Sony announces FX9 4K camcorder with 6K fullframe sensor

[puredrifting]

For all the boxes the C500 MkII ticks, the fact that it doesn't come with a loupe is a bummer. It wouldn't be that big of a deal if the loupe was an additional $1500 or thereabouts. But the loupe is $6000. That hefty price is going to mean a lot of C500 MKII's being used without a loupe, or with some 3rd party loupe.

To build out the C500MkII properly with the optional accessories you're looking at $23,600.00. Make that $25,200.00 if you include the PL lens mount. You'll need a shoulder-plate as well. If you go with the Canon one that's another $1500, using the pricing of Canon's C700 shoulder-plate.

Total price to do it right? Roughly $27,000.00

Suddenly the Fx9's shortcomings and quibbles become easier to swallow considering it is roughly $12,000 less than the C500 MkII. That's right, for the price of a fully spec'd C500MkII you could get a fully spec'd Fx9 and a fully spec'd Fs7 MkII. Both with electronic ND while your $27K investment in the C500MkII still doesn't get you electronic ND.

Not sure I agree with your math. Here is what either would cost me, but I am already bought into the Canon ecosystem as most users for the C500 MKII will be.

C500 MKII Package
Body with LCD $15,999.00
PL Mount adapter $1,599.00
Total: $17,598.00

I find with my C200 that I rarely if ever use the EVF but if I did a lot, big deal, it's $700.00 more to add or Zacuto will undoubtedly have a loupe adapter for the new 4.3" LCD for $500.00 or $600.00 if you want it placed to a better shoulder mount location than the rear Canon EVF.
I would never consider the $6,000.00 EVF-V70 for a Canon because Canons suck as shoulder mount cameras, been there already with my C100, 200 and 300 and value equation doesn't work for a $16k camera, to spend $6K on an EVF. I've given up on shoulder mount shooting with Canons except when I have to and then, I just suck it up and deal with it.
Unlike most target audience for the PXW-FX9, I actually shoot 90% RAW with my C200 and would purchase the C500 MKII to do the same, the idea of being able to shoot 12-bit 2K RAW at 250Mbps is very appealing for 1080 projects. I doubt I would shoot 6K very often but it would be there if I wanted to shoot 6K or had a rogue client who wanted it.
I'd never buy the Canon shoulder plate either, my Zacuto at 1/3 of the cost is so much better.

Upon careful reflection, I wouldn't spring for either of the adapters, I can live without the V-Mounts as the BP-A60s are lighter and there the new third party BP-A60 replacements with the
D-Tap for $245.00 instead and I can shoot the better part of the day with just one BP-A60 on my C200 so I might have to do one battery change the ehole day with the BP-A60s and the C500 MKII!
The extra two XLRs would be nice but once again, my C200 is also a four channel camera, but only has two XLR inputs and that's fine as I mostly use the extra two channels
as safety channels for 1 and 2 and I can plug in another wireless or two to the 3.5mm audio input if need be but I have only done that once.

PXW-FX9 Package
Body with EVF/LCD Loupe and 28-135mm f/4 G OSS Lens $13,498.00
Sony XDCA-FX9 Extension Unit for PXW-FX9 Camera $2,498.00
Unknown as of today 4K RAW recorder that can actually utilize the 16-bit RAW output $3k to $6K
Total: $18K to $21K, depending on who and when someone comes out with a RAW recorder that works with this camera

I, of course, am going to have buy at least one Sony G series zoom because I want to use a native lens to work with Sony's much improved new AF system, which will obviously
be subpar with a Metabones adapter and some Canon EF lenses. The EF lenses will work, but how well with the adapter, who knows? If I only shot weddings or corporate/event and didn't
care about RAW or shooting 6K, the Sony is undoubtedly cheaper but to make the camera work for me, with only having one native G Series Sony zoom and really liking the advantages to
shooting RAW, the camera would easily end up over $20k for me.

So a lot of it is perspective and needs. Not saying this would be the scenario for everyone, just for me. I would never buy the Sony as it feels handicapped out of the gate to me as a long term (say 3-4 year) investment, although I am sure
it is a great camera. I am looking forward to testing it and seeing what "15+ stops" of latitude is in the real world and how good the new AF is compared to DPAF. If I were starting from scratch or just stepping into a pro camera from a mirrorless
that would likely make me buy the Sony as I wouldn't care about RAW and wouldn't have ten EF lenses sitting around probably unless my mirrorless was a Canon as the stripped camera is a lot cheaper than the Canon. But as of today, for me and
my company's needs, the Sony would cost more to get it to do what I want and I couldn't shoot PL glass with it either.

