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

nsoltz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh man, don't put that pressure on me. I have made my share of blunders and mistaken posts.
 
Doug Jensen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Last Clip Delete is one of the best features ever invented. It's been so long since I used it that I forgot about it.

Had it on a Panasonic HPX250 back in 2013 when filming sports highlights from all-day tournaments.

Coming home with 90% of your final product on your memory card and saving hours and hours of editing was so nice.
 
If I had to hike miles thru the mountains for wildlife scenes, I know which camera I'd prefer in my backpack.
 
JCummings said:
If I had to hike miles thru the mountains for wildlife scenes, I know which camera I'd prefer in my backpack.
Click to expand...

How about if you are wanting to justify to a client the greater rental rate over what the person with the FX6 charges? FX9 or FX6?
 
Who charges rates that are based on the camera? When someone hires me, I choose the right tools for the job and the rate is the same whether I'm shooting with a GoPro or a Z750.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Who charges rates that are based on the camera? When someone hires me, I choose the right tools for the job and the rate is the same whether I'm shooting with a GoPro or a Z750.
Click to expand...

While some clients are happy with an overall rate, there are still plenty of clients out there who want itemized bids and invoices. Of course whether any of them will actually know the difference between an FX6 or FX9 is debatable, or whether they actually need any more detail than '4K Camera Package' as a line item. But between social distancing requiring multiple monitors to avoid a single video village area, and the little add-ons like needing a separate zoom feed for each camera and often multiple prompter setups as well, the 'basic day rate for what's needed' concept has become a lot more challenging.
 
All depends on the sort of job you do I guess.

There's a price for me with no kit and there's a price for me including kit and if we need to get stuff in that's added too.
 
Teddy_Dem said:
I posted this in the FX3 thread. You might find it helpful as it has the FX9, FX6, and FX3 side by side. Curiously the FX3 doesn't seem to match the FX6 even though they are using the same sensor. The FX3 appears to be more saturated and "sharper". However I wouldn't fully rely on this single video sample, as everyone knows side by side tests can easily be screwed up as one could easily inadvertently have a single or multiple settings mismatched.

He also shot the cameras in Slog3 and used a LUT in post, which could also be the another reason for this mismatch if something was somehow setup wrong in the NLE. A side by side of the SOOC with S-Cinetone may be a "better" comparison. But always tests that you do yourself will yield better information based on your workflow, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajVKnRibAlU
Click to expand...

Correct me if I’m wrong but the fact it is an A7s3 and FX3 being compared - is there the issue of lack of native ND that will cause discrepancies on tests like these?
I haven’t watched that video in full but my main gripe when I see tests with the A7s3/ FX3 is that you have to use external ND which will color the image somewhat and make the test unbalanced.
This is another reason I prefer the FX6 as a b-cam to the FX9 over the A7s3/ FX3 - for me the ND is everything with these Sony Cams
 
Most camera comparison tests don't use NDs to compare IQ.

NDs may produce discrepancies (cheap ones affect colors and sharpness), but only if the user allows them to.

Meaning, not all external NDs will affect a test. The more expensive ones are just as good, if not better than the internal ones in any camera (just more of a pain to use). You can usually tell if external NDs are affecting your picture by looking at the blacks, the corners, and overall detail.
 
Actually most ND's, even one's from well known "quality" names like B+W may be optically excellent but they aren't neutral . You have to look around for truly neutral NDs.
 
That's true, and I used to obsess about things like that and worry about too much green or too much magenta until I realized no one else was noticing the difference (or probably even cared for that matter) and you were color grading and changing everything in post anyway.

As long as the blacks can stay black (no purple), I'm good.
 
I don't think internal NDs are guaranteed to be neutral or to match each other.

Though perhaps Sony eND is?
 
It's unclear how the electronic ND works with IR control, but when we have approximately 8 different major camera companies creating their best versions of the world's colors, and also multiple filter companies that are only setting thresholds for their glass, what exactly is neutral?

If we were to put values on it, at some point if it's +5 or +10 one way or another in a certain area of the spectrum, it doesn't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of a camera's color science, internal software correction, and post-production.

Depending on the system, maybe a slightly non-neutral filter can actually favorably shift a camera's colors.
 
I think internal NDs are usually pretty good. I've never noticed any color issues. Or any IR issues for that matter.
 
LennyLevy said:
I think internal NDs are usually pretty good. I've never noticed any color issues. Or any IR issues for that matter.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed any issues with internal ND either, although I've never rigorously tested/examined them. And sure, it should be easier to manufacture little ones than big filters.

But that doesn't mean they're perfect and we're definitely relying on company quality control. John Brawley, for example, mentioned that he never uses internal ND on big shows because he likes to test all his filters and make sure he has a flawless set
 
It makes sense to test. Years ago when people first noticed the IR problem on Sony cameras that was made worse with ND's I tested a bunch of Sony and Panasonic cameras to see how their internal ND's were. None had an IR problem and they were all neutral. I've been shooting for over 30 years and have never seen a color issue when I changed the internal ND's though maybe I just wasn't looking for it. You would expect it would jump out at you though. On the other hand I've had to throw out a lot of external ND's - Tiffens are terrible, so are B+W and a lot of other well known brands. I use only the Formats these days though there are other good brands.
 
Internal camera NDs are always physically optimized. When you switch over to a heavier ND, it has heavier IR control in the glass providing ideal filtration.

General consensus is if you are going to add more than 3 stops of external ND, you must have IR control in the filter or it should be stacked with a separate IR filter (matte box).

If not, there's no chance your colors will remain the same...which is why external NDs get written off a lot because people use more than 3 stops of only ND (resulting in changes).
 
I don't know if there ever was an issue, I think the conversation was just steered that way after a question about IQ discrepancies possibly existing between cameras with internal ND filters and no ND filters.
 
(without reading the whole thread)

Of course it is viable. For 90% of jobs (sticks handheld shoulder) it is an excellent camera delivering a very solid image and AF where needed.

What more does one want?

Viable? as a daily rate rental/billable item.. surely the FX6 ate that a bit.

Viable? as a modern production tool. Well the mass is a downer on a gimbal.

Personally Im all about low mass so Id take the FX6.. but that is for my uses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top