FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
yep
Canon will..
shoot raw on a gimbal.
raw will be the norm in 3 years
raw appears to be a mess on the FX9
With FF canon mount is less stupid than canon/S35
I think the canon looks like a 5-7 years camera.
Im sure the AF is adequate on both.
Canon will..
shoot raw on a gimbal.
raw will be the norm in 3 years
raw appears to be a mess on the FX9
With FF canon mount is less stupid than canon/S35
I think the canon looks like a 5-7 years camera.
Im sure the AF is adequate on both.
Gizmosgadget
Active member
Unless Sony and Atomos can come up with something as streamlined as the R5/R7, I don't see RAW being popular with the FX9. Cables. Cables everywhere.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Been there done that with the FS7. Total nightmare.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
The FX9 will certainly find its audience, but I think Morgan is right that raw is the future. The C500 II is a complete package for full frame raw 5.9K for $16000. The FX9 needs the $2500 extension unit plus a compatible recorder just to get 4K raw. The cost difference disappears when you add it all up, plus you're dealing with the mess of cables an external recorder entails.
I think the force is strong with Canon this time around.
I think the force is strong with Canon this time around.
Grug
Veteran
The FX9 gives you a full-frame FS7 with timecode input as standard (so it’s ready for professional sets right off the bat). That makes it lovely option for a new camera, but not really a must-have upgrade.
The raw recording mess sounds like a non-starter frankly, but that’s really not a big deal. This isn’t a camera intended for the kind of sets that demand (and can afford) a raw workflow.
For the money, I think the C500 MkII wins this one easily. It’s throwing down the gauntlet at Venice and the Mini LF. The FX9 is a really nice midrange camera.
I want the Canon.
The raw recording mess sounds like a non-starter frankly, but that’s really not a big deal. This isn’t a camera intended for the kind of sets that demand (and can afford) a raw workflow.
For the money, I think the C500 MkII wins this one easily. It’s throwing down the gauntlet at Venice and the Mini LF. The FX9 is a really nice midrange camera.
I want the Canon.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Agreed. Just put my deposit down.
Yup, there's really no contest. FX9 was quickly slapped together with usability an afterthought, whereas the C500II is modular, operator friendly, and will be suitable for many different projects for years to come.
Let's not forget that Canon glass has always been superior to anything on E-mount, too. Although I don't use still-photo lenses very much, some of the Canon EF speciality lenses are really fantastic.
Let's not forget that Canon glass has always been superior to anything on E-mount, too. Although I don't use still-photo lenses very much, some of the Canon EF speciality lenses are really fantastic.
thirdyearff
Active member
...and for those of us who do have an external recorder, in my case an Odyssey 7q, I shot Convergent Design an email inquiring about future support of RAW from the FX9 and got this...
Convergent Design is still in business; we have slowed down on developing the Odyssey/Apollo recorders as we are moving to different technologies.
Not exactly encouraging...guess i backed the wrong horse on that deal.
Convergent Design is still in business; we have slowed down on developing the Odyssey/Apollo recorders as we are moving to different technologies.
Not exactly encouraging...guess i backed the wrong horse on that deal.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Just a simple example of a common situation in which a business can't compete (with Atomos and even Blackmagic).
If they lowered their prices maybe it would have been different. The same thing happened with Video Devices.
Doesn't matter how good the hardware may be; if you're selling a specialized product and you're not a monopoly then you need to lower prices if everyone else does, and/or provide many developments and innovations.
If they lowered their prices maybe it would have been different. The same thing happened with Video Devices.
Doesn't matter how good the hardware may be; if you're selling a specialized product and you're not a monopoly then you need to lower prices if everyone else does, and/or provide many developments and innovations.
JPNola
Veteran
Sure, but you won't have electronic ND, you won't be able to use speedboosters, you won't have dual ISO, you'll be more limited as to what glass you can use, you'll be more limited on fps in slow mo, and you'll spend $5000 more but you won't get a full-size eyepiece as you would with the lower-priced Fx9.
With the C500MkII you will get raw and get it internally, albeit a compressed pseudo-raw. I've personally never had any client request raw.
______________
For myself, being that I already own an Fs7 and an a7sII, and I own e-mount glass, it makes more sense for me to get an Fx9. That said, I could see myself eventually getting both the Fx9 and the C500MkII. That would enable me to fulfill requests for either and enable me to offer clients a choice of either camera.
I do find it interesting that in the past when the Canon vs Sony debate has been argued Canon fans will point to the color science as being of such importance that nothing else matters. Game over, they say, no matter the ergonomics or anything else. Yet here with the Fx9, before we've even been able to see much of the Fx9's color science, those same Canon fans are declaring the Fx9 the loser in the head to head battle because of features the C500 MkII possesses that are not related to color science. If color science is the most important factor in a head to head battle, it is too early to declare any winner. Applying the color science is king argument, what does it matter that the C500MkII can record raw internally and the Fx9 cannot if the color science of the Fx9 is better than that of the C500MkII? Seems many are operating under the assumption that it won't be. Understandable given Sony's past weakness in the color science department and Canon's strength. But it isn't a given. It is possible that the Fx9's color science beats that of the C500MkII. Possible.
