FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

[Liam Hall]

SO... ...getting back to the topic...

Of those of us who are looking at investing in one of these new cameras, who has ordered an FX9 and who has ordered a C500 mkII or something else? And what are your reasons for your choice?

I have deposits on both and will make a final decision on Monday after playing with the Canon. I'm 75% sure I'll go with the C500 mkII due to the higher spec and having EF lenses, but most importantly, I prefer the image.

 

[Donny 123]

SO... ...getting back to the topic...

Of those of us who are looking at investing in one of these new cameras, who has ordered an FX9 and who has ordered a C500 mkII or something else? And what are your reasons for your choice?

I have deposits on both and will make a final decision on Monday after playing with the Canon. I'm 75% sure I'll go with the C500 mkII due to the higher spec and having EF lenses, but most importantly, I prefer the image.

I'll be getting the fx9.. hopefully get a hands on the 24th.. I have had Sony cameras for many years.. I have E mount lenses for my A7III B/ Gimbal camera.. and would most likely buy into the new Sony Cine zooms..and use a PL adaptor till then for the Sigma Cine Zooms I have .. I like the FF sensor for interviews.. dual ISO.. and the variable ND is a genius invention that I would use alot.. I know the menu's and it will cut with the A7.. the only negatives for me is the higher power draw.. and a lesser EVF than I have now.. the C500II is for sure also a very good camera .. but I love the Vari ND and dont want to change to a totally new camera system..

 

[Liam Hall]

I'll be getting the fx9.. hopefully get a hands on the 24th.. I have had Sony cameras for many years.. I have E mount lenses for my A7III B/ Gimbal camera.. and would most likely buy into the new Sony Cine zooms..and use a PL adaptor till then for the Sigma Cine Zooms I have .. I like the FF sensor for interviews.. dual ISO.. and the variable ND is a genius invention that I would use alot.. I know the menu's and it will cut with the A7.. the only negatives for me is the higher power draw.. and a lesser EVF than I have now.. the C500II is for sure also a very good camera .. but I love the Vari ND and dont want to change to a totally new camera system..

All solid reasons Donny, you won't be disappointed. The menus have changed quite a bit from the Fs7, A7 - they're much better.

 

[Donny 123]

All solid reasons Donny, you won't be disappointed. The menus have changed quite a bit from the Fs7, A7 - they're much better.

Good news .. at last they sort out the menu and the color science.. must have some Germans working there now..

 

[dmitrizigany]

Of those of us who are looking at investing in one of these new cameras, who has ordered an FX9 and who has ordered a C500 mkII or something else? And what are your reasons for your choice?

I've got a deposit on the FX9.
Main reasons: C500mkII is too expensive (FX9 is already pushing it for me), I have only e-mount glass, my other cameras are Sony (FS700, A7S). I'm still happy with the image of the FS700/O7Q but it becomes too unwieldy and for all I do I think the internal codecs of the FX9 will be good enough for me.
Also FS7 is standard for so much work here, so think it would be easier to get some of that with the FX9 than the C500mkII...

The FX9 added what I wanted to upgrade from the FS700: New sensor, Full Frame, and great AF. Was hoping for IBIS as well but now that I know it's not currently possible to combine with the ND filters I can just hope that the gyro meta data will work great and it will be implemented in FCPX.

Caveats:
• A bit on the bigger side, would really have wanted an FS5 sized camera (FX6?). Only big expensive gimbals take the FX9. Maybe the A7SIII whenever it comes out will be usable as b-cam?
• Unknow if 50p 4K will be available to be output via SDI if I want to record ProRes on external recorder. Also unknown if gyro data will be retained on external recorder.
• Raw only with extension module, adding costs and making the camera even bigger...
• Would have been nice with higher internal bitrate options and/or internal 4K ProRes.

Part of me says wait for either the A7SIII or the rumoured FX6. But Dog knows when those will be released.

 

[Liam Hall]

Also FS7 is standard for so much work here, so think it would be easier to get some of that with the FX9 than the C500mkII...

When I bought my FS7 5 years ago the C300 was the standard go-to camera. I had a quick ring round some of my clients and none of them was bothered which camera I chose as long as I can make nice pictures with it. I'm not getting rid of my FS7 just yet though!

Part of me says wait for either the A7SIII or the rumoured FX6. But Dog knows when those will be released.

Nah, go for it. FX6 will be at least a year away and you know you'll love it for some features and hate for others.

 

[dmitrizigany]

When I bought my FS7 5 years ago the C300 was the standard go-to camera. I had a quick ring round some of my clients and none of them was bothered which camera I chose as long as I can make nice pictures with it. I'm not getting rid of my FS7 just yet though!

