FS5: FS5 vs FS7

K

klfi

Active member
Which solution will produce a better image quality
1. Fs7 4K UHD or
2. Fs5 with raw output recorded on shogun Inferno prores 4K DCI 10bit 422
Can the quality be called as aproximately even ?
Thanks Klaus
 
Last edited:
I vote for the FS5 despite the amount of flack I am going to get on here for this comment.

But 12-bit Prores Raw @ (4k/60fps continous / 4K/120FPS 4 sec burst) & 2k Prores Raw @ 240FPS continuous) trumps 4k 10-bit @ 60FPS XAVC-I in my opinion. They are built of the same sensor and yes the FS7 has many more bells and whistles but for the price of a used FS5 with Raw upgrade and a used shogun inferno it really cannot be beat. If you need super slo motion the FS7 is not even in the same league. I recommend the haters get their hands on some 12-bit ProRes raw and push around some wheels / curves and decide for themselves prior to bashing my comment. And for the record I am not hating on an FS7 at all I use them quite often. Just trying to stand up for the little brother FS5 since it seems no one ever does.
 
Last edited:
sleekmedia said:
If you need super slo motion the FS7 is not even in the same league.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your defense of the FS5 and you make your case well, but do you really think there is big difference between 240 fps and 180? Not to my eyes. They are definately both in the same league. Also, I will point out that the OP specifically asked about "prores 4K DCI 10bit 422". I would say that 12-bit output from the FS5 offers no advantage with that codec.
 
I own a FS5 and would agree with Doug.
Except you only focus on getting RAW out of the camera, in this case the FS5 is an economical situation, the FS7 is a better choice for the reasons Doug has mentionned.
 
The question was specifically about the quality, not about the features and ergonomics. Be nice to see a side by side comparison done by some one who owns both.
 
Considering internal recording, the FS7 is far a head:
- FS7: Intraframe 10bit 4:2:2 at up to 600Mbps, up to 60fps
- FS5: Long Gop 8bit 4:2:0 8 bit at 100Mbps, up to 30fps

if you take RAW out of the FS5 and run post processing work (lens correction, noise reduction and so on) you should be able to reach same level of quality as the FS7 internal recording. I said should because I have no experience working with the FS7.
 
jc01108 said:
The question was specifically about the quality, not about the features and ergonomics. Be nice to see a side by side comparison done by some one who owns both.
Click to expand...

As someone who used to own both cameras, I can tell you that would be a waste of time. The FS5's RAW output can't even beat the FS5's own internal recording, let alone the FS7.
You want side by side comparisons, I give you side by side comparisons . . .

https://vimeo.com/181695617
https://vimeo.com/183839655

Plus, the FS7's features and functions run circles around the the FS5. And if that doesn't matter to someone . . . it should.
 
Last edited:
Doug..
In those videos where is the onboard codec better?

Those videos seem to show that for simple ungraded scenes the codecs are the same (a very useful demo)

Surely one could only find out if the raw codec better (or worse) when doing some moves in a grading suite?
 
To me owning both FS5 and FS7 there's no question the image quality on the FS7 is better. So far I've seen little difference in internal vs raw on the FS5 and maybe not worth considering raw from the FS5.
 
morgan_moore said:
In those videos where is the onboard codec better?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the onboard ever looks better. I would say they look nearly nearly identical in most cases.
But since the onboad has smaller file sizes, requires no extra equipment, has less hassle, a simpler workflow, etc. that gives it the edge in my book.
 
The marketeers from Sony would be stupid if they made the FS5 a cheaper and better alternative for the FS7, that is not how it works. (It would make sense if the competitor made a better and cheaper camera.)

Marketing: If the FS5 would be better, it would be more expensive than the FS7. You get what you pay for.
 
Publimix said:
The marketeers from Sony would be stupid if they made the FS5 a cheaper and better alternative for the FS7, that is not how it works. (It would make sense if the competitor made a better and cheaper camera.)

Marketing: If the FS5 would be better, it would be more expensive than the FS7. You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

I didn't think the question was if the FS5 was better than the FS7, but equal to it in image quality if recorded in raw mode (ProResRaw) to an external recorder. There is no question that the FS7 has more codecs and features than the FS5. The FS5 is smaller and lighter than the FS7, has a variable ND filter, fires up extremely quickly and records to SDXC cards, all of which are pluses for some users, but again, that wasn't the question that was asked.
 
I am going to have to entirely disagree with the majority of everything that has been said in this post despite the backlash I will receive. Onboard 4k @ 8-bit XAVC-L is 100% not even comparable to 12-bit Pro-Res Raw on the FS5. If exposed properly yes both can look okay but the difference is found when you slightly overexpose or underexpose in run-and gun or poorly lit / uncontrolled environments. From my experience 8-bit internal produces intense banding when pushing grades even slightly and in comparison I can pull Shadows / Highlights way down or up and push colors 10 times the amount of the internal codec. If your goal is to throw a Rec-709 lut on whatever you shoot and call it a day maybe you could compare these two codecs or If we are talking about 1080p footage there is no point for using raw output or a recorder as 1080 internal is just fine on the FS5 but I believe the 4k internal on the FS5 is 100% worthless and in no way shape or form compares to what can be achieved with an external recorder on the FS5. If this was the case why would the Atomos shogun inferno / Odyssey Q7 series be so popular and why would you see one attached to almost every single FS5 / FS700 I see. I can show you footage shot with and without a recorder on the FS5 and they 100% do not look similar to my eyes. And to combat the argument of fat files with the recorder (yes they are fat) but that's typically a telltale sign that there is much higher quality of information being stored and I hate to break it to you but in FCPX my renders times are very similar between XVAC-L and Prores Raw so I really see no advantage there considering the loss of grading capability. I use Gemini, Scarlet-W, FS7, FS700, and FS5 often and I am willing to bet I could interlay clips of all of the above together @ 4k and you could not tell me which is which. Is the FS7 a better camera. ABSOLUTELY. Does 4k with an FS5 / External Recorder look as good as an FS7 ABSOLUTELY. It is the same stinking sensor on FS7 / FS5 / FS700. If you forgo all the internal processing they all essentially emit the same RAW output. There are numerous hardware advantages to the FS7 and its exposure modes are superior but to say internal 4K on the FS5 is the same as external raw is just not a justified statement in my opinion. I use these cameras almost every week.
 
Last edited:
Chris those vids take the grade no where - the sky above that office building should/could be brought down until it is a deep rich blue in a secondary window.
Have a look back at some ansel Adams to see how far images get pushed in post to get real art!
It would be interesting to see where an actual colourist took a file - i think the onboard codec would break severely.
I consider the fs7 to have a flimsy codec - I can’t imagine how thin the fs5 negative is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top