FS7: Is the FS7 as good as the F55? Why own the F55? Opinions...

captainjman

captainjman

Well-known member
Is the FS7 as good as the F55 - is there a reason to pay 28000 with this 8,000 option?

What at is the reasoning for keeping the f55
 
You need an EVF for the F55 so really it's $32-33k.

I'm keeping my F55 because I like it... and it still offers more than the FS7 or F5 does. Albeit a marginal difference in the end image quality, but that's up for debate I guess depending on what you shoot, etc..

Also think from rental perspective, I can't see making any money renting a FS7 camera. Is it fair to say the F5 and F55 have more rental potential?

Other reasons: solid mount, color filter array. Global shutter. Silver ring. Coolness factor. 4K fiber output capability.

I won't deny its a huge spread from the FS7 to F5 to F55.
 
FS7 doesn't do internal ProRes, can't output 4K through SDI, doesn't have a global shutter or a PL mount, doesn't have optical low pass filter for shooting cleaner 2K video, doesn't have the punch-in 2K video mode...

F55 also has timecode in/out (without a bulky add-on unit), it interfaces directly with the R5 RAW recorder (without a bulky add-on unit to enable RAW out), DC 12v in 4-pin XLR (without bulky add-on unit...). The F55 also has a much, much nicer info display on the side of the camera, which you don't have on the FS7. Personally, I like the side screen instead of overlays in the LCD screen.

The thing about nicer cameras is that you pretty much pay exponentially more money to get *slightly* more/better features. But the people who need/want these will pay for them. The people who see the FS7 as "an $8000 F55" are dismissing features that make the F55 what it is, just because they maybe don't use or care about those features.
 
I think everyone just made the point the OP eluded to...

Other than buying a camera to put in a big time rental department, there is no reason to own an F5/55 for most people, especially those outside the hand full of top size markets.

jshbckr said:
FS7 doesn't do internal ProRes, can't output 4K through SDI, doesn't have a global shutter or a PL mount, doesn't have optical low pass filter for shooting cleaner 2K video, doesn't have the punch-in 2K video mode...

F55 also has timecode in/out (without a bulky add-on unit), it interfaces directly with the R5 RAW recorder (without a bulky add-on unit to enable RAW out), DC 12v in 4-pin XLR (without bulky add-on unit...). The F55 also has a much, much nicer info display on the side of the camera, which you don't have on the FS7. Personally, I like the side screen instead of overlays in the LCD screen.

The thing about nicer cameras is that you pretty much pay exponentially more money to get *slightly* more/better features. But the people who need/want these will pay for them. The people who see the FS7 as "an $8000 F55" are dismissing features that make the F55 what it is, just because they maybe don't use or care about those features.
Click to expand...
 
Just to add to the list, the F55 has four channels of AES/EBU audio, Hirose power taps, 2K internal, SR codec, HD proxies when shooting 4K, and v-lock batteries. And I'm sure that is not the end of the list.
 
One could spin the question?

Is a camera (the Fs7) that cant film a light show, a wedding with a photographer in attendance, a red carpet event with photographers in attendance, or even a helicopter taking off worth buying at all?

S
 
Different beasts. One higher-end than the other. Sony is making great cameras at all price points, the higher you go up the more features and quality you get, so you choose based upon what camera will meet your minimum requirments and get that. For some it will be the F55 and for some it will be the FS7 and for the majority it will even be the A7s and A6000.

Just a few on top of my head in order of importance:

-Global shutter sensor, solid images with no skew
-The Sony R5 recorder docks beautifully to the camera making it a very neat/easy solution for 4K Raw (on the FS7 recording raw is practically a joke)
-ProRes recording
-Alias-free 2K images
-240p recording at 2K.
-S16 scan mode therefore full compatability with s16 glass
-Stronger built body, with a professional-quality PL mount. It's a much higher end body.
-It has a dedicated beautiful high-end viewfider and side display and overally easier/neater design.
-Wider colour gamut which should help in grading and colour accuracy
-You will charge more (renting it or shooting it) and get clients with the F55 as it's Alexa/Red range of market quality. This point might not be liked by many but it's just the reality of the market and should definitely be taken into consideration.

The FS7 doesn't have all of these (understandeably of course) but it does have a few small tricks over the F55:

-Direct shoulder mountable design
-E mount allows for adapting more lenses
-Af, AWB, Auto Iris, Auto everything available if needed
-Cheaper price point (Body, power and media)

There are many more minor yet important differences that you can find doing a little research, again make the decision after seeing what YOU need. If you don't need any if these F55 features then the FS7 is a better choice.
 
When I saw the current crop of high end video cameras like Epic, F55, C500, Amira, Varicam and FS7 next to each other I have to admit the FS7 looked like a toy camera. For the single operator that shoots mid to low end stuff the FS7 will do fine but in a full blown production a FS7 will appear just as odd as a DSLR.

The gap in image quality might be very shallow but features is where the F55 and F5 fits right in for higher budget shoots.
 
Osslund said:
When I saw the current crop of high end video cameras like Epic, F55, C500, Amira, Varicam and FS7 next to each other I have to admit the FS7 looked like a toy camera. For the single operator that shoots mid to low end stuff the FS7 will do fine but in a full blown production a FS7 will appear just as odd as a DSLR.

The gap in image quality might be very shallow but features is where the F55 and F5 fits right in for higher budget shoots.
Click to expand...

Ok I'm sorry but this statement is nonsense. No one cares what your camera "looks like". My clients are happy with a F5 vs a Red vs a C300 vs a DSLR. They just care about the end result. On a higher end production the question is - will the camera produce the image and file types I need? If the sensor is the same and the codec is the same, I don't care if it's in a jack in the box.

