Sony announces FX9 4K camcorder with 6K fullframe sensor
- Thread starter indiawilds
- Start date
I wouldn't be at all surprised if I got the model names mixed up... I do that
Thanks for posting the video!
Unfortunately, it looks like Atomos isn't planning updates for the Shogun Inferno. I think this is really unfortunate since the Shogun Inferno is obviously capable of processing a 6Kish image on the EVA1. It seems reasonable that they might be able to do the same on the S1H.
I do feel a bit abandoned and I think Atomos is creating an opportunity for Blackmagic. Some Shogun Inferno owners might consider adding one of the new Video Assist units and giving B-RAW a try.
The Shogun 7 also has significantly more processing power which is why it's able to do the live switching that will become available next month.
The new raw codecs are pretty impressive in their efficiency. As storage improves, especially in the camera media, space and record times will be less of a issue. Now all we need is graphene batteries to replace LiPo and Li Ion so that we can get a nice boost in power density and battery life...
That would be nice!
_________
Jeromy did mention that it might be possible to go up to 14 bits with Shogun 7 which would likely make most FX9 users happy.
On the downside it it looks like to get 16 bit RAW it looks like the only option will be buying a Neon and paying an estimated $5K price to get a new MCU. Ouch and ouch!
Sony could have just let FX9 work with the R5 and R7 recorders like the FS7, FS5, and FS700. The recorders and especially media are pricey but at least it would have been a rental option for FX9 owners. Sony clearly doesn't want FX9 users to record 16-bit RAW if the only option is a tethered $9K desktop solution.
dmitrizigany
Veteran
I overheard Alister Chapman today as he was giving an interview saying that raw likely won’t be available until summer next year. By that time Atomos have probably released 84 new shogun models so I’m sure we’ll be fine.
No problem!
Isn't S1H support already announced?
Processing power isn't the only factor. If the system architecture isn't designed to be able to move around 16-bit data, then it's basically a non-starter. If it has datapaths that consist of (to oversimplify) 12 wires, then it's going top out at 12-bits.
Since it can switch four streams of HD, it's not actually that much more processing power than required to handle a single 4K stream. It does require more sophisticated I/O, and that's probably where the 16-bit limitation is coming from -- plus the FX9's external 16-bit raw probably wasn't on Atomos' radar when it designed the Shogun 7. I'm sure that Atomos COULD have designed the Shogun 7 to handle 16-bit raw, but it's hard to see the future, and it would have raised the cost of the device, which Atomos probably was trying to avoid.
I'd expect so. And if Sony develops an S-Log implementation of some kind and uses that to encode its 16 bit linear data into 12-bit log, it would probably make MOST FX9 users happy.
Yeah, might as well skip the FX9 and go for the Big Kahuna instead (i.e. Venice).
I agree, it seems like a rather baffling decision -- reminds me of the Cion's 120fps support in 4K... but the only option for using it was a $20,000 Kona card in PCIe slot in a computer with a RAID... so I doubt that anyone has tried it yet.
It's also possible that Sony's just looking guage demand for 16-bit raw for the FX9. People might try it out and decide they don't care enough, because they're all happy with 12-bit raw, in which case Sony would have no incentive to make its own recorder for it. Or if there IS demand, we might see an updated Shogun that can record 16-bit raw. Who knows?
Considering that there's (slow but steady) movement toward 8K, one would think that the next generation of the external recorders would be able to deal with a lot more data than the current ones. This seems rather inevitable. The key, insofar as FX9 goes, is how Sony and Atomos decide to proceed with their partnership. Atomos has struck some solid ones with Nikon and Panasonic. The external Atomos Raw recorder for FX9 might be pricey at first but, if the connectivity to Sony product is established, the same model should cover a lot of different cameras a la R5 & R7.
PS. Sony would, naturally, be hesitant to open potential Atomos use in Venice or their other higher tier models but, with the "meat of the market" moving lower and lower, Atomos could hit the sweet spot across the entire lineup.
cyvideo
Veteran
Not originally but I know of many shooters using a variety of Sony 3 chip cameras plus a host of F5/F55 shooters where their cameras were all originally SxS card cameras who have now transitioned to using XQD cards with Sony's XQD ExpressCard Adapter. Way, way cheaper, SxS 128GB $990 vs $200 for the new 120GB XQD. The XQD cards support all the frame rates on all those SxS cameras and for those of us who have both types of camera, SxS and XQD it makes sense.
Chris Young
The Arri Alexa uses SxS cards and they don't seem to officially support the SxS adapter for XQD cards:
https://forum.arri.com/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=147
The Alexa Mini and Amira use CFast 2.0 cards.
