A Sony guy's question...

moldcad

moldcad

Veteran
​I'd be grateful for an unbiased opinion - on paper, the DVX-200 looks like a lot more bang for the buck than the FS7, especially for someone who doesn't need to change lenses. But - considering the two main criteria:

- picture quality
- ergonomics

Would you still buy the DVX-200 over the FS7(K), even if the latter was within your budged?

Thanks,

Piotr
 
Last edited:
I feel like the DVX200 and the FS7 aren't in the same class. The DVX200 is a run n gun camera, albeit a very good looking one. The images it produces can be gorgeous and much more cinematic than your average 1/3" chip cams. The FS7 on the other hand is another kettle of fish. It's a cinema camera, much heavier and with more moving parts. It's more designed for use in a situation where you have more time to set up the shot, ie, on a set. The images it produces are also of a higher class, as is Sony's S-Log much more effective than the DVX's V-Log L. I'd say it depends on what my application would be.

Having said that, a more suitable deathmatch would be between the DVX200 and the FS5. With kit lens, the FS5 can match the DVX's features, but still comes up slightly ahead of the DVX. It's smaller, lighter and can produce FS7 like images, but again, depending on your application. I've heard people swear by the FS5 as the best run n gun camera they've ever used, yet I can't imaging trading in my DVX for something with interchangeable lenses and a more artistic spectrum of features in my intense, time sensitive general work environment.

My advice, do your homework, decide what you need, but DVX vs FS7 is not really the fight. Compare with FS5.
 
All very true, except that UHD at 50p is a very important feature to me; if only the FS5 had that...

PS. With the newest firmware, is the noise still a problem on the DVX200? Can it be compared to what I used to live with on my EX1?
 
Last edited:
Also, I should have stated in my OP that due to a serious neck spine condition, unfortunately I don't shoot professionally any more, so a camera like the FS7 would never had a chance to earn for itself :( However, I'd like to have a future-proof (4K) equipment for my retirement days, which are not so far away, and use it just as a serious hobby. With the DVX200 priced below the half of FS7K price, unless it really has some serious shortcomings, it looks like a choice... Please comment.
 
Moldcad, I come from a Sony EX back ground, Ex1, Ex3, X70 on so .....with the DVX200, it was my first purchase away from Sony. At first I was not happy with a lot of things, but it growing on me, I still think they need and will keep updating with firmware. The look of the image is different to the Sony, so it will take a bit of time to adjust. We shoot a lot of live events and concerts, works well, we also do in studio recording, perfect. I think you will be pretty happy, just give it a it of time to make the change over.
 
I suggest you ask this question in the Sony section, you'll get 5,334 replies in one day and some good entertainment (and hopefully valuable information) from the folks there in the meantime.

I own the F55 and hire a second FS7 cam for some shoots. I've also owned DVX100, DVX200 and later on HPX170. Well what can I say these are definitely different types of camera's. Features and specs aside the big difference I'm sure you know is the sensor size. Shooting with super35mm is really hard for some people moving over from 1/3" CCD. Im not saying it is super hard impossible, Im saying that people who haven't shot with super35mm sensors before can have a hard time and need time to transition. (unless you shoot f11/f16 :cheesy: )

With a wide range zoom, the FS7 can be just as versatile for run and gun as a DVX. I think the newer gen Sony camera's are a bit complicated to understand for a lot of people. They tend to have a lot of gotcha's from when you can enable an exposure tool to being limited to three color temperature presets in certain modes.

For the money, I would not invest in an FS5. If it was half the price of a FS7 then "maybe" yes. But it only does 8-bit in 4K (it will do 10-bit in HD) so that's a lot of money just to get a small form factor and access to S-Log gamma which in reality you can get with a DSLR Sony A6300 for 5.6 times less in cost, or an A7sii for 1.8 times less in cost.

If 1080p in high frame rates are your desire, then I think you should go for an FS7 and you won't regret it with all the features it has… but do make sure you do some testing shooting with a zoom lens on a super 35mm camera to see if it's something you feel you want to manage. It can be a bit daunting at first, but eventually you get fast with it and it becomes easy.

I put together a great comparison of specs on the FS5 / FS7 / F5 and F55 if you want to get a better idea of the differences:
http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2015/11/fs5-fs7-f555-paper-differences/

Good luck with whatever you decide.
 
