FS5: FX9 is it still viable - I’m looking to buy 🤔

Conversations about sharpness and resolution are the weakest.

Edit: I didn't mean that as a counter to Ted or DLD so a bit of explanation as relates to the folly. That people "see" improvements on laptop displays through the windows of resolution and sharpness and YouTube and multi-generational compressed copies, seeing more (apparent) resolution via down-sampling which is the destruction of recorded pixels, yet often don't spot differences between HD-4K-6K-8K when displayed at their native resolutions and native sizes on native displays.
 
Last edited:
LennyLevy said:
Do you guys have a lot of clients asking for Raw? I've never had one. Seems to me anyone who needs to have a Raw workflow is going to want to shoot on a more upper tier camera than an FX6 anyway - but I don't know how everyone works so it must be important to some people. To be honest, I think a lot of people are way more concerned with Raw than just learning how to light and shoot good pictures in the first place.
Click to expand...

So I completely agree with your last sentence. WAY too many people get more concerned with shooting raw or with having a camera that can shoot good in lowlight than learning how to light to begin with. I'm on the same page with you here.

To answer your question, I've never once had a client ask me for raw either. It's simply never come up in anything I've done. That being said, the reason why I am frustrated that the FX9 can't do raw direct to a recorder is because as a shooter I at least want the capability in the event I'm working on a project where raw could be beneficial.

I'm a log guy through in through. I like the workflow and I like the images you can get with log when using proper LUTs. But, there's times where raw can be helpful just like there's times when a baked in image such as S-Cinetone can be helpful. It all just depends on the project. And the fact that the FX6 can have a raw option with a simple $1,000 recorder gives me that capability when I need it.

Where the FX9 kills me is that you're paying a $5,000 premium to buy that camera over the FX6 and yet it still has the same limitations that the 2014 FS7 had. We should be further along with that model by now! The image quality, the color and the full frame sensor are all great on the FX9, but to be limited to the same resolutions, frame rates and the same dumb extension unit on a camera that's nearly 6 years newer than its predecessor and that is $5,000 more than the camera below which doesn't have those limitations is a problem. And I know people like to claim that the FX9 is a "broadcast" camera that's not meant for shooting raw or being used in a creative "cinema" environment (whatever that means anyway), but come on. The C300III, the FX6, and even the A7SIII, FX3 and A1 all have more raw and frame rate capabilities than the FX9. That's a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

I will agree with everyone else here that the FX9's image does have a thickness about it, not to mention slightly more detail than the FX6 thanks to its sensor. But we're at a point now where for most things that doesn't matter as much today as it used to. If we're being honest, almost any customer who hires you isn't going to know the difference between FX9 or FX6 footage and virtually nobody outside of us really care about the "thickness" the image has. 99% of paying customers just want a nice looking image and a well put together production with good lighting, good audio and good storyboarding. Any camera you pickup today can get you there.

So what's left now is ease of use, ergonomics and what features are available on a camera. That's really what matters anymore as all current camera models can produce nice images with nice color. So if a camera like the FX9 looks 10% better than a camera like the FX6, but costs almost twice as much and is missing things like 4K 120p and raw out, not to mention it's 50% heavier and bulkier, that starts to make the FX6 feel like a better buy. Especially since you can break the FX6 down to just the lightweight body for drone/gimbal/slider/small jib work or build it up with a few parts for shoulder work. It's highly flexible from that standpoint and having things like raw out and more frame rates only make it even more flexible.

I know that some of you will disagree with this and would rather still buy the FX9 for its extra detail or "thicker" image. But honestly from a business standpoint, it's hard to argue that the FX6 isn't a better buy that offers more. That is unless you're working with people who are specifically requesting the FX9 of course. That would be one situation where I could get on board with it.
 
Last edited:
Why do people downvote on this forum? Seriously guys? I literally wrote about my thoughts on the FX9 vs the FX6. You can write back and carry on a conversation with me and the rest of us about it, but to downvote it is just dumb. I'm sorry if me sharing my thoughts on the FX9 hurts some of your feelings!