In addition to Sony which used XQD cards in the FS7, FS7 mkII, and a couple of their early 4K camcorders, the PXW-Z100 and FDR-AX1, Nikon bet pretty big on XQD. The Nikon D5, D500, D850, Z6, and Z7 all have XQD card slots. Panasonic also included an XQD card slot in the S1 and S1R, although they kind of split the difference with one SD card slot and one XQD and then went with dual SD slots in the S1H.
I'm not sure why they didn't include CFexpress support in the FX9 though. CFexpress type B cards are the same connector type and dimensions as XQD, so it is possible for a camera to accept both types of cards for compatibility. And CFexpress definitely seems to be the future as it allows for significantly faster cards. The recently announced SanDisk CFexpress cards are faster without being any more expensive than existing XQD cards. Plus, they have a 512GB card which is a larger capacity than the biggest XQD card (256 GB) currently available and is actually less expensive per GB than the smaller cards:
https://www.cinema5d.com/sandisk-cfexpress-ultra-fast-cards-now-available-for-pre-order
I suppose it's possible that the FX9 eventually gets a firmware update that enables CFexpress support, as in some cases this is doable through a firmware change. It's also possible that Sony wants to sell their own XQD media, since they are one of the few manufacturers of XQD cards, and Sony doesn't have any CFexpress cards on the market yet. Sony did announce the development of a CFexpress card earlier this year, but it doesn't actually seem to be available yet despite the claim that it would be ready by summer 2019: https://pro.sony/ue_US/press/cfexpress
Liam Hall
Veteran
My FS7 with be 5 next month and needs replacing so I've ordered one. I've also got a deposit on a C500 mkII. I'm still not sure which way I'll go.
cyvideo
Veteran
I think you may be on the right track here that Sony probably wants to maintain its control over and continue to have control of their own proprietary XQD. Sony may indeed eventually support CFExpress technology but to do that means Sony would be relinquishing its control over what sort of media that goes into their cameras. Such as today you can user a Lexar XQD card if you wish. There is an argument that Sony have used in the past is that they will stand behind their product if it fails if that failure can be attributed to Sony media. If a failure is deemed by Sony to have occurred by the use of or contributed to by the use of non Sony media then Sony will not entertain a claim. These days with solid state media the risk of equipment failure is more unlikely to happen than with tapes and optical discs.
A case I had direct involvement with was with an XDCam disc that caused thousands of $$$'s to my XDCam. The damage was caused by the media. In this particular case the XDCam disc in question somehow during its manufacture ended up with a very fine white powder, like talc powder inside the disc cassette. This fine powder was all across of the face of the optical disc. When you put an XDCam disc in a camera a split sliding door opens on the disc and the camera's BD laser then tracks in towards the disc to focus the laser. In this case because of the powder on the disc surface the laser couldn't focus and kept on coming in trying to find focus. It didn't succeed in finding focus. The drive mechanism drove the laser into the face of the disc totally destroying the laser and all the associated mechanism of the whole drive assembly.
Sony wanted to charge for this very expensive repair. I fought them and won my case and the camera's whole optical back end was replaced free of charge. I was later told that had the faulty disc been a TDK or a Fuji XDCam disc I would have been on my own and Sony would not have entertained a claim as it was considered that the fault was brought about by faulty non Sony media. Ever since then I have never used anything else other than Sony media in Sony cameras or Panasonic P2 media in Panasonic cameras. What's the old saying. "Once bitten twice shy." I think Sony will only surrender to making their cameras compatible with the non proprietary CFExpress technology if they have little option. Don't forget Sony have a way to go on their own proprietary XQD road map which has been published. This lists up to 1000MB read and 1000MB write speeds.
Chris Young
Last edited:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Thanks for clarfying this. So basically, Sony and Nikon. As proven with the $2,500.00 back, old habits die hard at Sony. CFexpress would seem to be a better investment if you needed to own a massive amount of media to capture lots of long documentary interviews and footage.
deltoidjohn
Veteran
I think overall the FX9 is a pretty solid evolutionary upgrade. Nothing revolutionary, like the FS7 kinda was, but enough that potential FS7/II buyers will probably pay the extra dollars instead. A lot of potential EVA1/C200/Ursa Mini Pro buyers might be tempted to go for this instead too, if for no other reason that it will also likely be an industry-standard money-maker like the FS7 was.
The comparisons to the C500mkII are understandable given their close announcements, but in reality they are totally different cameras for different markets. C500II has a higher price point and plays more in the low-end cinema camera market. It'll be used on a lot of commercials, high-end "content" (is that the accepted term these days for that blended doc/commercial style that generally lives on social media?) and indie features. It'll compete more with Red, offering a more complete system (ND's/XLR) that will tempt a lot of people who are fed up trying to shoot Red on certain projects that really aren't suited to it. Most of these jobs still require a crew, so the back unit is a requirement for extra outputs, D-taps, etc, which will further stretch the price difference from the FX9.
