FS7: FS7 successor (rumours/expectations)

Run&Gun said:
Yep. Unless they think the rate is going to be significantly cheaper using the 7 vs F5/55, why would a client not want a better camera, everything being equal? I've gotten calls and jobs specifically because I do have an F55, which there actually aren't a lot of in my market. Definitely outnumbered by F5's and fs7's. I've only "lost out" to a 7 once, and that was just someone calling for a specific rental request, not me and my gear.

I concur, the 7 is very popular and great bang-for-the-buck, but it's no F55.
Click to expand...

WHY oh WHY are so many of you interested in the fs7 successor to be fullframe? I just don´t get it? To get that little bit of extra DOF? Still don´t get it.

I do not believe they will make it ff, but maybe wil come with a higher end model that is ff. I have used the FS7 professionally since the get go. From tropical to artic conditions. Run and gun as well as really controlled situations. Its been banged around quite a lot. I would really like the mk2 with the lock mount and the electronical nds. Of course there are many small issues that should and could be tweaked, but NOT a bigger sensor. S35 is more then enough. Now I really love my two fujinon mks and would be heartbroken if I had to change them out. Would rather go for a fs7 mk2 then a new FF version. I dont buy the "more sony lenses accesible" argument. These lenses are photo lenses and suck for real world filming. Of course decent AF is ok but you can´t base a professional video camera around AF. I have a sony a7iii with 24-105 for small run and gun situations with af, but I need a bigger more stable camera for 98% of my work. Of course great af would be nice in some situations, but mostly not. A new and improved fs7 with electronic nds, lock mount, better slow mo, dual iso, more light sensitivity etc would be great.

I just dont understand why so many people want to change a true winner. It just dosen´t make sense. If you want FF and AF the a7s3 will probably be for you. Out here in the real documentary world I live in, hell no.
 
The 'advantage' to me of full frame doesnt really have anything to do with the ideal format.

Its about an eco system, investing in decent AF glass, which would be expected to to work with this camera, a professional stills camera and a small gimbal camera and be current for 5 years.

I dont care if it is S35 or FF but I want an eco system.

Today FF has an AF eco system with 'basics' such as 80-200s and 24-105 lenses available.

I beleive AF will drive the next camera choice as it will push one to buy so much glass.

Here canon are a mile ahead of sony.

My advocacy of AF is very much around what I think the FS7 is used for - easy shooting - for 'drama' Im happy with both MF and S35.

The truth is that AF is extremely handy for a lot of work, particularly as it to some extent allows one to work with a smaller screen, and therefore a smaller more nimble camera build.

Im still very much considering my recent experience with the C200 - it was very very good - enough for me to be considering a swap from the FS7!

S
 
Last edited:
Not quite sure why my post about the F5/55 is being quoted leading into a post about people wanting a "full frame" fs7. Am I missing something?
 
Run&Gun said:
Not quite sure why my post about the F5/55 is being quoted leading into a post about people wanting a "full frame" fs7. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

No, I am so sorry Run&gun this is just me being silly and quoting the wrong posts. However there has been surprisingly many advocates for a fs7 follower with a FF sensor. I did not mean to confuse you, this is just me trying to multi task.
 
I'm not interested in FF, either. I'd just have to throw away about $65K in lenses. Plus, even if I overlook the lens issues, a FF FS7 isn't going to meet my needs unless it can also do 120fps 4K RAW and have a slot-in microphone receiver. That just ain't gonna happen. My F55 and FS7 continue to be cash cows. I don't need a new cow. Keep milking!
 
nareik said:
No, I am so sorry Run&gun this is just me being silly and quoting the wrong posts. However there has been surprisingly many advocates for a fs7 follower with a FF sensor. I did not mean to confuse you, this is just me trying to multi task.
Click to expand...

All good. I was just confused when I saw it.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I'm not interested in FF, either. I'd just have to throw away about $65K in lenses.
Click to expand...

This is where you have to 'read the runes' - I have been saying MF S35 zooms are not a wise investment for years

That $65k of lenses may have to be thrown away

Of course that lovely glass and your F55 will work till you retire - so dont throw them away :)

But you demonstrate why I feel we are at a critical juncture.. the 'next FS7' will be AF, and will need a Sony AF glass investment to sit with it.


Im as wary of buying AF sony glass as I am wary of buying MF cine glass.


Which is why I feel the 'next fs7' might be a Canon

No one ever lost $50k buying Canon L glass because it is universally resaleable.
 
morgan_moore said:
the 'next FS7' will be AF, and will need a Sony AF glass investment to sit with it.
Click to expand...

With a button for vertical video and one to upload to Instagram and Twitter without editing. In fact, editing will be done in your phone app, just like DJI.

Actually, I think you're right. All my glass is AF. It's one of the reasons I've never really got on with my A7III. AF is slow and inconsistent on some lenses, downright unusable on others.

As for Canon, who knows? When it comes to video, they never seem to deliver what we actually want or need - maybe their video cameras will move to M mount and so screw us all. That would be the most Canon thing Canon could do.
 
Well I spent 10mins with the C200 with a couple of standard L lenses (16-35, 70-200) and my assesment was the AF was good enough for doco work - way better than manual focus on a poorly placed small screen if you are out in the sun.

I didnt try any cinematography moves.

And yes in my show coverage this summer pulling 10s instaram clips would be super useful.. we shoot quite a lot and have a 'PR girl/boy' next to us filming on a phone for insta. Often we are directing her/him or placing her/him strategically so the phone clips are far from horrific and yes they get good social media traction that impresses the end client.. which is what we need for a rebooking. Plonking 150p shallow DOF po_rn on Insta in close to real time would hoover up the re-bookings.

