F55: Re: The MOST POLARIZING camera?

E

ectobuilder

Veteran
Re: The MOST POLARIZING camera?

I'm finding the PXW-FS5 to be the most polarizing camera (that I've witnessed anyways) to date.

It has divided the community into:
1) People who LOVE the camera and image quality for the price and applaud Sony for creating it.
2) People who HATE the image quality (macro blocking / edge tearing) and blame Sony for not matching the image robustness of the A7S/A7SII/A7RII.

And there seems to be only one person who sits in between both camps: Alister Chapman, who acknowledges the weaknesses of the image coming from the FS5 but blames user error.

I myself have no opinion as of yet since I've not tested the camera.
 
The current artifacting issue seems to be a self-inflicted problem caused by the FS5 in-camera noise-reducation, and will probably be fixed through a firmware upgrade.
 
I have also not used the camera, but I did order one in early December, after the glowing reviews were posted online, but before all these problems were discovered when people spent more then a few days with the camera.

It is concerning and leaves me wondering if I made a costly mistake.

I ordered this camera to upgrade an aging Sony FS100.

From what has been posted the past few days, it gives me the impression that the performance of the Sony FS5 is going to be worse in low-light then the Sony FS100.

My other concern is, if the image on the Sony FS5 is breaking apart when you move the camera in low-light, what will do that for gimbal usage on a dimly lit wedding dance floor?
 
Major cause for this it's not FS5 itself but something else... It's FS7 that have such a good price that makes FS5 weak for the money (but it isn't).
 
Another thing that divides owners into 2 camps are those using it primarily for 1080p vs. those using it for 4k. It is a superior 1080p camera. 10-bit 4:2:2 with none of the high ISO artifacts reported in 4k. I have had the FS5 for a few weeks, but haven't really had the opportunity to put it through its paces. I am not a Sony fan, but was forced to use an FS700 for my current job. The FS5 was bought as a companion to that camera, and its image quality is definitely better than that of the FS700. It is better in low light also.
 
Budgieboots said:
I have also not used the camera, but I did order one in early December, after the glowing reviews were posted online, but before all these problems were discovered when people spent more then a few days with the camera.

It is concerning and leaves me wondering if I made a costly mistake.

I ordered this camera to upgrade an aging Sony FS100.

From what has been posted the past few days, it gives me the impression that the performance of the Sony FS5 is going to be worse in low-light then the Sony FS100.

My other concern is, if the image on the Sony FS5 is breaking apart when you move the camera in low-light, what will do that for gimbal usage on a dimly lit wedding dance floor?
Click to expand...

I'm with Alister on all this. I think peoples expectations at that price level are causing all sorts of issues but i've not looked into it personally.

Those 'artefacts' to me look like noise being heavily compressed or processed. At 3200 ISO that's +10db of gain and noisy. The low bit rate compression is just making it wobble due to the underlying noise. Now perhaps Sony can improve the compression here but the core is that people are expecting an FS7. Does the HDMI out carry the same noise? In which case it's internal processing and perhaps Sony can do something about that.

There has to be some kind of reality check with data rates, compression and expectations.

As for low light, the FS100 was amazingly noise free at 1080 in high ISOs - it had huge pixels. I cannot see for a moment the FS5 being close to it. Perhaps if you shot 4K, denoised, downsized then you'd have a clean HD image but not straight out of camera.

Every now and again i have to work with some older shots from an FS100 and i'm usually taken aback a bit at how clean it looked! I forget easily...

cheers
Paul
 
ectobuilder said:
I'm finding the PXW-FS5 to be the most polarizing camera
Click to expand...


red_one.jpg


Now THAT was/is polarising.

The two camps seem to be 'People who have incentives from Sony to downplay the issues like Chapman and Bloom are downplaying the issues' and 'everybody else' who is saying Sony have rushed another camera to market that is not 100% fit for purpose, with a bunch of features that look amazing on paper but in the real world are not that usable.

Now in terms of people's expectations for that price point being absurd, I agree completely basically everyone wants the moon on a stick for thruppence, and everyone suddenly thinks they know how hard r easy it is to create a perfect camera for next to nothing, but if your marketing blurb promises it, don't be surprised that people take you at your word and get disappointed. If that didn't happen Blackmagic's camera division would have gone bust a long long time ago.

It's like Lynx Africa-gate all over again. Lying gits. :(

EDIT: From my brief time with it, the FS5 is clearly not in any shape or form a decent low light operator. Looked less sensitive than a C100 Mk1 to my eyes.
 
Last edited:
Ben Scott said:
EDIT: From my brief time with it, the FS5 is clearly not in any shape or form a decent low light operator. Looked less sensitive than a C100 Mk1 to my eyes.
Click to expand...

The FS7 is in no way a decent low light performer either. Any RED cameras particularly decent low light performers?

If the FS5 is built on similar foundations to the FS7 then it seems pretty clear Sony has gone aggressive with NR and swapped the heavy noise of the FS7 at high gain with another unwanted artefact. Had Sony shipped the camera with no NR or the useless NR like the FS7 then those same ISOholes would be belly aching about the FS5 being unbelievably noisy compared to the A7s. Had these high gain complainers bought the FS7 instead they would've discovered that you don't go near the gain switch. The mistake Sony may have made is not giving the user the option to turn off the NR.

The comparison with the A7S cameras is not valid because they're completely different cameras for very different markets. If you're an ISOhole and you want to shoot at high gain with a jello cam then the A7s seems the perfect fit but if you're a professional filmmaker that wants a small package for gimbals, drones or discrete filming or action and is predominantly interested in HD then the FS5 is a good match up. On the other hand if you've bought the FS5 predominately for 4K filmmaking then you're a blithering idiot because you should have bought the FS7.

