FS7: NO Sony Fs7!!
- Thread starter JPNola
- Start date
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I've gone to return a number of inexpensive items and they gave me a refund and told me to keep/throw out the item. Must have a formula to determine if it's worth accepting back given cost of shipping/restocking. Unbeatable convenience.
Teddy_Dem
Well-known member
Thanks for answering, that's good to hear. About all my lenses with autofocus are Sigma ART primes. I have mainly the newer lenses (28mm, 40mm, 105 mm) which I had heard have better autofocus than the older ART lenses like the Sigma 18-35, which I also own.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I’m sure, especially as I’ve said before, the shipping HAS to cost more than some of the actual items. And the reason for return may factor in, as well(i.e: item is broken/defective vs. wrong color/size). Probably doesn’t make much sense to send back a defective $2 USB cable, but it does for a $30 fleece blanket that’s just the wrong color. I’ve even had items lost/delayed in-transit and they’ll ship a replacement and say if the original shows up, just keep it, too.
Jim Feeley
Veteran
Ha! I feel the same.
OTOH, the topic of this thread is, "NO Sony Fs7!!"
I think we're doing a dandy job of not discussing that camera. :laugh:
drboffa
Well-known member
I will let others who are more knowledgeable chime in (and perhaps correct me), but sometimes it can be helpful to remember that with slog2/3 (or any log footage, I think) you're actually recording a very high contrast image—you're just viewing it on the wrong monitor (assuming you're viewing on a Rec 709 monitor).
If you monitor slog2/3 footage on an HDR monitor it looks "normal"—i.e., not washed out and very contrasty.
The LUT is moving the log footage—designed for high dynamic range and lots of contrast—into a space that has very low dynamic range and contrast (i.e., Rec 709). It thus makes the log footage look "normal" on a monitor that was not designed for log footage.
As for WB, I was under the impression that those values were baked in (and that was my experience). The reason Sony limited cameras to three WB values (3200, 4300, and 5500, iirc) was because they'd tuned the settings to maintain the best performance (i.e., dynamic range) possible from the sensor, since (as I understand it) WB is largely a function of adjusting the gain in the red and blue channels.
In raw recording WB is often less of an issue, but even there things get tricky with Sony, as their "raw" from the Fs5 and FS7 was definitely undergoing some processing—more than you would expect from raw (i.e., gain affected the raw image, as did which gamma curve you recorded in, on the Fs5).
I can't help with the card space issue, but I do recall hearing the same thing (i.e., data rates being the same).
If you monitor slog2/3 footage on an HDR monitor it looks "normal"—i.e., not washed out and very contrasty.
The LUT is moving the log footage—designed for high dynamic range and lots of contrast—into a space that has very low dynamic range and contrast (i.e., Rec 709). It thus makes the log footage look "normal" on a monitor that was not designed for log footage.
As for WB, I was under the impression that those values were baked in (and that was my experience). The reason Sony limited cameras to three WB values (3200, 4300, and 5500, iirc) was because they'd tuned the settings to maintain the best performance (i.e., dynamic range) possible from the sensor, since (as I understand it) WB is largely a function of adjusting the gain in the red and blue channels.
In raw recording WB is often less of an issue, but even there things get tricky with Sony, as their "raw" from the Fs5 and FS7 was definitely undergoing some processing—more than you would expect from raw (i.e., gain affected the raw image, as did which gamma curve you recorded in, on the Fs5).
I can't help with the card space issue, but I do recall hearing the same thing (i.e., data rates being the same).
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
You are recording a high contrast image in low contrast. 
Being that the image can be wide dynamic range .. ie many stops from the darkest spot to the lightest spot without clipping - recording of an image of high contrast is possible..
but you are recording a low contrast.. ie a change in a stop of light level will result in a small change in RGB value.
With only 1024 levels of brightness available to record into a large change in light level must be fed to a small change in RGB value.. else that are not enough available RGB values to record a scene of large varience in brightness.
Obviously.
Being that the image can be wide dynamic range .. ie many stops from the darkest spot to the lightest spot without clipping - recording of an image of high contrast is possible..
but you are recording a low contrast.. ie a change in a stop of light level will result in a small change in RGB value.
