PDA

View Full Version : A Sony guy's question...



moldcad
03-24-2016, 10:55 PM
​I'd be grateful for an unbiased opinion - on paper, the DVX-200 looks like a lot more bang for the buck than the FS7, especially for someone who doesn't need to change lenses. But - considering the two main criteria:

- picture quality
- ergonomics

Would you still buy the DVX-200 over the FS7(K), even if the latter was within your budged?

Thanks,

Piotr

Jonny Gross
03-25-2016, 02:36 AM
I feel like the DVX200 and the FS7 aren't in the same class. The DVX200 is a run n gun camera, albeit a very good looking one. The images it produces can be gorgeous and much more cinematic than your average 1/3" chip cams. The FS7 on the other hand is another kettle of fish. It's a cinema camera, much heavier and with more moving parts. It's more designed for use in a situation where you have more time to set up the shot, ie, on a set. The images it produces are also of a higher class, as is Sony's S-Log much more effective than the DVX's V-Log L. I'd say it depends on what my application would be.

Having said that, a more suitable deathmatch would be between the DVX200 and the FS5. With kit lens, the FS5 can match the DVX's features, but still comes up slightly ahead of the DVX. It's smaller, lighter and can produce FS7 like images, but again, depending on your application. I've heard people swear by the FS5 as the best run n gun camera they've ever used, yet I can't imaging trading in my DVX for something with interchangeable lenses and a more artistic spectrum of features in my intense, time sensitive general work environment.

My advice, do your homework, decide what you need, but DVX vs FS7 is not really the fight. Compare with FS5.

moldcad
03-25-2016, 02:45 AM
All very true, except that UHD at 50p is a very important feature to me; if only the FS5 had that...

PS. With the newest firmware, is the noise still a problem on the DVX200? Can it be compared to what I used to live with on my EX1?

moldcad
03-25-2016, 03:50 AM
Also, I should have stated in my OP that due to a serious neck spine condition, unfortunately I don't shoot professionally any more, so a camera like the FS7 would never had a chance to earn for itself :( However, I'd like to have a future-proof (4K) equipment for my retirement days, which are not so far away, and use it just as a serious hobby. With the DVX200 priced below the half of FS7K price, unless it really has some serious shortcomings, it looks like a choice... Please comment.

Robert Bale Eventshd
03-25-2016, 05:24 AM
Moldcad, I come from a Sony EX back ground, Ex1, Ex3, X70 on so .....with the DVX200, it was my first purchase away from Sony. At first I was not happy with a lot of things, but it growing on me, I still think they need and will keep updating with firmware. The look of the image is different to the Sony, so it will take a bit of time to adjust. We shoot a lot of live events and concerts, works well, we also do in studio recording, perfect. I think you will be pretty happy, just give it a it of time to make the change over.

starcentral
03-25-2016, 05:35 AM
I suggest you ask this question in the Sony section, you'll get 5,334 replies in one day and some good entertainment (and hopefully valuable information) from the folks there in the meantime.

I own the F55 and hire a second FS7 cam for some shoots. I've also owned DVX100, DVX200 and later on HPX170. Well what can I say these are definitely different types of camera's. Features and specs aside the big difference I'm sure you know is the sensor size. Shooting with super35mm is really hard for some people moving over from 1/3" CCD. Im not saying it is super hard impossible, Im saying that people who haven't shot with super35mm sensors before can have a hard time and need time to transition. (unless you shoot f11/f16 :cheesy: )

With a wide range zoom, the FS7 can be just as versatile for run and gun as a DVX. I think the newer gen Sony camera's are a bit complicated to understand for a lot of people. They tend to have a lot of gotcha's from when you can enable an exposure tool to being limited to three color temperature presets in certain modes.

For the money, I would not invest in an FS5. If it was half the price of a FS7 then "maybe" yes. But it only does 8-bit in 4K (it will do 10-bit in HD) so that's a lot of money just to get a small form factor and access to S-Log gamma which in reality you can get with a DSLR Sony A6300 for 5.6 times less in cost, or an A7sii for 1.8 times less in cost.

If 1080p in high frame rates are your desire, then I think you should go for an FS7 and you won't regret it with all the features it has… but do make sure you do some testing shooting with a zoom lens on a super 35mm camera to see if it's something you feel you want to manage. It can be a bit daunting at first, but eventually you get fast with it and it becomes easy.

