FS7: FS7 vs FS700 - Image quality?
- Thread starter Arash Ayrom
- Start date
So many things wrong its hard to know where to start.. F5/55 is a box with the right proportions for a camera.. you could just put it on your shoulder.. but shoulder pad/plate is a lot better.. it has a VF.. guess where ! at the side.. not the back ..the F5 is not just a cinema camera.. !!! its used for many documentaries as is the F55.. and FS700 is a cinema camera.. now you really have to be joking.. hand held look s like dog s*%t.. who wants to film that way ..?? .. Ken Loach.. . Paul Greengrass.. etc these useless people.. did you ever see Hurt Locker.. sorry all credibility lost with that statement ..
Dude the FS700 is a dog of a camera.. as is the C300.. I mean just look at it !!
Last edited:
Nirv
Carbonite Member
And.....both directors were using different aesthetics to inform the viewer about the character of the protagonists. It's not a case of which looks better it's a case of which is a better narrative device for the shot.
JackCarter
Well-known member
I'm not going to argue about the FS700, you don't like the camera and I do, simple. I prefer the F5 but it did cost me 4 x the amount of the FS700. The FS700 is small and lightweight and is far more fun to use in the field than the F5 IMO. Don't you get bored of using the same tool all the time? The F5 is just too big and heavy for some jobs so I felt a much smaller and lighter camera was needed for those on location shoots in the field. You try humping up a big mountain with an F5 and a heavy PL lens and see if it's fun. Funny you don't think the FS700 can produce cinematic images when it uses the same sensor as the F5/FS7. You don't like the FS700 so why not go to another sub-forum and discuss a camera that you do like to use? You think that the FS700 is a joke, what about all these digital stills cameras with video features? And people complain that they overheat or won't record past 30 minutes.
I don't like hand held photography as I feel it's lazy but it does work for films like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. I would prefer not to film hand held because any Tom, Dick or Harry can film this way. You like the Kenneth Loach style then great for you, it's just not my thing. What does the look of the camera have to do with anything? I'd be more concerned about the images coming out of the camera. I like the alternative look of the FS700. If we were all the same then the world would be a boring place :smile:
I don't like hand held photography as I feel it's lazy but it does work for films like Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. I would prefer not to film hand held because any Tom, Dick or Harry can film this way. You like the Kenneth Loach style then great for you, it's just not my thing. What does the look of the camera have to do with anything? I'd be more concerned about the images coming out of the camera. I like the alternative look of the FS700. If we were all the same then the world would be a boring place :smile:
Dude heads up.. this is the PMW camera forum .. your in the wrong place.. Im not knocking the image.. never said anything about it.. but the form factor is totally wrong.. any tom dick or harry can do hand held.. man I hope your a student or camera work isn't your day job.. but agree the discussion is point less ..
JackCarter
Well-known member
I agree with what your saying Nirv, but hand held is used to give a sense or realism. Grading the material like it's a polished Hollywood blockbuster defeats the purpose of filming this way. I suppose we have no rules when it comes to art, but that style just doesn't work for me.
JackCarter
Well-known member
Why don't you go annoy someone else with your simplistic and naive comments. The form factor is wrong for you, fine. Now go shoot some hand held with your perfect camera Dude!
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
This thread is getting a bit out of hand, right? Perhaps we could leave it alone unless there is more to add about the cameras in question.
Those that are using the internal 4K on the FS7: are you finding the bit rate? Or just overall quality.
Those that are using the internal 4K on the FS7: are you finding the bit rate? Or just overall quality.
JackCarter
Well-known member
My apologies, I think I got out of the wrong side of bed today. I think a six pack is more in order. If you really want to have a go at a dog of a camera then have a look at the Digital Bolex :smile:
I can't talk about the FS7 as I don't have one, but the XAVC coming out of the F5 is stunning. In CineEI I usually set the ISO to 800 which is way overexposed but I have no issues with clipping in S-Log 2 and the images are super clean when graded. I have shot at the native 2000 ISO and would be happy to use it but it can have a little grain. XAVC is a quality codec and was worth the money for the 4K upgrade. I can't wait to see this beast shoot in RAW one day.