With only 1024 levels of brightness available to record into a large change in light level must be fed to a small change in RGB value.. else that are not enough available RGB values to record a scene of large varience in brightness.
Obviously.
mattmealer
Member
I bought a lightly-used FS7 for cheap in early 2017 and have been shooting with it almost exclusively ever since. I rented an FX9 to try out on a couple of small doc projects last summer. I enjoyed working with it, particularly for the obvious color improvements...but I'm in no hurry to upgrade if I don't absolutely have to. Most of my jobs are 1-2 days each, so it would take quite some time for me to pay off a new system. In the FS7's case, I was able to put a small chunk of an unexpected inheritance toward the purchase, which helped a ton. It very quickly boosted my then-year-old freelance career and continues to work flawlessly.
I asked a number of my previous clients/producers about this issue earlier this year. Fortunately no one expressed interest in or need for anything beyond the FS7 for the foreseeable future. And many people I work for don't seem to have any camera preference at all, beyond, presumably, a certain minimum threshold of 'professionalism' (this is in the corporate/online news/low-level commercial world, fwiw).
Also seems like the majority of job postings I see for DPs/operators in these genres still request the FS7 (or comparable) when they specify a camera at all.
I'd prefer not to become too heavily invested in mid-tier gear like the FS7/FX9, so I dread the thought of hearing a blanket "no FS7s" like JPNola and having no choice but to upgrade -- though I know I'll hit that point eventually. The FS7 may not produce my favorite images ever, but it sure is easy to work with and perfectly-suited for the type of jobs I do (for now at least). Obviously its resale value has dropped considerably, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with mine...guess I'll keep going with it as long as I can.
I asked a number of my previous clients/producers about this issue earlier this year. Fortunately no one expressed interest in or need for anything beyond the FS7 for the foreseeable future. And many people I work for don't seem to have any camera preference at all, beyond, presumably, a certain minimum threshold of 'professionalism' (this is in the corporate/online news/low-level commercial world, fwiw).
Also seems like the majority of job postings I see for DPs/operators in these genres still request the FS7 (or comparable) when they specify a camera at all.
I'd prefer not to become too heavily invested in mid-tier gear like the FS7/FX9, so I dread the thought of hearing a blanket "no FS7s" like JPNola and having no choice but to upgrade -- though I know I'll hit that point eventually. The FS7 may not produce my favorite images ever, but it sure is easy to work with and perfectly-suited for the type of jobs I do (for now at least). Obviously its resale value has dropped considerably, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with mine...guess I'll keep going with it as long as I can.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I have an FS7 and feel the same way about upgrading as you do.
However, I feel like the main reason people don't request more than an FS7 is simply a lack of familiarity with the newer cameras. In a year, your camera-conscious clients may be singing a different tune.
And honestly, it's hard to compare an FS7 and an FX6 and say that the FS7 is the better tool for any job (unless you really need S35). Secondhand market aside, the FS7mk2 is selling new for more than the FX6. Sure, the FX9 has some advantages over the FX6, but I think we'll see a huge wave of FS7 -> FX6 upgraders. It's a huge improvement and the economics are a no-brainer.
Right there with you Matt. Agreed... And maybe, just maybe, if we're both able to ride out the current "magic camera of the moment" - we'll be in line to purchase whatever replaces the FX9 or 6 and then it too will be so far superior to those "old camera's", like by a lot! And we can be smug in our superiority. And some producer somewhere will tell us how lame it is that anyone, anywhere is still shooting with an FX9. And they never want to see footage from that camera again, ever. And we'll smile knowingly - since we bypassed it completely.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I dont get it. The FS7 has no functional auto focus and a tiny screen, the punch in focus check is artifact ridden gunge. This is a combination that guarentees that your footage is out of focus.
As an operator it is an embarrasement to use. As a producer the cost of wooly shots is huge.
I would never spec it.
For years people have beein giving it to 12 year olds to shoot and getting TB of rubbish. They would be so much better with a EX1 or XF705 and sharp footage. Of course the short cable meant each of these operators had to crane thier neck to 'see'.. result will be a generation of twisted necks.
Spend 30seconds with an FX6/28-135 and this is obvious.
Yes mine will have use as a B cam and for wide lock offs. The file is OK. But 70-200 work on a moving subject.. forget it!