And speaking of the FX9:
It knows it's market, and it nails it pretty well. 4K in broadcast-standard formats, combined with an easy, flexible and familiar form factor. They've improved/closed the gap on the biggest areas their competitors were outdoing them - colour, and AF (though most will never use it). They've also added that prestigious FF sensor and will have a better 4K output thanks to the oversampling. Now, people can ***** and moan all they want about needing a recorder for raw, but the reality is that most of the target market does not need it or want it. Furthermore, pretty much any decent camera op will be able to pick this camera up out of the box, put a lens on, and start shooting footage that meets the standards of almost every client who's not demanding Arri/Red (and that includes doc, ENG, EFP, reality, live broadcast, events, commercials, corporate, short films, etc, etc). I think the only other cam that can do that is the FS7. What the FX9 does not do, however, is deliver MORE than their target market needs. They haven't quite blown the competition away like the FS7 did, and the FX9 upon release is perhaps not as future-proof as the FS7 was in 2014.
Having said that, I'd say Sony probably have a few tricks up their sleeve with this camera. If it's going to be their 5-year flagship in the same way the FS7 or - in a different tier - the F5/55 have been, they'll likely have a steady stream of firmware features, and possible factory-upgrades, both paid and unpaid, that will unlock potential into the future. I'd wager that in a few years time this camera will probably have internal 6K and 4K120p recording. There'll also probably be better raw options too in the future with 3rd party manufacturers (compare the AXS-R5 unit for the FS700 to the rush of after-market options that became available). And similar to the FS5, they'll release a mk II version in a few years time that comes pre-installed with all the paid upgrades they've released along the way.
So, while on paper the FX9 may seem underwhelming upon release (it doesn't offer anything the FS7 doesn't... blah blah blah), I think it'll become a bigger hit in the real world than the specs might suggest.
The comparisons to the C500mkII are understandable given their close announcements, but in reality they are totally different cameras for different markets. C500II has a higher price point and plays more in the low-end cinema camera market. It'll be used on a lot of commercials, high-end "content" (is that the accepted term these days for that blended doc/commercial style that generally lives on social media?) and indie features. It'll compete more with Red, offering a more complete system (ND's/XLR) that will tempt a lot of people who are fed up trying to shoot Red on certain projects that really aren't suited to it. Most of these jobs still require a crew, so the back unit is a requirement for extra outputs, D-taps, etc, which will further stretch the price difference from the FX9.
And speaking of the FX9:
It knows it's market, and it nails it pretty well. 4K in broadcast-standard formats, combined with an easy, flexible and familiar form factor. They've improved/closed the gap on the biggest areas their competitors were outdoing them - colour, and AF (though most will never use it). They've also added that prestigious FF sensor and will have a better 4K output thanks to the oversampling. Now, people can ***** and moan all they want about needing a recorder for raw, but the reality is that most of the target market does not need it or want it. Furthermore, pretty much any decent camera op will be able to pick this camera up out of the box, put a lens on, and start shooting footage that meets the standards of almost every client who's not demanding Arri/Red (and that includes doc, ENG, EFP, reality, live broadcast, events, commercials, corporate, short films, etc, etc). I think the only other cam that can do that is the FS7. What the FX9 does not do, however, is deliver MORE than their target market needs. They haven't quite blown the competition away like the FS7 did, and the FX9 upon release is perhaps not as future-proof as the FS7 was in 2014.
Having said that, I'd say Sony probably have a few tricks up their sleeve with this camera. If it's going to be their 5-year flagship in the same way the FS7 or - in a different tier - the F5/55 have been, they'll likely have a steady stream of firmware features, and possible factory-upgrades, both paid and unpaid, that will unlock potential into the future. I'd wager that in a few years time this camera will probably have internal 6K and 4K120p recording. There'll also probably be better raw options too in the future with 3rd party manufacturers (compare the AXS-R5 unit for the FS700 to the rush of after-market options that became available). And similar to the FS5, they'll release a mk II version in a few years time that comes pre-installed with all the paid upgrades they've released along the way.
So, while on paper the FX9 may seem underwhelming upon release (it doesn't offer anything the FS7 doesn't... blah blah blah), I think it'll become a bigger hit in the real world than the specs might suggest.
Last edited:
cyvideo
Veteran
deltajohn you just about nailed in #1.
I think you are very close to Sony's reasoning as to the placement of the FX9 in the market. It's very rare since the introduction of the Betacam that Sony have launched a product that missed the mark to any reasonable degree. They know their market pretty well. The closest I can recall was the short lived Sony Betacam SX series with their low 17.5MB data rate recorded to those bright canary yellow cassettes. Worked well for news gathering when linking back to base with low bandwidth, on the from memory the 25Mbps SS3 microwave links. I think they will sell bucket loads of FX9s. As you say the FX9 is not aimed at the higher end cine market.
