FS7: FX9 success?

The issue for myself as far as purchasing an Fx9 to go along with my Fs7 is this: I've yet to have anyone request full frame.

At the time that I purchased the Fs7 I was getting requests for 4k.

The move from HD to 4K was something that benefitted every production. Literally every production. And as a result there was much interest in moving to 4K. But the move from s35 to FF isn't something that benefits every production. Most productions have no motivation whatsoever to move to FF. As a result, I speculate, the demand from the Fx9 isn't going to be anything like the demand for the Fs7 was when it came out and continues to be today.

Most productions don't need or even desire what the Fx9 brings to the table over the Fs7. The Fx9 won't have the market saturation that the Fs7 has. It's simply more camera than most need or will ever need. Same with the C500 MkII.
 
Rationally you are right but then again, 90% will buy a camera that they want, not the one they need.

Other reasons to buy the FX9
- makes the 28-135 usable
- next step after fs7mk1, variable ND
- good autofocus
- is newer so has to be better
- the Venice factor
- it looks cool
- so many (small) pixels
- any other reason we kept buying new camera's for the last decades.
 
I rather run my FS7 a few more years than moving to FX9 now. I can stretch myself to swap my FS5 for the FX6 if it brings enough improvements but if not I'll stick with what I got. I guess that goes for many owners of similar camera that they feel does the job good enough.
 
I agree that the 28-135 makes perfect sense for the FX9 and toward that end bought one on ebay a few months ago. Unfortunately that lens had been dropped and wasn't packed well in shipping so who knows whether it was good test case. That one however wasn't par focal and was definitely a little softer ( on my FS7) than the 18-110 when matching shots. I thought I was brilliant getting one on eBay cheap but when the seller didn't want to give a refund (eBay backed me up ) I decided maybe it wasn't worth the savings - especially since I would have to send it Sony to get the par focal thing fixed. I don't find most people even know how to test for that so I don't think I'll go used again unless I can test it first. I had another friend with both lenses and thought his 28-135 was noticeably softer. Could just be quality control at Sony though.


I'm a believer in looking at tests especially of charts. I don't think you can really see how sharp a lens is until you do that and sometimes until you compare images blown up on a good monitor. My only experience with the 28-135 was that was softer and I didn't see it till I looked at it in catalyst browse blown up. However that difference would show up on anything that gets a large screen. On the web of course who cares :).

Would love to hear from anyone who has done a good comparison on the same shot and blown the Images up and can testify that they are the same. Otherwise its just another anecdotal tale.
 
The retailers aren't able to keep them in stock, it seems. That's a good indication of sales. I spoke with Wooden Camera yesterday and they told me the FX9 is much more popular than they anticipated.

I knew the FX9 was for me because of the new sensor (better color response), dual base ISO (4000 is seemingly just as clean as 800, amazing), 4 channels of audio (I can adjust on the side of the camera quickly), and the AF (situational use, and actually usable in interviews!)
 
LennyLevy said:
I agree that the 28-135 makes perfect sense for the FX9 and toward that end bought one on ebay a few months ago. Unfortunately that lens had been dropped and wasn't packed well in shipping so who knows whether it was good test case. That one however wasn't par focal and was definitely a little softer ( on my FS7) than the 18-110 when matching shots. I thought I was brilliant getting one on eBay cheap but when the seller didn't want to give a refund (eBay backed me up ) I decided maybe it wasn't worth the savings - especially since I would have to send it Sony to get the par focal thing fixed. I don't find most people even know how to test for that so I don't think I'll go used again unless I can test it first. I had another friend with both lenses and thought his 28-135 was noticeably softer. Could just be quality control at Sony though.


I'm a believer in looking at tests especially of charts. I don't think you can really see how sharp a lens is until you do that and sometimes until you compare images blown up on a good monitor. My only experience with the 28-135 was that was softer and I didn't see it till I looked at it in catalyst browse blown up. However that difference would show up on anything that gets a large screen. On the web of course who cares :).

Would love to hear from anyone who has done a good comparison on the same shot and blown the Images up and can testify that they are the same. Otherwise its just another anecdotal tale.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the 28-135 is not very durable. If I buy one, I will buy it new. But I agree it looks like the perfect complement to the FX9.

I have neither an FS7 or FX9 but I'm thinking of jumping on the FX9. I love the Cinetone (and much preferred Canon color to old Sony color SOOC). The AF is next level. The low-light and DR are much improved. Even if productions don't need the FX9 over the FS7, the FX9 is newer and probably more impressive. Hopefully a 10-bit 4:2:2 FF 4k 60p A7SIII comes out soon for my gimbal, and I will be quite content to jump ship from the Canon and Panasonic cameras I currently have.
 
JPNola said:
The issue for myself as far as purchasing an Fx9 to go along with my Fs7 is this: I've yet to have anyone request full frame.

At the time that I purchased the Fs7 I was getting requests for 4k.

