FS7: New Sony PXW-FX9 with venice features and 6k full frame

JPNola said:
I'll be surprised if that is the case since that VF now retails for $4000.
Click to expand...

T'was just a guess on my part sir. It may be $4k but quite often with Sony the sum of the parts when priced separately come to about 10 x the price of the camera. Whatever they supply I hope it's better than what we currently have:)

Chris Young
 
dipstik said:
The issue is that Sony’s current FF offerings in E-mount (A7sII) don’t offer 4K at S35, you have to shoot FF if you want 4K.

That’s why so many owner/ops switched over to the A6500; because it has a smaller sensor, you can run normal glass on it while shooting in 4K.
Click to expand...

I do hear you but that camera is ancient...the a9, a7III, a7RIII and a7RIV all can.

The a6500 was also replaced by the a6400 and soon to be a6600.

All of these newer cameras are better than the older ones in various ways.

If I was paying $10K+ for a cinema camera I would expect it.
 
NorBro said:
I do hear you but that camera is ancient...the a9, a7III, a7RIII and a7RIV all can.

The a6500 was also replaced by the a6400 and soon to be a6600.

All of these new cameras are better than the old ones in various ways.

If I was paying $10K+ for a cinema camera I would expect it.
Click to expand...

Why is it that few of us expect that the Fs7, Fx9, and C500 MkII should be able to shoot still photos? Seems that would be fairly easy to incorporate. Many times now I have had to try to obtain a still image of the shot by shooting the camera's LCD display with my smartphone. Why don't these cameras shoot stills?
 
dipstik said:
The issue is that Sony’s current FF offerings in E-mount (A7sII) don’t offer 4K at S35, you have to shoot FF if you want 4K.
Click to expand...

That was maybe the case with earlier models but not any more. I use 4K S35 mode on the A7III quite often. Have to if using the 18-110 lens. With FF lenses I just have the F3 button programmed to just jump straight into crop mode if I need greater reach on any prime or zoom. The clear image zoom still works in crop mode so you can still double the length of any APSC or S35 glass. Another benefit is that the crop mode on the A7III in 4K has less rolling shutter.

Chris Young
 
JPNola said:
Why is it that few of us expect that the Fs7, Fx9, and C500 MkII should be able to shoot still photos? Seems that would be fairly easy to incorporate. Many times now I have had to try to obtain a still image of the shot by shooting the camera's LCD display with my smartphone. Why don't these cameras shoot stills?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't know. That's probably a question for an engineer.

IMO, a lot of photography is captured with higher shutter speeds. In my mind, when does a cinema camera have the opportunity to have a higher shutter speed if a lot of normal filming is done around 180°, you know?

I pump up the shutter when I'm outside to sometimes grab nice 4K still frames, but I just don't know how the hardware can function and dedicate itself to both at the same time.

Also have to keep in mind that stills cameras have very high resolutions that the video cameras are just now getting. Video cameras will always be chasing them though...because now we'll see more and more stills cameras with 8K-10K-12K+ resolutions.
 
Full frame 6K => 4K 422 10-bit, AF, IBIS (data), and Venice color- just what we've been waiting for- in the A7S III! Now it's clear why the A7S III hasn't been released.

Look forward to seeing footage.
 
JPNola said:
Why is it that few of us expect that the Fs7, Fx9, and C500 MkII should be able to shoot still photos? Seems that would be fairly easy to incorporate. Many times now I have had to try to obtain a still image of the shot by shooting the camera's LCD display with my smartphone. Why don't these cameras shoot stills?
Click to expand...

P.S. I just realized you may have been asking about having them operate like regular stills cameras (and not about freeze frames during filming with the push of a button)...and that's a good question.

Definitely a hardware explanation with a little bit of corporate reasoning somewhere in there.
 
JPNola said:
Wasn't that also the case with whatever camera you owned prior to owning the F55, assuming you did own another camera?

Could not an owner of a 2/3" camera ask of the F55- Who is it for? And argue that a larger sensor and greater resolution were unnecessary?

