New Sony FS E-mount 4K camcorder to be announced at IBC

philiplipetz said:
Ergonomics
Click to expand...

Almost $3000 difference. And what ergonomics? It's not like this handycam is that ergonomic anyway. Amira or FS7 it ain't. The way I'm seeing this, a FS700 + 7Q will still cost less and get you Prores, RAW etc. Looks like a better deal than staying locked in crappy 8bit 420 4K and waiting to pay even more for the RAW output update. I don't know, I'm just not seeing it. Specially that the FS700 has the same sensor as the F5, FS7 and this FS5.

Don't get me wrong. I have a FS7 so I'm not in the market for neither a FS700 or FS5. I'm just not seeing the sense here.
 
Internal 4K. A lot of people such as myself never want to use external recorders. I believe the FS7 has a higher power draw, so more money on batteries, and the media is much more expensive, so a basic FS7 will cost you around $11,000 to $12,000 while a basic FS5 which is smaller and lighter and does 4K internally at a codec that is good enough for a lot of people's needs costs around $7500. That's $4,500 less.

I also prefer the FS5 ergonomics over the FS700 and FS7. I rarely do handheld and the smaller size and shape is better suited for Steadicam, gimbal, monopod, slider, jib, etc. The FS700 still has that stupidly placed LCD screen with an incredulously sized loupe; FS5 has a built-in EVF.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
Internal 4K. A lot of people such as myself never want to use external recorders.

I also prefer the FS5 ergonomics over the FS700 and FS7.
Click to expand...

What ergonomics? It's a handycam. You will have to hold it in your hand in front of you.

Internal UHD! Not 4K. But at what quality? I rather have 444 HD than crappy long gop 420 8bit 4K. If this camera cost $5000 I could see the point. But at almost $7000? It looks to me like a camera that should be bellow the FS700. It looks more consumer than the FS700 does.
 
I edited my post above to explain the benefits of its ergonomics to me. If you do a lot of shoulder work, then yeah, the Amira or FS7 is preferable ergonimcally. For me, the shoulder handle piece on the FS7 would just get in the way constantly while mounting the camera to various stabilization devices, along with needing heavier duty stabilization to take on the added weight of the F7S. The FS7 is a bit too heavy to fly handheld on a Glidecam; the FS5 is not too heavy, for example.

The FS700 is 24 mbps AVCHD 8 bit 4:2:0 internally; FS5 is 4:2:2 at 1080p internally. It's clearly better in terms of internal codec than the FS700, with the added option of 4K at 4:2:0.

I sometimes do interview style shoots in a controlled environment where I'd like 4K so as to punch into the subject while they're looking directly into the camera, yet, I don't want to have to deal with the larger sizes of 10 bit and 12 bit codecs while recording the subject speaking to the camera for hours, so a lower bit rate 4K codec is actually preferable to me in many cases.

Another case is if I'm filming a basic wide shot at a wedding ceremony for an hour or more; 4K is useful so I can re-frame the wide shot and punch in, but 10 bit and 12 bit at the cost of larger files sizes is not worth the boost in image quality for a basic safety shot from my D-camera.
 
Last edited:
Think about this: the FS5 weights around 800g, the a7S II weights 627g (584g without battery and card). I see a market for the FS5 just based on that, as a B-cam for the FS7, with the a7S II being next in line. It should cut really well. Also, the FS700 doesn't have slog3 AFAIK, so you're getting less DR unless you go RAW.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I edited my post above to explain the benefits of its ergonomics to me. If you do a lot of shoulder work, then yeah, the Amira or FS7 is preferable ergonimcally. For me, the shoulder handle piece on the FS7 would just get in the way constantly while mounting the camera to various stabilization devices, along with needing heavier duty stabilization to take on the added weight of the F7S. The FS7 is a bit too heavy to fly handheld on a Glidecam; the FS5 is not too heavy, for example.

The FS700 is 24 mbps AVCHD 8 bit 4:2:0 internally; FS5 is 4:2:2 at 1080p internally. It's clearly better in terms of internal codec than the FS700, with the added option of 4K at 4:2:0.

I sometimes do interview style shoots in a controlled environment where I'd like 4K so as to punch into the subject while they're looking directly into the camera, yet, I don't want to have to deal with the larger sizes of 10 bit and 12 bit codecs while recording the subject speaking to the camera for hours, so a lower bit rate 4K codec is actually preferable to me in many cases.