And there is only one reason to own kit. To keep the bookings rolling in.

Of course none of this electronic gizmology is required to shoot an oscar winning movie.. do that on a F55 and manual cine glass :)
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
But you demonstrate why I feel we are at a critical juncture.. the 'next FS7' will be AF, and will need a Sony AF glass investment to sit with it.
.
Click to expand...

If I do replace my lenses it won't be with lenses that have AF, I can assure you that. I would be replacing my S35 lenses with FF cinema lenses that have no electronics. I prefer to shoot MF, and I am a firm believer that any lens that has AF capability makes a poor MF lens. In fact, one reason why a lot of people THINK they need AF is because they have never experienced the pleasure of using a true fully MF cine lens. The difference is night and day. If there is an AF capable lens that offers great MF, I have yet to see it. I don't expect that to change.

So, it's not so much that I am against the use of AF in principle if a camera/lens combo can do it well, but personally, I would need to have two sets of lenses: One set for MF and another set for AF.
 
Last edited:
I would use AF on a FS7 style camera for certain shots if I knew it was good, but for me, I mainly want autofocus on my B-cams, not my FS7. I use an A7RIII and an A7SII as B-cams to my FS7II and my RIII kills it with AF. Using it on a gimbal, a remote controlled slider during interviews, mounted inside a car, hooking it up to a small jib or anything else where it would be very costly (and time consuming) to have a wireless follow focus system. Having good, reliable autofocus in those situations is incrediblly useful and has literally changed how I work.

When it comes to my FS7II, it would be cool to have it in case I ever needed it, but I’m behind that camera 100% of the time and can just pull focus myself. In fact, focusing myself with my FS7II really sucks me into the shot, and that oftentimes makes me a better shooter.
 
I largely agree with Doug. I think a lot of people's experience and therefore opinion is based off of shooting with still lenses, which are not the same as fully manual cine or video lenses. Focusing with a Canon 24-105 L is a much different experience than focusing with a 17-120. I'm not saying focus in s35 is going to become magically "easy" with a dedicated MF cine/video lens, but it's better. And I do have a few friends with the Canon compact cine-servo's(they can AF), but I haven't messed with them enough to have a real, informed opinion and impression of them. I also don't have a C300mkII, which can supposedly focus the 17-120, but you would either have to completely disengage the focus servo to use it manually or completely engage the focus servo to allow the camera to AF.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Well I spent 10mins with the C200 with a couple of standard L lenses (16-35, 70-200) and my assesment was the AF was good enough for doco work - way better than manual focus on a poorly placed small screen if you are out in the sun.
Click to expand...

Funny, I had the opposite reaction. 15 minutes trying out the auto-focus of the C200 at a trade show and I knew neither it nor its auto-focus was right for me.

Of course it should also go without saying that if you're out in the sun you need to use a proper viewfinder... with any caemra
 
I have used C200 and Canon L series glass for many interviews with AF / face tracking and manually with my CN-E cinema primes. AF is good but its definitely not perfect. On a long interview take I have seen issues, mainly if you have a speaker that talks with hands and likes to rock back and forth I have seen focus shifts. Is it good YES. Is it better than Sony (even their DSLR's) YES (I use A7sII and A7Rii/iii a lot with native glass) for comparison. Is it perfectly flawless NO.

There is really just no point for AF for DOC work in my opinion. A manual focus lens set wide open will always focus at a set distance. The minimal movement forward or back or from flailing hands during a seated interview would not noticely detract from being slightly soft. However that same movement can make AF focus on objects in the background quiet easily. Similarly a shoulder rig or tripod shot (typical setups for DOC work) I would rather take my chances with a handheld follow focus unit / whip and I would rather control my focus with peaking rather than let a computer decide for me especially if using true manual focus cinema lenses with 200-300 degrees of range. If you have not used true cinema lenses that is probably a primary reason one may prefer AF.

When it comes to the requirements of autofocus I really believe its specialty niche lies in shooting at low apertures on gimbals for Vlogging / super run and gun scenarios. The irony is that typically on a gimbal for high speed moving objects I am almost always at higher apertures to make the background sharp as well to show detail throughout the scene and show what the subject is actually doing. So it really is a niche use in my opinion (i.e. vlogging and handheld DSLR work) or for the people who are not willing to tape marks and count their steps for DOF.
 
People - the thread is about predictions for the fs7

I’m not really advocating AF - I’m just noting my predicted direction of travel.

As it happens I do feel for a walk towards with a telephoto AF will generally win
 
Are we still banging the drum of af vs mf in video? There are times to use MF and there are times to use AF, that’s it! Autofocus is definitely capability/tool that I want on an FS7 successor.
And I agree with Doug, by the way AF lenses are designed it’s almost impossible to have great manual focus on them. But usable? Doable (see Sigma 18-35 for example).
 
OnSet said:
Funny, I had the opposite reaction. 15 minutes trying out the auto-focus of the C200 at a trade show and I knew neither it nor its auto-focus was right for me.
Click to expand...

I had the C200 for over a year and hoped I would use the AF much more than would, but sadly I never could fully trust it on a lot of shoots and prefered to stay manual.
For me, it was a novelty to show off to other camera geeks and something I thought I would use on a gimbal but it was annoying to break it down for gimbals and would rent a 1DX II for speed already setup.

This is part of the reason I've found my way back to Sony FS7 II and I may opt for a used FS5 for gimbal and lighter setups, mainly because I don't feel the AF is needed, which is Canon's biggest feature in all these camera wars.

From someone who has owned both FS7II & C300 II I can tell you the AF is the least important feature.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top