As an operator it is an embarrasement to use. As a producer the cost of wooly shots is huge.
I would never spec it.
For years people have beein giving it to 12 year olds to shoot and getting TB of rubbish. They would be so much better with a EX1 or XF705 and sharp footage. Of course the short cable meant each of these operators had to crane thier neck to 'see'.. result will be a generation of twisted necks.
Spend 30seconds with an FX6/28-135 and this is obvious.
Yes mine will have use as a B cam and for wide lock offs. The file is OK. But 70-200 work on a moving subject.. forget it!
ahalpert
Major Contributor
do you think there are any FS700 owners who are jumping on the FX9 and laughing about how they saved money bypassing the FS7 hype train?
Sure - lots of people bypassed the FS7mk2. And I'm not sure that the next generation of cameras after the FX6/FX9 will be a quantum leap forward anyway, unless people need higher resolution or a new codec. They didn't need to come out with a new codec this time 'round.
This generation is exciting because it fixes some issues with the previous and adds new functionality - color, low-light, autofocus. Further improvements in those areas will be marginal and probably go unnoticed by producers. Ergonomic/controls/design improvements will probably also not be the inspiration for producers that they would be for operators.
As Sony runs out of problems to fix that producers would notice, they'll have to hope that clients start demanding higher resolution.
alaskacameradude
Veteran
*Raises hand*...Me. Well kinda.
I just upgraded from my FS700 to the FX6.
Never had or even really used an FS7.
Just yesterday got my first ever client request
for 4K. The producer also wanted a gear list
so as to see what I was shooting on. They told
me they were comparing me to the other top
candidate for the job and would be deciding today which
of us they would be hiring. I sent them a link to the
FX6 page as it’s relatively new and I wasn’t sure
if they would be familiar with it. Just was notified
tonight that they have decided to hire me so....who
really knows? Did the FX6 help me get the job?
Well, at least it didn’t hurt I guess!
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Codec.
Im just editing a property shoot shot by a chum on a DSLR. He was talking about if he needed a better codec. Now we are both experienced stills property shooters. Him having worked for me and then interned with Ashley Morrison before developing his own thing at a high level.
Now we would .. as standard.. smooth sheets , secondary patch in windos, probably lift behind bed shadows and maybe dupe images to pring in practical glows at a low opacity.
I asked do you want me to do all that post stuff on every shot? He said (of course) no time no budget. I replied.. well you dont need a better codec then
Im just editing a property shoot shot by a chum on a DSLR. He was talking about if he needed a better codec. Now we are both experienced stills property shooters. Him having worked for me and then interned with Ashley Morrison before developing his own thing at a high level.
Now we would .. as standard.. smooth sheets , secondary patch in windos, probably lift behind bed shadows and maybe dupe images to pring in practical glows at a low opacity.
I asked do you want me to do all that post stuff on every shot? He said (of course) no time no budget. I replied.. well you dont need a better codec then
Ben Scott
Veteran
I have owned lower and higher end cameras over the years - and a fair few DSLRs and Mirrorless cameras too - and the FS7 is the only camera I owned that paid for itself within 3 months of buying it. Sure we are spoiled for choice now and I moved away from it out of a need for greater outright image quality but that camera was an absolute gamechanger.
The FX6 is a wonderful evolution of its philosophy and truly only has a couple of quirks that make it sub-optimal for certain things ie no downsampling or S35 mode in 4k.
It's clear it will be extremely popular once productions ramp up again.
The FX6 is a wonderful evolution of its philosophy and truly only has a couple of quirks that make it sub-optimal for certain things ie no downsampling or S35 mode in 4k.
It's clear it will be extremely popular once productions ramp up again.
rob norton
Veteran
I really like the B&H site. Even the filters when using a phone are so easy. It would be embarrassing if I had to publicly announce the time spent there.
Not so much fantasizing about equipment (anymore) but just checking for all sorts of useful information. Today I had a pelican storm case next to me and tape measure on the desk and still checked the case dimensions on B&H. Or even if buying locally I'll check specs on their site before making the purchase on another one.
scorsesefan
Veteran
I don't think I've ever used AF on a professional shoot. I still don't trust it 100%. For my own personal work, yes...