Differences between FS100, VG900 and A99

R

raminolta

Active member
I know FS100 has a APS-C sensor (or 35mm cinematic sensor) of much lower resolution than the new-comers. But what are the differences in other aspects between the three options: compression level, the quality of uncompressed data? In A99 and VG900 one can record uncompressed data only through the hdmi output, right? How about FS100? What does uncompressed exactly mean? Is it like raw format for still cameras? What file format is it?

How about AF performance? Are they equally good. I know A99 has variable AF speed adjustment: three levels of low, mid and hgh AF speed so that if you want the AF to act slowly, you can set it to slow AF. I don't know if VG900 or FS100 have similar feature. Also how about dynamic range and overall image quality. How about different input options for XLR mic, external monitor, etc.? FS100 is still more expensive than the new cameras but, is the higher price now justified?

If you already have some information, please share it.

Thanks.
 
The A99 will have the fastest AF since it uses both Phase Detection AutoFocus and Contrast Detection AutoFocus. PDAF is better, but requires a mirror, Sony got past this by using a mostly transparent one, which is why the cameras are known as SLT (Single Lens Translucent).

CDAF is decent, in comparison, but it can't determine its current focus position is in front of or behind the actual focus point like PDAF can, which is why CDAF cameras always seek a bit.

Beyond that, until people get the cameras into their hands, I don't think we can say a whole lot. I mean, I have seen video from both the A99 and the VG900, and they both look great. But so does the FS100.
 
thr fs100 will outperform both others in terms of image quality. even when using external recording devices. the fs-100 has its data acquisition specifically designed for video. the others use line skipping to obtain their 1080p feed from the higher resolution sensor. the compressed 24mbs in camera footage will be cleaner and higher quality than 220mbs pro res taken from the uncompressed hdmi feeds of the others
 
richg101 said:
thr fs100 will outperform both others in terms of image quality. even when using external recording devices. the fs-100 has its data acquisition specifically designed for video. the others use line skipping to obtain their 1080p feed from the higher resolution sensor. the compressed 24mbs in camera footage will be cleaner and higher quality than 220mbs pro res taken from the uncompressed hdmi feeds of the others
Click to expand...

Based on your logic, the FS700 should suck, but people rave abouts it's features and look. There is more to this than line skipping.
 
I'd say the higher price is justified if your use is specific to Video. The FS100 image quality is superb. while I've only seen a bit of pre release footage from the VG900, and A99, the images dont seem to compare to the pre release footage of the FS100. (doesnt really mean much until we see more footage from the two cameras, but I cant see the VG900 as anything other then a camera thats MARKETED as a full frame camera to get full frame fanatics drooling.
 
atarijedi said:
The A99 will have the fastest AF since it uses both Phase Detection AutoFocus and Contrast Detection AutoFocus. PDAF is better, but requires a mirror, Sony got past this by using a mostly transparent one, which is why the cameras are known as SLT (Single Lens Translucent).

CDAF is decent, in comparison, but it can't determine its current focus position is in front of or behind the actual focus point like PDAF can, which is why CDAF cameras always seek a bit.

Beyond that, until people get the cameras into their hands, I don't think we can say a whole lot. I mean, I have seen video from both the A99 and the VG900, and they both look great. But so does the FS100.
Click to expand...

A99 has actually a neat new feature that I find useful. With A99, there are three settings for AF speed: slow, mid, and fast. For video, a fast AF is not always a good thing. Sometimes, it is too abrupt and a slower AF may look more fluid.
 
zeke said:
Based on your logic, the FS700 should suck, but people rave abouts it's features and look. There is more to this than line skipping.
Click to expand...

no. your comment is ignorant and makes assumptions. Where on earth does any of my comment make a suggestion that the fs-700 would 'suck'. it is actually proved the fs-100 does have slightly better low light performance (due to lower pixel count), but people buying the fs700 buy it for the added nd's and fast frame rates as well as planned 4k update. but the fs-700 doesnt line skip so your comment is null and void.

Line skipping is the be- all and end- all when comparing the three cameras in question. It's what determines the image quality between them. bitrates and clean hdmi feeds are all for nothing if you dont have clean feed from the sensor itself.
 
richg101 said:
no. your comment is ignorant and makes assumptions. Where on earth does any of my comment make a suggestion that the fs-700 would 'suck'. it is actually proved the fs-100 does have slightly better low light performance (due to lower pixel count), but people buying the fs700 buy it for the added nd's and fast frame rates as well as planned 4k update. but the fs-700 doesnt line skip so your comment is null and void.

Line skipping is the be- all and end- all when comparing the three cameras in question. It's what determines the image quality between them. bitrates and clean hdmi feeds are all for nothing if you dont have clean feed from the sensor itself.
Click to expand...

Are you sure the A99 and VG900 use line skipping and not pixel binning?
 
atarijedi said:
Are you sure the A99 and VG900 use line skipping and not pixel binning?
Click to expand...

