Sony announces FX9 4K camcorder with 6K fullframe sensor

indiawilds

indiawilds

Veteran
Sony announces new FX9 4k camera with 6k fullframe sensor

Sensor: newly-developed 6K Full-Frame
Dynamic range: 15 stops
Output: 4K 4:2:2 in 10 bit. Initially UHD. DCI 4k will be enabled later in December 2019. FHD 120p via extension kit. 16bit raw with XDCA extension kit
Dual ISO: ISO 800/4000
7stop electronic variable ND filter
Image stabilization: metadata generated by FX9’s in built gyros to decide shake compensation

B&H lists it at $10998 USD

What do you guys think? When every other camera is giving you 5.9k output the FX9 is 4K only. Will you miss 6K output?
 
From the Newsshooter article it sounds like the whole RAW recording part of the camera isn't really worked out well yet:
https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/09/13/sony-announces-the-fx9-camera-with-6k-full-frame-sensor

The XDCA-FX9 extension unit ($2500) will supposedly enable 16-bit RAW output, but it's not clear if this will be limited to 4K and 2K recording (which presumably would be a sensor crop when outputting RAW) or if they will enable full sensor 6K RAW output. And apparently this RAW output from the FX9 extension unit will not be compatible with Sony's existing AXS-R7 RAW recorder ($7000) which works with the F5, F55, and Venice. So I am not sure if they are planning on developing a new RAW recorder or working with 3rd parties like Atomos to enable RAW recording on their monitor/recorders.
 
Sounds like a mini-VENICE for $11k, just like the C500II sounds like a mini-C700FF for $16k. Both out of my price range but it's nice to see high-end image coming downstream.
 
In my opinion, no on-board raw recording is a mistake. The fact that you need an external recorder in addition to the extension unit just to get raw from the FX9 puts it at a significant disadvantage compared to the Canon C500 Mark II.

If you don't want raw, then this looks like a good camera. But I think Canon really hit it out of the park this time.
 
Jaime Valles said:
In my opinion, no on-board raw recording is a mistake. The fact that you need an external recorder in addition to the extension unit just to get raw from the FX9 puts it at a significant disadvantage compared to the Canon C500 Mark II.

If you don't want raw, then this looks like a good camera. But I think Canon really hit it out of the park this time.
Click to expand...

Frankly speaking Canon is aggressively planning to cannibalize the C700FF with the C500 Mark II so it tells people that the sensor of C500Mark II is same as that of C700FF. So Canon has made C500 Mark II smaller, cheaper and better (due to internal raw) than C700FF. Obviously Sony can't kill Venice. So FX9 had to be limited.

I prefer to have a camera which lasts me a long time so that I can make good money out of it. So I believe it is important to invest in a camera which will last for the next 5 years if not more. Clearly for that kind of longevity internal raw becomes very important.

I wonder if any/many FS7/FS7II user(s) will shift to FX9. With FX9 currently limited to UHD, I wonder if Sony rushed this camera to the market?
 
indiawilds said:
Frankly speaking Canon is aggressively planning to cannibalize the C700FF with the C500 Mark II so it tells people that the sensor of C500Mark II is same as that of C700FF.
Click to expand...
Yep. And I'm guessing the C700 FF didn't sell very well at all, so it's not really cannibalizing it as much as it is repackaging it in a cheaper, smaller body.
 
Kinda weird they put an A-mount on it.

Edit: Apparently it’s an E-mount... but for some brain dead reason they labeled the body with a-mount.
 
Last edited:
^ Weird label, definitely. I think sony officially calls the E mount "sony alpha E mount" or something like that, but the mount is usually labeled "E-mount", not "alpha-mount".

Anyway... about the market for the FX9: I don't see it as an upgrade from the FS7 or the FS7-II, because the price increase is a bit steep. I guess there will be at least two FX models below this, at $7k and $4k.
 
I just wrote a blog entry on the PXW-FX9 that will be up on www.hdvideopro.com tonight or tomorrow. Sony, from a sales perspective, has boxed themselves in with this camera. It is essentially a FF FS7 MKII with better AF. It seems like they have utilized the S-Cinetone color science from the Venice, which is good but from what I have read, this is not the same imager used in the Venice. So calling it a "mini Venice" is not very accurate. Interestingly in the Sony presser slides, the target market for the PXW-FX9 is events, corporate and weddings? Who knew? The target market for the C500 MKII is definitely episodic and lower end narrative/features/music videos/commercials so even though they sit side by side in the marketplace, they both really are intended for two different users, although there is obviously a lot of audience crossover

Personally this new paradigm of selling a camera, then trickling out FW and functionality updates over the following years is highly annoying but that seems to be the new model. Sony has a pretty long list of promised updates and new features to be added pover the coming months and years.

1. Sony reports that this camera does not and will not ever use CFexpress cards, only Sony proprietary XQD cards - annoying, but not a deal breaker
2. Although they moved the TC input from the optional back to the camera body, you still have buy a $2,500.00 back for V-Mounts and RAW output - annoying and expensive.
3. No more Prores recording possible - annoying
4. No 6K recording - puzzling and I think a marketing blunder (not that anyone needs 6K but boasting rights on specs sell a lot of cameras)
5. No internal RAW recording - puzzling when you can buy a small, BMD PCC 6K for $2,495.00 that does. Once again, their target market for the camera doesn't care but from a marketing perspective, few are going to pay an extra $3,500.00-$5,000.00 to shoot RAW
6. Same basic EVF/loupe setup as the FS7 MKII - annoying, most users hate the FS7 MKII EVF loupe, I know I do - annoying'

I think the sheer worldwide Tsunami of buyers who have made the FS7 series a runaway success will make this camera at least a mild success.
The FX9 though, from a marketing/feature standpoint shows that Sony is not willing to in any way cannibalize themselves and that will eventually hurt them.

We may see the tide of users shift back to Canon if the C500 MKII reviews are good and the footage looks better than the C200 or C300 MKII (I'm not sure how much better it will actually look though)
The Sony, for most pro users, would be $13,500.00 with the back versus $16K for the Canon abd the Canon looks overall pretty usable without any of the backs and their backs are much cheaper. I stand by
my assertion that if Canon had made the C500 MKII the same price, it would eat the FX9's lunch but at the slightly higher price point, I think both cameras will sell to their respective audiences pretty well.

I don't own one but if I did own the FS7 MKII, just as I own the C200, neither of these cameras would compell me to sell and "upgrade" from a business perspective. The FS7 MKII will remain in the Sony lineup, the FX9 doesn't replace it.
 
scorsesefan said:
Strange decision to not allow 6K output...
Click to expand...

Unless you look at C500 MKII and Sony FX9 and see a jigsaw puzzle.

Samuel H said:
Anyway... about the market for the FX9: I don't see it as an upgrade from the FS7 or the FS7-II, because the price increase is a bit steep. I guess there will be at least two FX models below this, at $7k and $4k.
Click to expand...

Cartelization quirks aside, the images look lovely and the AF cinema zooms have been long time coming. After some initial resistance, I can see TV and a bunch of lower budget features shot on it. And not because of the camera price either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top