FS7: Sony FS7 vs. Canon C500

Chris Langer

Chris Langer

Well-known member
Hello everyone,
I have been eyeing a used C500 for awhile now and noticing the prices dropping like mad, in some cases decent used ones are under 10k. Now they aren't around the pricing of a FS7 but if Canon releases a new C500, they will surely drop even more. This is really exciting since you basically have the C300 internally but with the 4K externally through the 7Q.

My question to someone who has used both cameras, did you sell your C500 in trade for a FS7? Did you end up just keeping your C500? I came from a FS700 with the 4K which I liked but decided to sell it off for the C100 since I wasn't doing as much 4K to justify keeping it. I preferred the C100's internal image to the FS700's internal image. I also sold it because I am a big fan of the Canon C100's image and color.

What I really like about the FS7 is the "internal" capabilities in the smaller easier to use body. The C500 isn't really "that" big though for a cinema camera. And the 7Q monitor added on would be a nice add-on that expand its functionality.

There is something though about the image in a C500 that I really like, something about Canon's I really like. I also recently got an A7s that I really like and thinking it might be smart to get a FS7 to compliment it to cut easier in post. I have been watching some FS7 footage but waiting to see more. Nothing has stuck out yet.

Not asking anyone to choose for me, just want your experiences with both cameras. My typical shoots consist of corporate, commercial, and independent small budget films.

Thanks,
Chris
 
I think the only reason to buy any of the Canons over the FS7 is if you like the Canon look. Otherwise the FS7 is just the better deal and gives you more options.

I know what you mean by FS7 footage and nothing that has stuck out yet. I was also waiting for some impressive footage to show up but it never did and my feeling is it never will. I don't think the FS7 is a show stopper. It is just a too good deal to pass with lots of features. So I decided to give up waiting to be impressed and ordered a FS7. But I don't have any unrealistic hopes. If you pay attention to what the realistic FS7 users posting on the forums have to say you get the feeling the FS7 is no show stopper. Set your expectations to that and you won't be disappointed. For me it will be a beater for those cheaper jobs that can't afford something better and for corporate and the like. But you get a lotta camera for your money that will fit a lot of job slots. Just don't expect cinema level of quality or look.
 
Hi Chris, I hear you. I have a C100 and just got an FS7. I do really like the Canon colors, but I suspect, with more experience, I will be able to get equally pleasing colors from the FS7. If not, I'll sell it.

One question: What are you shooting with the 7Q and C500 -- RAW? RAW to ProRes? Thanks.
 
Chris Langer said:
Hello everyone,
I have been eyeing a used C500 for awhile now and noticing the prices dropping like mad
Click to expand...


Chris I dont really know the specs of the canon but here are some downers on the Sony - from the perspective of someone who wants a true professional tool (and would pay for it) In comparison I found my 5dm2 more professional feeling than the Sony!

Menus and buttons are fisher price
Soft above 60p
Lut management all over the shop
no RGB histo

Still an amazing $8k camera though!

As for the image - there is no look in Log - its all down to post.

S
 
I agree with Sam. The menus compared to my old C300 are very slow and the monitor LUT/waveform implementation is next to useless despite what you may here from self-appointed Sony gurus. Luckily, the image quality is top notch.

The FS7 is both cheap and versatile and fits across many production genres, budget levels and user abilities. Bottom line, if you could get a decent image out of a C300/500 you'll be able to get a decent image out of the FS7. Plus, you could buy both FS7 and OQ7+ for the price of a used C500 then you wouldn't have the LUT issue!

That said, it might be worth waiting a couple of weeks for the much rumoured Canon announcement on upgrades to the cinema line.
 
I love the FS7 but is important to understand it's true specs..

Cinema quality image - 0-60p
Web/lowend TV image 0-180p

Luts - not really at the moment

7q etc would improve some of that.

S
 
Chris,
In my experience I've found the C500 has the nicest, richest skintones of a cinema camera as compared to Red Epic MX (have not shot Dragon), Alexa, FS700 RAW (have not shot F65 nor FS7 RAW). At lower light levels it has the nicest color palate- which is why you'll see/read of the C500 being B cam to an Alexa on major films- for night work. Others have talked of the C500 color, like Michael Cioni of Light Iron and of course Shane Hurlbut. But that was in 2013.

However- you must use an external recorder- the 7Q or Codex for RAW recordings. And the data requirements are huge. For indie features I ask for 120TB for near set storage- and I get turned down every time. Using Canon's RAW utility a 4K frame turns into a 36MB DPX file. That's 36MB per frame. Times 24 FPS times 60 seconds per minute- it's huge. Using the 7Q to Prores makes it practical, and that's what I did on the last feature. The highlight roll off is noticeably better recording to Prores on the 7Q. 10 bit and all.

I never found the menus particularly well thought out- even getting to 60fps is a slow, multi-step process. There are many flavors of output. You really need a sharp AC who can get through the menus. Because there are so few C500's in the field outside of owner operators- the AC's first experience with a C500 to external recorder is usually with me. In that aspect it is not production friendly. A picture of a handheld setup is attached. A lot can go wrong. We didn't even have a Bartech on this shoot- so typically more junk is added to a camera. As DP, dicking around with a camera is time poorly spent- way too much other work to do. In that aspect, having something familiar (Alexa- Epic) brings a good amount of producer comfort. After all someone has to pay for the post bills to fix the screw ups on set.

I've also shot a feature using the FS700 + 7Q at 2K RAW. It's actually a much friendlier production package on a day to day, in the trenches productions. The cDNG files edit right in Premiere CC- not even transcoding.