Yeah, as it is now, I shoot and edit all my work and no one even asks what camera I have when they hire me. But if I’m getting an expensive camera like the FX9 it would be good to get some extra jobs. And the freelance camera man business around here seems to be predominantly FS7... So an FX9 would probably be an easier sell than a canon in the near future at least.

Nah, go for it. FX6 will be at least a year away and you know you'll love it for some features and hate for others.

Yes, my guess is the FX6 be announced at NAB at the earliest and shipping in the summer... maybe even later. So would be a lot of waiting.

 

[JPNola]

Fx9'ers- Man, this electronic ND is suh-weeet, huh? Loving it. And the dual ISO. Hey C-fi-hunderd boy, you got electronic ND over there on that goofy-looking thing?

C500mkII-er- Uh, well, no. But I got internal raw!

Fx9'ers- 'Oh yeah. How often do you use that?'

C500mkII-er- Well, not yet but I will ONE day, I promise you!! And then I'll have the last laugh. One day. Maybe in another 3 years if my friend Morgan is correct. And I live that long.

:tongue:

 

[dmitrizigany]

The battery sticking out really far seems like a really weird design thing on the C500mkII. The reason they made the FX9 more square was to give the battery more protection. On the other hand the C500 is not designed to go on the shoulder, but still it looks a bit too exposed, no?

 

[LennyLevy]

I put a deposit down on the FX9. I don't necessarily love Sony's but I've had an EX3, F3, FS7 and now also have an A7iii. I wasn't a huge fan of the C300 so am not tempted to go that route. If I could afford to invest in an Arri or a Red I would to up my business model but I can't afford to make that kind of jump. Mainly the FS7 is the in-demand camera for docs and industrials around here and has paid for itself a number of times over so I'll just stay on that bandwagon. ( Would be nice if it crossed over into more commercial type work but I'm not expecting it.) Also I'm assuming (fingers crossed) it will intercut with the FS7s and I can continue to get multicam shoots even though that's not my primary work.

Lens wise - while I do have a bunch of EF zooms and ZE primes I also already have the Sony 18-110 and for the A7iii got the Sony 24-105 and 16-35 f4's . So that will give me a bunch of good AF glass when needed.

Re the camera itself:
I'm excited about the color balance in Cine EI, dual ISO, AF , better VF , increased resolution in FF, and the variable ND and hoping the S Cinetone will be as good as people say because a lot of my clients want WYSIWYG. I already give them very good color - but if its better... Weight and power consumption don't bother me.

I wasn't knocked out by the highlight roll off in Alisters test but I find its hard to really trust what I'm looking at on the web and also agree that he was mainly just testing AF. This might be my last big camera purchase.

 

[Grug]

The battery sticking out really far seems like a really weird design thing on the C500mkII. The reason they made the FX9 more square was to give the battery more protection. On the other hand the C500 is not designed to go on the shoulder, but still it looks a bit too exposed, no?

If used like "normal" EOS camera (with the Canon style batteries and viewfinder added to the back), I think the viewfinder will basically square off the rear end of the camera.

I don't really see the issue though, it's no more "exposed" than a v-mount added to the back would be. And less-so in some ways.

 

[cyvideo]

• Unknown if 50p 4K will be available to be output via SDI if I want to record ProRes on external recorder. Also unknown if gyro data will be retained on external recorder.

I'm sure you have 4K 50/60p on SDI as one of the SDI ports is a supporting 12G. 12G is now an SDI standard and supports higher resolutions, frame rates and color fidelity. It was developed to support 4Kp50/60 format over SDI. It complies with SMPTE standard 2082-1: which is 11.88 Gb/s (12G-SDI.) Therefore it should work with any of the monitor recorders that support 12G SDI like those from Atomos for example.

Re the stabilization. Seeing as this is a metadata thing in the XAVC codec I would be surprised if that is carried out to a ProRes encoding. Does ProRes have the sub code data capacity to handle this information? I would be surprised if it did. Also any software you are running the footage through would need to be able to decode this stabilization information which we know Sony's Catalyst will do. Would Catalyst be able to read the stabilization data in other codecs if were present? Again I doubt it.

Chris Young

 

[dmitrizigany]

I'm sure you have 4K 50/60p on SDI as one of the SDI ports is a supporting 12G.

Apparently it's only up to 30p in the initial firmware. So let's hope they add it later.

Also any software you are running the footage through would need to be able to decode this stabilization information which we know Sony's Catalyst will do.

Sony has said they are talking to the other NLE developers to implement it. Whether they do or not remains to be seen. In my case I only care about if Apple will implement it in FCPX.

Was mentioned somewhere that they are hoping to include the gyro data in the raw output as well.

But if recording to a better codec using an external recorder you probably will have to do without the stabilisation data. Which is a bit of a bummer.

 

[Grug]

An important thing to remember with gyroscopic-based stabilisation (and this goes for both the FX9 and C500ii), is that it really needs shorter shutter angles to work effectively. The motion blur at 180 degrees is quite problematic.

