puredrifting
Major Contributor
That would be frustrating. With the C200, we shoot literally an entire day with one BP-A60 and one BP-A30. I would definitely get the V-Mount back and just keep the BP-A60s for smallest, lightest run & gun situations.
C500: C500 Mark II: Observations from a C300MkII point of view
- Thread starter Barry G
- Start date
That would be frustrating. With the C200, we shoot literally an entire day with one BP-A60 and one BP-A30. I would definitely get the V-Mount back and just keep the BP-A60s for smallest, lightest run & gun situations.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Does anyone know if the battery life is improved and by how much when shooting say 4K 4:2:2 vs say 6K RAW?
there's a handy chart in the manual. I'm not getting that kind of life out of my BPA-30s, but they are 4 years old. the BPA-60 has been around 2 hours, maybe longer when shooting XF-AVC, but I don't really pay that much attention.
B
chris f
Veteran
BP-A60s are 90wh batteries, so a 98wh v-mount isn’t going to do much more. Wouldn't notice a considerable difference unless you’re slapping a bigger 150h+ on the back, which for me would probably be a deal breaker on the weight side of things for how I like to operate.
I did a two-day doc shoot on the C500MKII cycling through 3 A60s and it wasn’t a problem at all. If I bought one I’d probably just go with the CoreSWX versions and buy 4-5 of them to power cam and monitor. Can’t think of the last time I’ve done 2+ hours straight without a natural break where I could swap a battery.
ericsanpablo
Active member
A question to anyone who's had experience with the EVF-V70. When your eye is pressed against it, how large is the image/magnification? Do you have to kind of look around to see the corners of the image?
The image is large, bright and sharp—immersive. Not sure whether I’d say you need to look around the Evf-v70 to see everything, but it’s definitely not the opposite. It’s similar to a full frame DSLR optical finder.
ericsanpablo
Active member
Nice, thanks! Do you know by any chance whether the false color on the EVF works on the Canon C200 as well?
I’m seeing reports that you cannot record proxies while you are recording in XFAVC mode. Only in Raw. Does anyone know if this is true? Recording to proxies always felt like a great fail safe backup when shooting with the C200 and C300 II. If you have a card failure or a corruption, knowing you at least had a separate SD card with the entire day’s footage on it was a great feeling. The 800Mbps of the highest quality XFAVC mode is very close to the 1.1Gbps of the S35 Raw mode. Some older computers would struggle to playback those compressed 4k files, just like the raw files. I really wish Canon allowed for proxy shooting in all modes. Can someone tell me this information is incorrect?
It’s correct.. remember that xf-avc is 810mbps in 60fps 4K..not 24/30p. That’s the standard 410mbps. And in Xf-avc you can write to both CFexpress cards simultaneously.. so you do have a backup. I agree, that sd card proxy was nice to have in a pinch.. and maybe it’s something they can add in firmware.
Thanks. And that's good to know. So the bitrate at 24fps for 4k is the same as all the other camera systems out there, FX9, FS7, etc? Interesting.
And yes, I suppose you could back up to CFExpress in the second slot. But CFExpress cards are so expensive right now that seems like a costly option. On the C200, I can literally keep days of footage on one 256GB SD card. It's like having a permanent, emergency back up drive built into the camera. If my Cfast card fails, or God forbid a whole case of footage is lost during the day, I always know that I have that SD card inside the camera, just in case. On some of the doc shoots I go on, I don't have a DIT or anyone to wrangle cards and footage. And when there is a super tight schedule and little to no crew, that's when mistakes happen. I'll take as many back up options that I can get.
Grug
Veteran
Not quite. Everyone quotes bitrates based on 30p for some reason (I guess because it’s the highest “normal” frame rate people shoot).
So at 24fps the Canon should yield about 328Mbps, whereas the Sonys shooting XAVC300 will yield around 240Mbps.
Yeah that was mentioned a few times before the REDuser test in the FX9 vs. C500 II thread (just from viewing online example footage)- perhaps a better thread for that topic?
You can pay to any non-corrupt/non-scam 501(3)(c) charity! (maybe you won't have to pay the fine lol)
How perception has changed now that the cameras have been released and tested! See the first post comments: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?365401-Sony-FX9-v-Canon-C500-mkII
Canon's 15 stops claim called out for shenanigans: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...0-mkII&p=1986814568&viewfull=1#post1986814568 (REDUser did exactly the suggested test!)