I put together a great comparison of specs on the FS5 / FS7 / F5 and F55 if you want to get a better idea of the differences:
http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2015/11/fs5-fs7-f555-paper-differences/

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Bassman2003
03-25-2016, 06:57 AM
Piotr,

I am a Panasonic guy who currently uses the PX270 for a lot of work and am in the market for a nice shallow DOF camera. I thought the DVC200 was going to be that camera. A friend let me borrow his for the day and I was disappointed with the image quality and the slowish lens. The image has mud in the shadows areas that I could not dial out. While the color correction controls are top notch, this heavy low end just makes the images look DSLR-ish to me. Frankly I expected better from Panasonic. Side by side with the PX270 is a "no contest" win for the PX270 for me.

My hope is that Panasonic lets the broadcast team take a crack at the form factor and they can create a PX430.

These days you really have to decide what you want to shoot with a certain camera because the intended usage is quite narrow.

Mike Harvey
03-25-2016, 05:00 PM
I love my DVX200... especially after this week's firmware update... but I've also recently gotten a little (emphasis on "little") experience with the FS7. Would I had to do it all over again, if I had the cash for an FS7? Yes, but that isn't a knock against the FS7. That thing makes gorgeous images. I am definitely a fan. BUT, for my work, I couldn't justify the cost, especially if it meant I had to go back to swapping lenses at inconvenient times like my previous AF100 or my current GH4.

NorBro
03-25-2016, 05:30 PM
OP: For a hobby, I think you should maybe do a bit more browsing?

Maybe there are some other cameras out there that you may not know about that will offer the features you are looking for while keeping the costs down.

moldcad
03-25-2016, 11:37 PM
Thanks guys for all the comments. I have no doubts the picture quality will be better on the FS7, but I have a difficult time trying to justify the cost difference. Also - due to my neck spine condition and resulting weak and trembling hands - I'm not an enthusiast of swapping lenses. Even though I'm not new to the S35 world; I used to have an FS100, and as long as my body served me better - actually enjoyed swapping lenses, and the challenge the super-shallow DOF created; in fact I learnt to be quite proficient as focus racking. BUT, there are still some valid considerations:

1. I realize picture quality is subjective to some degree, and is difficult to measure like this, but would you say that it's over 2x worse on the DVX than on the FS7?

2. The ergonomics of the FS7 seems ideal to me - the bulk of camera weight resting on my shoulder, with the LCD loupe against my eye. But does the FS7 really work well this way out of the box? Seeing how much people spend on additional rig, I doubt it

3. As to "other cameras out there that I may not know about that will offer the features you are looking for while keeping the costs down": sorry, I did my research and there is none, apart from the FS7 (ergonomis, great PQ, great codecs with 10 bit 422 UHD/4K and Intraframe compression - all of which come for the price which is my problem), and the DVX-200 (much cheaper, yet still with UHD @ 50 fps 422, albeit 8 bit internally and with much worse ergonomis).

4. I guess (please correct me if wrong) that for somebody with weakened arms, the combination of 50 fps and the 5-axis stabilization DVX-200 offers may save many a 4K take; all the "other" 4K cameras only offer 25 fps and worse stabilization which translates to many unusable (shaky and blurry) shots in the hands like mine :(

Considering all the above, my question again: after the latest firmware release, is the maximum (tweaked by experts like Barry) picture quality possible with the DVX-200 really worse than that from FS7 by the factor of 2.5, as the price difference would suggest?

moldcad
03-25-2016, 11:57 PM
I was disappointed with the image quality and the slowish lens. The image has mud in the shadows areas that I could not dial out.

And this has been with which fw version?

Mike Harvey
03-26-2016, 02:03 PM
4. I guess (please correct me if wrong) that for somebody with weakened arms, the combination of 50 fps and the 5-axis stabilization DVX-200 offers may save many a 4K take; all the "other" 4K cameras only offer 25 fps and worse stabilization which translates to many unusable (shaky and blurry) shots in the hands like mine :(

This was my thought when I first read about the shaky hands... right until you got to 4k. Please note, the 5-axis stabilization ONLY works HD mode... but it works quite well. and 4k is only available at 100mb/s


Considering all the above, my question again: after the latest firmware release, is the maximum (tweaked by experts like Barry) picture quality possible with the DVX-200 really worse than that from FS7 by the factor of 2.5, as the price difference would suggest?

I only installed the firmware update on Thursday, but immediadtely shot concerts at my church with it that night and the night after. Using Barry's "Natural" scene file without any tweeks to adjust for the new firmware, I was quite happy with the result. It definately needs to be tweeked, but the image, to my eye, was noticably better.

Is the FS7 image 2.5 times better? Not enough to justify that much more money for a dedicated hobby where swapping lenses is a pain in the rear given your physical condition. Laws of diminishing return and all...

Jonny Gross
03-27-2016, 01:31 AM
I suggest you ask this question in the Sony section, you'll get 5,334 replies in one day and some good entertainment (and hopefully valuable information) from the folks there in the meantime.