I agree with NorBro. Based upon my experience with other cameras, Dual Native ISO is usually a marketing bullet point more so than a real feature. Every dual native ISO camera I have shot with, the upper ISO is noisy as hell, not that different
than just cranking the gain up on my Canon. In theory, it should be better but in practice, no dual ISO has impressed me.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Hardly.

6k gets you a properly debayered 4k image. Just as the 3k sensor in the Alexa gets you a properly debayered 2k image. It's a difference you can easily see by eye in a controlled test. It also gives you twice as much blue and red chroma information to form your 4k image, as you'd get from a native 4k sensor. These are significant advantages.

It's why the 4k output from the F5(5) looks good (on a per pixel level), but the 1080p SR444 images look outstanding. One is fully resolved (in all three colour channels), the other is about a third guesswork.

Is that to say the Arri 2K image looks better than the Arri 3.2K or 3.4K (open gate) image?

Is that also to say that the 4K image of the C500 Mark II would look better than the 5.9K image?

And better in what sense, more color information so richer colors? Or sharper since each pixel has its own value (with me not knowing the tech terms here)?

 

[NorBro]

Is that to say the Arri 2K image looks better than the Arri 3.2K or 3.4K (open gate) image?

Is that also to say that the 4K image of the C500 Mark II would look better than the 5.9K image?

And better in what sense, more color information so richer colors? Or sharper since each pixel has its own value (with me not knowing the tech terms here)?

In theory; yes, if the technical process is optimized. (It always isn't for various reasons.)

Although as the resolutions keep increasing it will not matter as much for human vision.

Besides, we see what we want to see.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I agree with NorBro. Based upon my experience with other cameras, Dual Native ISO is usually a marketing bullet point more so than a real feature. Every dual native ISO camera I have shot with, the upper ISO is noisy as hell, not that different
than just cranking the gain up on my Canon. In theory, it should be better but in practice, no dual ISO has impressed me.

I'm glad people are finally catching on.

I've said it before, but can't hurt to say again to spread awareness. I see dual ISO as a disadvantage over say a Canon C-series or A7s camera, in that you're then stuck dealing with particular ISOs (say 800 and 5000, for example), and raising and lowering from there to get to the same ISO on say a C-series or A7s that you could have gotten to your desired ISO quicker by quickly riding a dial to whatever ISO you want. Basically, dual ISO is just an additional time consuming step to take to adjust your ISO that slows you down on set.

I guess if the dual ISO is actually cleaner than say previous versions of the camera (say a Red Dragon vs a dual ISO Red Gemini), then it's an advantage over previous generations, but basically an annoying technical way to get higher ISO that other cameras (such as C-series and A7s) with similar or better ISO performance don't have to deal with.

 

[puredrifting]

The C500 Mark II is the FS7 of 2014 and the FX9 is the C300 Mark II of 2015.

I don't know anymore.

After writing up a blog entry on each cam in the past week, after reflecting on, not just reacting to each camera, I am left with the same conclusion, it does seem like history repeating itself in a way. Neither camera is bad but the Canon seems to have the edge in the features that MOST buyers care about in 2019. When you can buy a $2500.00 camera that shoots 6K RAW, buying an $11K camera that can't but should would bug me subconsciously. The Sony is definitely mired in the 2014 "Sony HAS to protect the FS7 MKII, F5, F55 and Venice cameras and because of that, the FX9 won't shoot internal RAW or 6K" mindset, and then add in the $2,500.00 add-on BS bracket unit to even output RAW, that's old school Sony ripoff marketing, they could have easily built the camera to have RAW output on the body.

As has been noted, the C700FF was such a flop that Canon was able to easily cannibalize because nobody bought the C700FF, so no market to protect.
I think that's the big main difference between the two, Canon could cannibalize and Sony couldn't. I would always take a new product that cannibalized over a product that is afraid to.

 

[puredrifting]

Is that to say the Arri 2K image looks better than the Arri 3.2K or 3.4K (open gate) image?

Is that also to say that the 4K image of the C500 Mark II would look better than the 5.9K image?

