Sony announces FX9 4K camcorder with 6K fullframe sensor
- Thread starter indiawilds
- Start date
dmitrizigany
Veteran
What's up with the kit version of this camera?
The list price here in Europe is €11.000 for the body only and €13.500 as a kit with the 28-135 lens. That's €2.500 extra for the lens. But the lens by itself seems to be selling for €1.900... So it's actually more expensive to get the kit than the camera and lens seperately. Usually you get a bit off on the lens when you buy it as a kit...
The 28-135 lens never had a camera that was a good fit for it, so it seem to have been not very popular. I just ordered a used one for €1.200. That's half what a new one sells for here in Sweden where I'm currently located. I figured that once the FX9 is released, the used prices of this lens will probably go up a bit as there's now a camera for which the lens is a great fit.
The list price here in Europe is €11.000 for the body only and €13.500 as a kit with the 28-135 lens. That's €2.500 extra for the lens. But the lens by itself seems to be selling for €1.900... So it's actually more expensive to get the kit than the camera and lens seperately. Usually you get a bit off on the lens when you buy it as a kit...
The 28-135 lens never had a camera that was a good fit for it, so it seem to have been not very popular. I just ordered a used one for €1.200. That's half what a new one sells for here in Sweden where I'm currently located. I figured that once the FX9 is released, the used prices of this lens will probably go up a bit as there's now a camera for which the lens is a great fit.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
The 28-135mm still retails for $2500 in the USA. I was told the reason it’s often bundled with the FS7, or FX9, but not discounted, is simply so they can be financed as a single purchase.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I think this image is of that. Not side by side but you can see the FX9 is a bit bigger
Grug
Veteran
Maybe. It's a godawful lens though, the mechanics are just woeful.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Have you checked the “what’s in the box” section? Maybe there are a few other bits and pieces included, too.
Also, I know that Canon does not discount body/lens bundles.
dmitrizigany
Veteran
I’ve rented it once and found it perfectly fine. Only used with zoom rocker and AF on an FS700 though. But that’s how I’ll use it on the FX9 as well.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Isn't that just the same FX9 showing different placement of VF?
Anyway, according the officials specs:
W x H x D
FX9 146 x 142.5 x 229 mm - 5.75 x 5.61 x 9.02"
FS7 156 x 239 x 247 mm - 6.14 x 9.41 x 9.72"
So, smaller...
Surprised that they aren't releasing a updated version of the 28-135mm, optically it's fine but yes the mechanics are poor, they should update to be more like the 18-110mm. When I had the 28-135mm I found it occasionally not behaving like a parfocal lens, I know it's doing it electronically but still was frustrating to deal with. Or maybe I just had a bad copy?
puredrifting
Major Contributor
I have no idea, but it came in the press packet and I assumed it was a size comparison with previous generation? I don't know, there is no meaningful caption for it?
G
Guest
Guest
The Fx9 is such a compelling camera. I am looking at orher cameras, but keep coming back to this one.
It is reminiscent of when the Fs7 came out, but it improves on the colour science out of box.
Inwas leaning towards a Varicam LT, and then the Ranger, C500, and Fx9 all make strong cases. Nice work horses. I’ll have to find a way to see how these all stack up to eachother.
It is reminiscent of when the Fs7 came out, but it improves on the colour science out of box.
Inwas leaning towards a Varicam LT, and then the Ranger, C500, and Fx9 all make strong cases. Nice work horses. I’ll have to find a way to see how these all stack up to eachother.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
I haven’t bought a new camera in 6+ years.
Truth be told, i don’t personally like the Fx9, it just seems like a great “gigger”.
Truth be told, i don’t personally like the Fx9, it just seems like a great “gigger”.
cyvideo
Veteran
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Personally, based upon what I have seen about it, if I was in the gigger space, which I am not, I would be tempted to save $3k, which I would need for a Sony servo zoom, and buy the FS7 MKII instead or even an FS7, since they are so cheap now.
Clients likely wouldn't know or care about the differences between S35 and FF and the FS7 has better name recognition than this camera.
The only thing that would highly tempt me would be the S-Cinetone, which based upon the footage I've seen, is a huge and noticeable improvement in skin tones. That market doesn't want to deal with RAW or even log usually and the S-Cinetone footage
seems to look good to go SOCC, which for a Sony, is a huge improvement. I still think the Canon skin tones are superior SOCC but not by a huge degree. So in the end, it would be worth it to pay an extra $3k to $4k to get the FX9, simply because of
S-Cinetone. That's how important the SOCC look is in this price and client range.
If I needed a new camera, I would likely stick with the C500 MKII simply because I am already in the Canon ecosystem and if I added up the Sony, lens, media, etc. I'd be pretty close to the price of the C500 MKII, which I would use almost all of
my existing Canon stuff with, I'd just need to buy a few CFexpress cards to be up and running. Luckily, I don't need the write off this year and my C200 is chugging along fine. Hopefully I'll be reviewing both the FX9 and the C500 MKII in the next few months
so I will report back if hands-on with either revises my mindset.