I own the F55 and hire a second FS7 cam for some shoots. I've also owned DVX100, DVX200 and later on HPX170. Well what can I say these are definitely different types of camera's. Features and specs aside the big difference I'm sure you know is the sensor size. Shooting with super35mm is really hard for some people moving over from 1/3" CCD. Im not saying it is super hard impossible, Im saying that people who haven't shot with super35mm sensors before can have a hard time and need time to transition. (unless you shoot f11/f16 :cheesy: )

With a wide range zoom, the FS7 can be just as versatile for run and gun as a DVX. I think the newer gen Sony camera's are a bit complicated to understand for a lot of people. They tend to have a lot of gotcha's from when you can enable an exposure tool to being limited to three color temperature presets in certain modes.

For the money, I would not invest in an FS5. If it was half the price of a FS7 then "maybe" yes. But it only does 8-bit in 4K (it will do 10-bit in HD) so that's a lot of money just to get a small form factor and access to S-Log gamma which in reality you can get with a DSLR Sony A6300 for 5.6 times less in cost, or an A7sii for 1.8 times less in cost.

If 1080p in high frame rates are your desire, then I think you should go for an FS7 and you won't regret it with all the features it has… but do make sure you do some testing shooting with a zoom lens on a super 35mm camera to see if it's something you feel you want to manage. It can be a bit daunting at first, but eventually you get fast with it and it becomes easy.

I put together a great comparison of specs on the FS5 / FS7 / F5 and F55 if you want to get a better idea of the differences:
http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2015/11/fs5-fs7-f555-paper-differences/

Good luck with whatever you decide.

What I'm saying is that in order to make the FS7 run n gun, you need to spend more money on top of what you're spending to being with. Granted, the FS5 doesn't take a lot of that away, considering it's price point, but I think it's a closer fight between that and a DVX200. In any case a long enough zoom lens would be cumbersome, heavy and extremely expensive to tack on to either of the Sony cams, so if you need a range like the dvx, a fixed lens is a better option.

Then you can easily get into a fight over the specs. 422 10 bit vs notgoodenough etc. My point is that if you have the budget and your options are between a DVX and an FS7, then you're not going to be happy with a DVX. The FS7 is way out there above the dvx. I've used both and as I say, it depends entirely on your needs and applications. I personally own a dvx becuase my business requires it more than an FS7. Both image wise and ergonomically, it's perfect for me. But lord, I'd love to won an FS7. Thing is, if I'm shooting a film, or even directing one, an FS7 or something equal to or above it is rented. So, no need. Which is why I say, for owning, FS5. Personal opinion. Yes, a good Sony DSLR can be a better option, but if you're like me and can't stand DSLR's and the issues they bring, the options become more limited.

Bassman2003
03-27-2016, 05:50 AM
And this has been with which fw version?

I do not know the number exactly but it was right before the latest color change.

What do you think you will film the most with the camera? Live events where you need long lens reach? Situations where you change between wide and tele a lot? Hand held vs tripod? 4k vs 1080p

The DVX is a little compromised in 4k even though it does have 4k60p. I set the lens to full wide in 1080p then changed the camera to 4k and you pretty much lose 1/3 of the frame due to the sensor crop. That is a big deal to me. I also noticed a fair amount of barrel distortion which is sad given the Leica badge on the lens.

I have never used an F7 so I can not offer any comparison. Maybe something will show up at NAB this year.

Ron Evans
03-27-2016, 07:05 AM
Moldcad, I am looking for an upgrade to my FDR-AX1 and for me UHD60P is the only reason I have the AX1 so is a must for any UHD new camera. I too would have bought the FS5 if it had UHD 60P. At the moment the choices for UHD 50/60P are the FDR-AX1 ( which I have ) the PXW-Z100 ( Pro version of the FDR-AX1 ), HCX1000, ( much like the FDR-AX1 maybe even the same sensor !!! ) , DVX200 that crops in UHD, the FS7 and more expensive options . So at a reasonable cost the DVX200 is currently the only option with a reasonable sensor size etc. Any of the interchangeable lens options like the FS7, URSA Mini etc are over twice the cost of the DVX200 when one buys lenses, expensive media, batteries etc to make them work !!! So you have a choice at anything reasonable in cost, effectively 1/3" sensors that are not that good in low light ( AX1, Z100, HCX1000 ) or the DVX200. The HCX1000 and DVX200 use SDXC cards but the Sony's use more expensive XQD cards. None of them will compete with the FS7 but all will be less than half the cost and a lot easier to manage. I am waiting to see what comes out but at the moment I think a trade of my AX1 for a DVX200 with a wide angle adapter is my choice.

