Sold my FS7 today

[ahalpert]

If that were true, my personal choice would be whether or not to keep shooting weddings. Buying an 8K camera would not be a choice.

I wholeheartedly agree that you can get better footage from mirrorless cameras that are newer than the FS7. It is my personal choice to avoid using it whenever possible. But some people have only clients that would never accept a mirrorless camera as an A camera. It's as simple as that

[NorBro]

Yeah, but everyone knows that, man...the entire industry always had certain requirements and people buy cameras because of Netflix's list. And how many times do you see people in marketplace listings say, "We purchased this camera for a project that's now complete so we're looking to sell it." or something similar.

None of it has anything to do with my comment about people realizing that some equipment can do a "good enough" job for them.

Always happy to get into it with you, but you completely missed the mark on this one.

Read it again...

A lot of us here started video production in a great transitional time that will never exist again. A block of 20, 30, 40 years consisting of the most dramatic camera/technological changes in history.

The FS7 was a really great camera considering its specifications and who it was coming from at the time for the price, but the "good enough" conclusion is one I personally had years ago and I think many others eventually do as well (although it doesn't work for everyone and their own work and career aspirations).

How does that translate to some people not requiring certain equipment for their work?

It means that some people realized they can do their work with certain equipment.

[ahalpert]

What exactly does good enough mean in this context? This is what confused me. It seemed to imply that the FS7 was better than the Lumix, but that it was overkill for the work. And the lumix was good enough. Whereas I would reckon that the lumix probably looks better.

But if someone requires you to have built-in XLRs and internal ND, then the comparison is moot. And if the issue at hand is a cameraman personally realizing that he can do without those, then that makes sense, although you yourself found major benefits from eND. I so wish I had that on every camera, but I make do with vari-NDs because they're good enough . And, more to the point, eND is not available on a camera with the form factor/other features/price I want.

[NorBro]

Doesn't the opening post sound like a story of a guy realizing he doesn't need what's sometimes considered the best or has a certain status in the industry, and has come to the conclusion that he could get by with less?

We still don't know which Lumix - could be a G9, could be a S1H - but why would anyone describe the S1H as "good enough"? Clearly, to me, the camera in question would be considered inferior by the general population. Even if it's a G9 and it might look better to YOU, it would still be considered a lesser model.

If his clients asked for eND or XLR or something else, isn't it common sense that he wouldn't be making a post like this?

And that selling a bunch of gear and using some existing and new "good enough" gear will get the job done?

[ahalpert]

Yeah, his post made sense to me. It's just that his camera probably looks better than the FS7 anyway (which I'm used to people throwing shade at for a while now). I think my GH5 looks way better than the FS7. I dont know the other G cameras but if they look like the GH5 just with different codecs, then I'd probably prefer them as well. Anyway, I get what you meant now

[Publimix]

I didn't mean the images from my Lumix G8 (8-bit) looks better than the FS7. But the image quality is good enough. My expectations of the FS7 image quality were higher when I bought it. The FS7 is a very capable camera wit ND and XLR, and it looks 'professional'. But I missed the 'wow' factor to often. But maybe this camewra wasn't made to deliver that kind of images. (or I wasn't able to get stunning images from it.) Could it be the video-look, the magenta, the tweaking in Davinci? I sold the camera to a news team, I think it will shine there.

The lumix always was the B-cam, I could match them well in Davinci. That is why I decided to sell the FS7 and keep the Lumix. A lot lighter and smaller. I don't need XLR because mini jacks work too.

But the good news is, I sold two bags of gear, have money in the bank and new space in my office. And I can keep doing the things I did.

[Ben Scott]

I've made stuff look good with an FS7. I have also made stuff look awful with an FS7. Just like any camera, the operator/DOP needs to do the heavy lifting and not rely on the camera to magic you up a good result. The camera is just there to capture what you do before you start turning over.

It was an absolute game-changer when it came out and it's only recent developments that date it.

The raw output was terrible and the shadow detail wasn't great. Highlight rolloff wasn't the best. But that's only ever comparing it to more expensive cameras. Never cheaper ones.