Silly statements these "oooh you'll make more" if you have x camera vs y. They are all well into the higher end of professional tools compared to those running around with old XDCAMs at 60i... which trust me many, many high end clients will still pay through the nose for because they don't know any better.

I'm sorry to rant but this kind of thinking is what makes the kids think a better camera will make them more money or better product. It's just the wrong message to send, especially when the image from the F5 and FS7 is absolutely identical. I have graded both - I know.
 
I'm happy with my (now apparently $3500) F3 and a Samurai Blade, thank you very much.
What do I need? A nice looking image for narrative work.
Funny, I see all this hullabaloo around this camera, and I think, hmmm guess it's still the honeymoon period.
Just wait til she farts at night. It will change your perspective.

Me and ole Coco (my F3) we doing jus fine....sitting here on the porch watchin y'all go by.
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
I'm happy with my (now apparently $3500) F3 and a Samurai Blade, thank you very much.
What do I need? A nice looking image for narrative work.
Funny, I see all this hullabaloo around this camera, and I think, hmmm guess it's still the honeymoon period.
Just wait til she farts at night. It will change your perspective.

Me and ole Coco (my F3) we doing jus fine....sitting here on the porch watchin y'all go by.
Click to expand...

LOL the F3 is still a fine looking camera! I know someone doing great work with it. I agree.

To the OP's original question - it was answered. Some people need the stuff the F55 offers. But you can still get a similar base image with the FS7 in 4K if that is all you need.. weird noise and all.
 
NeedCreative said:
Ok I'm sorry but this statement is nonsense. No one cares what your camera "looks like". My clients are happy with a F5 vs a Red vs a C300 vs a DSLR. They just care about the end result. On a higher end production the question is - will the camera produce the image and file types I need? If the sensor is the same and the codec is the same, I don't care if it's in a jack in the box.

Silly statements these "oooh you'll make more" if you have x camera vs y. They are all well into the higher end of professional tools compared to those running around with old XDCAMs at 60i... which trust me many, many high end clients will still pay through the nose for because they don't know any better.

I'm sorry to rant but this kind of thinking is what makes the kids think a better camera will make them more money or better product. It's just the wrong message to send, especially when the image from the F5 and FS7 is absolutely identical. I have graded both - I know.
Click to expand...
I think you're kind of missing the point. You said "my clients" That's exactly what Osslund was talking about. I don't think you'll be seeing anyone shooting eposidic or studio feartures on an FS7, but if you're shooting and cutting your own stuff the FS7 is a great camera. The F5/55 is a different camera for a different type of work.
 
Last edited:
RatLabProductions said:
How is recording raw via Odyssey 7Q a joke? Or are you saying just the R5? I appreciate that the FS7 will be able to be scaled up to cover most of the differences you listed.
Click to expand...

As an 7Q owner, I will say RAW is the weak point. Uncompressed makes it about 2.5x bigger than F55 RAW, so it's a tough proposition on anything other than camera tests. I've shot two scripted network projects for Discovery and Lifetime on 7Q 4K RAW, and it was very tough.

RAW is really important for the genre I mainly get paid work in - Shortform scripted TV Maintitles and Promos with a VFX twist. I think a good compromise might be FS7 for the lower budget jobs, but rent an F55 when you need RAW. Right now, I'm on the lower to mid-end of the promo / main-title spectrum, if I want to step up to the bigger jobs I need to learn the bigger cameras that shoot RAW - F55 and RED.
 
Or you could always use the Sony IR5+AXS-R5. A little bulky but this is the way to get Sony's compressed raw on FS-7

By the way, Blackmagic Ursa now supports an internal 3:1 compressed CinemaDNG. I just received one for review but have not had the chance to shoot anything with it yet. It would be nice if C-D could follow suit with a compressed DNG.

Ned
 
brad smith said:
I think you're kind of missing the point. You said "my clients" That's exactly what Osslund was talking about. I don't think you'll be seeing anyone shooting eposidic or studio feartures on an FS7, but if you're shooting and cutting your own stuff the FS7 is a great camera. The F5/55 is a different camera for a different type of work.
Click to expand...

I would use another camera for that as well (if for no other reason than to make things easier for your AC). But his statement was very broad.
 
From a producers perspective looking at all of these cameras I see no reason to go with the FS7 when there are better tools for high budget work. Not to say the FS7 can't output great image quality, it probably can.
 
nsoltz said:
Or you could always use the Sony IR5+AXS-R5. A little bulky but this is the way to get Sony's compressed raw on FS-7

By the way, Blackmagic Ursa now supports an internal 3:1 compressed CinemaDNG. I just received one for review but have not had the chance to shoot anything with it yet. It would be nice if C-D could follow suit with a compressed DNG.

Ned
Click to expand...
I think Mitch from CD has said that it would take too much computing power to uncompress the FS7/700's already-compressed RAW signal and then re-compress it again.
 
I think there are still plenty of reasons to opt for an F55 over the FS7 in spite of the similar compressed 4k output.

I have the F5, and I've managed to run out of colour gamut on several recent shoots (mainly when the camera's been faced with capturing flourescent-coloured LEDs, particularly magenta ones). Those shots require all sorts of blurring and keying and finicky stuff to make them bearable. The F55 would stand a better chance of holding those extreme colours.

4:4:4 chroma subsampling. Speaks for itself really - the No.2 reason (after HFR) for my upgrade from the F3.

Pretty soon the F5(5) will also offer the industry standard of 12-bit 4:4:4 ProRes recording - the additional colour depth and resolution is a big deal for larger projects.

Obviously none of this takes away from the incredible value proposition if the FS7, but sometimes features trump cost savings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top