FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

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


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).
Click to expand...

If you really need it, external recorders are cheap and powerful these days, and with the 12G-SDI on the camera you'll be able to feed 4k up to 60p out to a Prores recorder (assuming the camera does eventually have that feature enabled).
 
Grug said:
If you really need it, external recorders are cheap and powerful these days, and with the 12G-SDI on the camera you'll be able to feed 4k up to 60p out to a Prores recorder (assuming the camera does eventually have that feature enabled).
Click to expand...
Yes, but then I’m back to having to attach a recorder to the camera, which is one of the reasons to upgrade from the FS700 - so I don’t have to do that!
And on the initial firmware the FX9 only outputs HD via the SDI...
 
The difference between the internal codec on the FS7 and ProRes is minimal compared to the difference between ProRes and the internal codec on the FS700.
 
Liam Hall said:
The difference between the internal codec on the FS7 and ProRes is minimal compared to the difference between ProRes and the internal codec on the FS700.
Click to expand...
Yes, I’m aware of that. And for majority of what I’ll be doing it’ll be fine so maybe and external recorder on the 10% I can live with.
Just would have been nice with a slightly beefier codec.
 
Grug said:
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... That's exactly what it is, stabilisation implemented through gyroscopic measurements recorded as metadata.
Click to expand...

When we debate new features, IBIS, stabilization metadata, AF, electronic ND; the tendency is to upsell the feature by exaggerating the extent of the problem without the feature. As I stand by and read the debate, we start sounding less like the professionals and more like the prosumers. The job of a pro is to shoot like a pro. The most highly regarded content comes from shooting full manual; everything.
 
dmitrizigany said:
Nitpicking, but I believe it’s 7 stops on the FX9.


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.
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).
Click to expand...

In reality in Resolve on a decent platform I've found very little difference in XAVC-I and ProRes UNLESS the XAVC is considerably underexposed. When underexposed I find XAVC will exhibit more noise when pulled up over ProRes. There again I try not to underexpose and if anything in S-LOG3 I over expose. If shooting in Custom mode and exposed correctly IMHO I cannot see any difference that is going to impinge on the quality of the final edit. But then again I try to avoid intense pixel peeping. I only become my own worst enemy as I've never had a client that buries himself in the minutia of pixels. Or a client who can pick the difference even on a $25K Trimaster OLED monitor. If both are exposed correctly push and pull the grades pretty hard on both and I 'm sure you'll find he same. In 4K the difference is file size. I find the quality difference so hard to discern that if I do pixel peep that in 99% if there is any difference I'll happily trade it off not to have all the extra junk of external recorders hanging off the camera to record either ProRes or DnX. The other thing is one cannot always equate or quote bit rate vs bit rate when one codec uses predictive motion estimation vector analysis and pre-coding prior to compression and another codec like ProRes doesn't. For example Sony's 600Mbps I-Frame uses Sony's own proprietary pre-coding Canon's 810Mbps does not and Canon have never to the best of my knowledge ever patented a pre-coding scheme or process for their XF-AVC. In other words 'yer can't just go by the numbers. You have to suck it and see for yourself. Z Systems did quite an interesting comparo between XAVC and ProRes in 4K.

Until my productions need to exceed the quality, motion handling and detail retention shown in these videos, all shot XAVC I'm quite happy to stay with XAVC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbNd7edNPa0

https://pro.sony/en_FI/insight/filmmaking-stories/camcorders-nuit-de-la-glisse-filming-fs7

Chris Young

http://zsyst.com/2015/10/xavc-vs-prores-422hq/

Sony XAVC precoder.jpg
 
Last edited:
The electronic, variable ND doesn’t impact the image in any way. It’s amazing. And it’s a fluid scale rather than applied in steps so you can use it while filming.
 
Decision made:

I had a play with the Canon today, last week I had a play with the Sony. These cameras are both great and produce great images. I'd happily use either, though the Canon just beats the Sony for me and my needs. YMMV. Canon has offered me a loaner next month and I hope to have my own camera in December. Exciting times:-)
 
Liam Hall said:
Decision made:

I had a play with the Canon today, last week I had a play with the Sony. These cameras are both great and produce great images. I'd happily use either, though the Canon just beats the Sony for me and my needs. YMMV. Canon has offered me a loaner next month and I hope to have my own camera in December. Exciting times:-)
Click to expand...

Nice :) What is it about the Canon that sealed the deal for you?
 
cyvideo said:
In reality in Resolve on a decent platform I've found very little difference in XAVC-I and ProRes UNLESS the XAVC is considerably underexposed. When underexposed I find XAVC will exhibit more noise when pulled up over ProRes. There again I try not to underexpose and if anything in S-LOG3 I over expose. If shooting in Custom mode and exposed correctly IMHO I cannot see any difference that is going to impinge on the quality of the final edit. But then again I try to avoid intense pixel peeping. I only become my own worst enemy as I've never had a client that buries himself in the minutia of pixels. Or a client who can pick the difference even on a $25K Trimaster OLED monitor. If both are exposed correctly push and pull the grades pretty hard on both and I 'm sure you'll find he same. In 4K the difference is file size. I find the quality difference so hard to discern that if I do pixel peep that in 99% if there is any difference I'll happily trade it off not to have all the extra junk of external recorders hanging off the camera to record either ProRes or DnX. The other thing is one cannot always equate or quote bit rate vs bit rate when one codec uses predictive motion estimation vector analysis and pre-coding prior to compression and another codec like ProRes doesn't. For example Sony's 600Mbps I-Frame uses Sony's own proprietary pre-coding Canon's 810Mbps does not and Canon have never to the best of my knowledge ever patented a pre-coding scheme or process for their XF-AVC. In other words 'yer can't just go by the numbers. You have to suck it and see for yourself. Z Systems did quite an interesting comparo between XAVC and ProRes in 4K.

