New Sony FS7

Oh I see. So you can record 180fps (7.5 times slower than 24fps) for as long as you want then? If so, that's great.
But can it do 240fps without shooting raw (to avoid the massive file sizes)?

Just asking because I would like to be able to shoot at 240fps but not if it means having to shoot raw and the massive file sizes that would entail.
 
Nicholas Natteau said:
Oh I see. So you can record 180fps (7.5 times slower than 24fps) for as long as you want then? If so, that's great.
But can it do 240fps without shooting raw (to avoid the massive file sizes)?

Just asking because I would like to be able to shoot at 240fps but not if it means having to shoot raw and the massive file sizes that would entail.
Click to expand...
No, that is a limit of the internal recording.
 
Mitch Gross said:
The FS7 is reportedly about $8K w/out the 28-135 zoom, or about $10K with it. The accessory back is another $2K or a bit and there is a $500 rod base that can also function as a studio riser and a VCT-14 adapter. The accessory back is necessary to connect the Odyssey7Q for FS RAW capture.

Odyssey7Q capture from FS7 includes:
- 4K RAW 1-60p (no 120p burst mode available)
- 2K RAW up to 240p
- 4K24K 4K RAW to 4K ProRes 422 HQ
- 4K2HD 4K RAW to HD ProRes 422 HQ

We will have to see Sony's implementation of HD ProRes 422 HQ & 422 to compare it to Odyssey's.

Anyone who owns an Odyssey7Q with FS700 record option now also owns the record option for the FS7. This record option covers the RAW outputs of both cameras.
Click to expand...

Edit*sorry saw your post and it's a yes

Hi mitch, if i have purchased a key for the Fs700 raw already, will it work on the FS7?
 
Last edited:
Nicholas Natteau said:
Just wondering why the Sony FS7 has 180 fps in full HD whereas the FS700 has 240fps.

Did I read that right? How come Sony diminished its fps capacity for super slow motion?
Click to expand...

The FS700 does 240 FPS in HD but with a poorer quality of downrezzing from the 4k sensor; hence 240 on the FS700 can have aliasing and moire.

I'm hoping the FS7 does 180FPS but with the full quality downrezzing; in which case I would see it as a step forwards. (Plus it's continuous, not burst.)
 
Looking more closely at the pics, it seems huge! Since I would be planning to backpack this around, this would be rather off-putting. The specs page here: http://www.sony.co.uk/pro/product/b...-xdcam/pxw-fs7/specifications/#specifications

says: Dimensions (W x H x D): 156 x 239 x 247 mm (body without protrusions)

That's a LOT bigger than either the FS700 or the F5!!!

The main issue seems to be the height, so I guess those figures include the top handle? Does it come off? How tall is the camera without it?
 
AtticusLake said:
The main issue seems to be the height, so I guess those figures include the top handle? Does it come off? How tall is the camera without it?
Click to expand...

Those dimensions are with the handle. It does come off. Without out, the height is 140mm (5.5"). You can view dimensions with and without protrusions by going here and scrolling down to the 5th and 6th "Dimensions" slides:

http://provideocoalition.com/awilt/story/122-slides-on-the-sony-pxc-fs7/P5

There is also interesting technical info on screw threads for accessories and individual component weights.
 
AtticusLake said:
The FS700 does 240 FPS in HD but with a poorer quality of downrezzing from the 4k sensor; hence 240 on the FS700 can have aliasing and moire.

I'm hoping the FS7 does 180FPS but with the full quality downrezzing; in which case I would see it as a step forwards. (Plus it's continuous, not burst.)
Click to expand...

In reading Adam Wilt's review, he says:

"In HD, images from 1-60fps are downsampled from the 4K capture, showing clean detail up to 1080 TVl/ph with gentle aliasing beyond that point. In the S&Q HFR mode, the sensor readout is “binned” to allow the higher rates, and the detail rendering gets visibly coarser (on a test chart, that is) with some noticeable chroma artifacts near 1080 TVl/ph and more vigorous aliasing above – but on real-world images, I’ve found from F55 shooting, this coarser rendering is impossible to detect unless you go looking for pathological images like fine gratings, picket fences running into the distance, and the like."

http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acqui...s7-l-s-s-shoulder-mount-camcorder-part-1.html

I'm expecting, that much like the FS700, the HFR are not going to look quite as nice as the normal frame rates (up to 60). It may
be improved over the FS700, but it appears the sensor readout is still 'binned' at HFR.
 
Piolet said:
Those dimensions are with the handle. It does come off. Without out, the height is 140mm (5.5").
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, that's very useful!

But it really looks like the FS7 is a beast! OK, this is down to my expectations -- I was imagining something like an FS700 turned on its side. Probably because Sony kept talking about how amazingly light and compact it is. But in fact, it's 2kg body only, where the FS700 is 1.4; and 5.4 litres volume compared to 2.5! Since I care a lot about portability, that kind of sucks... I think an FS700 plus an Odyssey 7Q would be smaller and lighter, and you get a 7" waveform monitor thrown in as opposed to a 3.5" eye-strainer histogram. And 240FPS continuous capture, and ProRes... Oh, and 12-bit RAW if you want it...

Sure, for a lot of people, the FS7 will be a clear winner. Just chuck those "junk" FS700s my way...
 
