Page 1 of 29 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 283
  1. Collapse Details
    Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    2,900
    Default
    Looking at the specs of the FX9 and C500 mkII, is it time to jump back to Canon?
    New Website: www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @FilmLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    9,495
    Default
    yep

    Canon will..
    shoot raw on a gimbal.

    raw will be the norm in 3 years

    raw appears to be a mess on the FX9

    With FF canon mount is less stupid than canon/S35

    I think the canon looks like a 5-7 years camera.

    Im sure the AF is adequate on both.


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

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Hay River, NT, Canada
    Posts
    106
    Default
    Unless Sony and Atomos can come up with something as streamlined as the R5/R7, I don't see RAW being popular with the FX9. Cables. Cables everywhere.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    2,900
    Default
    Yep. The C500 mkII looks a much better option at the moment, but probably £7000 more kitted out. Can I get that past the Mrs...
    New Website: www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @FilmLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    2,900
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Gizmosgadget View Post
    Unless Sony and Atomos can come up with something as streamlined as the R5/R7, I don't see RAW being popular with the FX9. Cables. Cables everywhere.
    Been there done that with the FS7. Total nightmare.
    New Website: www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @FilmLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member Jaime Valles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,004
    Default
    The FX9 will certainly find its audience, but I think Morgan is right that raw is the future. The C500 II is a complete package for full frame raw 5.9K for $16000. The FX9 needs the $2500 extension unit plus a compatible recorder just to get 4K raw. The cost difference disappears when you add it all up, plus you're dealing with the mess of cables an external recorder entails.

    I think the force is strong with Canon this time around.
    Jaime Vallťs
    AJV Media
    Video, Photography & Graphic Design: www.ajvmedia.com


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

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    2,900
    Default
    No interval recording on the C500 seems an odd miss.
    New Website: www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @FilmLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member Grug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,642
    Default
    The FX9 gives you a full-frame FS7 with timecode input as standard (so itís ready for professional sets right off the bat). That makes it lovely option for a new camera, but not really a must-have upgrade.

    The raw recording mess sounds like a non-starter frankly, but thatís really not a big deal. This isnít a camera intended for the kind of sets that demand (and can afford) a raw workflow.

    For the money, I think the C500 MkII wins this one easily. Itís throwing down the gauntlet at Venice and the Mini LF. The FX9 is a really nice midrange camera.

    I want the Canon.


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

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    2,900
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Grug View Post
    The FX9 gives you a full-frame FS7 with timecode input as standard (so it’s ready for professional sets right off the bat). That makes it lovely option for a new camera, but not really a must-have upgrade.

    The raw recording mess sounds like a non-starter frankly, but that’s really not a big deal. This isn’t a camera intended for the kind of sets that demand (and can afford) a raw workflow.

    For the money, I think the C500 MkII wins this one easily. It’s throwing down the gauntlet at Venice and the Mini LF. The FX9 is a really nice midrange camera.

    I want the Canon.
    Agreed. Just put my deposit down.
    New Website: www.liamhall.net
    TWITTER: @FilmLiam
    INSTAGRAM: @picsbyliam


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Default
    Yup, there's really no contest. FX9 was quickly slapped together with usability an afterthought, whereas the C500II is modular, operator friendly, and will be suitable for many different projects for years to come.

    Let's not forget that Canon glass has always been superior to anything on E-mount, too. Although I don't use still-photo lenses very much, some of the Canon EF speciality lenses are really fantastic.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 29 1234511 ... 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
  •