Brainer". Especially when I shoot in the outdoors during daylight 99% of the time.

My question is, if your shooting in perfect afternoon/morning light, with your ISO at 320, and your exposure at F 5.6/F 8, would the MX produce a superior image over the M? Or does the MX just work better in super low light?

If it is a far more superior image in perfect light than its something I will consider. I will also have to play my cards on when the Epic Stage 3 is available. If I go and spend an extra $6000 on the MX and the Stage 3 becomes available in the next 8-12 months I would be bummed. That "No Brainer" $6000 dollar upgrade might not be something I or many others need right now.

Maybe I am missing something though. Please chime in and let me know. Thanks for the info!!!!
Click to expand...
For anyone on a budget, with any piece of equipment or software you must evaluate things based on your needs and the needs of your clients. If you have been successfully capturing images with the R1 Mysterium and both you and the client are happy then I recommend keep shooting. Only upgrade if you have the need and can afford it. If you rent the camera out, and suddenly are losing a lot of rentals to M-X cameras, then that is a decision to make.

Even with all of the decreases in video and post equipment over the last few years, this can still be an expensive endeavor. At some point, the folks on limited budgets have to ask themselves, do they need to have the latest and greatest to do their work and make a living. If we can't afford it, we must keep shooting. I'm on a budget. I sprung for the M-X upgrade because I needed it to shoot in some lower light conditions. But I've managed to get very good results with Mysterium in normal shooting conditions and would have been comfortable staying there if I couldn't scrape up the money to do the upgrade.

If you have the funds, I highly recommend this upgrade!
 
Milan Nikolic said:
Thanks gays for your advices! I am in documentary work and I do not rent. Also, I am very pleased with my R1 footage. Now I want to get Fixed lens Scarlet as well. This is background of my dilema - upgrade or Scarlet - there is no money for all of it!
Click to expand...

Upgrade. Period. You will be a much happier documentary film maker with an M-X'd RED.

David
 
Upgrade

Upgrade

I'm glad some people are expressing the belief that at the end of the day, it's important to consider your own business' position and needs before blindly taking the upgrade (and before blindly refusing it).

Yes, the new sensor appears to be so freakin' cool that everyone should have one!

Yes, it'd be far easier for us smaller crews to make a smart decision if we knew when Epic Stage Three will drop.

For now, we're holding off on the MX upgrade. Now, that can change- especially if we get more than one new client in the next month who wants us to shoot night stuff or lowlight. But until that need is there... we will wait. In this economy, you need to keep your powder dry, and I'd much rather have the funds available to shoot another spec spot or two, or some personal creative project, than to do an upgrade that most of our clients (and that's just us, I know every sitch is different) wouldn't notice. Plus, it's easy enough for us, being in LA, to rent a MX body if needed.
 
MX I would NEVER rate under 500...

You will actually lose dynamic range..

id say for best performance.. keep it in 500-1000 range.. for most latitude up and down

500-640 for daylight
800-2000 for night
 
REDUSer.net is Magic

REDUSer.net is Magic

So, as soon as I posted that unless we get a couple of gigs this month that'll need the MX we'll stay M for now... we landed one!

Now, need that second, baby, daddy needs a new OLPF!
 
James T Mather said:
Well, dual mis-use of possessive grammar aside (your brain's what exactly?) - your condescending response is not a constructive argument.

I have seen (and heard) many things about the MX sensor (some public, some very private) - I have heard many arguments from many top end professionals working with the footage who tell me there is no difference in the sensors in well-lit properly exposed footage. Further, that there are contrast streaking issues with the sensor, that the footage seems more videolike in its motion and so on.

I have also heard it's faster (in ISO terms) but this is not in itself a benefit if the contrast builds up too, nor the video-like motion rendering.

Further I have plunked down a chunk of change to purchase an Epic only to be told shortly afterwards that there is now a bug in the system (From what I have heard I suspect I know what this is) that has been plaguing Red for two months (that means they took my Epic down-payment knowing about the bug).

We are using our brains. You?

To everyone who took the time to post a useful response. Many thanks. Appreciated.
Click to expand...

TOTAL FUD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top