And better in what sense, more color information so richer colors? Or sharper since each pixel has its own value (with me not knowing the tech terms here)?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, angels dancing on the head of a pin. Clients don't know or care, why should I? If it's not a line item that makes me more money, if to my eye
none oversampled 4K looks good, why should I care? My C200 shooting 12-bit RAW, with a 4K imager, should have a substandard image when compare to a 5.7K image down converted in camera to a 4K raster. Shot a
big project early this year, mixing my C200 RAW in with Panasonic EVA 1 5.7K. In the final edit, neither looked noticeably better, clearer or more detailed even though the Panasonic, by this logic,
should have looked "better". Nobody could tell the difference once color corrected and graded.

 

[dmitrizigany]

In one interview a Sony representative said they were in talks with Atomos about developing a recorder that can take the raw signal from the FX9. So likely won’t be more than €2000. But as the extension module has no other function I need/want it’s €4500 just to be able to record raw. That’s a bit steep + you end up with a much larger setup than I’d like.

This is the main (only?) reason keeping me from buying this camera. Would like a new camera now-is, and as it’s unknown when both the FX6 and the A7SIII will be released I might be going for the FX9 anyway. Will see after I see it in person at IBC on Sunday.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Meanwhile, back in the real world, angels dancing on the head of a pin. Clients don't know or care, why should I? If it's not a line item that makes me more money, if to my eye
none oversampled 4K looks good, why should I care? My C200 shooting 12-bit RAW, with a 4K imager, should have a substandard image when compare to a 5.7K image down converted in camera to a 4K raster. Shot a
big project early this year, mixing my C200 RAW in with Panasonic EVA 1 5.7K. In the final edit, neither looked noticeably better, clearer or more detailed even though the Panasonic, by this logic,
should have looked "better". Nobody could tell the difference once color corrected and graded.

Clients care about overall quality, and incremental upgrades stacked upon each other are what make the difference in production value between say Avengers and Eric Coughlin's $5K corporate video. Sure, you could argue the C300 Mark II with a Gemini and a two person crew can get good results, and upgrading to an Amira and an M18 isn't going to help much, and from there, upgrading to a five ton truck and an Alexa 65 isn't going to help much, and from there, to a two hundred person crew and dozens of trucks isn't going to help much. But each upgrade helps, and it's the little differences adding up that make the big difference. So, we focus on the little differences and go from there.

Some have said the 4K C300 Mark II image is soft, and, well, sometimes I see that, but other times I get really sharp images, so I'm a bit torn personally. In any case, I wouldn't mind a sharper image from my C-series, so a C500 Mark II shooting 4K 10 bit 4:2:2 with a theoretically sharper image is a plus to me.

 

[NorBro]

Obviously there's a difference between the upgrades he's talking about and you are.

Human help and additional equipment overall matter more than minor image quality improvements, especially when 99% of the world's biggest productions are still filmed on we know what (as we say over and over again).

 

[puredrifting]

Clients care about overall quality, and incremental upgrades stacked upon each other are what make the difference in production value between say Avengers and Eric Coughlin's $5K corporate video.

I agree about overall quality, but I feel the camera is such a small part of that equation. Lighting, production design in cases that have production design, script, concept, talent, hair and makeup, camera movement, to me, are all much more important to the perception
of overall quality, most clients look at/approve their projects from their phone screens these days or possibly laptops? I rarely sit down with a calibrated big monitor with a client, even for studio clients. They look at their phones or work computers and that's where it ends.
Once in a blue moon we'll convene in a screening room over at Fox or Sony but that's becoming rarer and rarer.

All clients are different of course, but in my little branch of the world, "camera quality" is pretty far down the scale as far as clients perception of what is important or significant. In a way, it's more important on the shoot where the clients often look at the camera and what's
coming over the production monitor than in the final edited piece. Clients still like to see a big camera on set more than a mirrorless or phone. Baseplates, rods and matteboxes are also important to the client's perception of quality, which while it seems ridiculous, is true to an extent.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I agree about overall quality, but I feel the camera is such a small part of that equation. Lighting, production design in cases that have production design, script, concept, talent, hair and makeup, camera movement, to me, are all much more important to the perception
of overall quality, most clients look at/approve their projects from their phone screens these days or possibly laptops? I rarely sit down with a calibrated big monitor with a client, even for studio clients. They look at their phones or work computers and that's where it ends.
Once in a blue moon we'll convene in a screening room over at Fox or Sony but that's becoming rarer and rarer.