Ron Evans

morgan_moore
03-27-2016, 09:52 AM
Id say that there are factors in camera choice..

image,
typically I would say data rate and bit depth are good indicators. AFAIK the panny is weak here.

ease of use,
ND, XLR, zoom lens, here the panny is marginally (to a lot?) ahead of the FS7

mass
the panny is ahead of a built FS7.

BUT.
You are 'weak' meaning mass is an issue,
you are 'retired' meaning you probably don't shoot under great pressure to get shots covered very quickly - maybe you dont need ease of use
You are 'retired' which means you probably have time to create wonderful considered work.. which would rely on a great codec.

One could therefore suggest that 'ease of use' is the least prominent factor to you with low mass and great codec sliding up the ladder.

Now with the FS7 you take a big addition of mass to get some extra 'ease of use' (that you may not need) compared to a BM Pocket, a A7s or whatever.

I would consider..

Black magic Pocket.. very light and great file.
Canon XC10.. 400MBs CLog 4k should be a very robust file in a small light camera package
A7Sii and GH4 should also I guess be on your radar as could the BMC4k (small silver one)

S

DLD
03-27-2016, 11:07 AM
There's also Z 150 that's just came out. A slightly smaller sensor than DVX200 but not significantly so in 4K and it runs a grand less.

Ron Evans
03-27-2016, 12:18 PM
Piotr like me have 50/60P UHD as a requirement so none of these meet that requirement, neither does the Z150. Unless one goes to expensive media then the data rate limit is going to be about 150Mbps whether on SDXC or XQD for 8bit UHD at 50/60P. Moving up from the DVX200 then one is in to double the cost for 50/60P UHD and much more expensive media in XQD for the FS7 or CF 2.0 for the URSA for example. Sony clearly have a reason for not putting 50/60P UHD on either the FS5 or the Z150 but I am sure it is not technical but marketing.

moldcad
03-27-2016, 11:21 PM
Ron - unfortunately, you are 100% right. I'm very grateful to all other guys' advise and suggestions in this thread, but I guess they didn't read my message right: in all my endeavors in life, I never ever compromised on anything. So I did mention several times it needs to be 50p - not necessarily full DCI 4K, but at least QFHD. Only 2 cameras currently on the market can give me that - hence this thread is basically about DVX-200 vs. FS7.

Morgan is right that not being under pressure during my "serious hobby" filming, I don't necessarily need my camera to warrant "ease of use" - to the contrary, I'll be happy to prepare my shooting carefully and without haste. So again this points towards the FS7... Basically, it's only the price that makes me even consider the DVX-200 - but should I had buyer's remorse due to poor picture quality, I probably prefer to break my bank and go with the FS7 :)

And all the other things people suggest here (Z150, XC10, BM) are out of question because of their ergonomics and lack of 50p QFHD/4K codec. I hope nobody gets offended by me dismissing their suggestions like that :)

Also, if I don't even mention the Z100 (which does have UHD @ 50fps; it even offers I-frame codec just like the FS7 does, and for my editing, I'd prefer I-frame codec as well) is because of its small chip size. And the imager small size is a no-no for me not because it's unable to provide shallow DOF (which in my book is not a must-be with super detailed 4K picture that looks best if all in focus), but because of tiny pixels that cannot be good enough in low light. Which again boils down to not good enough PQ (noise and low sensitivity).

Of course, for some of my planned "beauty shots" a shallow DOF would be welcome, but you know what? My old good EX1 with Letus adapter and some nice, vintage Canon glass has always been, and still is, the best tool to achieve that! Yeah, I know it's just HD - but in my opinion, HD is better for that elusive "filmic look" than 4K/UHD - after all, 99% of cinema theaters still have projectors unable of higher resolution (at least in Poland), so in my personal perception the detailed look of UHD is more about TV and video than film. I realize what I just wrote may sound silly to some, but that's the way I feel. Therefore - while planning a "film" rather than a glorious, out-of-the-window looking, 4K video - I'll probably produce it in HD, using my EX1/Letus combo and the new 4K camera used either in HD for those slow motion and other effects, or just as a substitute for cranes, sliders and dollies effects obtained by panning & scanning HD window inside my 4K material during edits.

So to sum it up: it's either going to be the FS7, or should I not be able to afford it right away - waiting for something fulfilling my criteria, but "a tad" cheaper. Cheers

Piotr

Ron Evans
03-28-2016, 04:29 AM
Other than the FS7 there is the Ursa Mini 4.6K and you could use your Canon lenses on that too. They both use expensive media though but if your shoots are not that long it may mot be a problem https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursamini

Ron

starcentral
03-28-2016, 04:33 AM
the FS7 is a good choice, but for the price of a new one you might be able to snag a used F5 for only a bit more.

