FS7: SmallHD 702 Feedback

Used my 702 Bright today for the first time. It was like I could see for the first time what my shots really looked like. Huge difference over using the built-in LCD on the FS7. I loaded the BertLUT in it and it looks great.

However, one difference is the colors do not match the Sony FS7's LCD. The colors look better on the Sony LCD, and a little desaturated and greener on the SmallHD 702. Anyone else notice this as well? I notice you can add a calibration LUT to the SmallHD, perhaps that's necessary to get the colors more accurate? Other than that, the resolution, brightness and just bigger screen of the SmallHD are awesome.

Oh, and one word of warning - I got the Swit batteries with the Dtap port, and the Swit right angle adapter to use the Dtap on the FS7. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the Swit battery to securely lock in place on the FS7. The adapter is just a bit too big and prevents you from being able to "snap" the battery into place. So I've returned those and I ordered the Hawk-Woods batteries from the UK that have the Dtap on the back of the battery, which looks like a better design.
 
I'm intrigued by the calibration LUT, but the more I use the monitor the more it seems to be accurate re what is being recorded as opposed to what is in the viewfinder.

I think it's the viewfinder at fault.

Been using the monitor all day today in the blazing sun with the smallhd hood I got free. Monitor was fantastic in conditions it was impossible to monitor in the viewfinder properly and the sunhood a decent enough job but I think I'm going to get the Portabrace one which seems to double as a protective bag/sheath when packed away.
 
Hmmm...I guess I will need to check the 702 against the FS7 viewfinder and my NEC monitor that's calibrated to Rec709. The NEC is what I trust the most, so I'll see if I can get it close to that.
 
702's are good monitors.

I got mine on a freak, 24 hour sale on B&H. $300 off on the Lite!

I'm using the SmallHD D-Tap to Faux battery which is pretty nice, but $$$$.
 
I was looking closely at the 702 Bright, so I'm glad I saw this thread. It has more QC issues than I expected (for $1,500 monitor anyway). I'm also thinking about the Atomos Flame because it's about $300 cheaper with the current debate, and the panel can also replicate 10 stops of DR-- plus it's 50% brighter than the 702 Bright either way. It barely weighs more than the 702 Bright, and it's just slightly bigger. As a monitor only, the Flame looks like potentially a better option to me- but that's just based on specs and info posted here and there. Does anyone have experience with both screens? I'd love to hear how the 702 Bright compares with the Flame (for monitoring only).
 
I think choosing Atomos over SmallHD re QC issues is a dubious way to go.

What I would say re the 702 is the Lite is built the same as the Bright, but is half the price which makes it a very well made monitor for the money - especially whe you add in the various pagebuilder features.

I've been using mine a lot more now and really love it.

Looking to get their 13" HDR monitor for clients.
 
I didn't mean to imply that the Flame is higher quality than the 702, only that for $1,500, I'm surprised to read about the QC issues that seem to persist. The Flame appears to offer more value than the 702 Bright (since I'm looking for a light that can be used in the sun without a hood). I was just curious if anyone else has used both or been in the same situation, looking for a bright LCD panel.

I think 6" is the optimal diagonal for an on camera monitor. The 7 can be a little unwieldy when handheld, and the 5 can occasionally seem a tad small. Maybe that's just me. The DP6 went away for some reason.
 
My point was that Atomos, like Blackmagic, are an 'on paper' company. In that on paper the specs of their offerings always seem almost too good to be true, especially for the money. And when you get your hands on them that invariably tends to be the case. There's always a 'gotcha' or quirk that makes them not as good as they sounded or the features are a pain to use, or the UI is annoying. Or they are buggy as hell or drop frames or similar.
 
A month into owning the 702 and I'm happy with the purchase. I don't use it for shoots when I need to shoulder mount the camera, but for tripod and controlled shoots, I use it and it helps compose the shots and pull focus. It's invaluable when showing clients the shot, as it definitely creates a wow factor that can inspire confidence. Whereas when you try to show the client the shot on the tiny FS7 LCD, it doesn't look like anything special.

I was able to calibrate the 702 using the probe that came with my NEC monitor (an XRite) and some open source software on my Mac, hooking up the 702 to the HDMI port on my Mac. That got the colors much closer. The monitor is still a bit on the green side but it's good enough in the field.

I got 3 of the Hawk Woods BPU style batteries that have 2 Dtap ports to power the monitor, and that's working great. They were a pain to purchase because I needed to order them from the UK (I'm in the USA) but worth it. IDX is coming out with some Dtap batteries as well, so that will be a good option.
 
Ben Scott said:
My point was that Atomos, like Blackmagic, are an 'on paper' company. In that on paper the specs of their offerings always seem almost too good to be true, especially for the money. And when you get your hands on them that invariably tends to be the case. There's always a 'gotcha' or quirk that makes them not as good as they sounded or the features are a pain to use, or the UI is annoying. Or they are buggy as hell or drop frames or similar.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more and the build quality is worlds apart!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top