The move from HD to 4K was something that benefitted every production. Literally every production. And as a result there was much interest in moving to 4K. But the move from s35 to FF isn't something that benefits every production. Most productions have no motivation whatsoever to move to FF. As a result, I speculate, the demand from the Fx9 isn't going to be anything like the demand for the Fs7 was when it came out and continues to be today.

Most productions don't need or even desire what the Fx9 brings to the table over the Fs7. The Fx9 won't have the market saturation that the Fs7 has. It's simply more camera than most need or will ever need. Same with the C500 MkII.
Click to expand...

Sure its not that its suddenly some new format post / production have to deal with .. its not even 6K recording .. the files are the same but the down sampled 4K from FF is noticeably better .. dual ISO is great.. Cinetone.. blah blah.. the camera has features that just make shooting / life.. easier .. dual ISO/AF when it will work pretty much 100%.. interviews etc.. and if you shoot alot of non Slog.. then yes it will definitely look better in Cinetone ..and the high light roll off is way better.. you can see that plainly just flicking between settings .. some clients wont notice but probably the better ones will ..and at the end of the day the camera is very cheap .. and if not for these reasons .. the BS will start and everyone and their pony will ask for FF without any idea what it is.. it will happen for sure Im afraid ..
 
I bought the fs7 mk1 28-135 kit and got rid of the kit lens because of the range and the slow feel of the lens and bought the 18-110 which is much better not just for range but it feels like an actual lens ie you can snap into frame up and focus a shot.

I'm very interested in the fx9 body but the thought of going back to that 28-135 puts me off, I know the 18-110 will work in crop mode. For full frame work will the 24-105 sony work with the new auto focus system ?
 
Yes the 24-105 is good with AF and a nice lens. Its not par focal and has less controllable manual focus. Parfocal less important with AF but the manual focus issues aren't great. I bought it for the A7iii but its good with FX9 also.
 
For me the FX9 came about at the perfect time as i was looking to "up the game" if ever so slightly in terms of a camera and i was especially looking at something with a dual base ISO and/or just better low light performance. Just to many times caught in a situation out of my control, run and gun with not enough practical light and i have an Fs7 w the 18-110 on my shoulder. Then throw in all the other advantages (perceived or otherwise) that the FX9 gives you made it an easy decision AND i'm already in the Sony eco system having an FS700/Odyssey, Fs7 and an old Ex1R for that matter. But if i was to be honest...the FX9 purchase for me was still more of a want then a need but i have no regrets at this point. There are some things i'm not a fan of with the camera...but i'm sure most of those will be addressed with future firmware. Also, my 28-135 is practically new...even though i bought it in 2015 (i think). It's basically been sitting in a case for five years as i very rarely used it and in hind sight probably not the smartest purchase at the time. So i'm actually thrilled that the lens has seemingly been given new life. I'm calling it a win/win but we'll see.
 
thirtyearff,
Sure would be nice if you just put those 2 lenses up against each other and compared IQ blown up in catalyst browse. Just sayin' :)
 
Guys do not kids yourselves. You will need a lens that has a good manual focus as well. Here are a few examples where the AF s#%t the bed for me this week. Dark black skin tones, sunglasses, strong backlight, more than a couple of faces on screen etc. No matter what I did in the af menu, or even registering faces, the af went nuts plenty of times. Sit down interviews and live shots were the only times it didn’t miss a beat.
 
Martin.G said:
After some years with little activity in this subforum, its now swamped with new threads about basic equipment.

Is this an indicator of the FX9 success since alot of FS7s have swapped hands since new years? :grin:
Click to expand...

After 32 posts to a relatively simple question, i suppose you have your answer.
 
Thinking about pulling the trigger on one for the day job.

Anyone got a good line on a rig that incorporates a good shoulder mount with a pad and vct14 lockable plate with iris rods?
 
I’ve liked vocas for a long time. Bright Tangerine is starting to get really good. Though they tend to focus on light weight over brute strength, so horses for courses.
 
Newsguy said:
Guys do not kids yourselves. You will need a lens that has a good manual focus as well. Here are a few examples where the AF s#%t the bed for me this week. Dark black skin tones, sunglasses, strong backlight, more than a couple of faces on screen etc. No matter what I did in the af menu, or even registering faces, the af went nuts plenty of times. Sit down interviews and live shots were the only times it didn’t miss a beat.
Click to expand...

Yes the AF does have its drawback as is amply demonstrated in Bloom's unbelievably long feature length review of the FX9. The AF section starts around 34 minutes. Another piece at 56:18 and most info and setups at 1:00:59.

Chris Young

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV5BkGIAhBo&feature=emb_logo
 
Last edited:
mcgeedigital said:
Thinking about pulling the trigger on one for the day job.

Anyone got a good line on a rig that incorporates a good shoulder mount with a pad and vct14 lockable plate with iris rods?
Click to expand...

Probably not cheap, but this Arri setup looks pretty sweet:
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9j4wT-pGWh/?igshid=1lbdhckl2qpgy

Vocas has an “Alister” rig.
https://www.vocas.com/vocas-alister-s-eng-kit-for-sony-pxw-fx9.html

And i am sure smallrig and Bright Tangerine have something worth buying.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top