FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

[Newsguy]

I'm sure it will. That's how they've implemented it on the Venice.

That said, I don't think you'll need to with the FX9. Take a look at the footage Philip Bloom shot with it, the noise performance at 12,800 ISO is above and beyond anything I've ever seen at that level.

Adding ND in night scenes is one of the weirdest experiences I’ve had since I started shooting.

 

[cyvideo]

Alister Chapman talks a fair bit about the low noise levels on the FX9 and posts some stills in the following Visual Impact video, looks good. The FX9 may have the same capabilities as the later firmware on the FS7s whereby you can set a menu function to enable "On/Off settings for Rec/Out EI Applied System menu > Base Setting > Rec/Out EI" I use this and shoot a lot rated at 800 ISO. As Grug said I really don't think you are going to have to under rate this camera from a noise factor point of view. Also a quick dial on the camera body now enables you to easily adjust White Balance, Gain, or ISO, no need to go into the menu. dB is adjustable in 1dB steps.

Chris Young

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=Mn3esnY182Q

 

[telecam]

By the way, did anyone notice the power consumption of the FX9? 35W for the FX9 vs. 19W for the FS7! That's a power sucker. Wondering what the C500 Mk2 is?

 

[Liam Hall]

By the way, did anyone notice the power consumption of the FX9? 35W for the FX9 vs. 19W for the FS7! That's a power sucker. Wondering what the C500 Mk2 is?

Yes, it's been mentioned a few times. Not sure what the draw is on the C500 though.

 

[LennyLevy]

There were a lot of functions on the FS7 that were limited because of power. I'm glad Sony just decided to keep the camera more functional and let us deal with needing more batteries.

 

[JPNola]

This is rather shallow, but in terms of aesthetics, I find the Fx9 to be a better-looker. To me the C500MkII is an ugly lump of a camera body...

 

[Newsguy]

I agree and think that the entire cinema line looks awful. I hate the squat, tall bodies and find them ergonomically poor.

 

[Grug]

I agree and think that the entire cinema line looks awful. I hate the squat, tall bodies and find them ergonomically poor.

I can't say I understand people worrying about how a camera looks physically. But it's definitely a good thing that the C500ii has finally stepped away from Canon's usual layout, and gone with a simple cube arrangement.

Both cameras are TINY though:

C500ii
168mm Long x 153mm Wide x 148mm High @ 1.7kg

FX9
229.1mm Long x 146.1mm Widex 142.5mm High @ 2kg

 

[JPNola]

I can't say I understand people worrying about how a camera looks physically.

If I express the opinion that I prefer the taste of Coke over the taste of Pepsi, is that me "worrying" about it?

Jesus Christ, man.

Sorry. It’s not a big deal. It’s not a big deal. Yeah, it kinda is.

 

[Newsguy]

I can't say I understand people worrying about how a camera looks physically. But it's definitely a good thing that the C500ii has finally stepped away from Canon's usual layout, and gone with a simple cube arrangement.

Both cameras are TINY though:

C500ii
168mm Long x 153mm Wide x 148mm High @ 1.7kg

FX9
22.91mm Long x 14.61mm Widex 14.25mm High @ 2kg

Wow, for being the size of a fingernail, the FX9 is full featured!!!

 

[morgan_moore]

My FS7 is right at the max height with my Movi pro. (with an arca plate which costs 20mm)

The extra few mm of the C500 would be a pain.

The size does matter.

 

[Grug]

If I express the opinion that I prefer the taste of Coke over the taste of Pepsi, is that me "worrying" about it?

Jesus Christ, man.

Sorry. It’s not a big deal. It’s not a big deal. Yeah, it kinda is.

Sorry man, certainly no offense intended there. Perhaps "worrying about" has a stronger meaning over the pond than it does here?

Wow, for being the size of a fingernail, the FX9 is full featured!!!

Decimal points are pesky little buggers!

