FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

DLD said:
A) It's not surprising for the Raw output to be "post signal", i.e., post 6K-to-4K conversion. It is still a full 6K readout vs. the 4K of C200.
Click to expand...

That isn't how RAW generally works and from what I've read I don't think it works that way on on the FX9.

The only mentions I have seen for RAW recording say that RAW recording will be in Super 35 mode instead of the full circle. Studio Daily says Sony told them "a future firmware update will enable DCI 4K recording (4096 x 2160) and higher frame rates for 4K, the company said — including raw UHD 4K output in Super 35 mode."

One of the reason it's so hard to find out what's going on with the camera is Sony apparently hasn't decided what's in store for the FX9. Matthew Allard has updated his Newsshooter article several times as Sony has apparently provided clarity and in one of his recent updates he said "according to Sony they havent ruled out the possibility that the FX9 will be able to record 6K externally in the future."

https://www.studiodaily.com/2019/09...uture-raw-output-keeps-good-parts-fs7-series/

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/09/13/sony-announces-the-fx9-camera-with-6k-full-frame-sensor/
 
Last edited:
Gary T said:
That isn't how RAW generally works and from what I've read I don't think it works that way on on the FX9...
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, one would rather have a 6K - or, to be more accurate, a 5.7K - in order to get a 4:2:2 4K, which is "real" 4K after the debayering process. FX9 just does it in camera.

Is it a complete cluster fudge not to record 6K Raw internally? You betcha yer bippy. Is it done to protect some currently non-existing model? Or is it a typical cartel like behavior where companies cripple its products in a carefully planned arrangement (or as JCS called it, a "jigsaw puzzle", where several similarly priced cameras might have all the same features but not a single camera has the same features as any other in total)?

PS. They can obviously make an inexpensive (under $2,500) external recorder for Raw or they can go 3rd party, as is the norm with the Japanese. Or they can release another camera. It'll depend on how angry people get. And people should get angry at this shtuff pronto.
 
Why haven't we heard from Doug Jensen or Alistair Chapman regarding the Fx9? Both are big into Sony. Haven't seen either posting much in the past few months.
 
JPNola said:
Why haven't we heard from Doug Jensen or Alistair Chapman regarding the Fx9? Both are big into Sony. Haven't seen either posting much in the past few months.
Click to expand...

I'm in the jungles of Fiji for four weeks working on Eco Challenge. No time to keep current on latest Sony announcements. I was involved somewhat in the planning and design of the FX9 but have nothing to add that isn't already public because of NDA. Nor do I ever like to say very much until I have a camera in my hands and can test and observe first hand. The Z750 is actually the camera most on my mind right now and I'll get my hands one one as soon as I get back to USA. I'd have one now in Yellowstone and at Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival if I hadn't gotten diverted to the jungle. Now, back to the rain and mud.
 
DLD said:
Generally speaking, one would rather have a 6K - or, to be more accurate, a 5.7K - in order to get a 4:2:2 4K, which is "real" 4K after the debayering process. FX9 just does it in camera.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are talking about the FX9's oversampled 4K 4:2:2 10-bit oversampled video derived from the original 6K RAW. We've seen samples of this image and I think it's beautiful.

At issue is the 2020 FX9 update where Sony is promising 16-bit 4K RAW. Studio Daily was told will be limited to "UHD 4K output in Super 35 mode." If this turns out the be correct the FX9 4K RAW won't be supersampled and the RAW might not even be DCI 4K if Sony was being literal when they said it was "UHD 4K output." It will probably still be beautiful but likely it won't be higher resolution than the C200.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I'm in the jungles of Fiji for four weeks working on Eco Challenge. No time to keep current on latest Sony announcements. I was involved somewhat in the planning and design of the FX9 but have nothing to add that isn't already public because of NDA. Nor do I ever like to say very much until I have a camera in my hands and can test and observe first hand. The Z750 is actually the camera most on my mind right now and I'll get my hands one one as soon as I get back to USA. I'd have one now in Yellowstone and at Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival if I hadn't gotten diverted to the jungle. Now, back to the rain and mud.
Click to expand...