Last edited:
Piotr,

I am a Panasonic guy who currently uses the PX270 for a lot of work and am in the market for a nice shallow DOF camera. I thought the DVC200 was going to be that camera. A friend let me borrow his for the day and I was disappointed with the image quality and the slowish lens. The image has mud in the shadows areas that I could not dial out. While the color correction controls are top notch, this heavy low end just makes the images look DSLR-ish to me. Frankly I expected better from Panasonic. Side by side with the PX270 is a "no contest" win for the PX270 for me.

My hope is that Panasonic lets the broadcast team take a crack at the form factor and they can create a PX430.

These days you really have to decide what you want to shoot with a certain camera because the intended usage is quite narrow.
 
I love my DVX200... especially after this week's firmware update... but I've also recently gotten a little (emphasis on "little") experience with the FS7. Would I had to do it all over again, if I had the cash for an FS7? Yes, but that isn't a knock against the FS7. That thing makes gorgeous images. I am definitely a fan. BUT, for my work, I couldn't justify the cost, especially if it meant I had to go back to swapping lenses at inconvenient times like my previous AF100 or my current GH4.
 
OP: For a hobby, I think you should maybe do a bit more browsing?

Maybe there are some other cameras out there that you may not know about that will offer the features you are looking for while keeping the costs down.
 
Thanks guys for all the comments. I have no doubts the picture quality will be better on the FS7, but I have a difficult time trying to justify the cost difference. Also - due to my neck spine condition and resulting weak and trembling hands - I'm not an enthusiast of swapping lenses. Even though I'm not new to the S35 world; I used to have an FS100, and as long as my body served me better - actually enjoyed swapping lenses, and the challenge the super-shallow DOF created; in fact I learnt to be quite proficient as focus racking. BUT, there are still some valid considerations:

1. I realize picture quality is subjective to some degree, and is difficult to measure like this, but would you say that it's over 2x worse on the DVX than on the FS7?

2. The ergonomics of the FS7 seems ideal to me - the bulk of camera weight resting on my shoulder, with the LCD loupe against my eye. But does the FS7 really work well this way out of the box? Seeing how much people spend on additional rig, I doubt it

3. As to "other cameras out there that I may not know about that will offer the features you are looking for while keeping the costs down": sorry, I did my research and there is none, apart from the FS7 (ergonomis, great PQ, great codecs with 10 bit 422 UHD/4K and Intraframe compression - all of which come for the price which is my problem), and the DVX-200 (much cheaper, yet still with UHD @ 50 fps 422, albeit 8 bit internally and with much worse ergonomis).

4. I guess (please correct me if wrong) that for somebody with weakened arms, the combination of 50 fps and the 5-axis stabilization DVX-200 offers may save many a 4K take; all the "other" 4K cameras only offer 25 fps and worse stabilization which translates to many unusable (shaky and blurry) shots in the hands like mine :(

Considering all the above, my question again: after the latest firmware release, is the maximum (tweaked by experts like Barry) picture quality possible with the DVX-200 really worse than that from FS7 by the factor of 2.5, as the price difference would suggest?
 
moldcad said:
4. I guess (please correct me if wrong) that for somebody with weakened arms, the combination of 50 fps and the 5-axis stabilization DVX-200 offers may save many a 4K take; all the "other" 4K cameras only offer 25 fps and worse stabilization which translates to many unusable (shaky and blurry) shots in the hands like mine :(
Click to expand...


This was my thought when I first read about the shaky hands... right until you got to 4k. Please note, the 5-axis stabilization ONLY works HD mode... but it works quite well. and 4k is only available at 100mb/s

Considering all the above, my question again: after the latest firmware release, is the maximum (tweaked by experts like Barry) picture quality possible with the DVX-200 really worse than that from FS7 by the factor of 2.5, as the price difference would suggest?
Click to expand...

I only installed the firmware update on Thursday, but immediadtely shot concerts at my church with it that night and the night after. Using Barry's "Natural" scene file without any tweeks to adjust for the new firmware, I was quite happy with the result. It definately needs to be tweeked, but the image, to my eye, was noticably better.

Is the FS7 image 2.5 times better? Not enough to justify that much more money for a dedicated hobby where swapping lenses is a pain in the rear given your physical condition. Laws of diminishing return and all...
 
starcentral said:
I suggest you ask this question in the Sony section, you'll get 5,334 replies in one day and some good entertainment (and hopefully valuable information) from the folks there in the meantime.

