Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 193
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    64
    Default
    ...and for those of us who do have an external recorder, in my case an Odyssey 7q, I shot Convergent Design an email inquiring about future support of RAW from the FX9 and got this...

    Convergent Design is still in business; we have slowed down on developing the Odyssey/Apollo recorders as we are moving to different technologies.

    Not exactly encouraging...guess i backed the wrong horse on that deal.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,131
    Default
    Just a simple example of a common situation in which a business can't compete (with Atomos and even Blackmagic).

    If they lowered their prices maybe it would have been different. The same thing happened with Video Devices.

    Doesn't matter how good the hardware may be; if you're selling a specialized product and you're not a monopoly then you need to lower prices if everyone else does, and/or provide many developments and innovations.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member JPNola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    New Orleans USA
    Posts
    1,286
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Liam Hall View Post
    Looking at the specs of the FX9 and C500 mkII, is it time to jump back to Canon?


    Sure, but you won't have electronic ND, you won't be able to use speedboosters, you won't have dual ISO, you'll be more limited as to what glass you can use, you'll be more limited on fps in slow mo, and you'll spend $5000 more but you won't get a full-size eyepiece as you would with the lower-priced Fx9.

    With the C500MkII you will get raw and get it internally, albeit a compressed pseudo-raw. I've personally never had any client request raw.


    ______________


    For myself, being that I already own an Fs7 and an a7sII, and I own e-mount glass, it makes more sense for me to get an Fx9. That said, I could see myself eventually getting both the Fx9 and the C500MkII. That would enable me to fulfill requests for either and enable me to offer clients a choice of either camera.

    I do find it interesting that in the past when the Canon vs Sony debate has been argued Canon fans will point to the color science as being of such importance that nothing else matters. Game over, they say, no matter the ergonomics or anything else. Yet here with the Fx9, before we've even been able to see much of the Fx9's color science, those same Canon fans are declaring the Fx9 the loser in the head to head battle because of features the C500 MkII possesses that are not related to color science. If color science is the most important factor in a head to head battle, it is too early to declare any winner. Applying the color science is king argument, what does it matter that the C500MkII can record raw internally and the Fx9 cannot if the color science of the Fx9 is better than that of the C500MkII? Seems many are operating under the assumption that it won't be. Understandable given Sony's past weakness in the color science department and Canon's strength. But it isn't a given. It is possible that the Fx9's color science beats that of the C500MkII. Possible.
    Big sources matter.


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

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    28
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JPNola View Post
    Sure, but you won't have electronic ND, you won't be able to use speedboosters, you won't have dual ISO, you'll be more limited as to what glass you can use, you'll be more limited on fps in slow mo, and you'll spend $5000 more but you won't get a full-size eyepiece as you would with the lower-priced Fx9.
    The whole point of speedboosters is to be able to use EF glass on E mount, so that's sort of a moot point, no?


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member JPNola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    New Orleans USA
    Posts
    1,286
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by dipstik View Post
    The whole point of speedboosters is to be able to use EF glass on E mount, so that's sort of a moot point, no?
    Sorta, right? You can adapt EF glass to e-mount without a "speedbooster". The purpose of a speedbooster is to boost speed. You can speedboost PL glass as well.

    The point stands, I think. With the Fx9 you can take advantage of speedboosting, with the C500MkII you cannot. With the Fx9 you can also take advantage of speedboosters giving you the FF aesthetic when in s35 mode. With the C500MkII you cannot.

    In further defense of the Fx9, I offer a quote from the comment section of Sonyalpharumors that presents one perspective:

    "The FS7 basically prints money for my video production company, so as a FS7 owner this is pretty much a perfect upgrade.
    - I wanted better color science, especially for skin tones.
    - I wanted to NOT have to buy new memory cards, new batteries, and new lenses.
    - I wanted face detect auto-focus
    - I wanted to be able to use my Sony wireless lav hot shoe receiver (which is awesome, BTW)
    - I wanted the manageable file sizes and quality of 10bit 422 XAVC
    - I wanted a Full Frame look option, but only in 4K file sizes.
    - I wanted the option to still be able to shoot in S35 crop.