Last edited:
2 kg is not portable? Really? That's 4.4 pounds. What are they, 7 pounds fully kitted? Have you seen pics of the camera as a shoulder mount? It's small!
I'll take a heavier shoulder mount camera (and 7 lbs is not heavy) over a lighter hand held any day. Next to a tripod, nothing beats a shoulder mounted camera for stability.
And the FS7 is ready to shoot 4K, XAVC and XDCAM right out of the box, no external recorder necessary. That is a huge advantage.
I know which camera I'll choose.
 
vanvideo said:
2 kg is not portable? Really? That's 4.4 pounds. What are they, 7 pounds fully kitted? Have you seen pics of the camera as a shoulder mount? It's small!
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by portable. Sure, for most people, the FS7 is great -- I'd probably rather have that on my shoulder than the FS700. And obviously I would rather the FS7 than an Ursa, say, or a film camera.

But as I said earlier, I'm specifically talking about backpacking up mountains. (Small ones... ;-) ) I've done that with the FS700, a 7"monitor, a set of lenses, and a CF tripod, and it was pretty much my limit; I just can't see how I would fit the FS7 into that pack. (Food, water, and extra clothing are all luxuries I can live without.)

I guess I'm just disappointed at how much larger the FS7 is, after all the "incredibly light and compact" talk, given that it's fairly close feature-wise. I mean it's quite a bit bigger than an F5. It's a question of where your expectations are really.

Basically I totally agree with you on the benefit of an integrated solution; that's why I was initially psyched about the FS7. It's just that when the FS700 plus 7Q is lighter and smaller for transportation (though clearly more unwieldy in use) that kind of takes the shine off... I get to choose between bad to carry around, or awkward to use, which is not the choice I was hoping for.
 
Last edited:
Osslund said:
The thing with S-log is that if you shoot it right you can just about go anywhere with it in post. So its really up to the person behind the grading. My impression is that Sony cameras impose very little in any direction and is neutral.
Click to expand...

Great to know. I have never personally shot S-log so I have zero personal experience with it. However, I frequently see videos shot with Sony cameras and immediately notice the magentia bias on the skin tones. They are probably not shooting S-log or it could be just a coincidence that I keep noticing it on Sony videos.
 
AtticusLake said:
It depends on what you mean by portable. Sure, for most people, the FS7 is great -- I'd probably rather have that on my shoulder than the FS700. And obviously I would rather the FS7 than an Ursa, say, or a film camera.

But as I said earlier, I'm specifically talking about backpacking up mountains. (Small ones... ;-) ) I've done that with the FS700, a 7"monitor, a set of lenses, and a CF tripod, and it was pretty much my limit; I just can't see how I would fit the FS7 into that pack. (Food, water, and extra clothing are all luxuries I can live without.)

I guess I'm just disappointed at how much larger the FS7 is, after all the "incredibly light and compact" talk, given that it's fairly close feature-wise. I mean it's quite a bit bigger than an F5. It's a question of where your expectations are really.

Basically I totally agree with you on the benefit of an integrated solution; that's why I was initially psyched about the FS7. It's just that when the FS700 plus 7Q is lighter and smaller for transportation (though clearly more unwieldy in use) that kind of takes the shine off... I get to choose between bad to carry around, or awkward to use, which is not the choice I was hoping for.
Click to expand...

But with the shoulder-mounted ergonomics and built-in 4k, perhaps you could hike those mountains without the tripod, the monitor, or the 7Q?
 
AtticusLake said:
But as I said earlier, I'm specifically talking about backpacking up mountains. (Small ones... ;-) ) I've done that with the FS700, a 7"monitor, a set of lenses, and a CF tripod, and it was pretty much my limit; I just can't see how I would fit the FS7 into that pack.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but it's horses for courses, and everything's relative. For differing applications, different things are more important - for other applications a GoPro may be more suitable than your FS700. There's no such thing as the universal perfect camera.

Personally, I'm impressed by the FS7 for what it is, and hats off to Sony for taking a lot of previous critique on board. Both the FS100 and FS700 didn't really excite me too much, and same with many of the other original large sensor video cameras like the AF100 - they all just seemed to have too many compromises, good though they all may have been in some ways. The FS7 seems to have been purpose designed from the word go by someone who knew what they were doing. Perfect? No, but any compromises seem to have been kept to a minimum, and as many others have said then why haven't we had this form factor in a large sensor mid-price video camera before?
 
aly324 said:
But with the shoulder-mounted ergonomics and built-in 4k, perhaps you could hike those mountains without the tripod, the monitor, or the 7Q?
Click to expand...

Well no, I'd really want the tripod... I think... though it's worth considering, actually.
 
harddrive said:
Personally, I'm impressed by the FS7 for what it is, and hats off to Sony for taking a lot of previous critique on board.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, it's a great camera, and for most people it's almost a no-brainer right now. Just a shame it got so large... though for shoulder doco-style work -- which in fairness is what it's designed for -- that's probably a positive. Part of my reaction is the number of comments along the lines of the FS700 is worthless now, when it seems to me it still has a very clear role.

But... why can't I cut-and-paste? Give me the 4k and battery life of the GH4 with the sensitivity of the A7s, and an E mount and Super 35 sensor, and I'd be happy....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top