As to who the Fx9 is for, I suppose it is for anyone who has clients requesting an Fx9. Or, for anyone who wants a FF camera with electronic ND, AF, up-sampled 6k, and the speedy transfer made possible by CF Express cards.

I do get what you are saying. As others have expressed, it feels like we are being pushed into features that we aren't so much needing or wanting, namely, the larger sensors that come with issues such as lens compatibility and more shallow DoF that make focusing more difficult.
Click to expand...

I was using EX1 and PMW-350 2/3" shoulder cam. My craft started it's advance about the time I began using DaVinci Resolve, as did my business model.

The F55 is old in the sense it was one of the first 4K cameras in 2012, but it is still a current camera on the Netflix approved 4K list and has been used to film tops shows like The Crown, Black Mirror in 4K HDR, as well network TV, The Black List, Big Bang Theory, The Ryder Cup. My theory is, if this camera is so old as to be the limiting factor in my growth and I'm that good, then why haven't I at least advanced my career to the level of those network productions? My clients are wildly enthusiastic about the look and quality of the content I provide them, but they are lower end, for them the F55 is a fantastic bargain. But I can't say that just because I owned a Venice that I would be owed any special status or prestige. In fact, it can work the other way, against you because you have to avoid being a shill for a brand or model. You have to collaborate as a professional and fit into existing productions which sometimes means putting aside your preferences. In other words, I could show up on set with an Alexa 65 where everyone is using FS7's and start advocating for large sensor shooting styles and all it would do is cause disruption, you could be out. Strong preferences are not a good idea to carry on your sleeves.

If I could own any camera I wanted it would probably be a Venice but frankly, I don't feel the need. My F55 is incredibly competent in all aspects and remains in demand. For me, the Canon would seem like a lateral move, Fx9 too, Venice an upgrade. This in spite of the fact that the newer cameras bring new features, the old ones make the image, including quality PL cinema lenses and Sony 16 bit raw recording. S-35 is still the major format, 4K is still being adopted, and I don't want to be chasing technology for the sake of it.

If I was just starting out I'd have a lot more to think about and would not be looking at an F55 because it remains expensive, with these newer cameras come lower starting price points. So you are probably better off asking the question of someone newer who is chasing the technology for potential advantage.
 
sony "15 stops of latitude that can be recorded internally " - that IS impressive.

15 stops of latitiude needs about 180 stops of dynamic range :)

(a camera with 15stops of dynamic range has 2.5 stops of latitude on a 10 stop dynamic range scene and 0 stops of latitude on 15 stop scene)
 
Last edited:
Not much to say about the appearance!

One can only hope they have 'cured' the evil platic handgrip and the useless viewfinder.
 
Hmm... ...not sure about this. Full frame should look great, Cinetone looks like a good call, timecode and genlock built in, great, but inernal frame rates appear lacking. Unless I'm missing something.
 
Hmmm. I sold the FS7 a couple of months ago - I wanted a smaller, more agile setup. I've been shooting a 30 min doc for NHS UK on a GH5/GH5S combo. All looks OK, but controlling summer light in dark buildings with reduced DR was stressful at times. But the 10 bit codec is quite forgiving.

I did buy back my Sony 18-110 lens from the dealer I sold it to, just in case - I still like Sony Super 35.

The FX9 looks to me like FF for the sake of it. I guess I can see the point of FF for carefully controlled interviews. But actuality shooting? Nailing critical focus on the move in a fast paced non-repeatable scenario can be tough enough at f4 on Super 35 - I'd be putting a lot of faith in Auto Focus to make the leap to FF. But maybe that super duper AF is their secret sauce? Will it convert old farts like me to shooting AF?

I'm going to wait to see what happens in the mirrorless A9/A7SIII lineup. Built-in ND is the only significant thing that makes me waver back to the cine cams. Sony have hobbled the mirrorless cams with 8 bit codecs, but surely that won't continue in the face of what Panasonic is offering with the GH series.

Ben.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top