^^This +1
FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
^^This +1
Sometimes you just have to admit when you got it wrong. I’ve been pretty critical of my C300mk2, in fact I never felt any attachment to it so I sold it then bought the FS7. YMMV but I need to like my gear. Irrational, maybe, but I get better results when I’m at one with my camera. I felt okay with the FS7 but somewhere, deep down, something wasn’t as it should be. Hey, we’re trying to be artists at least some of the time so we can have these thoughts.
Then along came the FX9 and the C500mk2. My knee jerk reaction was to get the FX9 because it seemed to be a good match for most of my stuff – docs and corporate. But the Canon looks good and they’ve almost corrected those stupid ergonomics (I wonder if that’s what really put me off my C300?) so I decided to check some of my Canon files. In fact, now that I’m better at Resolve I re-graded them. Hmm. They’re pretty damn good. In fact, the colours are more pleasing than what I get from the FS7 unless I spend some time getting those skins tones closer to how they should be. There’s not much difference with the usual criteria, like noise, DR, etc. It’s just those Canon colours. I could never admit it before but like it or not, they’re better, IMHO.
Now I’m swinging towards the C500mk2. I said in an earlier post that hands-on is important so I’m keeping my tiny mind open but those Canon files definitely have something going for them. Now, if the 500 only had that variable ND it would be a no brainer.
Then along came the FX9 and the C500mk2. My knee jerk reaction was to get the FX9 because it seemed to be a good match for most of my stuff – docs and corporate. But the Canon looks good and they’ve almost corrected those stupid ergonomics (I wonder if that’s what really put me off my C300?) so I decided to check some of my Canon files. In fact, now that I’m better at Resolve I re-graded them. Hmm. They’re pretty damn good. In fact, the colours are more pleasing than what I get from the FS7 unless I spend some time getting those skins tones closer to how they should be. There’s not much difference with the usual criteria, like noise, DR, etc. It’s just those Canon colours. I could never admit it before but like it or not, they’re better, IMHO.
Now I’m swinging towards the C500mk2. I said in an earlier post that hands-on is important so I’m keeping my tiny mind open but those Canon files definitely have something going for them. Now, if the 500 only had that variable ND it would be a no brainer.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Yes, agreed. If you don't need autofocus it's not an issue, otherwise Sony E-mount now, possibly third-party E-mount in the future but probably best to avoid adapters.
Liam Hall
Veteran
The image out of the C300 mkII is better than the FS7, it's just frame rates and ergonomics that let it down. If that is mostly fixed now I see a lot of people going back to Canon. I'm leaning that way at the moment - I'll make a decision on Monday after spending time with the camera.
theraptor56
Active member
For a long time I used the A7s as a B-Cam to my FS5 for interviews. So when I'm editing I'm looking at skin for hours. I came from Canon camcorders, and there were definitely times I missed the ease of not even knowing what color correction and grading was. haha
I ended up wanting a better stills camera as my B-Cam so I got the A7iii. Side by side with the FS5 (which apparently shares the same sensor with the FS7) the A7iii skin looks ... healthier? A little more lively? I'm not studied enough in skin tones and color science to understand why, but from what I've read it's two things. 1) Sony has tweaked their color science on two fronts with the Venice and in their A7 line. 2) These cameras have brand new sensors.
One of the reasons I enthusiastically preordered the FX9 is because it has a brand new sensor. The Venice profile doesn't mean a lot to me yet, but who knows? Maybe it will become my favorite. I imagine every combination of picture profiles on the FX9 will look better than our FS5s and FS7s ever did.
Liam Hall
Veteran
The FS7 looks better than the A7III by a distance. The FX9 looks better than the FS7 by a distance. You won't be disappointed.
Over the years Sony and Sigma have played well together, as Sony searched for the higher grade, but somewhat budget friendlier, glass for its E-mounts. In that sense, there was no need to reverse-engineer anything, as Sony provided full documentation.
Maybe this relationship has changed with Sigma joining the L-mount Alliance and releasing its own L-mount camera. I would find it possible but not likely, although the long-term agreement may have Sony's own given a certain window before Sigma's become compatible. But they won't say it outright with a lot of time to go before the release. That's how the PR works.
NorBro
Major Contributor
The APS-C Sigma E-mount glass wasn't always the best with auto-focus for the a6300 and company. Not sure if they ever updated them.
But as far as AF is concerned in general, it's not just about tracking but also about how the lens transitions during that tracking. Here's an example of various 24/25/28mm lenses on the a7RIII. I linked it at the time during the Sigma 24mm test for your consideration: https://youtu.be/DSasMgSJP24?t=250
It is an absolute no-brainer to stick with Sony E-mount glass. If using AF, it would be a shame to purchase this machine and put other lenses on it. Even the simple $248 50mm FE f/1.8 has fantastic AF and will look amazing in front of this FX9 sensor.