The reason I recommend the F5 is because it has more codec options (SR Codec, ProRes and DNxHD) and if you rent/buy the R5 RAW module you can access RAW in 16-bit. The FS7 RAW stream is flawed, 12-bit, and unlikely Sony will fix it. The F5 also has an FZ mount and includes a PL to FZ mount so you can mount almost any lens from Canon, Nikon, etc.. that you might want. Also have a look at the body in person, oddly enough the FS7 is not alot smaller than the F5/F55 bodies and some people prefer the VF system from the F5/F55 over the FS7 of course you can add anything you want to any camera.

Again check out my comparison of Sony models on the previous page and there was a thread here on DVX as well http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?341008-paper-differences-summarized-between-F55-F5-FS7-FS5

cheers,

morgan_moore
03-28-2016, 10:58 AM
Im not up on the BMC 4.6 specs but if it does 4k 50p then surely that is the camera for you.

Apparently very nice images (not suprising given the data rates)

Cheap (er than the FS7?) and working at a slow pace the lack of ND and inability to speedboost (?) and the like will not become a major issue.

The codec is pretty heavy (scary to some clients and annoying to DIT on location) but in retirement you have time to transcode to something lighter if required.

---

The F5 is quite heavy and the Time Code in and lens mount only really pay dividends on PL or multicamera shooting. The F5 is not the camera for you.

S

starcentral
03-28-2016, 11:23 AM
There are so many advantages to a CineAlta camera that only a small incremental cost it should not be quickly dismissed.

One reason alone is the continued development and future firmware updates while the non-CineAlta's will fall by the way side or not be powerful enough to handle anything new.

The body size is near identical within 2" inches of one another so I don't get any argument about ergo. Even the weights are 10% off from each other.

4 SDI outs, probably a better CFA, and even the ND filters are rumored to be better quality. The path to 16-bit RAW, RAW without a tether, RAW that works, path to full 4k 120fps via new R7 recorder that is not cropped... this comparison needs it's own thread alone.

morgan_moore
03-28-2016, 11:27 AM
Your points are fair, but I feel someone considering a DVX200 will probably not have the budget to be going for a fully built (raw) F5.. which also adds additional mass.

S

starcentral
03-28-2016, 11:34 AM
Well that's true.

At least the RAW can be rented instead of bought.

I actually miss my HPX170 which I sold before upgrading to the F3. At least Panasonic was doing the right things with cards instead of silly mini DV tapes.

DLD
03-28-2016, 02:37 PM
... And all the other things people suggest here (Z150, XC10, BM) are out of question because of their ergonomics and lack of 50p QFHD/4K codec. I hope nobody gets offended by me dismissing their suggestions like that :)

Piotr Had I still been duking it out in the ring under my old "Andrzej Gołota" moniker, I'd consider this a low blow.


the FS7 is a good choice, but for the price of a new one you might be able to snag a used F5 for only a bit more... IMO, a used camera market requires a certain number of buyers and sellers, which may not be the case in parts of the world.

Jonny Gross
03-29-2016, 01:10 AM
50p or no, I'm just saying that the DVX200 vs the FS7 is not a fair fight, they're not in the same league or for the same purpose. If you decide to go for the DVX and you're expecting images to rival the FS7, you won't get it! Trust me, I bought this camera while at the same time editing a short shot on the FS7. Not gonna happen.

moldcad
03-29-2016, 01:20 AM
I set the lens to full wide in 1080p then changed the camera to 4k and you pretty much lose 1/3 of the frame due to the sensor crop.

I wonder if you're exaggerating in your "1/3 frame" assessment, or the official Panasonic specs are too optimistic - quote:

35mm film equivalent. Varies depending on the video
recording format. FHD: 28mm, 4K/24p: 29.5mm, UHD/30p:
30.6mm, UHD/60p: 37.2mm


This is still quite wide when compared to the FS7K kit lens (SELP28135), which in 35mm terms starts at 42mm...

moldcad
03-29-2016, 01:24 AM
50p or no, I'm just saying that the DVX200 vs the FS7 is not a fair fight, they're not in the same league or for the same purpose. If you decide to go for the DVX and you're expecting images to rival the FS7, you won't get it! Trust me, I bought this camera while at the same time editing a short shot on the FS7. Not gonna happen.