What are you doing out in the real world actually shooting and producing content? Didn't you read the Internet Cameraman's Guide to the Galaxy- you're supposed to be online arguing about cameras!
 
docmoore said:
Alister posted an insightful look at the FX9 yesterday ...

http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/
Click to expand...


Wow, he writes that: "But it (the FX9) does use more power, around twice as much as the FS7."

That's a pretty massive negative – the camera is already heavier than the FS7, and now we will be required to carry 2X the batteries.

As another user noted, all these new features are nice, but we won't get higher rates because of them. We will, however, have to pay a penalty in carrying around MORE weight than we already do, and deal with ever more batteries. The result is that this camera is, miraculously, MORE difficult to work with than the FS7. All in the name of incremental image quality improvements that the majority of our typical clients won't notice.

One step forward two steps back. Seems like Sony does too much consulting with Youtubers like Philip Bloom and not enough with the cameramen and women that work with these units day in day out.
 
dipstik said:
Wow, he writes that: "But it (the FX9) does use more power, around twice as much as the FS7."

That's a pretty massive negative – the camera is already heavier than the FS7, and now we will be required to carry 2X the batteries.

As another user noted, all these new features are nice, but we won't get higher rates because of them. We will, however, have to pay a penalty in carrying around MORE weight than we already do, and deal with ever more batteries. The result is that this camera is, miraculously, MORE difficult to work with than the FS7. All in the name of incremental image quality improvements that the majority of our typical clients won't notice.

One step forward two steps back. Seems like Sony does too much consulting with Youtubers like Philip Bloom and not enough with the cameramen and women that work with these units day in day out.
Click to expand...


per Sony website...

Fs7- 2.0 kg (body only)

Fx9- 2.0 kg (body only)


Fs7 power consumption- Approx. 35.2 W (while recording XAVC-I QFHD 59.94p, SELP28135G Lens, Viewfinder ON, not using external device)

Fx9 power consumption- Approx. 35.2 W (while recording XAVC-I QFHD 59.94p, SELP28135G Lens, Viewfinder ON, not using external device)


I see where Alistair says the Fx9 uses "around twice as much" power as the Fs7. That doesn't jibe with the official Sony specs I have listed above. Maybe the specs are theoretical while Alistair's experience is real-world.
 
I almost forgot-

Thank you, docmoore, for the heads up on Alistair's review. And thank you to Doug for checking in after I inquired as to his whereabouts.
 
DLD said:
Is it a complete cluster fudge not to record 6K Raw internally? You betcha yer bippy.
Click to expand...

DLD I think the reason is because as an encoded file the XAVC specification has a maximum resolution of 4096 x 2160. Anything larger would require a new codec and as there is no internal RAW option the point of internal 6K recording is a moot point. There is no larger resolution available in XAVC. This also applies to the new Canon 500 II if you want to shoot to XF-AVC as that likewise can only support 4096 x 2160. Though with the Canon that is up to 810Mbps so a pretty decent quality file to work with. So both cameras shooting internally to encoded files are limited to that maximum file size of 4096 x 2150. The Canon shooting from 5.9K down to 4K and the Sony from 6K down to 4K. Using Canon Cinema RAW Light then yes you do have internal recording up to 5.9K. I'm just a bit surprised that in 2K/HD if you want 120 FPS you have to drop down to Super 16 Crop. Will be interesting to see how that will look I guess.

https://www.canon.co.uk/video-cameras/eos-c500-mark-ii/specifications/

Chris Young
 
Last edited:
DLD .. but even the Venice cant record 6K internally .. and you need a $4K license for the honor of doing so to RAW recorder .. there is no way the target market for this camera need to record 6K.
 
Just saw this from the C200:


Should be pretty indicative of the AF performance we'll see from the C500 MkII. Looks like both of these cameras will have AF you can trust for paid work.

It's a brave new world.
 
From handling the new FX9 a bit here at IBC I can say it’s just marginally (if at all) heavier than the FS7.

Another observation: there is a constant cue to handle the FX9 cameras at the Sony booth. Whereas the C500mkII are just sitting alone at the Canon booth with no one using them.

The C500mkII did feel pretty good as well though!
 
dmitrizigany said:
Another observation: there is a constant cue to handle the FX9 cameras at the Sony booth. Whereas the C500mkII are just sitting alone at the Canon booth with no one using them.
Click to expand...

