Page 2 of 33 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 328
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member indiawilds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    New Delhi, India
    Posts
    1,287
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaime Valles View Post
    In my opinion, no on-board raw recording is a mistake. The fact that you need an external recorder in addition to the extension unit just to get raw from the FX9 puts it at a significant disadvantage compared to the Canon C500 Mark II.

    If you don't want raw, then this looks like a good camera. But I think Canon really hit it out of the park this time.
    Frankly speaking Canon is aggressively planning to cannibalize the C700FF with the C500 Mark II so it tells people that the sensor of C500Mark II is same as that of C700FF. So Canon has made C500 Mark II smaller, cheaper and better (due to internal raw) than C700FF. Obviously Sony can't kill Venice. So FX9 had to be limited.

    I prefer to have a camera which lasts me a long time so that I can make good money out of it. So I believe it is important to invest in a camera which will last for the next 5 years if not more. Clearly for that kind of longevity internal raw becomes very important.

    I wonder if any/many FS7/FS7II user(s) will shift to FX9. With FX9 currently limited to UHD, I wonder if Sony rushed this camera to the market?


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    2,900
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by indiawilds View Post
    I wonder if Sony rushed this camera to the market?
    No more so than the FS7 - Version 1 firmware was an absolute mess.
    New Website: www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @FilmLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member Jaime Valles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,004
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by indiawilds View Post
    Frankly speaking Canon is aggressively planning to cannibalize the C700FF with the C500 Mark II so it tells people that the sensor of C500Mark II is same as that of C700FF.
    Yep. And I'm guessing the C700 FF didn't sell very well at all, so it's not really cannibalizing it as much as it is repackaging it in a cheaper, smaller body.
    Jaime Vallés
    AJV Media
    Video, Photography & Graphic Design: www.ajvmedia.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member scorsesefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    1,603
    Default
    Strange decision to not allow 6K output...


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member soarprod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Costa Mesa /OC /California
    Posts
    1,756
    Default
    Looks to be a hot camera! Venice color science


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    755
    Default
    Kinda weird they put an A-mount on it.

    Edit: Apparently it’s an E-mount... but for some brain dead reason they labeled the body with a-mount.
    Last edited by jbregar; 09-13-2019 at 06:06 AM.
    JERBCO, LLC
    jerbco.com

    Web | Video | Aerial


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member Samuel H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    7,923
    Default
    ^ Weird label, definitely. I think sony officially calls the E mount "sony alpha E mount" or something like that, but the mount is usually labeled "E-mount", not "alpha-mount".

    Anyway... about the market for the FX9: I don't see it as an upgrade from the FS7 or the FS7-II, because the price increase is a bit steep. I guess there will be at least two FX models below this, at $7k and $4k.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    2,900
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by scorsesefan View Post
    Strange decision to not allow 6K output...
    Oversampling improves noise and suppresses moire when debayering.
    New Website: www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @FilmLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    9,870
    Default
    I just wrote a blog entry on the PXW-FX9 that will be up on www.hdvideopro.com tonight or tomorrow. Sony, from a sales perspective, has boxed themselves in with this camera. It is essentially a FF FS7 MKII with better AF. It seems like they have utilized the S-Cinetone color science from the Venice, which is good but from what I have read, this is not the same imager used in the Venice. So calling it a "mini Venice" is not very accurate. Interestingly in the Sony presser slides, the target market for the PXW-FX9 is events, corporate and weddings? Who knew? The target market for the C500 MKII is definitely episodic and lower end narrative/features/music videos/commercials so even though they sit side by side in the marketplace, they both really are intended for two different users, although there is obviously a lot of audience crossover

    Personally this new paradigm of selling a camera, then trickling out FW and functionality updates over the following years is highly annoying but that seems to be the new model. Sony has a pretty long list of promised updates and new features to be added pover the coming months and years.

    1. Sony reports that this camera does not and will not ever use CFexpress cards, only Sony proprietary XQD cards - annoying, but not a deal breaker
    2. Although they moved the TC input from the optional back to the camera body, you still have buy a $2,500.00 back for V-Mounts and RAW output - annoying and expensive.
    3. No more Prores recording possible - annoying
    4. No 6K recording - puzzling and I think a marketing blunder (not that anyone needs 6K but boasting rights on specs sell a lot of cameras)
    5. No internal RAW recording - puzzling when you can buy a small, BMD PCC 6K for $2,495.00 that does. Once again, their target market for the camera doesn't care but from a marketing perspective, few are going to pay an extra $3,500.00-$5,000.00 to shoot RAW
    6. Same basic EVF/loupe setup as the FS7 MKII - annoying, most users hate the FS7 MKII EVF loupe, I know I do - annoying'

    I think the sheer worldwide Tsunami of buyers who have made the FS7 series a runaway success will make this camera at least a mild success.
    The FX9 though, from a marketing/feature standpoint shows that Sony is not willing to in any way cannibalize themselves and that will eventually hurt them.

    We may see the tide of users shift back to Canon if the C500 MKII reviews are good and the footage looks better than the C200 or C300 MKII (I'm not sure how much better it will actually look though)
    The Sony, for most pro users, would be $13,500.00 with the back versus $16K for the Canon abd the Canon looks overall pretty usable without any of the backs and their backs are much cheaper. I stand by
    my assertion that if Canon had made the C500 MKII the same price, it would eat the FX9's lunch but at the slightly higher price point, I think both cameras will sell to their respective audiences pretty well.

    I don't own one but if I did own the FS7 MKII, just as I own the C200, neither of these cameras would compell me to sell and "upgrade" from a business perspective. The FS7 MKII will remain in the Sony lineup, the FX9 doesn't replace it.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,898
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by scorsesefan View Post
    Strange decision to not allow 6K output...
    Unless you look at C500 MKII and Sony FX9 and see a jigsaw puzzle.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel H View Post
    Anyway... about the market for the FX9: I don't see it as an upgrade from the FS7 or the FS7-II, because the price increase is a bit steep. I guess there will be at least two FX models below this, at $7k and $4k.
    Cartelization quirks aside, the images look lovely and the AF cinema zooms have been long time coming. After some initial resistance, I can see TV and a bunch of lower budget features shot on it. And not because of the camera price either.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 33 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •