Sony FX6 Firmware 2.0: Best Settings for Touch-Tracking Auto-Focus

Joshua Milligan said:
You know, I really don't understand Sony and the FX9. I mean, it's a solid camera with a good form factor for shoulder work and a fantastic image thanks to its 6K sensor. It also has a Super35 4K mode, anamorphic options, a locking E-mount, four audio dials (as opposed to the FX6 which makes you use alternative methods to changing the levels on channels 3 & 4), and arguably slightly better skin tones than the FX6. But, the FX6 has the 4K 120p, the HD 240p, better cache recording options, much better rolling shutter performance, much better lowlight performance, raw out straight to a recorder so you don't need that stupid extension unit to do raw (which is crazy these days), and it handles LUTs and S&Q mode better.

When I bought the FX6, it had nothing to do with price. I was coming from the FS7II and already had all the parts, memory cards and accessories I needed for the FX9. I had to rebuy all of that for the FX6, so I didn't really save any money. What sold me on the FX6 was everything I mentioned above, plus the small size which I like (personal preference). The FX9 was just missing so much of what the FX6 had and I couldn't get over that.

To me, this doesn't make any sense. Sony should have given the FX9 more to compete with the FX6. At $5K more, it needs to be able to do most of what the FX6 can do and then some. Instead, it's more of a choice of which modes you can live without. Do you need lowlight, 4K 120p, great rolling shutter performance and raw out? Save $5K and go with the FX6. Do you need Super35 4K, the best image quality possible and anamorphic options? Pony up an extra $5K and get the FX9. Just know before you do that you're going to not have a lot of what the FX6 has. It really shouldn't be that way.

Really what Sony should do is come out with an FX9II that has the features the FX6 has, but also the A1's sensor which is fantastic in lowlight and has an incredible amount of detail and dynamic range, not to mention great rolling shutter performance. That sensor would give you a 4K crop mode just like the FX9 has and Sony could unlock 8K recording like they do in the A1, but with the option to have it in All-Intra which you can't do on the A1. They could also give that camera raw directly to a recorder so we don't need the extension unit anymore.

That camera could be priced at $15-16K to compete with the Canon C500II and it would do very well. I myself have an A1 and am looking to replace my A7SIII with a second one because it's just that good. I would love to have that in a cinema body.
Click to expand...

The fx6 is newer , plus the big difference in all the points you make ,that are missing ,is the sensor size , simple as that .. whats good about the fx9 like s35 4K , better skin tones etc ,is exactly why it has bad rolling shutter and lack of Slo Mo at higher frame rates etc , the fx9 has a 6 k sensor , it takes more processing power , more and smaller pixels . You definitely cant have the cake and eat it :) .. I think the only real argument is that the fx9 could have cost more and had more precessing power , but its also a business , shift boxes off the shelf , lower price was also a huge selling point and probably did lead to more sales .
 
Donny 123 said:
The fx6 is newer , plus the big difference in all the points you make ,that are missing ,is the sensor size , simple as that .. whats good about the fx9 like s35 4K , better skin tones etc ,is exactly why it has bad rolling shutter and lack of Slo Mo at higher frame rates etc , the fx9 has a 6 k sensor , it takes more processing power , more and smaller pixels . You definitely cant have the cake and eat it :) .. I think the only real argument is that the fx9 could have cost more and had more precessing power , but its also a business , shift boxes off the shelf , lower price was also a huge selling point and probably did lead to more sales .
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here because the A1 is an 8K (larger than 8K actually) sensor in a much smaller body (meaning less room for electronics to help it) that has great rolling shutter performance, great skin tones, can do 4K 120p (unlike the FX9), can do raw out directly to a recorder (unlike the FX9), and has more/smaller pixels like you mentioned the FX9 has, only even more so. The A1 proves you absolutely can have your cake and eat it too.

The reality is that Sony had 5-6 years to take the FS7 and make it full frame with higher frame rates and raw out directly to a recorder, yet they gave it the same frame rates and the same need for the extension unit the FS7 had 5-6 years earlier. You can try and blame that on the FX9 being an older camera, but it's not an older camera. It's still a relatively new camera and was available just 14 months before the A1 was. Sony had the tech, they just chose not to use it and that's what doesn't make sense.
 
Financially, it makes a lot of sense. Whether that was their goal, I don't know - but a business would likely prefer to sell the higher-priced camera first before introducing better tech or cheaper tech a few quarters later.

The same thing happened with the C500 Mark II and C300 Mark III, which upset people. Different features, but the bottom line was the C300 Mark III had several very important features people wanted/needed and would have waited for it (and saved the money on the difference).

Now there will always be speculation on what the FX9 should do or can do, but they already made their money on it and move on.
 
This is me just repeating half-remembered rumours (again) but the word on the street was that the a7Siii / FX6 have more processing power than the FX9. The alpha division is presumably much bigger than the pro division and they invested a lot of that much larger budget into silicon.
 
NorBro said:
Financially, it makes a lot of sense. Whether that was their goal, I don't know - but a business would likely prefer to sell the higher-priced camera first before introducing better tech or cheaper tech a few quarters later.

The same thing happened with the C500 Mark II and C300 Mark III, which upset people. Different features, but the bottom line was the C300 Mark III had several very important features people wanted/needed and would have waited for it (and saved the money on the difference).

Now there will always be speculation on what the FX9 should do or can do, but they already made their money on it and move on.
Click to expand...

I definitely understand where you're coming from and I don't doubt that's what Sony did, I just feel it was a bad move. Now I don't work for Sony, so I have no idea what I'm talking about haha. This is simply forum talk, but in theory it seems like a bad move.

You mentioned the C300III doing to the C500II what the FX6 did to the FX9, but I personally feel it's not quite the same. The C500II does a lot of things the C300III cannot do, like being full frame vs Super35 or shooting at higher resolutions (5.9K vs 4K). Those are huge distinctions that really make the C500II a camera in a different class than the C300III, and with a price difference of $5,000, it would make perfect sense for many people to grab the C500II for the extra 5 grand.

The FX9 is also $5K higher than the FX6, but the differences between them aren't as great, especially with what all the FX6 does that the FX9 does not. In my opinion, and again my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans, but to me it seems that if the FX9 had the 6K unlocked and raw out directly to a recorder, and maybe some better frame rates, then it would be a no brainer for people looking for something with a bit more punch. But as it stands today, the FX6 in a lot of ways seems like a better buy which means a lot of sells to the cheaper model that could have gone to the more expensive model.

Again, none of this conversation matters in any way, but it's interesting to think about.
 
This topic was popular over at REDuser for many years because it seemed like every new camera was so much better than the last after people invested a lot of money in the older models.

The beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Full-frame vs. S35 or higher-resolutions and higher-framerates may not matter to those more interested in connections, accessories, certain formats, settings, (even being more money is a feature), etc. I definitely agree with you (and I think many would) that the FX6 is a better buy, but I think that was the point and they knew that, you know?

Because if they released the FX6 first for $11K and then the "weaker" FX9 a year later or whenever it was then they likely wouldn't have made the same profits off of the FX9 (that was meant to be for the pros pros) and then even more money from presumably more sales off of the FX6.

It's definitely a bad move for the consumer/prosumer/professional, but they do what's best for business.

And I don't know what the story is behind RAW recording with the FX9, but if I was the responsible decision-maker at Sony there is no way I would license X-OCN to Atomos, and I would force people (and by people I mean those businesses with more money to spend than individuals who will be buying the FX6/A1 1-2 years later) to use the extension unit.

Is RAW recording out to a big brick crazy? Yes, it's absolutely absurd. But I would want to make the extra money because that's what seems to be happening. Because if you asked me who in the world I honestly think is using that combo, I would think barely anyone - but there have to be people/crews using it if Sony went ahead and released a new one in 2019.

And that means more money for that camera and extension unit and then more money a year, two years later for the FX6 and A1.
 
NorBro said:
And I don't know what the story is behind RAW recording with the FX9, but if I was the responsible decision-maker at Sony there is no way I would license X-OCN to Atomos, and I would force people (and by people I mean those businesses with more money to spend than individuals who will be buying the FX6/A1 1-2 years later) to use the extension unit.

Is RAW recording out to a big brick crazy? Yes, it's absolutely absurd. But I would want to make the extra money because that's what seems to be happening. Because if you asked me who in the world I honestly think is using that combo, I would think barely anyone - but there have to be people/crews using it if Sony went ahead and released a new one in 2019.
Click to expand...

So personally I don't dabble with raw on the Sony line because I am of the belief that 12-bit ProRes RAW is not much of an improvement over the internal 10-bit codec, especially for the hassle and extra work involved. That being said, I still think the way they go about it with the FX9 is a little ridiculous.

I agree with you that they are likely wanting to force people to buy the extension unit as a business decision. I also agree that it's not likely that many people are doing it.

If I were Sony though, and again, I know nothing about Sony's internal business workings and have no idea what I'm talking about haha, but if I were Sony and this was possible, I would develop a raw recorder of my own that's not Atomos and that could actually tap into the 16-bit raw output they keep touting. I'm sure there are many reasons they don't do that, such as perhaps patents or things of that nature, but if that were an option and I was Sony, that would be the ultimate up-sale over their gigantic extension unit.
 
Your response might imply then that the R7 is not compatible with it (I have no idea) which then means an Atomos or Blackmagic is likely needed, which then means I have no idea what kind of RAW is going to it from the FX9/extension unit (meaning how good it actually is) - but at the end of the day it's all about money and maybe one day someone who truly knows can definitively tell us what these cameras can and cannot do.

If there is anything I've learned over the years, it's that cameras seem to be much more powerful than sometimes they appear to be.
 
Joshua Milligan said:
. . . but if I were Sony and this was possible, I would develop a raw recorder of my own that's not Atomos and that could actually tap into the 16-bit raw output they keep touting. I'm sure there are many reasons they don't do that, such as perhaps patents or things of that nature, but if that were an option and I was Sony, that would be the ultimate up-sale over their gigantic extension unit.
Click to expand...

It's funny you should bring this up because I asked one of the Japanese engineers at NAB flat out -- "If Sony has cameras that can output a RAW signal, then why doesn't Sony have a compatible RAW recorder of their own? Why are we forced to do business with Atomos or Blackmagic in order to take advantage of that capability?" He admitted he didn't know and said he'd have to check with his colleagues in Japan and get back to me. Well, I have never gotten an answer.

Also, just for the record, the R7 and R5 are not compatible. I already tried. As far as I know, those 16-bit recorders are only compatible with the original Venice, F55, and FS7.
 
Doug Jensen said:
It's funny you should bring this up because I asked one of the Japanese engineers at NAB flat out -- "If Sony has cameras that can output a RAW signal, then why doesn't Sony have a compatible RAW recorder of their own? Why are we forced to do business with Atomos or Blackmagic in order to take advantage of that capability?" He admitted he didn't know and said he'd have to check with his colleagues in Japan and get back to me. Well, I have never gotten an answer.

Also, just for the record, the R7 and R5 are not compatible. I already tried. As far as I know, those 16-bit recorders are only compatible with the original Venice, F55, and FS7.
Click to expand...

I think the R5 and R7 also worked with the Sony F5. I’ve never personally used one, but from what I understand you’re right, they aren’t compatible with the FX9 or FX6.

That’s a great question you asked at NAB. I’m not surprised you didn’t get an answer though. Seems appropriate for them to not want to as in my experience they will never answer give me direct answers on anything. Then again, I’m a nobody, so maybe that’s the reason haha.

They seriously should offer a recorder though. Especially since they keep stating their cameras can achieve 16-bit raw out. That’s really a gimmick because nothing out there records it from their cameras.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Yes, you are correct. I tend to forget about that silly F5 that was outdated before it was even released.
Click to expand...

Ha, yeah that was a weird one. But hey, at least they gave it 4K after the FS7 announcement, so there's that.

I did like the F5 body though. It would be neat if Sony kept that design around.
 
Joshua Milligan said:
I did like the F5 body though. It would be neat if Sony kept that design around.
Click to expand...

Yes, I still like my F55 very much and use it often. It is still an excellent camera 9 years after it's release and can run circles around most of the newer cameras, especially if someone doesn't need a FF sensor.
 
Yeah I agree. I teach video online was talking about the F55 just the other day. You can buy a used F55 for $3,500-$5,500 which is insane, or you can get an F5 for $2,000-$3,500 or an FS7 for $1,000-$2,500. Those prices are nuts, especially considering how much they cost not that long ago.

These are still fantastic cameras and are still being used in productions of all kinds all over the world today. I try to encourage people to not spend all their money getting a mirrorless camera and building it out with a cage and accessories just because it has some headline features like 4K 120p or 8K or full frame or autofocus. All of those are great things, but if you're looking to get started in video today and want to be taken seriously, then get a serious tool like a used F55, F5, or FS7 for right at or even under what a tricked out mirrorless camera would cost.

I would much rather higher a freelance shooter to help me on a project who has 9 year old used F55 and a solid tripod than someone who has an A7SIII with a gimbal. It's hard to get younger/newer guys (or gals) to see it that way though.
 
IMO, looking to get started in video today or wanting to be taken "seriously" (which a lot of people won't accept anything other than ARRI or RED cameras in some markets, industries) could be irrelevant.

People need features for their line of work. You don't buy a F55 or F5 or FS7 just because they are excellent cameras that are now cheap and you're looking to get started with video, you know?

If you were hired full-time to capture cowboys riding bulls with the most razor thin depth-of-field because the 21-year-old hiring manager thinks it looks cool, you likely wouldn't be purchasing any of the above cameras because AF would be that one feature that you absolutely needed in that case. Yeah, you could pull it yourself, but what's that hit:miss ratio going to look like, especially if you need some realtime shots and not slow-motion.
 
That's why you need to have a lot of cameras so you can choose the best one for the job!!! :-)
I currently have a Z750, Z280, F55 w/R7, FS7 w/R5, FX6, A1, S1H, 5DmIV, and a6300.

I'm not sure, but I might need an intervention.
 
NorBro said:
IMO, looking to get started in video today or wanting to be taken "seriously" (which a lot of people won't accept anything other than ARRI or RED cameras in some markets, industries) could be irrelevant.

People need features for their line of work. You don't buy a F55 or F5 or FS7 just because they are excellent cameras that are now cheap and you're looking to get started with video, you know?

If you were hired full-time to capture cowboys riding bulls with the most razor thin depth-of-field because the 21-year-old hiring manager thinks it looks cool, you likely wouldn't be purchasing any of the above cameras because AF would be that one feature that you absolutely needed in that case. Yeah, you could pull it yourself, but what's that hit:miss ratio going to look like, especially if you need some realtime shots and not slow-motion.
Click to expand...

Well first off it completely depends on the industry you're getting into. If you're getting into weddings or real estate for example, then it doesn't matter. Get whatever you want that makes you happy. But if you're getting into corporate work, commercial work, event shooting, etc., and if you want to get hired by other production companies as a day rate camera op, then yeah, I think getting an F55, F5, FS7, C300II, etc. at the cheap prices they are going for makes a lot more sense. You get a proper camera with proper tools such as ND filters, audio inputs, etc., not to mention you'll be more hirable.

Many businesses or corporations when looking to hire a videographer will often say, "No DSLR or photo cameras." I see that all the time. This is because they usually get burned by people who own those kind of cameras. Think about how many people you know who own a mirrorless or DSLR camera. Your cousin, your neighbor, your buddy. It's a ton of people. Anyone can go to Best Buy and pick up an A7III and call themselves a videographer. But anyone who shows up with an FS7 or C300II, even though they are older cameras, will immediately be taken more seriously as you look the part and have the appropriate gear.

Same goes with production houses. I can tell you when I hire guys, I always ask what kind of gear they have and what cameras they have experience operating. If all they've ever used is a 5DIV, I'm not going to be as interested. If they have an FS5, then I know they likely know a little more than the 5DIV guy. That's a very common theme in video today, especially with how many people are getting into it because it's more affordable now and everyone wants to be a YouTube star.

It's just been my experience that the gear you choose is often used as a way to weed through the wannabes. I'm not saying it's always an accurate measure of someones' capabilities, just more that it's a quick way to get an educated guess on what to expect. But again, my experience is industry dependent as the wedding/YouTube/real estate crowd is probably much different, as is the higher end market where ARRI and RED dominates which I also am not in.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I would have to disagree, but only because it's 2022 and life and the industry has tremendously changed.

The older generation, including myself, will still follow that logic at times, which more or less could be absolutely rewarding in certain situations because you would expect someone who owns a $10K camera or a $10K tripod to know what he or she is doing, but the amount of talent that currently exists in this world who are slinging mirrorless' and creating masterpieces is endless.

Yeah, of course, many outbid far more talented individuals with absolutely the bare minimum who barely know the difference between shutter speed and white balance, but that's not only exclusive to video production and a part of a competitive existence.

Point is...if someone is hiring a person only because of the perception of their gear and nothing else, that is a really big problem, IMO. [It should only OKAY if certain camera systems, specifications are simply mandatory and requested by the producers.]
 
For me, I don't care which camera someone is using if it's completely fine for what we are doing.

How people use them is much more critical, how they use their brains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top