Chris Young
I think you are very close to Sony's reasoning as to the placement of the FX9 in the market. It's very rare since the introduction of the Betacam that Sony have launched a product that missed the mark to any reasonable degree. They know their market pretty well. The closest I can recall was the short lived Sony Betacam SX series with their low 17.5MB data rate recorded to those bright canary yellow cassettes. Worked well for news gathering when linking back to base with low bandwidth, on the from memory the 25Mbps SS3 microwave links. I think they will sell bucket loads of FX9s. As you say the FX9 is not aimed at the higher end cine market.
Chris Young
Run&Gun
Veteran
Getting off-topic(shocker here, right?), but Betacam SX was not what I’d call short lived or missing the mark, at least not in the US. It was a pretty good hit with news stations and even some networks(I know CBS used it). Image was good and you could use either SX tapes of Beta SP(and get double the record time).
Elcaset wants to have a word with you.
In any case, XQD's are (obviously) going into FX6 as well. CFexpress might go into FX11, if there is such a thing down the road.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Very good synopsis of the Sony mindset, I agree with it.
I think if Canon would have introduced a C300 MKIII, that would have been the direct competitor to the FX9 but they didn't, and I agree, the C500 MKII is another notch up the ladder as far as audience and use case. The FS7 has been such a force in its market, it's been a huge, undeniable hit as I am sure the FX9 will be with those users. As far as conversion buyers from the C300 MKII, EVA 1, UMP G2 and C200, I guess it will just depend on what those users market is. For commercials, more cinema-like production, for me, the appeal of RAW is undeniable, I have become a big fan of Cinema RAW Light and the option to shoot it in 6K, 4K and even 2K is very exciting for me. I will be very interested to get hands on with both cameras to see how good Sony's improved AF is compared against the Canon DPAF, which, while not perfect, it is pretty good and so useful in a lot of situations. If I was starting from scratch or stepping up from the mirrorless world, I would be hard pressed to decide which camera to buy between the two.
My market just a couple of years ago would have been a home run with the Sony, I was doing a lot more BTS, EPK and corporate type work. A lot of that work seems to be receding for me and now it seems to be more aimed at narrative type corporate stuff with actors, an occasional green screen interview, shooting other people's documentaries and then shooting a lot of my own projects. My current client base seems to prefer the Canon look but I am also curious to try out the new S-Cinetone look too as that has been my main beef with the FS7, the SOOC colors. If the FX9 can produce usable, appealing skin tones SOOC with this new look, that boosts the appeal of the camera immensely for me.
cpreston
Veteran
In my market, it is primarily a choice between Canon and Sony. I've seen a few EVA 1's. And, or course, Arri. Sony won the last generation of cameras for owner/ops because it was cheaper than the comparable Canon and it had 4K 60p. The 4K 60p was key. Now, I don't see any spec differences between the Canon C500 II and the Sony FX-9 for general corporate work so I see it as a toss up. It is really just a consideration of which eco system you want. As a Canon owner, the C500 MK II is an easy choice when I buy a new camera. For current Sony owners, it probably makes sense to go the FX-9 route. Although, I do feel a much higher urge to upgrade my C300 mkII than I assume an FS-7 owner will be to purchase an FX-9. Therefore, I am guessing that Canon will have a bit better sales at the beginning.
JPNola
Veteran
A factor in choosing between the Fx9 and the C500 for some will be matching the FF mirrorless they already own. If you already own a Sony alpha mirrorless such as the A7s, that is motivation to stay in the Sony family and get the Fx9. The number of people who own a Sony mirrorless is certainly far greater than the number who own a Canon mirrorless. Have you ever seen anyone in the field with a Canon R / RP camera? Me neither.
It's only one consideration, and only a consideration for some. But matching the mirrorless you own is a consideration, most who are wanting to do that will be Sony owners and not Canon owners. On the other hand, there will be some wanting to match their DSLR and there most are Canon owners.
Compatibility with lenses one already owns is less a thing since EF lenses are easily adapted to e-mount.
It's only one consideration, and only a consideration for some. But matching the mirrorless you own is a consideration, most who are wanting to do that will be Sony owners and not Canon owners. On the other hand, there will be some wanting to match their DSLR and there most are Canon owners.
Compatibility with lenses one already owns is less a thing since EF lenses are easily adapted to e-mount.
Liam Hall
Veteran
All my lenses are full frame EF which work great on the FS7 with a speedbooster but EF lenses are useless if you want to take advantage of AF on the FX9. Useless. For the cost of replacing them with E-mount I may as well buy the C500 mkII.
cpreston
Veteran
Well, I have an R that I use on a gimbal. But the only reason I own it is because it matches the look of the cinema cameras.