I own the F55 and hire a second FS7 cam for some shoots. I've also owned DVX100, DVX200 and later on HPX170. Well what can I say these are definitely different types of camera's. Features and specs aside the big difference I'm sure you know is the sensor size. Shooting with super35mm is really hard for some people moving over from 1/3" CCD. Im not saying it is super hard impossible, Im saying that people who haven't shot with super35mm sensors before can have a hard time and need time to transition. (unless you shoot f11/f16 :cheesy: )

With a wide range zoom, the FS7 can be just as versatile for run and gun as a DVX. I think the newer gen Sony camera's are a bit complicated to understand for a lot of people. They tend to have a lot of gotcha's from when you can enable an exposure tool to being limited to three color temperature presets in certain modes.

For the money, I would not invest in an FS5. If it was half the price of a FS7 then "maybe" yes. But it only does 8-bit in 4K (it will do 10-bit in HD) so that's a lot of money just to get a small form factor and access to S-Log gamma which in reality you can get with a DSLR Sony A6300 for 5.6 times less in cost, or an A7sii for 1.8 times less in cost.

If 1080p in high frame rates are your desire, then I think you should go for an FS7 and you won't regret it with all the features it has… but do make sure you do some testing shooting with a zoom lens on a super 35mm camera to see if it's something you feel you want to manage. It can be a bit daunting at first, but eventually you get fast with it and it becomes easy.

I put together a great comparison of specs on the FS5 / FS7 / F5 and F55 if you want to get a better idea of the differences:
http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2015/11/fs5-fs7-f555-paper-differences/

Good luck with whatever you decide.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that in order to make the FS7 run n gun, you need to spend more money on top of what you're spending to being with. Granted, the FS5 doesn't take a lot of that away, considering it's price point, but I think it's a closer fight between that and a DVX200. In any case a long enough zoom lens would be cumbersome, heavy and extremely expensive to tack on to either of the Sony cams, so if you need a range like the dvx, a fixed lens is a better option.

Then you can easily get into a fight over the specs. 422 10 bit vs notgoodenough etc. My point is that if you have the budget and your options are between a DVX and an FS7, then you're not going to be happy with a DVX. The FS7 is way out there above the dvx. I've used both and as I say, it depends entirely on your needs and applications. I personally own a dvx becuase my business requires it more than an FS7. Both image wise and ergonomically, it's perfect for me. But lord, I'd love to won an FS7. Thing is, if I'm shooting a film, or even directing one, an FS7 or something equal to or above it is rented. So, no need. Which is why I say, for owning, FS5. Personal opinion. Yes, a good Sony DSLR can be a better option, but if you're like me and can't stand DSLR's and the issues they bring, the options become more limited.
 
moldcad said:
And this has been with which fw version?
Click to expand...

I do not know the number exactly but it was right before the latest color change.

What do you think you will film the most with the camera? Live events where you need long lens reach? Situations where you change between wide and tele a lot? Hand held vs tripod? 4k vs 1080p

The DVX is a little compromised in 4k even though it does have 4k60p. I set the lens to full wide in 1080p then changed the camera to 4k and you pretty much lose 1/3 of the frame due to the sensor crop. That is a big deal to me. I also noticed a fair amount of barrel distortion which is sad given the Leica badge on the lens.

I have never used an F7 so I can not offer any comparison. Maybe something will show up at NAB this year.
 
Moldcad, I am looking for an upgrade to my FDR-AX1 and for me UHD60P is the only reason I have the AX1 so is a must for any UHD new camera. I too would have bought the FS5 if it had UHD 60P. At the moment the choices for UHD 50/60P are the FDR-AX1 ( which I have ) the PXW-Z100 ( Pro version of the FDR-AX1 ), HCX1000, ( much like the FDR-AX1 maybe even the same sensor !!! ) , DVX200 that crops in UHD, the FS7 and more expensive options . So at a reasonable cost the DVX200 is currently the only option with a reasonable sensor size etc. Any of the interchangeable lens options like the FS7, URSA Mini etc are over twice the cost of the DVX200 when one buys lenses, expensive media, batteries etc to make them work !!! So you have a choice at anything reasonable in cost, effectively 1/3" sensors that are not that good in low light ( AX1, Z100, HCX1000 ) or the DVX200. The HCX1000 and DVX200 use SDXC cards but the Sony's use more expensive XQD cards. None of them will compete with the FS7 but all will be less than half the cost and a lot easier to manage. I am waiting to see what comes out but at the moment I think a trade of my AX1 for a DVX200 with a wide angle adapter is my choice.