Geez, we've got a bunch of Nancy's in this group.
 
I think its hard to give camera advice (or any equipment advice) on a message board because its not a "one size fits all" scenario...to many unknown variables at play. That being said, i jumped on the 9 because i assumed the 6 would be the same scenario (or relationship) to the 9 that the 7 had to the 5. However, once the specs of the 6 were announced...i was a bit miffed, but i got over it...quickly. I'm not going to get caught up in all that. I made a decision on the 9 and i don't regret it. Its bought. Its paid for. Its not perfect, but it was perfect at the time. Also, RAW isn't a factor w/ me either. It would be great if you could pull RAW out of the 9 like you can the 6...but it wasn't a deal breaker. So honestly, i have ZERO plans on getting rid of the 9 in favor of the 6...BUT, i am toying with the idea of adding the 6 (or maybe even the 3) and possibly ditching my 7...as there would be benefits to a move like that.
 
Tom Roper said:
.... I didn't mean that as a counter to Ted or DLD so a bit of explanation as relates to the folly. That people "see" improvements on laptop displays through the windows of resolution and sharpness and YouTube and multi-generational compressed copies, seeing more (apparent) resolution via down-sampling which is the destruction of recorded pixels, yet often don't spot differences between HD-4K-6K-8K when displayed at their native resolutions and native sizes on native displays.
Click to expand...

Ted Williams could see seams on a baseball traveling at him at 100 miles an hour.

He could also spot the difference between a 46" 4K Vizio and a 60" 8K Samsung from the home plate.

Them are facts I read on the internet.
 
It's happened a decent amount to some degree over the years...most notable complaints:

BMCC --> BMPC

a7RII --> a7SII

GH5 --> GH5S

Pocket 4K --> Pocket 6K

C500 Mark II --> C300 Mark III

Various REDs --> RED Raven (with its initial $5995 tag which was nuts in 2015)

There are some more.
 
For the OP ..

Fx9 much better for handheld/ shoulder , more room to mount accessories, 2 x SDI , 6K down sample , 4k s35 (fx6 is only HD) , XLR on the camera body, a loupe , interval recording (fx6 doesn't have it ).. interlaced if you ever need it .. XQD cards more robust than SD / CF fast ..alot of advantages to the fx9 still .. who, working as a freelancer is ever being asked to shoot RAW with an fx9 , or an fx6.. answer no one .. As a jobbing A camera, fx9 still has it over the fx6 in every regard pretty much.. plus you wont have any clients wondering why you are charging $1,800 a day turning up with what looks like a handy cam ..
 
Donny 123 said:
For the OP ..

Fx9 much better for handheld/ shoulder , more room to mount accessories, 2 x SDI , 6K down sample , 4k s35 (fx6 is only HD) , XLR on the camera body, a loupe , interval recording (fx6 doesn't have it ).. interlaced if you ever need it .. XQD cards more robust than SD / CF fast ..alot of advantages to the fx9 still .. who, working as a freelancer is ever being asked to shoot RAW with an fx9 , or an fx6.. answer no one .. As a jobbing A camera, fx9 still has it over the fx6 in every regard pretty much.. plus you wont have any clients wondering why you are charging $1,800 a day turning up with what looks like a handy cam ..
Click to expand...

Well one thing in this list is wrong. As an FX6 owner I can tell you that FX6 certainly
does have interval recording. It's literally one of the menu items.
 
Firstly, sorry Cane141 if I slightly hijacked your topic. Just didn't think clearly enough, although it was almost on topic!

Teddy-Dem, thanks for posting the comparison. But as you say, we don't know what LUTs or grading went on so these things are always going to be limited. Also, I completely agree - and this is on topic - the only way to decide which camera is best for you is to try it yourself on stuff you're likely to shoot. Tricky in the lockdown but really it's not a good iidea to buy a canera that someone else rates highly for their work. Still, have to admit to like talking about gear while waiting for the lockdown to end.

