Other: FX9 vs FX6 - How different is the 'look'...

Doug Jensen said:
First of all, stop calling me Shirley.

Did you see an interview in my test shots? I agree that different settings might be more appropriate for an interview setup, but I didn't shoot an interview in these test, did I?

I repeat: "The point of the tests wasn't to demonstrate how smoothly AF the FX9 could be programmed by choosing different menu choices. The point was to use the same settings on both cameras and see how they compared." Period.

If I'd had a whole day to kill maybe I could have tested more settings, but I only had about 30 minutes. If you think the testing is flawed, you are welcome to do your own tests with the settings you think are the right settings. BTW, I've shot interviews with my FX6 using these settings. No problem. Once it locks onto the person's face none of the other settings matter at all. An interview is the absolute easiest thing you could ever ask AF track.

To be honest, testing the focusing performance wasn't even on my mind before we started. The original idea was just to compare the picture quality of the two cameras, but once I saw how different the focusing performed it was easy to get side tracked onto that aspect of the cameras. I never expected there to be such a difference between the two cameras.

The other surprising thing is how close the image quality is between the cameras. I expected the FX9 to look superior, even without pixel peeping, but it does not. They almost look identical, but I prefer the slightly sharper FX6.
Click to expand...

Roger that , and of course thanks for your time , which I should have said in the first post ! so your not called Shirley , apologies . :)
 
Thanks for your great comparison Doug. Always first class! I would have loved to have seen an A7sIII/FX3 as a third camera just to see if it looks pretty much the same!
 
yes, I would also like to see A7sii/FX3 comparison especially with the FX6. And thanks to Doug for the comparison. It is hell to compare cameras and make sure everything is equivalent . To have done anything in 30 min is to applauded. I have seen the A7's look sharper than both the FX9 and FS7 but have always assumed there is some sharpening processing going on in the camera to give an artificial boost to the smaller camera.That's anecdotal though and I confess to have never done careful comparisons (which I frankly ought to do.) There is no listing of what the detail settings were for Doug's tests and that could be relevant. In the past many people commonly turned detail on the small cameras to their lowest settings while leaving the big ones at default. Some habitually turned up settings on the FS7 because they thought it was too soft. I wonder whether Sony left the bigger cameras default settings a little softer because they thought it might more often go to the big screen where detail can look terrible? I also wonder whether some of the improved efficiency of AF on the FX6 might because of fewer pixels on the sensor.

I would like to know what luck other people have had with settings on the FX9 for shots of people walking toward camera . That's of course the hardest situation for AF (or manual focus for that matter) and I have a friend who's complained about FX9 issues in that scenario also. I need to test it myself.
 
Last edited:
Good questions. I chose S-Cinetone on both cameras and left all the other paint menu settings on their default values (usually "off or "0"), including all menus related to sharpness, detail, black levels, saturation, etc..

In general, I tend to boost the detail settings in my cameras and I even add a little bit more in Resolve, but not for these tests.
 
LennyLevy said:
I have seen the A7's look sharper than both the FX9 and FS7 but have always assumed there is some sharpening processing going on in the camera to give an artificial boost to the smaller camera.
Click to expand...

I think this is mainly attributed to the fact that the A7 line (and A1) don't have anti-aliasing filters. Baked in sharpening has a lot to do with it as well, which is why I always turn the detail level in the Alpha cameras down to their lowest setting of -7. But, a big part of the differences you see is that the FX/FS line has anti-aliasing filters and the Alpha line does not.
 
If I had two identical lenses I would try to do some tests with my A1 and FX6 just for the heck of it. But the cameras are so different in ergonomics and features that, unlike the FX6 v. FX9, I think any decision between the two would come down to a lot more than just image quality and AF performance. But it'd still be interesting, nevertheless.
 
It would be valuable to know if the A7siii/FX3 handle walking direct to camera better than the FX9 because I own both as many people do.
 
Doug Jensen said:
If I had two identical lenses I would try to do some tests with my A1 and FX6 just for the heck of it. But the cameras are so different in ergonomics and features that, unlike the FX6 v. FX9, I think any decision between the two would come down to a lot more than just image quality and AF performance. But it'd still be interesting, nevertheless.
Click to expand...

I've been shooting a lot with my two A1's lately along with my FX6 and to me the images look almost identical. The A1 does appear to be slightly sharper, even in full frame 4K which is technically pixel binned, but I'm assuming that's due to the lack of an anti-aliasing filter. Dropping the detail level down to -7 in-camera all but fixes that though. Outside of that, the A1 is more color accurate in my opinion, but the difference is slight. And of course if you shoot in 8K and downscale to 4K in post, it at that point smokes the FX6 detail wise.

Overall though, it's an awesome match. I owned an A7SIII for the past year and a half (just sold it for a second A1) and to me the A7SIII, A1 and FX6 all look very similar. I've used them in 3-camera interviews a ton and they all match up extremely well, taking only the slightest of tweaks in post to get dead on.
 
Joshua, do you advise lowering the detail on the A1 if I don't care about matching to the FX6? I've finally started shooting some video this week withthe A1, but have not really looked at any of it in post yet.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Joshua, do you advise lowering the detail on the A1 if I don't care about matching to the FX6? I've finally started shooting some video this week withthe A1, but have not really looked at any of it in post yet.
Click to expand...

Hey Doug, personally, I still would. I noticed when shooting interviews that people’s faces looked way over sharpened, so I dialed detail down to -5. That helped a lot, but it still looked overly sharpened, so I dialed it down to -7 and that looked about perfect. To me the image at that point looks very detailed, but not overly sharpened.
 
Last edited:
I finally had some time over the weekend to get serious about shooting video with my A1. I'm about to go through some wildlife footage in a few minutes and I may post some footage later, but my initial impression is that the A1 cannot track autofocus anywhere near as good as the FX6. The A1 has astounding auto-focus when shooting photos, but for video, I'm not that impressed after being spoiled by the FX6. The "bird" and "animal" modes can't recognize anything. Maybe 1 time in 100 it might actually lock onto an eye for a couple of seconds and then completely lose it. The "human" face/eye detect works better but still has trouble tracking movement. Stuff that the FX6 would track effortlessly are less relaible on the A1. Kind of like the FX9 video I posted a couple of weeks ago. Touch-tracking works better but not as good as on the FX6.

My experience with the A1 confirms what I've always said about DSLRs and mirrorless -- camera's that are designed first and foremost for shooting stills . . . and video is just tacked on as an afterthought.
 
Wow, thanks Doug for that test, clarified a lot of misconceptions. now the hard part ... to actually get an FX6 !!
 
I've been editing and grading the A1 footage all day and I must admit that the image quality appears to be just as good as the FX6. Close enough that I'd have to do some side-by-side testing to see if there is any significant difference. So, in my opinion, the shortcomings of the A1 mostly come down to inferior auto-focus and the obvious ergonomic differences that anyone can plainly see before they even pick the camera up. Either you choose accept them or not. But on the flipside, the A1 provides what I think is the best stills camera ever made as a bonus.

BTW, I think I have dialed in the best AF settings for video, but if anyone is aware of some recommended settings/techniques from someone else who shoots professional video, I'd love to try them out.
 
Would A1 video be pretty much the same as A7siii? I'd expect AF probably different due to more pixels on the A1 though .
 
I couldn't answer that question because I have never touched an A7siii. The A1 is the only alpha I have experience.
 
I did see a comparison of A1 and and A7siii on the web. Sounds like pics were identical except that downconvert from 8K on the A1 was a little sharper as you would expect. I think they liked AF on the A1 more though which surprised me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top