Clients likely wouldn't know or care about the differences between S35 and FF and the FS7 has better name recognition than this camera.
The only thing that would highly tempt me would be the S-Cinetone, which based upon the footage I've seen, is a huge and noticeable improvement in skin tones. That market doesn't want to deal with RAW or even log usually and the S-Cinetone footage
seems to look good to go SOCC, which for a Sony, is a huge improvement. I still think the Canon skin tones are superior SOCC but not by a huge degree. So in the end, it would be worth it to pay an extra $3k to $4k to get the FX9, simply because of
S-Cinetone. That's how important the SOCC look is in this price and client range.
If I needed a new camera, I would likely stick with the C500 MKII simply because I am already in the Canon ecosystem and if I added up the Sony, lens, media, etc. I'd be pretty close to the price of the C500 MKII, which I would use almost all of
my existing Canon stuff with, I'd just need to buy a few CFexpress cards to be up and running. Luckily, I don't need the write off this year and my C200 is chugging along fine. Hopefully I'll be reviewing both the FX9 and the C500 MKII in the next few months
so I will report back if hands-on with either revises my mindset.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Agreed. Main reason i stayed away from the Fs7, was my own bias. However, the new colour science is promising. Looks better OOB than standard old school Sony.
The 6K FF35 is a bonus. And helps with anamorphic and full frame wannabe gigs.
Canon played the tier game with their models. The C200 is affordable but.... can’t do some things. the C300 is good but... a little pricey and long in the tooth (read low sample 4K, only just enough dr for the price) the C500 looks to be the best Canon yet, but... very pro price.
I like the C500 better than the Fx9, but the final cost is just a little too much in the career space. I may rent one and find the dyanmic range competetive. I do my own steadicam, so, the fact that Canon C is more gimbal friendly is not a deal breaker, or at least not worth the extra money i’d spend. But the IQ from the C500 looks better than the Fx. Whether it is worth the extra 1/3 cost difference? Tbd. Could be worth it, just in resale value alone. Who knows.
The fx just fits into that gig space though. Just priced at the top end for a gigger. just capable enough for a wide variety of random things, just sexy enough to get rented,
You are totally correct about the Fs7, but for me personally, i am looking at something a little more foward leaning. I tend to personally like the Apsh crop, and the fx9 would let me do that.
Last edited:
I was already itching to buy an FS7mii. Several of the improvements of the FX9 have made the itch worse, probabaly having a good baked in color is most tempting over the FS7. A FF camcorder with proper XLR, recording times etc would be nice to have! And shoulder mount capability (which they all have).
There's been talk about C300 MKIII (I'd figure, an announcement in the spring, delivery in the fall of 2020). S35 4K, CRL, ~ $10,000.
G
Guest
Guest
DLD, if i still haven’t bought a new camera by then, i’ll consider it for sure!
My thought is, that the C3003 will be just shy of 15stops dynamic range. Probably more in the 13+stops latitude range with little usable roll off.
My main thing, is needing dynamic range. The irony is, that as resolution goes up, so does the need for more DR. The smaller photosites reduce latitude, but the higher resolution pushes into the more discerning looks. Highlight clipping in 8K is worse than in 720p. 4K and higher gets into the uncanny valley with detail, so everything gets more critical.
I don’t particularly like most of the cameras out today. Some cameras supersede preference, and just look to make sense for work. The 5d2, a7sii, the fs7, and now the fx9, all seem like cameras that are difficult not to own. Just little tools that constantly get little gig work between things. That is less a testament to how great the cameras are, and more about how they meet the needs of their job segment.
C300/500 is the same, but just in a segment above. Arri Mini is the same, but just in two segments above. Reds are similar. BM pops up from time to time, as well. Maybe we’ll see more of them this year.
But, at the end of the day, if a camera isn’t going to have better DR than an Alexa, then i don’t care when it comes out, i won’t be jumping to buy one. I’ll be content to get what is available the day i purchase.
My thought is, that the C3003 will be just shy of 15stops dynamic range. Probably more in the 13+stops latitude range with little usable roll off.
My main thing, is needing dynamic range. The irony is, that as resolution goes up, so does the need for more DR. The smaller photosites reduce latitude, but the higher resolution pushes into the more discerning looks. Highlight clipping in 8K is worse than in 720p. 4K and higher gets into the uncanny valley with detail, so everything gets more critical.
I don’t particularly like most of the cameras out today. Some cameras supersede preference, and just look to make sense for work. The 5d2, a7sii, the fs7, and now the fx9, all seem like cameras that are difficult not to own. Just little tools that constantly get little gig work between things. That is less a testament to how great the cameras are, and more about how they meet the needs of their job segment.
C300/500 is the same, but just in a segment above. Arri Mini is the same, but just in two segments above. Reds are similar. BM pops up from time to time, as well. Maybe we’ll see more of them this year.
But, at the end of the day, if a camera isn’t going to have better DR than an Alexa, then i don’t care when it comes out, i won’t be jumping to buy one. I’ll be content to get what is available the day i purchase.