Also to Joshua, completely agree about people who downvote stuff. Guess it says more about them than the people they downvote. I wonder why we need that facility? Could we just get rid of it. I downvote the downvote facility.
 
Last edited:
"Ah sorry not interval .. cache recording .. ! yet they still push it as good for wild life .."

As they should, indispensable feature...at least in my world.
 
thirdyearff said:
"Ah sorry not interval .. cache recording .. ! yet they still push it as good for wild life .."

As they should, indispensable feature...at least in my world.
Click to expand...

Yes but the fx6 doesn't have Cache recording .. yet the camera is pushed as being good for wild life ..
 
Donny 123 said:
Yes but the fx6 doesn't have Cache recording .. yet the camera is pushed as being good for wild life ..
Click to expand...

Most serious wildlife is shot at higher frame rates than 60p for use as slow-mo. Therefore, picture cache is of very little, if not zero, value. You can't have both, and shooting at higher frame rates is the preferred choice. On paper picture cache sounds like it would be great for wildlife but I don't know any wildlife shooters who actually use it. It is much more useful for really unpredictable stuff like a person or a vehicle coming into frame, or ice calving off a glacier.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Most serious wildlife is shot at higher frame rates than 60p for use as slow-mo. Therefore, picture cache is of very little, if not zero, value. You can't have both, and shooting at higher frame rates is the preferred choice. On paper picture cache sounds like it would be great for wildlife but I don't know any wildlife shooters who actually use it. It is much more useful for really unpredictable stuff like a person or a vehicle coming into frame, or ice calving off a glacier.
Click to expand...

True good points ..I only bought it up because of quite a few posts on other forums from people saying they didnt know about the fx6 not have cache recording , but presumed it would , and they saying this was a deal breaker for shooting wild life .. Its something that of course Sony dont trumpet and not really that well known it seems .. but yes alot of positive points too
 
Doug Jensen said:
Most serious wildlife is shot at higher frame rates than 60p for use as slow-mo. Therefore, picture cache is of very little, if not zero, value. You can't have both, and shooting at higher frame rates is the preferred choice.
Click to expand...

Why can't you have both, out of curiosity? Because it isn't offered or because it's impossible? I don't see why it would be impossible with a shorter cached time
 
thirdyearff said:
No cache recording would have probably been the deal breaker for me...for action sports its a terrific feature.
Click to expand...

Its seems to be a bit of a secret that nots written up about much ..Ive read quite a few fx9 / 6 comparison articles that don't mention it at all .. not saying its the end of the world , but it seems to have caught more than a few people out
 
ahalpert said:
Why can't you have both, out of curiosity? Because it isn't offered or because it's impossible? I don't see why it would be impossible with a shorter cached time
Click to expand...

It's a hardware limitation of the camera. On the FX9 you only get 0-4 seconds with 4K @ 60p, which is virtually useless for wildlife anyway. What good is 0-4 seconds of preroll gonna do for you?
If you want to jump up to 4K 120 fps capture then the camera would have to be built with much bigger buffer memory. That is probably expensive and not very much in demand by the average camera buyer. Unless you can give me at least 5-6 seconds at 4K 120 fps -- I'd have no interested in using cache for wildlife.

The FX6 can record 4K XAVC-I on super cheap V30 SDXC cards. Take a handful with you into the woods and just let the camera roll and then you won't need cache.

The FX9 has Last Clip Delete so you can just let the camera roll . . . . if no action happens after awhile . . . stop . . . delete . . . record again. Takes about 5 seconds. I use Last Clip Delete all the time with my other cameras. But you can't do that on the FX6. The lack of Last Clip Delete on the FX6 is what people should be talking about.
 
Haven't been following the thread but butting in. FX9 is a very viable camera. Not so much for wildlife. If Doug Jensen gives you an answer, consider it to be of Biblical authority.

I do note a lot of wildlife shooters gravitate to Red.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top