Believe me - I'm not expecting the PQ of DVX-200 to rival the FS7K; just trying to learn from you guys on this forum whether the DVX-200 image quality is still good enough for my retirement hobby purposes, and if the difference is worth the 100% price increase...

morgan_moore
03-29-2016, 02:07 AM
Why is the BMC4.6 not on you map? This price seems much closer to the DVX (although you will need to buy some ND)

moldcad
03-29-2016, 02:13 AM
Considering DVX200 ergonomics and in the light of what I wrote about inability to hand-hold a camera with this form factor in bare hands in front of me for prolonged time - please take a look at what I've been using with my EX1, and tell me whether DVX200 would fit such a shoulder mount, too. I reckon it would - my only doubt is about monitoring: DVX LCD monitor is high-gloss, so unusable in full daylight; also I'm becoming more and more far-sighted so I need a loupe with diopter adjustment, as the naked LCD would just be too close to my eyes. With the EX1, I've used the Hoodman loupe - does a similar device for the larger DVX200 LCD exist? Even if it does - is it possible to give up the touch-screen functionality and use menu, or preferably user buttons programmed for the most important functions?

Of course - without the matte-box, the rig would be much less front-heavy; also on the right grip handle I would attach some Varizoom controller. What do you think?

Piotr

moldcad
03-29-2016, 02:15 AM
Why is the BMC4.6 not on you map? This price seems much closer to the DVX (although you will need to buy some ND)

Simply because I don't believe a non-camera company to stand by their product the way Sony or Panasonic do...

Oh, and regarding the lack of ND - no thanks. I went trough that with my FS100 (now sold) - the BMC looks very nice and tidy on the shoulder as is, but start adding filters and it will demand a mattebox, rails etc. Yeah I know variND filters exist (I used Heliopan), but even this is not an ideal solution if I want a camera as simple as it gets...

morgan_moore
03-29-2016, 03:04 AM
Personally (ive shot a feature on BMC4k the old one - it worked really well) I think BMC are solid cameras, as long as one understands the limitations in ISO or whatever.

FYI we shot said film without a matte box, just step rings on the glass to 77mm and two ND filters .3 and .6 and a frech flag which could be needed on any camera.

Unlike the FS100 (which I owned) the lower base ISO of the BMC cameras makes ND less of an issue. The deep ND required to control the FS100 was a nightmare inducing colours shifts and multiple workarouds that had me pulling my hair out :)

I just think the image quality at reasonable ISO (if you care) is probably in a different class from the DVX.

The choice is of course yours. You may consider going to a dealer and doing a side by side of the cameras and taking some files home to play with.

S

moldcad
03-29-2016, 03:32 AM
Dear Morgan,
If anything, I like the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K EF very much; 4.6K - as well as PL version - is more expensive. But even with that, you need to add the price of the EVF, shouldermount rig, and of course the lenses. Now each of them would need different ND filter size... Also, the media is not cheap, either. I'm afraid it would all be closer to the FS7, than DVX200, price... Also, 12G SDI but no HDMI 2.0 scares me a bit (even though it's much more "pro").

Added what I said about my preference to stay in the mainstream, I'm afraid I'd prefer the FS7...But then, maybe I'm wrong?

morgan_moore
03-29-2016, 03:45 AM
I own an FS7 and would not swap it for the BM4.6k for my work, The FS7 delivers ND, convenient lens mount, data rates that do not scare clients.

Should I retire I would swap in an instant because I guess my pace would drop and my data management become more lesurly.

I think the 4.6k has a better picture than the FS7 certainly up to 800ISO but of course that is going on scant information. With an 880MBS (at 25p!) codec one would hope for a better picture than a 2-300 mbs codec

As for ND my glass is 77mm or less. A step up ring from 52 to 77 cost $5. So no need to have many filter sizes.

If you are not having a matte box and dont need rods then the cost of the rig goes away. Get a $30 flag on an arm to beat massive flare.

Im not too up on the DVX 200 but AKFAIK it is 8bit4.2.0 at a low data rate.. I doubt it hits (to my personal standard) the medal of 'making pretty pictures'
The FS7 is 10bit and 200 odd MBS.. this seems to be just about hitting the level of 'making pretty pictures'
Im pretty sure that in good light the BMC4.6 'makes pretty pictures'

Personally I feel any 4.2.0 camera is a DLSR with a microphone input.

And that is a problem of staying 'mainstream'.. the makers have a cultural hat that means their budget options (aka not the varicamLT in pannies case) are all aimed at wedding guys who need to record hours on $500 or less of media which leads to horror compression that does not deliver pretty pictures.

Panny even admit it.. http://pro-av.panasonic.net/en/dvx4k/pdf/ag-dvx200_tech_brief_vol4_en.pdf


S

moldcad
03-29-2016, 04:02 AM
Morgan - do you think the EF version would accept Metabones Speedbooster with an appropriate lens?

morgan_moore
03-29-2016, 04:05 AM
EF mount has a deep flange depth and will not take a speed booster in any shape or form with any lens from any maker.

