FS7: New Sony PXW-FX9 with venice features and 6k full frame
- Thread starter J.Brown
- Start date
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
My thought about the C500. That is where the C500 becomes 'cheaper' I think it will last more years.
cyvideo
Veteran
Would have to agree with that Mr.G. I don't do a large amount of what you call low light work so the noise factor isn't a super high consideration for me. When I look at my clients all of who's work is done on a combination of A7III. Z90 and FS7 they wouldn't have a clue as to what was shot on what. All they are interested in is does it look good and and as always they are looking for a competitive quote. If the clients are happy with the product I deliver now working with the kit I have now any change up to an FX9 would be a decision made purely from an operator/editor point of view. It won't in my case return me any more $$$'s. So I now argue with myself the difference between needs and wants. I want an FX9 but do I need one? Plus I would be trying to justify to myself the need for new FF E-Mount glass to enjoy the auto focus which if it is anything close to the performance of the Z90 would definitely be a big bonus... never tought I would say that about AF on a moving image camera. I wonder which one of me is going to win the argument. I dare not consult my better better half because if I do I know I'll be shooting with an FS7 for a while yet
Even if I don't buy one Sony will sell heaps of these things as they build a pretty good UJC (Universal Japanese Camera)Chris Young
You explained my position perfectly, Chris! My way round it, being weak and having a love for my toys (even if they do have to earn me a living) is to buy it then convince myself I'm going to market myself even harder and produce even more incredible work that will leave my clients spellbound and so I don't need to worry. And one other thing i do, which is a bit naughty, I rarely get all my gear out at home and so my better half rarely sees it. Fortunately, she's not in to technical things and so if she does ask if that's a new one, I shrug it off with something like, "No, had it ages" then hide in the dark and wonder how much longer that has given me when I get to purgatory. Seems a good practical approach to me.
I mean the market for the fx9 is pretty much corporate shooters.. maybe docs.. either way ..alot of interviews .. I have whole shoots that are just interviews.. the FF and auto focus alone is going to be worth it for interviews and the Venice color will be be the cherry on the top.. no brainer ..maybe cant charge more but it will make life easier .. even crappy rooms can look better with Shallow DoF of FF.. when ever I set up my A7III as a B camera .. it looks better than the f5..
Grug
Veteran
Would have to agree with that Mr.G. I don't do a large amount of what you call low light work so the noise factor isn't a super high consideration for me. When I look at my clients all of who's work is done on a combination of A7III. Z90 and FS7 they wouldn't have a clue as to what was shot on what. All they are interested in is does it look good and and as always they are looking for a competitive quote. If the clients are happy with the product I deliver now working with the kit I have now any change up to an FX9 would be a decision made purely from an operator/editor point of view. It won't in my case return me any more $$$'s. So I now argue with myself the difference between needs and wants. I want an FX9 but do I need one? Plus I would be trying to justify to myself the need for new FF E-Mount glass to enjoy the auto focus which if it is anything close to the performance of the Z90 would definitely be a big bonus... never tought I would say that about AF on a moving image camera. I wonder which one of me is going to win the argument. I dare not consult my better better half because if I do I know I'll be shooting with an FS7 for a while yet
Chris Young
I think that's precisely the attitude to have Chris. If it won't make you more money, or at least make your day easier/shorter, then there's really no reason to upgrade.
I have the 28-135PZ. I think the general consensus is that it was not wide enough (on S35), has a weak mount, too slow of a zoom, comes with a comic soda cup lens cap, and people don't like focus by wire. The 18-110 improved on some of that but also costs more.
I use the 28-135 on my FS700R, A7Sii and A7RIII and I like it. I like wide lenses and I cannot lie, and on S35 it's not wide enough for some work, but I think on a FF type camera such as FX9 I would be happy with it. That's one more factor making me want to buy the FX9 that I don't need right now
--EDIT--
I remember when the FS7 came out they pushed the 28-135 for it but it really wasn't a great matchup if you needed wide. I expect now the 28-135 may get a new spark of interest since it seems like a good match for the FX9
Last edited:
cyvideo
Veteran
I know which half of me is listening to you. Get thee behind me devil! How did Flip Wilson say it all those years ago
Chris Young
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=0SLifea3NHQ
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
A camera of this class should be sutable for any task - hencse my feeling the C500 is a better proposal.