RIP sweet prince of a camera.

[scorsesefan]

I know this is going to be a question that goes off the rails quickly, but do you think the FX6/FX9 are more "cinematic" cameras than the FS7? By that I mostly mean DR, highlight rolloff and color science...Interestingly, I found this FX9/FX6 test online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjPrLkv63o

[Ben Scott]

I think 'cinematic' is 70% production design, 20% lighting, 5% camera and lens package and 5% haze machine.

[scorsesefan]

5 percent haze LOL

[drboffa]

I know this is going to be a question that goes off the rails quickly, but do you think the FX6/FX9 are more "cinematic" cameras than the FS7? By that I mostly mean DR, highlight rolloff and color science...Interestingly, I found this FX9/FX6 test online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjPrLkv63o

FWIW, in my testing I've found that I can get my FX6 and Fs5 to match with almost no effort (provided they're both well exposed). This is shooting in slog3/sgamut3.cine, at least. I did a white balance in post and then used Alister's LUTs (which were also used in this video, per the description) and they looked remarkably close.

The biggest differences (in the limited comparison testing I did) came when trying to bring underexposed shots back to normal/recommended exposure levels—the FX6 blows the Fs5 out of the water. Overexposure wasn't as dramatic, with maybe half a stop more latitude in the FX6.

Whether that's more "cinematic" I can't say, but I've seen some beautiful stuff shot on the Fs5.

[markfpv]

RIP sweet prince of a camera.

Hey - Hang On Ben... I'm still using mine regularly - don't bury it yet... I'm not ready to "upgrade" for it's replacement just yet. (unless one considers the A7sIII an "upgrade").

I do find the "color science upgrade" since the first FS7 (which I guess the Fs5, FX9, FX6 & A7sIII all "got") - a rather thin one. Not saying that Sony didn't tweak it's colors a bit... but IMO - it was such a small tweak - that I giggle everytime I read how much better the colors are now. (two nodes on a hue vs sat curve in the edit does just the same).

[ahalpert]

I agree with Ben Scott.

And yes, the A7SIII is a major upgrade...except for the features it lacks...

Incidentally, I still feel like Sony color sucks in most profiles, including s-log3 standard LUT. But then there's one color setting on the a7siii called "Movie". I really like it, moreso than canon color. But everything else I've seen from it blows

[scorsesefan]

I agree with Ben Scott.

And yes, the A7SIII is a major upgrade...except for the features it lacks...

Incidentally, I still feel like Sony color sucks in most profiles, including s-log3 standard LUT. But then there's one color setting on the a7siii called "Movie". I really like it, moreso than canon color. But everything else I've seen from it blows

Abe, you think slog3 cine and s cinetone suck on the a7siii? Or are you referring to the FS7?

[ahalpert]

Abe, you think slog3 cine and s cinetone suck on the a7siii? Or are you referring to the FS7?

A7siii. I think you can get good results from slog3 cine, I think it maybe just requires work? Or maybe I'm just reacting to footage I've shot and seen that had difficult colors to reproduce. Or colors that didn't reproduce well from that gamut with the standard lut. But I've never felt that way about movie color. Somehow "movie" color manages to look both accurate and pretty.

S Cinetone I haven't tried. I was excited about it. But I saw some stuff that looked videoish and also, more to the point, I realized that I was happier with my array of varied-contrast wysiwyg looks and I was not going to give that up for a single contrast look. Maybe I could add s Cinetone into my quiver of SOOC looks and who knows, maybe I would like it more than my current options. But I haven't bothered.

Mostly I'm reacting to the week I spent testing the A7SIII when I first got it where I tried all the different color profiles available and found them all distasteful. I see that many people alter the color phase (or is it color detail, I can't remember the name) settings to adjust the coloration of a given profile. I played around with that and felt like I could get a good look in one setting and then it would look all wrong when I pointed the camera at something else. And then I thought why would a person do this anyway. You should have a color profile that responds to what the camera sees in a uniform, generalized way

But hey, I'm not a colorist or as technically oriented as someone like doug Jensen. These are just my workaday observations and gut feelings