Marketing types know consumers buy on specs and use those specs to invent their own realities and convince themselves this is the right product for them. If you throw down wads of cash on a camera and don't do the appropriate research and test it meets all your requirements then you're going to be more disappointed than not. It took me well over a year to buy the FS7, I didn't think it was very good on release, it got better with firmware updates, I took council from someone on this forum whose opinion I trust and then went for a demo and spent a day making sure it was what we needed. I didn't catch all the irritating foibles but I wasn't surprised by anything major.
 
Nope, no Red cameras are decent low light performers. I think on MX I would max out a shot at 1250iso.

The FS7 is exponentially better than the FS5. I shoot everything at EI2000 and get a lovely clean image. Iso2000 on the FS5 seemed to yield nowhere near as nice results.
 
Last edited:
Remember when high ISO was 400 Tri-X?

I'm still amazed how much people believe the hype and fall for pre-ordering ANY camera.
Of course there will be bugaboo's. There always is, and it takes time to discover them.
People would do well to hang back a little bit, get the read and wait for the price drop as solutions are discovered.
 
Ben Scott said:
Nope, no Red cameras are decent low light performers. I think on MX I would max out a shot at 1250iso.

The FS7 is exponentially better than the FS5. I shoot everything at EI2000 and get a lovely clean image. Iso2000 on the FS5 deemed to yield nowhere near as nice results.
Click to expand...

Ei2000 on FS7 is 0dB of gain. Log on FS5 has a 3200 base ISO which is 0dB of gain. To shoot at 2000 ISO on the FS5 you'd have to use Std or Cine Gammas and add 6dB of gain.
 
What I saw of 3200log on the FS5 was horrific.

EDIT: No idea what gamma was used for when I saw it at 2000iso
 
dvbrother said:
Another thing that divides owners into 2 camps are those using it primarily for 1080p vs. those using it for 4k. It is a superior 1080p camera. 10-bit 4:2:2 with none of the high ISO artifacts reported in 4k. I have had the FS5 for a few weeks, but haven't really had the opportunity to put it through its paces. I am not a Sony fan, but was forced to use an FS700 for my current job. The FS5 was bought as a companion to that camera, and its image quality is definitely better than that of the FS700. It is better in low light also.
Click to expand...

But Andrew Reid of EOSHD.com says the FS5's image is weak in all modes, 4K UHD and HD.
 
Is there not also a divide between those coming from a DSLR back ground.. ironically I guess exactly the market target for this camera.. and those from actual video camera backgrounds who would understand the 8 bit 4K 420 is not broadcast standard.. and that would worry about ever using 6db gain.. or at least have a better understanding of what gain is.. and know this is a very cheap camera in the professional field.. even the Fs7 is a cheap camera.. sounds pompous yes true.. but it really seems to be the case judging from all the threads on various forums..
 
Last edited:
ectobuilder said:
But Andrew Reid of EOSHD.com says the FS5's image is weak in all modes, 4K UHD and HD.
Click to expand...

You might want to suggest to the High Priest of ISO to repeat the exact same test with an FS7 to get an idea what a horror story the image will look like at those gain levels Reid thinks are 'acceptable'.

Sony made a mistake by not offering the user the ability to defeat the NR but I'm willing to bet if users could see how much noise is being removed then they'd live with the temporal smearing and leave NR on.
 
I find The FS7 to be good in lowlight, but Maybe I have a different understanding of low light coming from film and broadcast cameras. I was amazed at being able to shoot at 500 ISO with Kodak.
I was contemplating a FS5 as a b-cam for a tv comedy/sketch show I'm doing, but it also involves hidden camera and the FS7 just seems better suited so I got a second FS7 instead. The price is just too close. I have to admit that decision was in part helped (or clouded) by this forum and not by using the FS7.
Not too keen on the form factor of the FS5 as it reminds me of the C300. I hated that form factor and the rigging that came with it when shooting hand held.
People seems to like that form factor, but I also find I see way to many low angled shots on tc these days due to people holding the camera low and using the monitor instead of the viewfinder. Then of course it is nice to use if that's how you shoot;-)
 
Andrew Reid is not Yoda. He's just a guy with a blog.

That said I have personally found the FS5 to be quite underwhelming for the sort of stuff i would be interested in doing and waiting around several minutes for a slomo clip to write to card was excruciating.

I agree with what you're saying Donny. People used to working with a 60D saying that a Red Raven or FS7 is overpriced quite clearly don't understand the professional market properly and don't understand what you're getting for that money. Hence a gazillion people on here saying the Blackmagic Ursa 4.6k mini, a camera none of them has used, at less than 10% the price is 99% as good as an Alexa, another camera 99% of them have never used.

The FS7 is underpriced for what it delivers. The Raven similarly so - seeing as what it delivers is already a known quantity, even if the camera isn't out yet.
 
Im honestly not meaning to dis these guys.. but from about 4 forums about this subject.. there really seems to be a clear divide.. knowledge about db gain.. i.e. avoid like the black death.. 10 bd is normal for documentary work.. not in broadcast it aint .. using ISO/gain setting as a defacto iris .. shooting with f4 stills lenses.. log is good for low light.. why isnt it like a A7s etc there just seems to be stuff they dont understand.. but unfortunately this is exactly the target for this camera.. low and behold .. alot of people are pissed off..
 
It's something I have repeated a few times on here but it's important to gauge the experience of the person you are conversing with on here before taking anything they say as gospel. This is a forum where the guy who is one year into a foundation course in media studies can be trying to lecture the ASC member with 30 feature films under his belt on why the fact that Upstream Color was shot on a GH2 means the death of Arri/Red/Panavision et al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top