The whole point of speedboosters is to be able to use EF glass on E mount, so that's sort of a moot point, no?
JPNola
Veteran
Sorta, right? You can adapt EF glass to e-mount without a "speedbooster". The purpose of a speedbooster is to boost speed. You can speedboost PL glass as well.
The point stands, I think. With the Fx9 you can take advantage of speedboosting, with the C500MkII you cannot. With the Fx9 you can also take advantage of speedboosters giving you the FF aesthetic when in s35 mode. With the C500MkII you cannot.
In further defense of the Fx9, I offer a quote from the comment section of Sonyalpharumors that presents one perspective:
"The FS7 basically prints money for my video production company, so as a FS7 owner this is pretty much a perfect upgrade.
- I wanted better color science, especially for skin tones.
- I wanted to NOT have to buy new memory cards, new batteries, and new lenses.
- I wanted face detect auto-focus
- I wanted to be able to use my Sony wireless lav hot shoe receiver (which is awesome, BTW)
- I wanted the manageable file sizes and quality of 10bit 422 XAVC
- I wanted a Full Frame look option, but only in 4K file sizes.
- I wanted the option to still be able to shoot in S35 crop.
I'm stunned by the people here complaining about lack of RAW, 6K, etc. First of all, clients don't give a crap about 6K/RAW. Second of all, working in RAW is so much slower for little benefit. Shoot in Slog and you have all the dynamic range you need. I shot Red for many years. The main use for RAW is for when you forgot to white balance. For those who say they need 6K RAW, I refer you to the massive library of Alexa 2K ProRes shot movies, many of which won Best Cinematography Oscars.
95% of my clients are happy with FS7. For the other 5% who want the best we rent Alexa Mini/Amira.
With the FX9, my guess is it will be 75% FS7, 20% renting the FX9, and 5% renting Alexa. When it makes financial sense, I'll buy the FX9, and have a FS7 B-camera that uses the same batteries and memory cards."
__________
This is a shallow criticism, but I'm not wild about the way the battery sticks out when mounted on the C500MkII-
I also prefer the finish on the Fx9 over the C500MkII. The Fx9's exterior finish looks like metal. The C500MkII's exterior finish more looks like plastic. And the greyish color is reminiscent of ARRI, not by accident. It may only be appearance, but the Fx9 looks more rugged to me than the C500MkII. More "tank-like". I'm not wild about the Fx9's longer body than that of the Fs7. But in side by side images the Fx9 isn't that much longer than the Fs7:
JPNola
Veteran
Some are complaining about the length of the body of the Fx9, but part of the reason the body is longer than that of the C500MkII is that on the Fx9 the battery mounts recessed into the body. Whereas with the C500MkII the battery is just sticking out of the rear. A C500MkII with an A60 battery mounted is roughly the same length as the Fx9 with battery mounted.
The Fx9 sans any add-on modules looks complete. The C500MkII sans any add-on modules looks like something is missing. It looks like you are only using half a camera. As if you forgot part of the camera back at the shop. Again, these are superficial niggles.
NorBro
Major Contributor
If I had to make a note, it would be that I wish they built these monitors into the bodies (C100) or offer the ability to electronically connect (touchscreen) & screw them into place on top of the camera somewhere.
I know that's not going to be ideal for people who use them off to the side or with loupes, but just wish they had an interface/connection for those who did want them to be more a part of the camera.
I dislike them floating near/by handles with wires (even one wire).
I like RED's design.
I know that's not going to be ideal for people who use them off to the side or with loupes, but just wish they had an interface/connection for those who did want them to be more a part of the camera.
I dislike them floating near/by handles with wires (even one wire).
I like RED's design.
My guess is that, once Sony comes out with those cinema zooms aside of the currently announced 16-35 - FX9 will be good enough for the Amira buyers too.*
*Of course, there'll probably be an Amira LF coming out soon but FX9 should match up well enough on image quality and beat it on the workflow, not to mention the price.
Side note - scanning the recent A6600, A7RIV and FX9 clips, they all have a different look than older Sony models, including FS7. It's much closer to the Venice or, for the Canon owners, to the old 1DC. I might still prefer Alexa with a $25,000 prime but that's minor quibbling.
IMO ARRI still has a comfortable lead on mixed light / real world IQ and highlights / skintones, however the lead is shrinking. For top level work, the diminishing returns for the high cost still have value. After ~10 years the ALEV III sensor still has the best highlight recovery (about 1/2 way through the patent(s) life).