Of course I come from stills where your modern raw DSLR is good for the kids birthday or Vanity Fair.
Its boring these incremantal upgrades that dont quite arrive.
firehawk - I guess I'm curious how the image quality and auto focus in 28-135 compare to the 18-110. If its equivalent, then the 28-135 will be a better fit for the FX9 and the f4 will no longer be a liability re low DOF on the FF sensor. Likewise the f4 for low light with FX9's higher sensitivity. Must be some reason for when its $1000 cheaper don't you think.
Yeah that is a good question and it seems the 18-110 must be better in more things than what I listed to justify the $1000 price difference. The 28-135 has held onto it's ~$2500 price though for years now. Since I do not own the 18-110 all I have to go on is reviews. Like you said constant f/4 is good enough for me given the greater sensitivity.
Optically I like the 28-135. On a FF 28mm is usually wide enough and 135mm gives enough tele to be useful. I love the large rings and the snap focus ring on the 28-135. I don't like the slow zoom but I only see that being a deficiency on something like sports where you need crash zooms and I don't use the lens for that. AS far as autofocus I guess we will have to wait and see how good both lenses do on the FX9. At the moment , for use with the FX9 I would probably buy the 28-135 over the 18-110 if I didn't have it already due to it being FF and the price difference.
dmitrizigany
Veteran
Which is why I just bought one used at a good price. If their popularity picks up after the FX9 is released I figured it will be harder to find the really good deals.
What’s the issue with the 28-135 slow zoom? I’ve only used the 18-110, and while it’s an ok lens, it ended up being too slow (f4) for what I needed. Now with the dual iso that’s a thing of the past, and from a few videos I’ve seen, the new multi connector as opposed to LANC supposedly makes the zoom more useful and consistent.
thirdyearff
Active member
I've been looking hard the last year at what the next camera would be so the fx9 for me is actually perfect timing, and it makes sense because i'm already in that "eco system". Does it have out of the box everything i'd want...no, but that's part of the deal when shopping in that price range...there is always going to be a compromise. However, for what i am looking for in a camera and how that relates to my needs, the fx9 does tick quite a few boxes. I'm also going to remain optimistic that we haven't seen the best of this camera yet (and how could we at this point) but over the next couple years it will continue to evolve and good things will happen.
So i just need the camera body and i'm all in...i've got plenty of batteries, plenty of media, and as it relates to e-mount, I have the 28-135, the 18-110, the G series 70-200 as well as a set of FF Cine primes (24,35,50 & 85) and heck, i still have the original 18-200 that shipped w the FS700. I think the fx9 will be a great compliment to the fs7 and i'm pretty fired up about getting my hands on it.
So i just need the camera body and i'm all in...i've got plenty of batteries, plenty of media, and as it relates to e-mount, I have the 28-135, the 18-110, the G series 70-200 as well as a set of FF Cine primes (24,35,50 & 85) and heck, i still have the original 18-200 that shipped w the FS700. I think the fx9 will be a great compliment to the fs7 and i'm pretty fired up about getting my hands on it.
Looks like you are ready for an FX9
I expect it will get even better through FW updates as you said, we haven't seen the best of this camera yet
Sorry I meant slow zoom speed. Not referring to the f/4 slow aperature speed. The 28-135 cannot zoom in quickly even if you do it 'manually'. It's ok for my uses but it can't do a slam crash boom zoom. However it is smooth and nice, gradual etc.
Looks like thirdyearff on this thread has both lenses and thus could provide hands on experiences
Oh, that actually sucks. At least with the 18-110 you can go manual and crash zoom if you need to. So it doesn’t have a true manual mode for zoom? That’s a huge bummer for sports.
Me curious. Wouldn't it be possible, media limitations of FX9 excluded, to create an updated version of XAVC for the 6K cameras?