Ron Evans
 
Id say that there are factors in camera choice..

image,
typically I would say data rate and bit depth are good indicators. AFAIK the panny is weak here.

ease of use,
ND, XLR, zoom lens, here the panny is marginally (to a lot?) ahead of the FS7

mass
the panny is ahead of a built FS7.

BUT.
You are 'weak' meaning mass is an issue,
you are 'retired' meaning you probably don't shoot under great pressure to get shots covered very quickly - maybe you dont need ease of use
You are 'retired' which means you probably have time to create wonderful considered work.. which would rely on a great codec.

One could therefore suggest that 'ease of use' is the least prominent factor to you with low mass and great codec sliding up the ladder.

Now with the FS7 you take a big addition of mass to get some extra 'ease of use' (that you may not need) compared to a BM Pocket, a A7s or whatever.

I would consider..

Black magic Pocket.. very light and great file.
Canon XC10.. 400MBs CLog 4k should be a very robust file in a small light camera package
A7Sii and GH4 should also I guess be on your radar as could the BMC4k (small silver one)

S
 
There's also Z 150 that's just came out. A slightly smaller sensor than DVX200 but not significantly so in 4K and it runs a grand less.
 
Piotr like me have 50/60P UHD as a requirement so none of these meet that requirement, neither does the Z150. Unless one goes to expensive media then the data rate limit is going to be about 150Mbps whether on SDXC or XQD for 8bit UHD at 50/60P. Moving up from the DVX200 then one is in to double the cost for 50/60P UHD and much more expensive media in XQD for the FS7 or CF 2.0 for the URSA for example. Sony clearly have a reason for not putting 50/60P UHD on either the FS5 or the Z150 but I am sure it is not technical but marketing.
 
Ron - unfortunately, you are 100% right. I'm very grateful to all other guys' advise and suggestions in this thread, but I guess they didn't read my message right: in all my endeavors in life, I never ever compromised on anything. So I did mention several times it needs to be 50p - not necessarily full DCI 4K, but at least QFHD. Only 2 cameras currently on the market can give me that - hence this thread is basically about DVX-200 vs. FS7.

Morgan is right that not being under pressure during my "serious hobby" filming, I don't necessarily need my camera to warrant "ease of use" - to the contrary, I'll be happy to prepare my shooting carefully and without haste. So again this points towards the FS7... Basically, it's only the price that makes me even consider the DVX-200 - but should I had buyer's remorse due to poor picture quality, I probably prefer to break my bank and go with the FS7 :)

And all the other things people suggest here (Z150, XC10, BM) are out of question because of their ergonomics and lack of 50p QFHD/4K codec. I hope nobody gets offended by me dismissing their suggestions like that :)

Also, if I don't even mention the Z100 (which does have UHD @ 50fps; it even offers I-frame codec just like the FS7 does, and for my editing, I'd prefer I-frame codec as well) is because of its small chip size. And the imager small size is a no-no for me not because it's unable to provide shallow DOF (which in my book is not a must-be with super detailed 4K picture that looks best if all in focus), but because of tiny pixels that cannot be good enough in low light. Which again boils down to not good enough PQ (noise and low sensitivity).

Of course, for some of my planned "beauty shots" a shallow DOF would be welcome, but you know what? My old good EX1 with Letus adapter and some nice, vintage Canon glass has always been, and still is, the best tool to achieve that! Yeah, I know it's just HD - but in my opinion, HD is better for that elusive "filmic look" than 4K/UHD - after all, 99% of cinema theaters still have projectors unable of higher resolution (at least in Poland), so in my personal perception the detailed look of UHD is more about TV and video than film. I realize what I just wrote may sound silly to some, but that's the way I feel. Therefore - while planning a "film" rather than a glorious, out-of-the-window looking, 4K video - I'll probably produce it in HD, using my EX1/Letus combo and the new 4K camera used either in HD for those slow motion and other effects, or just as a substitute for cranes, sliders and dollies effects obtained by panning & scanning HD window inside my 4K material during edits.

So to sum it up: it's either going to be the FS7, or should I not be able to afford it right away - waiting for something fulfilling my criteria, but "a tad" cheaper. Cheers

Piotr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top