Another case is if I'm filming a basic wide shot at a wedding ceremony for an hour or more; 4K is useful so I can re-frame the wide shot and punch in, but 10 bit and 12 bit at the cost of larger files sizes is not worth the boost in image quality for a basic safety shot from my D-camera.
Click to expand...



Oh you do weddings? So my argument was not directed at you.
 
Weddings, corporate, event, and doc. I'm getting a C300 Mark II to go with my three C100s, which better suits my needs than an FS5 or FS7. That said, I still see a good market for the FS5 for the same line of work as what I do, on a lower budget than the C300 Mark II. I'm kind of annoyed that the C300 Mark II doesn't have an option for a lower bit rate 4K codec like the FS7 and FS5 do.

You're talking just about image quality (such as always having the option of an external recorder) and not really practicality, in which case a Black Magic camera might be better suited as a lower budget option that has good image quality and less ease of use.
 
Samuel H said:
Think about this: the FS5 weights around 800g, the a7S II weights 627g (584g without battery and card). I see a market for the FS5 just based on that, as a B-cam for the FS7, with the a7S II being next in line. It should cut really well. Also, the FS700 doesn't have slog3 AFAIK, so you're getting less DR unless you go RAW.
Click to expand...

Slog3 is nice but the FS700 can already do 13-14 stops with RAW or slog2 it seems. So don't see the harm.
 
Again, high codecs and bit rates such as raw recording is aimed at higher budget scripted productions which this camera is not aimed at. Red, Arri, Black Magic, Sony F55 cater to those markets. This camera is aimed at the documentary, corporate, and event (including weddings, but not just weddings) shooter of which many of them do not care enough about 10 bit 4:2:2; there's no need to act like it's only wedding people who don't care about 10 bit. This is probably not a great camera for narrative work.
 
I wasn't dissing weddings. I was merely stating that I understand more than 8bit 420 might not be important for it. But I strongly disagree that corporate, events and documentaries have no use for 10bit 422. I think that is exactly the market for it. I think for narrative you should be doing RAW or at least 10bit 444.
 
I'm not saying corporate, events and documentaries have no use for 10bit 4:2:2; I'm saying for a lot of them it's not worth the extra (transfer) time and cost of shooting at higher data rates. About 25% of my work is weddings and 75% of my work is corporate, events, and documentaries, and I've not had a single client ever request even 4:2:2, let alone 10 bit. With the C300 Mark II it'll be nice to have the option for when I want it or need it, but a lot of my corporate, event, and doc work I'll probably continue filming in lower bit rate 1080p simply because the client won't want to put up with the higher bit rates and workflow demands of 4K.

Obviously if internal 10 bit is important to someone, the FS5 is not a good choice. But I think there's still a large market of non-wedding shooters who don't consider 10 bit that important. I mean, just consider how tremendously popular the C300 Mark I was and still is for corporate, event, and doc work (while being too expensive for most wedding shooters), which is just an 8 bit camera.
 
Last edited:
Giriki said:
Just a reminder, Palme d'Or winner of 2013 was shot with 8 bit camera.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and Act of Valor was shot on a 5D and Upstream Color (well acclaimed) on a GH2. Doesn't mean they're good cinema cameras. There will always be exceptions of good films shot on cameras that typically aren't as suited for narrative work, which doesn't really mean much. When a camera is being used on narratives as a norm (such as Arris becoming the norm on bigger budget narratives) as opposed to rare exceptions, then it's an indication of a camera's abilities on narratives.

For example, you can get a Sony F35 for $6000 (less than an FS5) which has been used on a lot more big budget features than any 8 bit camera and has significantly better image quality than the FS5. Or a Black Magic Ursa Mini, really any Black Magic, Red One, etc., in the same price range. I mean, if all you do is low budget narrative.
 
Last edited:
Giriki said:
Just a reminder, Palme d'Or winner of 2013 was shot with 8 bit camera.
Click to expand...

That's not that relevant, cause c300 uses a more 8-bit friendly log curve and records 4:2:2.
(Of course, 4K 8-bit 4:2:0 will donwscale to a better precision 1080p image.)

Let's not forget that Arri explicitly recommended 12-bit 4:4:4 for LogC when the Alexa appeared. (In fact, IIRC it wasn't even possible to record 10-bit LogC initially, no? They thought that was outrageous...)
 
I think that nobody has noticed that the Sony camera has 14 stop of dynamic range, while Dvx200 for example has just 12 stops. We're just lamenting about codec but I don't think it's the real problem. Ursa mini 4.6K declares 15 stop of dynamic range, so I think it's the real competitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top