I think EF is a ludicrous mount and cannot see why the varicam or the BM cameras use it.

But surely a retired guy has time to swap out a couple of primes?

If you need to tool up with an affordable runabout zoom then E-mount or MFT mount works well.

---

BTW I think the DVX200 is a tragedy (I see they have just put out a new firmware designed to make prettier pictures.. showing they know the weakness)

An MFT camera with built in zoom and a chunky codec would be my dream camera panny could do it so easily.

S

moldcad
03-29-2016, 04:15 AM
Silly me - I had the E-mount in the back of my head :)

starcentral
03-29-2016, 05:26 AM
Dear Morgan,
If anything, I like the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4K EF very much; 4.6K - as well as PL version - is more expensive. But even with that, you need to add the price of the EVF, shouldermount rig, and of course the lenses. Now each of them would need different ND filter size... Also, the media is not cheap, either. I'm afraid it would all be closer to the FS7, than DVX200, price... Also, 12G SDI but no HDMI 2.0 scares me a bit (even though it's much more "pro").

Added what I said about my preference to stay in the mainstream, I'm afraid I'd prefer the FS7...But then, maybe I'm wrong?

I agree with Morgan 100%.

And this discussion is taking place as we speak. After page 7 is where the thread actually turns serious.

FS7 vs 4.6k is discussed in a bit more detail which may interest you :

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?343438-5-reasons-the-URSA-Mini-is-better-than-the-Sony-FS7/page11

moldcad
03-29-2016, 09:03 PM
Considering DVX200 ergonomics and in the light of what I wrote about inability to hand-hold a camera with this form factor in bare hands in front of me for prolonged time - please take a look at what I've been using with my EX1, and tell me whether DVX200 would fit such a shoulder mount, too. I reckon it would - my only doubt is about monitoring: DVX LCD monitor is high-gloss, so unusable in full daylight; also I'm becoming more and more far-sighted so I need a loupe with diopter adjustment, as the naked LCD would just be too close to my eyes. With the EX1, I've used the Hoodman loupe - does a similar device for the larger DVX200 LCD exist? Even if it does - is it possible to give up the touch-screen functionality and use menu, or preferably user buttons programmed for the most important functions?

Of course - without the matte-box, the rig would be much less front-heavy; also on the right grip handle I would attach some Varizoom controller. What do you think?

Piotr

Anyone will answer my question, please?

moldcad
03-29-2016, 09:11 PM
Why is the BMC4.6 not on you map? This price seems much closer to the DVX (although you will need to buy some ND)

Morgan,

While answering your above, valid question, I forgot about one perhaps most important reason I've reservations against BMC: perhaps in the US market it's not an issue, but here in Poland any need for repair - be it on warranty or not - would require the PITA procedure of re-exporting it to the US as BMW doesn't have any infrastructure here. This means cost and delays. I wonder how it is in other EU countries; does UK for instance have BM authorized service points for their cameras? Please somebody answer this very important question for me, and I might change my mind :)

The other problem for me is that for some reasons I'd like to buy a camera "for the rest of my life" NOW, and afaik the Ursa mini is still unavailable in EU - or is it?

Piotr

moldcad
03-29-2016, 09:41 PM
EF mount has a deep flange depth and will not take a speed booster in any shape or form with any lens from any maker.

I think EF is a ludicrous mount and cannot see why the varicam or the BM cameras use it.

But surely a retired guy has time to swap out a couple of primes?

If you need to tool up with an affordable runabout zoom then E-mount or MFT mount works well.



Hello Morgan & others having tried or considering the Ursa mini:

Regarding the lens mount (EF vs. PL), is my impression right that even if EF is a - as you put it - "ludicrous mount", I'd be able to find more compatible lenses for it than for PL mount that would not ruin my bank account? If you agree, I would like to start with some - again, as you put it - an affordable runabout EF-compatible zoom lens, and only later add some nice primes to my collection, one by one. Now, my question is this:

Considering the Ursa mini native ISO, which affordable EF-mount zoom would you recommend as my first, runabout lens? Please advise, my experience with interchangeable lenses is limited to those for cameras like Sony E-mount with cheap E-mount adapter... Could it be some Canon F2.8? Does it need to have ISS (Ursa mini doesn't have any in-camera stabilization, afaik)? And for my first lens, I'd prefer one compatible with Ursa mini aperture and focus automation systems. Would this zoom be good enough: http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/canon_ef24-105_f4l_is_usm, or is its F2.8 version necessary for Ursa? TIA,

Piotr

PS. And for my first primes, how about this kit:
http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/samyang_7409_vdslr_kit_2

morgan_moore
03-30-2016, 12:31 AM
I have no idea about service. Personally Ive only had a couple of electronic cameras fail in 20 years.. it is not like they have flapping shutters or tape transport to wear out.