Until my productions need to exceed the quality, motion handling and detail retention shown in these videos, all shot XAVC I'm quite happy to stay with XAVC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbNd7edNPa0

https://pro.sony/en_FI/insight/filmmaking-stories/camcorders-nuit-de-la-glisse-filming-fs7

Chris Young

http://zsyst.com/2015/10/xavc-vs-prores-422hq/

View attachment 137331
Click to expand...

Excellent points Chris, and I fully agree.
 
Grug said:
Nice :) What is it about the Canon that sealed the deal for you?
Click to expand...

The FX9 is very attractive to me, particularly the dual ISO and better build and layout compared to the FS7, but the C500 mkII has 60p Full frame, a marginally better internal compressed codec, anamorphic capability, internal RAW, more appealing colour, I love the modularity and it felt really good hand-held (it's better balanced than the C300 MkII). But the biggest reason is I have a boatload of EF lenses that will be better suited to the C500 than the FX9.

One thing of note I found out today that I've not seen mentioned is the C500 has a 30w power draw shooting XF-AVC but that rises up to 70w when shooting RAW.
 
Liam - one problem with a deep flange camera is 'that lens' (wide to headshot zoom) - whats your plan?

(and congrats.. IMO youve made the correct choice :) )
 
cyvideo said:
In reality in Resolve on a decent platform I've found very little difference in XAVC-I and ProRes UNLESS the XAVC is considerably underexposed. When underexposed I find XAVC will exhibit more noise when pulled up over ProRes.
Click to expand...
Thanks Chris. I did suspect as much, just that I’ve gotten so used to the quality of ProRes now that I was worried I’d miss it. Feel a bit better about going with the FX9 now...

But man, those XQD cards are pricey! Guess for longer shoots where I can have camera on sticks it will be external recorder anyway.
 
Liam Hall said:
Decision made:

I had a play with the Canon today, last week I had a play with the Sony. These cameras are both great and produce great images. I'd happily use either, though the Canon just beats the Sony for me and my needs. YMMV. Canon has offered me a loaner next month and I hope to have my own camera in December. Exciting times:-)
Click to expand...
Congrats on the decision! :)

Last night I tried to find some C500mkII footage, but could hardly find any. And on the C700 footage it wasn’t clear if it was shot with raw or not which might not make it usable to judge the C500mkII...
anyone have any links to C500mkII footage?
 
morgan_moore said:
Liam - one problem with a deep flange camera is 'that lens' (wide to headshot zoom) - whats your plan?

(and congrats.. IMO youve made the correct choice :) )
Click to expand...

Primes and my legs:-)

Seriously, I'll probably shoot a lot on the 16-35 and the 70-200 and use primes for the mid-range. I still see myself changing lenses all day as there's no obvious solution there, as we know.
 
dmitrizigany said:
Congrats on the decision! :)

Last night I tried to find some C500mkII footage, but could hardly find any. And on the C700 footage it wasn’t clear if it was shot with raw or not which might not make it usable to judge the C500mkII...
anyone have any links to C500mkII footage?
Click to expand...

They played a Canon TVC this morning, which should be released for public viewing soon. Be careful judging C700 footage though as whie it's the same sensor it does use different codecs. There should be more footage coming out in the next few weeks.
 
Advantage of Canon with Canon lenses is AF. The advantage of Canon EF FF lenses on the FS7 used to be speed booster and thus an extra stop of light. I'm wondering how that will work now with the FX9 . I'm guessing that's still the case if you shoot in APS-crop mode, but with dual ISO it probably no longer matters.
 
dmitrizigany said:
Thanks Chris. I did suspect as much, just that I’ve gotten so used to the quality of ProRes now that I was worried I’d miss it. Feel a bit better about going with the FX9 now...

But man, those XQD cards are pricey! Guess for longer shoots where I can have camera on sticks it will be external recorder anyway.
Click to expand...

XQD Pricey yes but in the long run after a few years you won't regret the investment. Look I still use an Atomos on mission critical jobs. A recent doco series in the UK with a few weeks of interview shoots around the country was too expensive to risk screwing up in any manner so we ran an Inferno recording 50p. It also doubled up as the producer's location monitor. He also used the Atomos back at the hotel for reviewing and logging, making notes etc. Just don't like running around with extra recorders when not on sticks.

Chris Young
 
Liam Hall said:
Primes and my legs:-)

Seriously, I'll probably shoot a lot on the 16-35 and the 70-200 and use primes for the mid-range. I still see myself changing lenses all day as there's no obvious solution there, as we know.
Click to expand...

DOh! I forgot this is fullframe. Get a 24-105 and/or a 24-70! Quality wise I think a 24-70 is up there with the primes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top