My FS7 is right at the max height with my Movi pro. (with an arca plate which costs 20mm)

The extra few mm of the C500 would be a pain.

The size does matter.

You can't fit something 15cm high on the Movi? I would have though 15cm was pretty small (in terms of cameras you'd be mounting on the top-level Movi)?

 

[morgan_moore]

Its 8mm taller than the alexa mini. (140mm)

The movi has 175 of which 5mm are plate.. if you have anything that is not the body .. something like a top plate to receive a top handle.. then you are out of space fast.
If you dont have a couple of plates then swapping from movi to sticks becomes a complete rebuild.

IMO the height of the C500 serves no purpose... a bit longer and lower would be better.

--

On the shoulder the shortness will of course make it hard to balance too.

 

[Grug]

Its 8mm taller than the alexa mini. (140mm)

IMO the height of the C500 serves no purpose... a bit longer and lower would be better.

--

On the shoulder the shortness will of course make it hard to balance too.

To be fair, the top of the C500ii (like the C700) already has a cheeseplate built-in (which I'd argue serves multiple purposes). So unlike the rest of them, you don't need to lose any additional height (or gain any additional weight) to add an accessory top plate in order rig anything to it. For me that's a feature, not a bug.

To balance the short body on the Canon you'll definitely need a top handle that extends forward of the sensor (though I suspect the same will be true for the FX anyway, it's still tiny). For shoulder mounts it's no biggie - just use an Arri-dovetail based system.

 

[Sttratos]

This is rather shallow, but in terms of aesthetics, I find the Fx9 to be a better-looker. To me the C500MkII is an ugly lump of a camera body...


View attachment 137190

View attachment 137191

Don't care for aesthetics of a camera body. But I prefer the FX9 form factor for practical reasons. Never liked the Canon EOS bodies. Too tall and too short. Alexa has about the perfect form factor for an A camera. Venice is good as well as are the F5 and F55. FX9 is more in that direction at least. Seems to be slightly better than the FS7. Of course I would rather have a Venice or better, Alexa form factor. But between C500II and FX9 the FX9 has the better form factor IMO.

 

[Sttratos]

I've got a neck injury that doctors have said (in no uncertain terms) that I should stop hoisting 20kg camera packages around for. So (VERY sadly) my big Alexa has to go. The question now is, what to replace it with? I have a quote on the Alexa Mini LF coming through, which would be the safest choice in a lot of ways. But I'm really not enamoured with the external nature of the power supply, I have some questions about the odd scaling ratios needed to get to 4k and 2k deliverables from the 4.5k sensor (although it's hard to argue with how nice the pictures look from it in spite of that), and I know that in 12 months time we're going to have a new S35mm camera from Arri that will no doubt incorporate Codex's fantastic new HDE system into its raw recording (which will reduce Arriraw file sizes by 40% at capture, rather than just at ingest, as they do at the moment with the Mini LF). Also, it's a $100,000 camera here in Australia.

I had a play with the Mini LF earlier this week though, and outside of the external power supply and the silly amount of metal that's gone into Arri's own 'studio' build out of the camera (I know I could easily shave 1-2kg of weight off it with a simplified rig), it's really quite lovely. They have fixed the overwhelming majority of the ergonomic issues I have with the original Mini. The three steps of internal ND in the Mini do seem a bit more limiting than what's offered by the Venice and C500ii, but the difference with buying an Arri is that they are willing to customise the NDs to my personal specs (giving me 0.3, 0.6, 0.9 instead of 0.6, 1.2, 1.8 - so that I can finetune exposure much more easily on the fly, which is really the key to saving time with internal NDs). I also have a lot of money invested in Arri's WCU-4 FIZ system, and getting the Mini LF's full integration with that is another point to consider.

The Canon, by comparison, offers up almost every feature the Arri has, at 1/3 of the price. Whilst also not being beholden to some of the limitations that are wrapped up in the Arri's older sensor design - so it's considerably less power-hungry, offers a proper 4k downsample from the 6k sensor, and looks like it'll probably squeeze an extra two stops of usable ISO sensitivity out compared to the Arri.