The C500 looks better. But producers have to weigh all aspects and keep things together on tighter and tighter budgets.

If you are shooting your own films/content, the C500 7Q produces very nice pictures and is becoming a bargain. If you expect gear to make money, the C500 proved to be a very hard sell. As we get closer to NAB I suspect the prices will continue to fall- for all older generation cameras.

The FS7 is brand new and appears highly competent. But previous experience has me thinking producers have in mind F55, Amira, Varicam35, Epic Dragon, Alexa as go to cameras. The difference in rental for the body, as compared to the percentage of costs on a daily budget, is miniscule. So if they have to rent they will go with the usual suspects.

Outside of this situation I suspect the FS7 will work nicely- it has a good internal codec- leagues better than the C500 internal MXF files. The ability to eventually shoot prores internally with the interface box is huge if you hand off files to a producer.

Personally I would move forward, because at the end of the day MOST producers will happily accept FS7 footage IF it is well shot.
 

Attachments

  • c500 build.jpg
    c500 build.jpg
    101.4 KB · Views: 0
Nothing at all to do with image quality, but I've had my FS7 since late November and it has already 60% paid for itself due to its ability to do a multitude of jobs. It took me about 18 months to get to that stage with my Red Scarlet.
 
Ben Scott said:
Nothing at all to do with image quality, but I've had my FS7 since late November and it has already 60% paid for itself due to its ability to do a multitude of jobs. It took me about 18 months to get to that stage with my Red Scarlet.
Click to expand...

It gets a bit tricky doing a calculation on how quickly a camera pays for itself if you don't have a specified rate for the camera and just have day rates, but I can say that by Feburary 6th, my FS7, invoice date 10/28/14, will have been used for over $9500 in billable work. What portion of that really pay for the camera instead of me, I'm not sure, but I'd say even if the camera only gets 25%, that's still over 1/4 paid in a little over 3 months.
 
Thanks for all of your insights everyone! klk I was interested in your C500 and contacted you about it. I decided to wait because I was entertaining the idea of getting an EF mount but I am unsure right now.

One of my last questions regarding both cameras - which one do you think is better in low light? Is the FS7 comparable to the range the A7s gives you?

What I really like about the FS7 is internal capabilities of the camera. Having the ability to strip off everything and go lightweight and get a solid image is really important in some situations. I haven't played around with SLOG3 yet but I am interested to see how it grades. I also shot a short using the F55 and the XAVC codec was really nice, so if I had to use that internally, I wouldn't complain. I was able to push that internal image really far and get what I needed in post-production. My local rental house is getting 2 FS7's in the next month so I plan on renting one for a weekend to throughly check it out.

I was able to get a solid image from the FS700 4K and I enjoyed grading it. I used it on short films with bigger budgets so we rented the Sony 4K module / 7Q later. The amount of detail was really nice.

I think what I am waiting for now is NAB to come. Mostly for three reasons - the C300 Mark II might be killer (worth the wait) or if I want the C500 and they release a new one - the used prices will go down even more OR the FS7 might see a slight price drop? That last one might be too hopeful.
 
The FS7 is good in low light but nothing is even in the same ballpark as the A7s in my opinion. But that camera has its own quirks too.
 
Do you need the extension unit for the 7Q? The 4K2HD image is flawless and my go-to on my FS700 when I owned it.
 
Viddovation said:
It gets a bit tricky doing a calculation on how quickly a camera pays for itself if you don't have a specified rate for the camera and just have day rates, but I can say that by Feburary 6th, my FS7, invoice date 10/28/14, will have been used for over $9500 in billable work. What portion of that really pay for the camera instead of me, I'm not sure, but I'd say even if the camera only gets 25%, that's still over 1/4 paid in a little over 3 months.
Click to expand...

That counts as a home run in terms of gear ownership!
 
klk said:
That counts as a home run in terms of gear ownership!
Click to expand...

Does it? That number includes pay for my services and other ancillary gear - I don't want anyone mislead - The camera itself has not earned that total. This is part of why it's tricky to figure what amount of money your camera is making - what would you make with a different camera?

I'm just glad the winter months aren't too slow. I've done other work as well that didn't involve the FS7 and therefore wasn't listed.
 
Every time I see one of these Canon vs. FS7 threads I question myself if I'm crazy (I got an FS7) so I go to Vimeo and type in C300 and FS7, then sort by date. With the FS7, seems like the videos have become better the last few weeks because people are probably learning to use it better and probably mainly using S.Gamma3 Cine.

I'm going to be the black sheep here, but I did this again this morning (after seeing this thread) and after watching about ten C300 videos, I'm glad I have the FS7. I just like the colors on the FS7 with S.Gamut3 Cine better. For my tastes, they are just cooler and more sophisticated looking.

The main reason for a camera is how you like the image and color. If you like the Canon look (very warm), you should just get that because you won't be happy with the FS7 colors. With that said, I'm liking the S.Gamut Cine / S-Log3 combo better than what I was getting on the FS700 / S-Log 2. I think the FS7 has a great image and yeah, I'm the black sheep but I like a cool palette.
 
Last edited:
sgamut3.cine is definitely the way to go, it's far easier to grade while keeping excellent color reproduction which is GREAT!

The fact Sony had so many slogs and color spaces, etc.. is good thing but also works against it as people like you and me and others try to figure out what's what and how to get the best results from it.

I think this is why Sony decided to launch S-Log3 and the S.gamut3's and thankfully they did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top