Other: FX9 vs FX6 - How different is the 'look'...

jasonbrooks

jasonbrooks

Well-known member
Hey folks,

Still awaiting an ETA on an FX6 from ProAV, and becoming increasingly curious about the FX9 as an alternative. Aside from the obvious benefit of maintaining use of my Fujinon MKs, I'm beginning to more seriously doubt how much joy I'll get from the 'look' of the FX6. I've shot a couple of pieces with rented FX6s with decent prime AF glass, and although the image is clean and sharp, it feels somehow quite sterile and, well, boring to me.

I've been browsing a decent amount of FX9 footage through Google/YT/Vimeo searches, and I like quite a lot of what I see.

SO, I'm also interested in all of your opinions (and the images its based on). So, with links wherever possible, please share your thoughts on...

- Do the FX6 and FX9 have a significantly different colour science, and if so, can you describe how?
- Are there other aspects to their respective sensors that give their "look" different texture or feel?
- What's the imagery shot on one or both cameras that you found most appealing - either by you or someone else?
- Am I just disappearing in a puff of my own pretentiousness talking about differences in "look" when it comes to two Sony cameras in this bracket?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and watching your recommendations as a partial cure to this interminable waiting.

Thanks in advance,

jason
 
Personally, I don't have an answer for your exact question - and this may or may not help - but I have recently, and definitively, realized I have wasted about $40,000 in the last 10 years chasing Japanese camera quality.

Their technical specifications are some of the best - and AF has no competition from any other country - but there was always something missing in the motion pictures [for me].

Currently, I own a RED Komodo and it is effortless. It is everything I ever wanted in a cinematic image even though it's missing, literally, every single other feature that I need. ha

I'm saying all this to say...if you see something, or feel something different in the footage, there's a good chance there is something different and I would listen to your brain, heart.
 
Hahah - thanks NorBro. I must admit that I did waver for a while looking at the Komodo, but it's the lack of "every other feature" that eventually pulled me back to my senses. Image is important to me, but all the other ergonomic functions of a 'real' videocamera are extremely important to me.

I appreciate the advice to follow instinct re: image appeal, thanks.

J
 
My two cents: FWIW not many people have owned and used more cameras, still and moving, film and digital, than I have. Sadly, that's because I'm so bleedin old! But what I have found is that more and more, it's not the camera that makes the biggest difference, especially as technology progresses. It's the lens, the lighting, the post process, etc. All and any one of those can completely change the end result. Of the two cameras you have mentioned, I own an FX6 and before that I used an FX9 extensively. I was able to match them so that a couple of colleagues, very experienced and talented camera people at the BBC, could not tell me which was which.

IMO the best way to choose is to weigh up the features, size, rigging, etc. Really like your work, by the way Jason.
(edit for typo)
 
Last edited:
I own an FX6 and a7siii. Both can produce great images but IMO, from the footage that I've seen, the FX9 has a "thicker" image. Probably, due to the resolution bump.. I think it all depends on the work you do. I do a lot of R & G solo stuff, so the FX6 fits my needs...
 
From what I've seen, I do feel that the FX9 has a slightly different image than the FX6. Most of that is probably attributed to the extra resolution as scorsesefan mentioned above. That being said, if you're looking at videos online shot on the FX9 vs the FX6, I do think you have to take into account the production differences between the two. Here's what I mean:

The FX9 is targeting a slightly different audience than the FX6. Both are very capable cameras that can be used for very similar types of projects, but if we are being honest the FX9 was designed with docs, television, narratives and commercial work while the FX6 was designed more for the run & gun one-man-band to small crew type of projects. Of course you can use the FX9 for that type of work and you can use the FX6 for docs, television, narratives and commercial projects, but overall that is essentially the intended audience.

As such, when you're evaluating footage you see online from the FX9, it's likely going to be from projects that were shot with larger budgets that have better lighting, better lenses, better set design, etc. FX6 footage you commonly find online by contrast is typically shot by the YouTube crowd and often won't be using the same types of lenses, lighting, etc. Therefore it's really hard to compare the two outside of shooting charts, and charts are, well, just charts.