But as far as AF is concerned in general, it's not just about tracking but also about how the lens transitions during that tracking. Here's an example of various 24/25/28mm lenses on the a7RIII. I linked it at the time during the Sigma 24mm test for your consideration: https://youtu.be/DSasMgSJP24?t=250
It is an absolute no-brainer to stick with Sony E-mount glass. If using AF, it would be a shame to purchase this machine and put other lenses on it. Even the simple $248 50mm FE f/1.8 has fantastic AF and will look amazing in front of this FX9 sensor.
Liam Hall
Veteran
It doesn't work.
nyvz
Veteran
I disagree. Your statement seems to disregard the fact that S-curves exist. Keep in mind the last 3-4 stops are mostly noise anyway that may have some value as long as they are compressed deep into the shadows, and keep in mind that compressed highlights look great and the industry standard for great highlights is Arri 709 which puts 7.3 stops of DR just in the range above middle grey, and 8+ stops up there looks great too. Not to mention Arri 709 is designed for a camera with 17 stops if we're comparing to a Sony "15 stops" number. It is quite trivial to have very nice looking images that do use all the stops in a "15 stop" camera. It also helps to be able to leave a little extra latitude in there for corrections, even in a "709" look recording.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
My answer was a little breif and you are not wrong in your comments. If the last three are alsmost noise and the top one clips in an unleasant manner.. well you actually have an 11 stop camera.. making a baked profile for that wont be such a compromise
It would be fairer to say you cannot have a pretty, non-flat, non-ugly 15 stop 709 profile that actually preserves 15 true stops if decurved into linear light. Also fair to note that none of the curves or logs preserve 15 true stops either. They compress parts of the range. A 709 profile can thus be pretty, or 15 stops, but not both. The fact of it is, when you look at any 709 variant, 2.4 gamma, 2.2 gamma, 709 with knee, BT1886, Hypergamma 600-800%, log, all of them try and please in one way or another, to mimic more stops than 709 gamma power can hold. None of them hold 15 true stops. The only one that can, is linear raw.
I agree, but even though Sam was talked out of his premise, his sense of it was not completely wrong either, just that his characterization of it left out the variable of latitude which you introduced. There is a whole body of development devoted to how DR is presented, whether the 6-7 stops on photographic paper or the 17.3 stops of screen brightness with HLG or the 10,000 nit of DV. It’s all good but we’re used to seeing through the eyes of 709 in most cases.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Clearly we are all competent. I might be guilty of taking a slightly extreme position.
Im aware one can make pretty pictures in camera and a camera able to capture a wide dr is a good platform to that even if that capture is then 'crunched' in camera. usually by desaturating and compressing the top two or three stops.. knee. Way better than a hard clip as long as skins are kept out of that region and you dont over expose and need to recover later.
I think Lenny seeks a great image that can go straight to air. I think he is failing to acknowledge that IMO that image cannot, outside of a DR controlled studio, be the best the camera can deliver. Very nice but not the best. An image can nearly always be improved by selective adjustment of contrast in post or minor corrections to the opertors exposure choice.
Contrast is a visual communicator.
The two women above I think the image on the right is better (?) as the skin has more 'meat' (micro contrast) the left image her skin tends to 'wood' - I would want to add more contrst selectively in post to that face. It is a great example of my point - although we cant see how badly the right side image fails when subject to a wider DR scene I can imagine.
----
' Hypergamma 600-800%, log, all of them try and please in one way or another,'
Log doesnt try to please? It look like sh_it. What it does is try to gather data ready for post?
Im aware one can make pretty pictures in camera and a camera able to capture a wide dr is a good platform to that even if that capture is then 'crunched' in camera. usually by desaturating and compressing the top two or three stops.. knee. Way better than a hard clip as long as skins are kept out of that region and you dont over expose and need to recover later.
I think Lenny seeks a great image that can go straight to air. I think he is failing to acknowledge that IMO that image cannot, outside of a DR controlled studio, be the best the camera can deliver. Very nice but not the best. An image can nearly always be improved by selective adjustment of contrast in post or minor corrections to the opertors exposure choice.
Contrast is a visual communicator.
The two women above I think the image on the right is better (?) as the skin has more 'meat' (micro contrast) the left image her skin tends to 'wood' - I would want to add more contrst selectively in post to that face. It is a great example of my point - although we cant see how badly the right side image fails when subject to a wider DR scene I can imagine.
----
' Hypergamma 600-800%, log, all of them try and please in one way or another,'
Log doesnt try to please? It look like sh_it. What it does is try to gather data ready for post?
Last edited:
:bath:
Don’t you remember when Alister was saying that SLog3 was intended to be a more pleasing, or natural/satisfying/satisfactory/acceptable to the director/closer to cineon/arri on set monitoring versus SLog2 by putting middle gray at 41 instead of 32? I don’t remember where we were with monitoring luts at that time, probably not too far along. There are still people who grade it without luts and transforms. (Glad I am not one of them.)
Don’t you remember when Alister was saying that SLog3 was intended to be a more pleasing, or natural/satisfying/satisfactory/acceptable to the director/closer to cineon/arri on set monitoring versus SLog2 by putting middle gray at 41 instead of 32? I don’t remember where we were with monitoring luts at that time, probably not too far along. There are still people who grade it without luts and transforms. (Glad I am not one of them.)