All clients are different of course, but in my little branch of the world, "camera quality" is pretty far down the scale as far as clients perception of what is important or significant. In a way, it's more important on the shoot where the clients often look at the camera and what's
coming over the production monitor than in the final edited piece. Clients still like to see a big camera on set more than a mirrorless or phone. Baseplates, rods and matteboxes are also important to the client's perception of quality, which while it seems ridiculous, is true to an extent.

While I'll admit there were times in my past (DSLR days) where I would rig my camera up to make it look cool, now a days if I'm putting say a matte box or anything on my camera, it's because it helps me get better results, not because I'm trying to look cool.

Clearly camera matters to your clients considering how often you've said your EPK clients would not accept Sony FS7 colors and wanted Canon.

 

[NorBro]

I think the new [ungraded] S-Cinetone picture profile looks nice.

Around 5:10...it does scream Venice.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I think the 3.5" monitor should be bigger. One of my biggest complaints with both the FS7, Amira monitor, Varicam LT monitor, and EVA-1 monitor. The C500 Mark II monitor is 4.3", and the C300 Mark II and C200 monitors are 4". The C-series monitors with backlight turned on are also view-able in daylight, unlike a lot of other built-in camera monitors.

I'd hope the FX9 monitor is a good improvement over the FS7 monitor which I did not like.

 

[mcbob]

Time code! Sound mixers and editors rejoice.

Is it strange that this is also what excited me the most?

I mean, sure, better stock color, like-IBIS, established sturdy media, two additional audio channels, similar body to likely take all the same FS7 accessories, and an extant inexpensive AF/MF lens roughly equivalent to a 19-95/2.8 on an S35 camera that can track focus on people like frikkin Iron Man are kinda interesting and all, but.... TIMECODE!!!

 

[puredrifting]

While I'll admit there were times in my past (DSLR days) where I would rig my camera up to make it look cool, now a days if I'm putting say a matte box or anything on my camera, it's because it helps me get better results, not because I'm trying to look cool.

Clearly camera matters to your clients considering how often you've said your EPK clients would not accept Sony FS7 colors and wanted Canon.

That's true, although EPK has dropped way off, I have not shot one this year. Only one BTS project too. The business is changing.

 

[puredrifting]

I think the new [ungraded] S-Cinetone picture profile looks nice.

Around 5:10...it does scream Venice.

Oofa, the 5:10 skin tones to me look cold. Not sure of the lighting but on the interior shot of the guy, those skin tones look like typical blue/magenta Sony to me?
That's what bugs me on a lot (not all) Sony cameras, the skin tones look like cadavers, not warm and orange/amber/yellow, any of which are more flattering than
that sickly blue/magenta/cyan bias Sony seems to love.

I've seen some Venice footage graded that looked superb, but these shots straight out of camera look unflattering as far as people to me?

 

[Eric Coughlin]

That's what bugs me on a lot (not all) Sony cameras, the skin tones look like cadavers, not warm and orange/amber/yellow, any of which are more flattering than
that sickly blue/magenta/cyan bias Sony seems to love.

So what you're saying is Sony cameras are a future-proof investment for the coming zombie apocalypse.

 

[NorBro]

Oofa, the 5:10 skin tones to me look cold. Not sure of the lighting but on the interior shot of the guy, those skin tones look like typical blue/magenta Sony to me?
That's what bugs me on a lot (not all) Sony cameras, the skin tones look like cadavers, not warm and orange/amber/yellow, any of which are more flattering than
that sickly blue/magenta/cyan bias Sony seems to love.

I've seen some Venice footage graded that looked superb, but these shots straight out of camera look unflattering as far as people to me?

I like the look, but I like a lot of different looks.

Obviously I'm not purchasing this camera (or the C500 Mark II), but I'm definitely on stand-by and ready to go if the a9II or a7SIII look like this.

 

[DLD]

In one interview a Sony representative said they were in talks with Atomos about developing a recorder that can take the raw signal from the FX9. So likely won’t be more than €2000...

You know, if you look closely at FX-9 in that video JP linked a few posts above yours, there's an Atomos connected to the camera. Nothing like a little mystery, huh?

 

[NorBro]

Not really. Their other two cameras allow RAW recording to them...not sure what kind of asinine decision or oversight it would be not to enable this one to do it (with existing or new Atomos products).

IMO, right now they are just feeling the reaction out...making a confusing announcement and seeing what people think. If people don't like it then they'll confirm 100% Atomos support.

It would be a good time for an internal recording 5.7K EVA1 II right about now.