The only way to really answer this question is for you to rent and use both for a project. Use the same lights, the same lenses and the same overall shot design for both cameras and then in post make an assessment based on what real world differences you see.

My bet is what you would find is that they are actually pretty close. The FX9 will be more detailed and may have what some would call a slightly more "organic" look, whereas the FX6 will be a little cleaner and more clinical. The FX6 will likely look better in lowlight situations (think doc or event work) and the FX9 will give you access to more lenses thanks to its Super35 4K. But again, how much of a real difference you see between the two I'm betting won't be as much as you think.

Overall both are great cameras and both can be made to look very good. In my opinion lighting, lenses, and shot design matter more than which of these two cameras you're using. To me, you should be buying the one that fits your workflow better, not the one that might look ever so slightly better. That's what I did and why I ultimately went with the FX6 over the FX9. Coming from an FS7II, it was a great upgrade and I absolutely love working with it. You couldn't give me another camera over the FX6. For how I work, it's perfect. For how you work, maybe it's not. But ultimately that should be how you make your decision.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I used to think that lighting, production values, better lenses and attractive grading really put you over that edge - and they certainly can and of course they do - but then one can also just watch what normal Joes and Janes are doing with a Pocket 4K for a thousand bucks.

There's clearly a difference there in that specific image pipeline from that company - so there is something to be said about how and what hardware does to deliver its pixels (which includes resolution, as mentioned, and other aspects like data, color science, handling, roll-off, etc).

In general, I don't think any of us would be surprised to see that the FX9 does or should look better.

A little mix of everything above (very well including lighting, wardrobe and set design):

 
And of course subject matter and talent as well; what's or who's on the screen is a major part of the emotion that is created in all of us.

If we like something we're watching, we might develop an unconscious bias for the camera, naturally.
 
I own both. I've had the Fx9 right from the get go (S/N 4) so i've had two + years with it. I've had the Fx6 for maybe six months and i'm still acclimating to it. I can tell you as of right now i ABSOLUTELY love the Fx9 and i much prefer it over the Fx6 but that probably has more to do with the camera itself and not necessarily the image. I like a bigger camera, i don't buy into the small form factor argument...but that's just me. I find myself struggling w the Fx6...but i struggled w/ DSLR type cameras as well, i'm just not comfortable with them...again, just me.

In regards to the the image out of each...as some have said, a lot of factors can come into play. I've shot shot footage w/ the 9 that i think is outstanding...but i've also shot footage that wasn't. Again, a lot of variables. So from a baseline does the Fx9 put you at a better starting point...maybe. However, the Fx6 is no slouch and i've been quite satisfied with the results i've gotten out of it. Honestly its a B/Ronin camera for me...but it serves its purpose quite well.

I've had zero problems matching them (as one would expect) in either log or S Cinetone. In regards to the 9, I like the true dual base, the option of full frame or true S35, 6k (and probably better) sensor and i much prefer the way the audio is handled and probably a few other things that i can't think of right now.

In the end there is a big chunk of "subjective" when comparing cameras, images ect. Can i honestly look at the image out of the 9 and say it is in fact better image than the 6...at times yes, but not always. Nothing i've said is probably going to sway you one way or the other but i will say with absolute certainty (at least at this point) if i had it to do again would i buy the Fx9 or the Fx6...hands down the 9 and its not even close...at least for me. Anyway...best of luck with whatever you decide.
 
If I may hijack briefly: I would really love to see a proper side-by-side comparison of these two cameras, especially available via a downloadable file rather than a YouTube video (although I'd settle for the latter).

I think Joshua's point about what each camera is being used for (or who it's being marketed to) is especially relevant. The lack of boatloads of terrible Alexa footage, e.g., is due as much to the sensor as to the fact that the camera alone filters out a wide range of users.