I have had (like many) problems with my EX1 zoom lens.. so moving parts built into the camera seem the biggest threat.. the Panny has a built in zoom lens.

--

Should you buy the BM4.6? I think you need to cost the media and the batteries carefully.

Lenses..

The 24-105 tends to work with a speed booster well.

Without a speed booster I would consider a 17-55 2.8 instead.

The rokinon/samyang primes? I dont think they have the best build but they are ok for the money. 14 3.5 is a bit slow but you cant get the 16/2 instead.. because its not made in ludicrous canon mount.. the rear element needs to be close the the sensor to deliver the price/width/speed ratio

Personally I would be looking for vintage primes.. but not many fit the canon mount without physical modification.

Here we see the canon mount coming in to play.. could this (and local service?) be a good reason to spend the extra and get an FS7.

PL is certainly not the correct mount for a budget setup.

S

moldcad
03-30-2016, 01:45 AM
Will this one fir the EF mount? http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/canon_ef-s-17-55mm-f2.8-is-usm (EF-S mount - how does it differ from regular EF)?
TIA

Piotr

morgan_moore
03-30-2016, 02:40 AM
That is the lense I suggested as a 'normal zoom'

EF and EFs lenses all have the same mount and communication protocol.

EFs lenses have a smaller image circle (designed to cover photo 'APS' sensors which are similar in size to movie S35 sensors ) and will not cover fullframe 35 or work with a speed booster.

EF or EFs lenses will work with the BMC4.6 or the FS7

S

moldcad
03-31-2016, 10:38 PM
Gentlemen;

Thanks for all your valuable input. I was almost convinced to buy the Ursa mini 4.6K with EF mount (PL would mean much more expensive options in the future) - but had to give it up because it's not yet available in Poland at all, and at CVP (UK) they couldn't even tell me some ETA - such deeply back-ordered the camera is, with lots of orders files before mine... So - as I said before, not compromising as I am, I'm currently almost decided on the FS7K.

Why "almost"? Well - because, and here is another question to you guys whether you have heard any rumors - I still also consider waiting for the upcoming NAB with a hope something interesting might be announced. By "interesting" I mean a camera of almost FS7 class as far as the codec is concerned, but a little bit more appropriate for a semi-retired guy like me: perhaps smaller, with still better ergonomics, maybe even new sensor, and a bit cheaper. I know - it would be at least half a year from such announcement (if any is coming) to actual availability, and then I would again become an early adopter like I used to with the EX1, so it's a tough decision.

Anyway: has anyone heard any rumors of something like this coming at this year's NAB? Or do you think I can safely buy the FS7 NOW? TIA

Piotr

starcentral
04-01-2016, 03:49 AM
The only rumour I heard regarding Sony is a full frame version of something like the FS5/FS7 coming out at NAB or this year, but it's hard to say.

Their technology from the A7rii (full frame sensor) is quite good so I can see it eventually making it into pro camera's down the road.

Who knows.

DLD
04-01-2016, 08:19 AM
Most news, not just fake ones, will begin to trickle out in the next week to ten days. With that in mind, I'd hang on to one's zloty (or Euros) a bit longer.

moldcad
04-02-2016, 04:47 AM
Too late... Have pulled the trigger, and am getting the FS7K!

Bassman2003
04-02-2016, 07:00 AM
Sony just posted that they are discontinuing the Fs7, will drop the price by $2,000 and replace it with a much better Fs8! Just kidding. Always a day late and a dollar short...

Anyway, yes, it is so very close to NAB to buy a camera especially when Sony releases new cameras so often these days. Hope you like the camera and enjoy shooting with it!

moldcad
04-02-2016, 10:27 PM
If anything, it would be FS9 not FS8, and couldn't be cheaper than the FS7. I'm more concerned something quite different with FS7 capacities but cheaper might come out :) BUT, I got my FS7K for a good price (here in Poland); also CVP (who already probably know what Sony is bringing to the table at NAB) have recently raised their FS7 pricing, which I take as a proof nothing is going to make it obsolete too soon...

moldcad
04-02-2016, 11:54 PM
Oh, and BTW: are there any LUT packages specifically for the FS7 to be downloaded somewhere for use with Catalyst, Vegas Pro and Resolve - or do I need to rely on general Sony Slog ones? In Vegas, there are 3D Luts defined for F5/F55, but not for FS7. In Resolve, it's just the "Sony" category. Do I really need something Sony FS7-specific for best results?