Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,879
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Jensen View Post
    I have to strongly disagree with that. What about weight, ergonomics, features, functions, lens compatibility, and other bells and whistles that are quite different from each other? From that standpoint the cameras are very different from each other. And I would argue that if the differences in picture quality are so slight that you have to put them side by side and run them through a shootout to figure out what those difference are -- then those differences don't matter. Choose one and get to work. Clients and viewers won't notice whatever minuscule differences that only a pixel peeper can find. Personally, I would make my choice based on many other factors before image quality because they are both good enough.

    About 15 years ago I spent a few days shadowing/interviewing Bill Warner, the founder of Avid, for a CNN business show and he said something that has always stuck with me. The harder it is to choose between two choices, the less it matters which one you pick. In other words, if the differences between two things (cameras, cars, dessert, sandwich, etc.) are that close, then either one will satisfy your needs ,so just pick one and move on. This has made my decision making so easy in life. Just pick one and get to work.
    How are our ideas conflicting?

    In the other areas, there really is no fight. They are quite different. When compared objectively, there really is no comparison.

    The only way they are similar objectively, is that they can both do well in many of the same jobs, if someone isn’t interested in AF.

    After that, it comes down to which image is preferred. I tend to prefer the Varicam look, but i know with work in post or many hours designing a custom LUT, that i could possibly get equal or better results with the Fx9. Possibly. But i don’t know. Would have to test. Meanwhile, the Fx9 has a very nice modern high end video look, that previously only the top cinema cameras had available.

    A while back, i was jumping between Red MX and F55, and i found that while the F55 was technically better, the MX gave a certain quality more easily described as less “video”. I still ended up selling the MX and switching to F55, but it was a beast trying to wrangle the Sony look out of that camera.

    You and i are kind of on the same page, just emphasizing different sides of the argument.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    841
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Jensen View Post
    Well, keep in mind that the FS7 does have a handy filter for automatically removing unwanted cars from the shot. Saves a lot of time in post.
    Ah the car filter! That's optional extra on the Sony

    Chris Young


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    133
    Default
    I really like what I am seeing from varicam LT and the Sony FX9. Just curious, how do you think the image out of the Kinefinity Mavo LF would compare to these two cameras in DR and highlight roll off? I have also been impressed with many of the images coming out of that camera. I also prefer its color science over the BM cameras.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member James0b57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,879
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendt View Post
    I really like what I am seeing from varicam LT and the Sony FX9. Just curious, how do you think the image out of the Kinefinity Mavo LF would compare to these two cameras in DR and highlight roll off? I have also been impressed with many of the images coming out of that camera. I also prefer its color science over the BM cameras.
    Kinfinity, id have to ask. My friend has a Kinfinity and recently shot on a Varicam LT. He may have a better opinion.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium, Europe
    Posts
    331
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Wendt View Post
    I really like what I am seeing from varicam LT and the Sony FX9. Just curious, how do you think the image out of the Kinefinity Mavo LF would compare to these two cameras in DR and highlight roll off? I have also been impressed with many of the images coming out of that camera. I also prefer its color science over the BM cameras.
    The Mavo LF shoots very nice pictures. From what I've seen it's about on par in image quality. This a good review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CR1Yy-NHkk
    He did settle on the FX9 for his new camera though.


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

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Belgium, Europe
    Posts
    331
    Default
    I got a Varicam LT in September, just before the rebate offer here in Europe ran out. So I am a bit biased. ��

    The FX9 has a few things going for it. Sensor size, good autofocus and most importantly, it will replace a lot FS7s and FS5s. So if you have a lot of jobs in broadcast and have to play nice with the look and post-production workflow of companies with a lot of Sony cams, it's a no brainer. The colours are very very good as well. It's in a very different league than the FS7. Once raw recording will come, we will see pretty awesome stuff shot with this camera.
    Downsides, for me, are the rolling shutter (at least in full-frame), the body style, menus and the horrible way the image clips. You have tons of DR, but when it clips you get a hard 'video'-ish edge on the spot that clips. The Varicam handles that much better. More Alexa like. I think it's down to the olpf. You can simulate this in post, but it's an extra step and not always easy to implement fast.
    And, last but not least, if you shoot over 30fps, you use the S35 crop of the senor. I shoot 90% at 'double' fps to get great slow motion when I need it.

    I like the body size and weight of the LT better because I like to shoot with the camera on my shoulder. The LT is a very balanced camera. And the weight helps to eliminate small wiggles. It's not light, but very manageable. The menu system is better on the LT. Boot time is about 15 seconds (video out to external recorder is about 10 seconds) and physical audio controls are very limited. You have to restart to change resolution and frame rate. So if you do a lot of run and gun solo stuff, this might not be ideal. I haven't had any issues, anticipating what I'm about to shoot usually solves these issues.
    No autofocus, but most quality lenses don't have autofocus either. I record the raw output to a Shogun 7 (cheaper than 2 P2 cards) and that yields a fantastic 4k 50p image in Prores and Prores Raw. Love it. Better than the internal AVC-Intra LT codec. Even the 240 fps HD crop looks decent via the raw output. This setup likes batteries though. 150Wh gets me about 2 hours. And you can not start an external recorder if you do not record internally. There is no noise reduction on the raw feed, so you can see some noise. Especially at 5000 iso. But it looks pretty organic. The image obviously falls apart if you underexpose severely, but the amount of colour that is still present is astonishing. I have shot things I could hardly monitor on the shogun (even on the waveform there was hardly any info) and all the colour was still there and looked natural. Pretty sick. Detail and sharpness are obviously gone in those circumstances. Build quality is very very nice. A tank indeed.
    I am still exploring the limits of this machine, love working with it and love the look it gives me. I paired it with a Canon 18-80 cine zoom for run and gun. Slow at T4.4, but a servo and a decent zoom range for a very good price. And almost no breathing. I have a few old Mamiya 645 Sekor Cs I use as primes if I'm not renting. They look great as well.

    Try to get your hands on both and see which one suits you best. As long as you don't have to fit in a client workflow your images get you jobs more than your gear. Both are very capable machines, so there is no 'wrong' choice.


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

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    1,879
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by OliverM View Post
    The Mavo LF shoots very nice pictures. From what I've seen it's about on par in image quality. This a good review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CR1Yy-NHkk
    He did settle on the FX9 for his new camera though.
    Philip Bloom just put out a couple of Kinefinity Mavo LF videos as well:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_xTyDnt684



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzO1n_PeW44

    Am a Sound Recordist in New Zealand: http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/
    Follow my vlog and adventures in sound: https://www.youtube.com/c/SoundSpeeding


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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