That just seems crazy to me.

I can only assume it's because the FS7 is so big over in Europe, that people are too invested in BPU batteries, XQD cards and e-mount lens adapters to consider switching sides?

The FX9 looks like a really lovely mid-range camera, a FF sensor, great image quality, professionally viable autofocus capabilities, and now that it has timecode built-in, it's ready for just about any kind of set you'd throw a mid-tier camera at.

But the C500 MkII is a big deal (or should be). It's a 6k, large format, A-Camera for $16,000 USD (well, $17,600 once you factor in the PL mount). It's competition are the Mini LF, Monstro and Venice, and it's 1/3-1/4 of the price of those options - and yet I'm seeing people call it "too expensive", and Canon "out of tune with the market".

I feel like either I must be missing something, or everyone else is missing something - people's reactions don't make any sense to me.

Can anyone explain to me what I'm not getting here? I really don't get it.
 
The world we live in is "I want it! I want it ALL, and I want it now!" May I ask sir how much you would be willing to spend? "Spend? Well... not that much."

I think for your average jobbing cameraman the FX9 is today's Betacam / EX 1/3 replacement so has broad appeal for that type of shooter whereas the C500 II is definitely aimed much more at the cine shooter. Which is the bigger group? I would suggest the former. They want a reasonable value reasonable quality camera they can just rip out of the case turn on and shoot. The FX9 is really aimed at that quick turn around market. They don't need RAW and if upgrading from an FS7, one of the best selling cameras ever worldwide, it makes for an easy move. I think they will sell heaps of them regardless of what shortcomings more serious shooters may see it it.

Chris Young
 
Last edited:
Gary T said:
... At issue is the 2020 FX9 update where Sony is promising 16-bit 4K RAW. Studio Daily was told will be limited to "UHD 4K output in Super 35 mode." If this turns out the be correct the FX9 4K RAW won't be supersampled and the RAW might not even be DCI 4K if Sony was being literal when they said it was "UHD 4K output." It will probably still be beautiful but likely it won't be higher resolution than the C200.
Click to expand...

You are correct, sir.

cyvideo said:
DLD I think the reason is because as an encoded file the XAVC specification has a maximum resolution of 4096 x 2160. Anything larger would require a new codec and as there is no internal RAW option the point of internal 6K recording is a moot point. There is no larger resolution available in XAVC. This also applies to the new Canon 500 II if you want to shoot to XF-AVC as that likewise can only support 4096 x 2160. Though with the Canon that is up to 810Mbps so a pretty decent quality file to work with. So both cameras shooting internally to encoded files are limited to that maximum file size of 4096 x 2150. The Canon shooting from 5.9K down to 4K and the Sony from 6K down to 4K. Using Canon Cinema RAW Light then yes you do have internal recording up to 5.9K. I'm just a bit surprised that in 2K/HD if you want 120 FPS you have to drop down to Super 16 Crop. Will be interesting to see how that will look I guess.

https://www.canon.co.uk/video-cameras/eos-c500-mark-ii/specifications/

Chris Young
Click to expand...

And you are too.

Donny 123 said:
DLD .. but even the Venice cant record 6K internally .. and you need a $4K license for the honor of doing so to RAW recorder .. there is no way the target market for this camera need to record 6K.
Click to expand...

And you are as well.

The key to me, from Chapman's piece, is that one can adjust the white balance in S-Log, which negates - to what extent, we don't know for sure- the major advantage of the Raw format.

Hypothetically, Sony could have gone to a higher compression on X-OCN too but chose not to. The rest depends on how well their processing works with the all the XAVC flavors. It's quite possible that the docs, reality, corporate, interviews will be done at 480 rather than 600 anyway. If there are moving subjects within the frame, then you move up to I. And as Sony's Euro chief said to Carl (or is it Karl?) from ProAV, "it's aimed for a quick turnaround".

PS. Their AF Cine glass is probably rehoused G-Masters. If so, there likely won't be much improvement, if there a need, in terms of breathing but one gets all the manual controls on top of the stills version. F2.8/T3.1. How do those Batis primes look?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top