FX9 crowned winner for IQ: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...0-mkII&p=1986814881&viewfull=1#post1986814881
The REDUser test was certainly useful in showing that the FX9 with Rec709 gamma* (not log: S-Cinetone proflie) was able to hang in the highlights & shadows vs. other cameras shooting raw!
That said, the C500 II may be better for certain use cases that don't require the best IQ, or where the IQ is close enough that other features are more important.
* though not log, the gamma curve must be wide DR enough to not clip the highlights, allowing for amazing recovery at +6.
Yeah looking at the test right now. Fx9 has about a half stop on the c500ii in the highlights. C500 has at least as much in the shadows over fx9. (and nobody notices it). Yes the c500 has a ton of noise at 6 under, but there is an obscene amount of detail..(meaning a good denoiser could clean it up and preserve almost all of it, I know...I’ve done it) the fx9 is applying a lot of noise reduction and smearing detail everywhere.... And then just look at his corduroy jacket....see anything?
These cameras are going to come in within half stop of each other in DR. The Sony will have remarkable ability to hold color at the extremes. The canon will have remarkable ability to hold detail at the lowest exposure levels. In the middle... I think they look equally different...I prefer her skin on the canon, and his on the Sony.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
FWIW, I am attending a Sony training session tomorrow on the FX9 and will be taking the FX9 home with me. LMK if any of you have any specific yet relatively easy tests or observations you want me to check out with the FX9, I'll have it for a week.
I won't have a C500 MKII in hand unfortunately, I'm still in line for that one, waiting for Canon call me to tell me they're sending it.
I did check out some of the FX9 threads and watched Alister Chapman's video. Maybe it's because I shoot Canons more often than the FS7s but the Sony FX9 menus and settings are
MASSIVELY more confusing to me than Canon, RED, Arri or anything else I shoot with, the way the gammas interact with presets, all of the gotchas when you change presets, etc.
Frankly, it looks like the camera is great but the menus and workflow logic for the operator, especially if you are working under pressure, is a freaking mess. We'll see if hanging with
the Sony engineers tomorrow can change my perception of that.
I'm looking forward to shooting with the FX9 and seeing what I can get out of it. I think I'll only have a kit zoom, unfortunately as I don't have any Sony lenses laying around but if I can make the kit zoom sing,
I know that the new cine primes would look that much better with it.
I won't have a C500 MKII in hand unfortunately, I'm still in line for that one, waiting for Canon call me to tell me they're sending it.
I did check out some of the FX9 threads and watched Alister Chapman's video. Maybe it's because I shoot Canons more often than the FS7s but the Sony FX9 menus and settings are
MASSIVELY more confusing to me than Canon, RED, Arri or anything else I shoot with, the way the gammas interact with presets, all of the gotchas when you change presets, etc.
Frankly, it looks like the camera is great but the menus and workflow logic for the operator, especially if you are working under pressure, is a freaking mess. We'll see if hanging with
the Sony engineers tomorrow can change my perception of that.
I'm looking forward to shooting with the FX9 and seeing what I can get out of it. I think I'll only have a kit zoom, unfortunately as I don't have any Sony lenses laying around but if I can make the kit zoom sing,
I know that the new cine primes would look that much better with it.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
If the FX9 is anything like the FS7 it's worth taking 30mins to setup the user menu with all your common used functions that way it saves digging into the menus.
It's not just because you use Canons. I use every brand of camera and Sony is the absolute worst. They always have been. Even their compact cameras like the RX100 are a mess. "S-Cinetone" is the new Venice setting everyone's talking about in the FX9. It is a term Sony created themselves. They've been using it to market the FX9 and it's all over the FX9's homepage, blogs, pamphlets, etc. Guess what it's called in the Sony menu? It's called "Original", lol.
Last edited:
JPNola
Veteran
I’m guessing that they had no idea that in the english language “original” is somewhat synonymous with “vanilla” and suggests the most plain, most boring, most uninteresting.
“Would you like to try the latest, greatest flavor? It’s called ‘Cinetone’!!”
“No thanks. I’m not feeling daring. Just give me the original.”