Given their different sensors it's clear that there are objective differences in the way the FX9 and FX6 are capturing images. Whether those differences are *noticeable*, and if so, under what conditions, is a different question. I will say that the FX6 offers a better low light image, and in cases of serious underexposure I think the difference stands out. But I'm less certain of the differences in more conventional shooting scenarios.
 
i work sometimes with both and i have the fx9. i would say fx9 is more filmic, organic, thicker or more mojo. use a word you like, but something ist different and more appealing.
 
There's no question that the FX9 has better image quality. Partly due to having a 6K sensor down-sampled to 4K, better image processing, and 3x more paint menus when you don't want to shoot with LOG. But the FX6 wins on other features, such as superior AF, 4K @ 120 fps, the simultaneous use of picture cache + HFR, lighter weight, cheaper media, etc. Each person needs to decide which features are most important to themselves and choose accordingly.
 
On my first feature, in total with reshoots and all, we used a RED One MX, Gopro 4 Black for an ultra wide angle 4K shot, Sony A7S to Shogun for 4K, an iPhone 7 Plus, and a Blackmagic Pocket 4K. Altogether with our basic post processing for color, exposure, denoise, and added film grain, they're looking pretty similar as is and I've been finding if I mess around with adding a very slight glow here and there it really helps blend the sharper footage from the newer cameras to better match the very filmic footage from the RED One MX. From what I've seen there's definitely a different look between the FX9 and the FX6/A7S3 but would I say one is more filmic than the other? Not really and knowing that a bit of post processing can change everything, I think there's a bit too much emphasis on the in-camera look of modern cameras, especially now that we're going to 8K and beyond. The real question should be on the features like how the cameras perform in low light, if the handling of one is better than the other, etc. and if those are even a feature or features that would even matter to you because at the end of the day it's top tier 4K quality either way.
 
Thanks so much for all your thoughts and comments folks! Reading through them definitely has helped me firm up my feeling that the best camera for me will likely be the FX9.

The reasonable number of times that I've rented an FX6 and used it (most often on an RS2 gimbal), it just hasn't 'felt' right compared to my years of great experiences with an FS7 on my shoulder.

Combining this with the two facts that a) I can get an FX9 as soon as I like, b) I don't need to sell my Fujis and buy a ton of fly-by-wire G series lenses, and c) I'll likely end up with images that are prettier (even if somewhat intangibly) makes me think I should DEFINITELY rent an FX9 soon and get myself a definitive answer once and for all.

Cheers folks!

jason
 
Totally agree. Rent one and see if it works for you. We all have our own priorities and only you know yours. Good luck!
 
From all the footage I've seen, there is a certain something with the FX9 image that swings it for me, features aside. The FX6 image doesn't vibe with me in the same way at all, just can't quite put my finger on it, but its enough to make me plump for the FX9.


mantas said:
i work sometimes with both and i have the fx9. i would say fx9 is more filmic, organic, thicker or more mojo. use a word you like, but something ist different and more appealing.
Click to expand...
 
Murph100 said:
The FX6 image doesn't vibe with me in the same way at all, just can't quite put my finger on it, but its enough to make me plump for the FX9.
Click to expand...

Put your finger on this: A 6K sensor on the FX9 vs. barely a 4K sensor on the FX6. That right there accounts for the major visual difference between the two.
 
I'd really love to see blinded side-by-side comparisons of the two. I have no doubt the 6K sensor offers benefits, but I'm suspicious of how visible those benefits are to most viewers under normal circumstances (or even extreme circumstances).

That said, I'm happy to proven wrong! There are occasionally rental deals on the FX9 in my area so maybe I'll try this out sometime...
 
It's more complicated than that. In addtion to the rental FX9, you'll also want to have the exact same lens(es) so you can shoot simultaneously with both cameras. Shooting charts or studio shots with one camera at a time, then swapping lenses, won't tell the story. That kind of testing is nearly useless. You need to be able to put both cameras side-by-side in a 3D type of rig (or very close tripods) and go out and shoot real stuff with both cameras using the same paint settings, WB, exposure, etc. I'd be happy to shoot a bunch of test footage if someone loaned me an FX9 and a lens that is the same as a model I already own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top