 

[dmitrizigany]

An important thing to remember with gyroscopic-based stabilisation (and this goes for both the FX9 and C500ii), is that it really needs shorter shutter angles to work effectively. The motion blur at 180 degrees is quite problematic.

So rather useless?
The few reports I’ve seen claims it works really well. But guess the reports are from insiders that are quite partial...

 

[JPNola]

An important thing to remember with gyroscopic-based stabilisation (and this goes for both the FX9 and C500ii), is that it really needs shorter shutter angles to work effectively. The motion blur at 180 degrees is quite problematic.

I'm confused. To my knowledge the Fx9 has no "gyroscopic stabilization". It only records image stabilization metadata for use with post-production software.

And by "shorter" shutter angle do you mean smaller? Shutter speeds are faster / slower, shutter angles larger / smaller.

 

[Grug]

So rather useless?
The few reports I’ve seen claims it works really well. But guess the reports are from insiders that are quite partial...

It works tremendously well. Because it's not trying to guess at the motion like a warp stabiliser does - it KNOWS what the motion was, so can compensate accordingly.

24fps @ 180 shutter has a lot of motion blur though. And stabilised footage with motion blur stretching out in directions that (once stabilised) are no longer apparent, can look very strange.

I'm confused. To my knowledge the Fx9 has no "gyroscopic stabilization". It only records image stabilization metadata for use with post-production software.

That's exactly what it is, stabilisation implemented through gyroscopic measurements recorded as metadata.

And by "shorter" shutter angle do you mean smaller? Shutter speeds are faster / slower, shutter angles larger / smaller.

Whatever works for you. Shorter/longer, faster/slower, smaller/larger, tighter/wider. Shorter means just that, a more acute angle - 90 degrees or 45 degrees instead of 180.

 

[Liam Hall]

Fx9'ers- Man, this electronic ND is suh-weeet, huh? Loving it. And the dual ISO. Hey C-fi-hunderd boy, you got electronic ND over there on that goofy-looking thing?

C500mkII-er- Uh, well, no. But I got internal raw!

Fx9'ers- 'Oh yeah. How often do you use that?'

C500mkII-er- Well, not yet but I will ONE day, I promise you!! And then I'll have the last laugh. One day. Maybe in another 3 years if my friend Morgan is correct. And I live that long.

:tongue:

I've never used electronic ND, so won't miss it. C500 mkII has 10 stops of ND, as opposed to 6 on the FX9, which is a plus.

Internal RAW, I might use twice a year. Not a major selling point for me but the higher bit rate of the XF-AVC codec is. THe FX9 has impoved every aspect of the camera over the FS7 except for the codec and HFRs.

 

[Grug]

I'm hoping Canon can be talked into offering an alternative configuration for the internal NDs. Having 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 stops available internally is nice, and should mean you never HAVE to add external ND (if you don't mind closing down the iris a stop, or dropping the ISO a stop) in order to get your precise exposure.

But personally, I'd rather have the three internal filters be 1, 2 and 3 stops - to allow for configurations of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 stops.

Obviously you'll still need to add external NDs for shooting outside with this configuration, but that's really not a big deal when you have 5 stops of discrete control - you just place whatever base level external ND you need in front of the lens, and then simply ride the internal filters to dial in your precise exposure whenever the sun dips behind the clouds, or you need to up your frame rates or stop down etc.

Changing an external ND at the start of a scene is no great inconvenience, but having to change them mid-scene very much is. So I think that (for a lot of people) having the more precise control of 1-5 stops internally would be the superior option, as you don't then have to worry about mismatched noise-characteristics (if you're changing ISO between shots to match exposure), or mismatched DoF (if you're adjusting the iris instead).

I do think the FX9 has an advantage on that front (though I haven't used Sony's electronic ND yet, so I don't know how it impacts the image compared to conventional, optical NDs).

 

[dmitrizigany]

I've never used electronic ND, so won't miss it. C500 mkII has 10 stops of ND, as opposed to 6 on the FX9, which is a plus.

Nitpicking, but I believe it’s 7 stops on the FX9.

The FX9 has improved every aspect of the camera over the FS7 except for the codec and HFRs.

That is one of my concerns. When the FS7 was released it was a pretty damn robust codec, it’s still ok, but going forward it doesn’t feel so future proof.
One of my main issues with the FS700 is that I have to use it with an external monitor/recorder, which makes it unwieldy. So one of the main reasons for getting an FX9 would be to get away from having to use and external recorder.
I’m sure the internal codecs of the FX9 will be ok for 90 of my work but I fear I will miss ProRes. If I’m not mistaken, even ProRes LT is almost twice the Bitrate of the internal XAVC of the FS7/FX9 at 4K (while being almost equal in HD).