The sample footage would certainly suggest it. As would the current marketing strategies of sony. They wont introduce 2 full frame options for half the price of the fs700 while allowing them to perform to the same high standards as their fs700. product differentiation is clearly one of sony's most important factors when they decide which features are included on each product.
 
maarek said:
It does if you use the slowmo stuff. And the slowmo is full of aliasing. At 240fps it's pretty much the old 5d mark II level with slightly less chroma aliasing.
Click to expand...

:badputer:

That response is like that of a child in the playground arguing about who's dad's car is faster. after loosing his argument that his dads ford mondeo is faster than his mates dads ferrari 458 challenge he tries to change the subject by bringing in factors like comfort and engine noise - factors which are of no relevance to the initial discussion. shooting 240fps at full hd for under 7k£ I think the users of the fs700 are ok with the slight aliasing. Nothing is perfect
 
richg101 said:
no. your comment is ignorant and makes assumptions. Where on earth does any of my comment make a suggestion that the fs-700 would 'suck'. it is actually proved the fs-100 does have slightly better low light performance (due to lower pixel count), but people buying the fs700 buy it for the added nd's and fast frame rates as well as planned 4k update. but the fs-700 doesnt line skip so your comment is null and void.

Line skipping is the be- all and end- all when comparing the three cameras in question. It's what determines the image quality between them. bitrates and clean hdmi feeds are all for nothing if you dont have clean feed from the sensor itself.
Click to expand...

You....are....wrong. I made my statement based on your statements about line skipping. The FS700 was merely hyperbole. You have to take into account the newer processors. Until someone with integrity tests these new cameras and their HDMI out signals, no one knows what the quality is. If you continue in this abrasive manner, I'll request the board admin shut down the thread. There is no need to insult people. This was all good natured. Try to keep it that way.
 
zeke said:
You....are....wrong. I made my statement based on your statements about line skipping. The FS700 was merely hyperbole. You have to take into account the newer processors. Until someone with integrity tests these new cameras and their HDMI out signals, no one knows what the quality is. If you continue in this abrasive manner, I'll request the board admin shut down the thread. There is no need to insult people. This was all good natured. Try to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

I think if the new cameras DO line skip (and I am betting they will) then I think he will be right. Of course I suppose
it is possible that they could do pixel binning and have better quality than the FS100 or FS700.....in which case Sony
would be almost forced to lower the prices on those cameras because who would buy them (especially the FS100 with
no 10X slo mo or ND) if they had comparable image quality and the new cameras were cheaper? So yeah you are right
that we do NOT know yet, but I think the odds are good that there will be a image quality difference. Of course I've
been wrong before as well.......
 
zeke said:
You....are....wrong. If you continue in this abrasive manner, I'll request the board admin shut down the thread. There is no need to insult people. This was all good natured. Try to keep it that way.
Click to expand...

Let me guess.. you live under a communist rule? Abrasive? I was pointing out that your comment was ignorant - which it was. Request to be shut down? go right ahead. At least the original poster wont have to be misinformed by your ridiculous Assumption Sony will cripple their higher level line by introducing better performance on a lower level product. It's like expecting to get McLaren speed and handling from a Ford. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Newer processors? Will uprating the ECU in a ford mondeo turn it into a racing car? No it wont.
 
richg101 said:
Let me guess.. you live under a communist rule? Abrasive? I was pointing out that your comment was ignorant - which it was. Request to be shut down? go right ahead. At least the original poster wont have to be misinformed by your ridiculous Assumption Sony will cripple their higher level line by introducing better performance on a lower level product. It's like expecting to get McLaren speed and handling from a Ford. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Newer processors? Will uprating the ECU in a ford mondeo turn it into a racing car? No it wont.
Click to expand...

Sigh...yet again,you still are missing the point. And making a fool of yourself in the meantime.
I am not the one making assumptions, you are. I'm merely stating we should wait and see what valid tests results show after the cameras are released to the public. I didn't realize you are the world's foremost authority on Sony business practices. What an "honor" to have you grace us with your presence. (not).
You have no proof the hdmi output from these will be inferior to the onboard codec of the FS100. To date, no one I know of has tested this. You may be right, you may be wrong, but until testing is done, no one who isn't under NDA knows the answer.
You car anology shows you know nothing about cars too. Try looking up info on the Dakar races, and see just how powerful and fast those little cars are (which consists of upgraded engines and suspension components over their stock versions). Worse, comparing to a McClaren is pointless and idiotic. That would be comparing these camera's to the F65 which is in a completely different league.
I sincerely hope no one is using your advice on making purchasing decisions. That would be a huge mistake.

My only advice is wait and see what the test results will show. Look at the overall cost of ownership, including lenses and accesories, see if the camera does or does not meet your needs. Factoring in the cost of FF A mount lenses, cost of ownership starts going up fast. Is using an external recorder reasonable for every day use? Can you even record the 5.1 audio to an external recorder with the video?Does adding another thousand dollars to the system still make economic sense? How is the still image/video quality of the VG30 compare to the VG900? Do you absolutely need FF for still images? If you're a professional, what will this camera bring/add to your bottom line? In spite of the cameras form factor, it is mainly a still image camera that happens to do video. If you're a pro, you will have to factor in the cost of a set of ND filters as well (or the Heliopan).
So even if the hdmi output is pristine, is it worth it considering the other costs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top