I do find the FS700 quite noisy and have had to use Neat Video on a lot of the slow motion footage so far but it's not an issue. One reason I think I have enjoyed working with the FS700 is I don't feel like I need to use S-Log because it's an 8bit camera. Cine 4 is working well for me. I have always hated AVCHD but I was amazed at how good it is on the FS700. I have a Samurai Blade so ProRes is available if needed but so far I've been quite happy with the internal recordings from the FS700.
I would be happy to use either the F5, FS700 or FS7. It all just depends on what you can afford.
Arash Ayrom
Cataclysmo
Just to put a pin in this as the OP, I'm pretty much decided on the FS700 / 7Q+ combo. Fits my budget, and hopefully my needs!
Thanks to all for the info and passion!
Thanks to all for the info and passion!
Clermond
Veteran
after 3 weeks with the FS7: I don't see any general difference in image quality from the FS700/7Q combo to the FS7.
The advantage of FS700/7Q is RAW recording which I don't need plus 240 vs 180 fps HFR.
The advantage of the FS7 is a wider range of recording codecs in 10bit. I found REC709 and REC709(800) on the 7Q not usable and therefore it's a must to go through a sLog grading process in post. With the FS7 you have various settings (custom, burn in LUT) for a pleasing ready to edit footage. Also I found none of the supplied LUTs for 7Q sLog2 pleasing, there is still some work and knowledge needed. At the FS7 LC709A LUT was what I had tried to copy in Resolve for the 7Q sLog2 footage.
You may find a way for a shoulder mount but the viewfinder at the FS7 is ways better respectively at the FS700 it's a real bugger.
Mounting a stripped FS7 on a Ronin or a rig saves almost two kilos compared to a FS700/7Q. This is a huuuge benefit!
Powering the 7Q is a challenge as the NP-F drain fast and add a lot of weight.
With the FS700 you might consider a better viewfinder, with the FS7 you will need a monitor.
At the end the price point with media and batteries is about 2.500,- which is imo worth the benefit of the FS7
The advantage of FS700/7Q is RAW recording which I don't need plus 240 vs 180 fps HFR.
The advantage of the FS7 is a wider range of recording codecs in 10bit. I found REC709 and REC709(800) on the 7Q not usable and therefore it's a must to go through a sLog grading process in post. With the FS7 you have various settings (custom, burn in LUT) for a pleasing ready to edit footage. Also I found none of the supplied LUTs for 7Q sLog2 pleasing, there is still some work and knowledge needed. At the FS7 LC709A LUT was what I had tried to copy in Resolve for the 7Q sLog2 footage.
You may find a way for a shoulder mount but the viewfinder at the FS7 is ways better respectively at the FS700 it's a real bugger.
Mounting a stripped FS7 on a Ronin or a rig saves almost two kilos compared to a FS700/7Q. This is a huuuge benefit!
Powering the 7Q is a challenge as the NP-F drain fast and add a lot of weight.
With the FS700 you might consider a better viewfinder, with the FS7 you will need a monitor.
At the end the price point with media and batteries is about 2.500,- which is imo worth the benefit of the FS7
Last edited:
mainstreetprod
Veteran
Last feature I shot on FS700, this feature FS7, 10 bit 4:2:2 is where it's at, can be pushed, pulled, graded as far as you generally need to go. No need for RAW for me.
How would you go about convincing your director / post production team for a feature (or short film, or music video) to go with 10 bit 422 over raw? As this is a bit of the discussion I've been having a lot myself recently.
dmitrizigany
Veteran
Isn't it more about convincing the people that pay?
If there's a budget for the extra hard drives / time / etc that raw needs then there's really not a problem shooting raw, is there?
If you're shooting an indie or produce it yourself, you might simply not have the hardware necessary for raw. In which case the choice is easy
Nirv
Carbonite Member
I would use the same arguments I used when I decided on getting the fs7 over other cameras that shoot RAW. I just couldn't be arsed to deal with the data load of shooting RAW, RED or otherwise. Shoot well and light well and 10 bit 422 Log is plenty malleable in post.
How deep are the pockets?
Arash Ayrom
Cataclysmo
Thank you for this, Clermond! Great to get your experience and advice. Funny enough, I'm attracted to the FS700 because of RAW and HFR
I'm not a DP, but an editor / filmmaker, and my intended use is in a studio, not doing run-and-gun / doc work.
If the FS7 didn't require that $2000 Sony add-on to get RAW out of the 7Q+, I'd likely go that direction. It just adds so much more to the cost.
Again, thanks!