    I'm stunned by the people here complaining about lack of RAW, 6K, etc. First of all, clients don't give a crap about 6K/RAW. Second of all, working in RAW is so much slower for little benefit. Shoot in Slog and you have all the dynamic range you need. I shot Red for many years. The main use for RAW is for when you forgot to white balance. For those who say they need 6K RAW, I refer you to the massive library of Alexa 2K ProRes shot movies, many of which won Best Cinematography Oscars.
    95% of my clients are happy with FS7. For the other 5% who want the best we rent Alexa Mini/Amira.
    With the FX9, my guess is it will be 75% FS7, 20% renting the FX9, and 5% renting Alexa. When it makes financial sense, I'll buy the FX9, and have a FS7 B-camera that uses the same batteries and memory cards."

    __________


    This is a shallow criticism, but I'm not wild about the way the battery sticks out when mounted on the C500MkII-

    Screen Shot 2019-09-13 at 8.53.34 PM.jpg


    I also prefer the finish on the Fx9 over the C500MkII. The Fx9's exterior finish looks like metal. The C500MkII's exterior finish more looks like plastic. And the greyish color is reminiscent of ARRI, not by accident. It may only be appearance, but the Fx9 looks more rugged to me than the C500MkII. More "tank-like". I'm not wild about the Fx9's longer body than that of the Fs7. But in side by side images the Fx9 isn't that much longer than the Fs7:


    Screen Shot 2019-09-13 at 8.52.03 PM.jpg
    Big sources matter.


    5 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,131
    Default
    Any battery sticking out like that is trouble, but that's the bigger Canon A60 in the photo above. You can use the smaller A30 ones which obviously will stick out but less.

    And I like the grey much more than the black too.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member JPNola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    New Orleans USA
    Posts
    1,286
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    Any battery sticking out like that is trouble, but that's the bigger Canon A60 in the photo above. You can use the smaller A30 ones which obviously will stick out but less.


    Some are complaining about the length of the body of the Fx9, but part of the reason the body is longer than that of the C500MkII is that on the Fx9 the battery mounts recessed into the body. Whereas with the C500MkII the battery is just sticking out of the rear. A C500MkII with an A60 battery mounted is roughly the same length as the Fx9 with battery mounted.

    The Fx9 sans any add-on modules looks complete. The C500MkII sans any add-on modules looks like something is missing. It looks like you are only using half a camera. As if you forgot part of the camera back at the shop. Again, these are superficial niggles.


    fx9back.jpg
    Big sources matter.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    6,131
    Default
    If I had to make a note, it would be that I wish they built these monitors into the bodies (C100) or offer the ability to electronically connect (touchscreen) & screw them into place on top of the camera somewhere.

    I know that's not going to be ideal for people who use them off to the side or with loupes, but just wish they had an interface/connection for those who did want them to be more a part of the camera.

    I dislike them floating near/by handles with wires (even one wire).

    I like RED's design.

    RED.jpg


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,880
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JPNola View Post
    ... With the FX9, my guess is it will be 75% FS7, 20% renting the FX9, and 5% renting Alexa....
    My guess is that, once Sony comes out with those cinema zooms aside of the currently announced 16-35 - FX9 will be good enough for the Amira buyers too.*

    *Of course, there'll probably be an Amira LF coming out soon but FX9 should match up well enough on image quality and beat it on the workflow, not to mention the price.

    Side note - scanning the recent A6600, A7RIV and FX9 clips, they all have a different look than older Sony models, including FS7. It's much closer to the Venice or, for the Canon owners, to the old 1DC. I might still prefer Alexa with a $25,000 prime but that's minor quibbling.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beverly Hills, CA
    Posts
    2,071
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by DLD View Post
    I might still prefer Alexa with a $25,000 prime but that's minor quibbling.
    IMO ARRI still has a comfortable lead on mixed light / real world IQ and highlights / skintones, however the lead is shrinking. For top level work, the diminishing returns for the high cost still have value. After ~10 years the ALEV III sensor still has the best highlight recovery (about 1/2 way through the patent(s) life).


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 20 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
  •