Now a lot of people get caught up in the "native colour science" of all these cameras, but the reality for me is - I don't shoot anything that just has the stock rec709 LUT dropped on it. And ALL of the cameras made in the last 5 years have enough latitude and colour information to push them where I want them to go in the grade.

There's a lot of pros and cons to balance out with all of the available choices. But the reality is, with >4k resolutions, high bit depths, variable framerates, low weights, compact size, I think it's pretty safe to assume that any of these cameras will have us covered for the next 6-8 years comfortably. So the question of which you want to live with is a longer-term decision than perhaps the previous round of cameras provided.

Is your neck so bad that you can't wait 12 months for the 4K S35 Alexa? If the problem is the price it will cost and I HAD to go lighter, I would just buy a S35 Alexa Mini and use that for a while. Are you being pressured for 4K? I have not been yet. I think when they hear Arri and Alexa they must forget about 4K or something. Maybe it's because every movie is made with an Arri and if it's good enough for Hollywood it's good enough for them. I don't know. But I only get demanded 4K in low end corporate stuff. But then I pull out my FS700 with 7Q and they shut up. 4K they have and it has been enough. But doesn't happen very often.

To me if I was in your shoes I would stay Arri at any cost. Do you really think you will be happy with something else after shooting Alexa so long? I'm not sure I could. Not even the Venice has convinced me yet. I'm starting seeing some of that video look in Venice stuff. Mainly small demos. I'm sure Top Gun will look great. But Oblivion with the F65 also looked great. But it was about the only F65 movie which looked great. Most others had that video look somewhat. So jury on Venice is still out for me. Varicams are a no starter. Too much of a video look. Same with the Canons. Unless C500II is in another league completely. Blackmagic is not even a topic.

I sold my FS7 because of the video look. Not looking forward to getting back into the video look.

So I'm only selling my Alexa when I can justify buying an Alexa with higher rez. The only thing which could make me leave Arri is if Sony would make a 4K F35. But that will never happen. So I don't see myself out of the Arri train any soon.

It's not about the color science only. It's the whole image. If you are in the camp who thinks you can match any camera in post, then fine. I'm not. Or every video would look like it was shot on Arri. And the video look would have disappeared forever. But it's not like that.

Good luck with your decision. Hope you will find something to make you happy.

 

[Sttratos]

I prefer PL because it doesn't budge. But if AF can be as useful as it's starting to appear to be, that really does change the paradigm a bit - I'm thinking of big dolly push-ins to close-ups that can be nailed perfectly, every take, without any time lost to laying out marks for focus. It really could add a lot of time back into the shooting day.

Sure and I agree. But I'm doing my best to wait till PL with AF become a thing and affordable.

Maybe Cooke and co will do something, so I can rent for shots I really need AF.

It's not only the mount though. There are real cine lenses with EF mount. But for AF you basically need still lenses.

 

[morgan_moore]

To be fair, the top of the C500ii (like the C700) already has a cheeseplate built-in (which I'd argue serves multiple purposes). So unlike the rest of them, you don't need to lose any additional height (or gain any additional weight) to add an accessory top plate in order rig anything to it. For me that's a feature, not a bug.

To balance the short body on the Canon you'll definitely need a top handle that extends forward of the sensor (though I suspect the same will be true for the FX anyway, it's still tiny). For shoulder mounts it's no biggie - just use an Arri-dovetail based system.

The fs7 (and 9 I guess) have 6 1/4 threads so dont need a cheeseplate either.

Overall there are aguments for cameras of every shape.. mainly long low and thin is good for shoulder, short and stubby good for everything else - there is not therefore a correct shape for a camera.

It was the description of both cameras as small that I take mild issue with as I know that the canon will be a pain (needing to be basically stripped naked to use) on my Movi which is not a device for DSLRs.

 

[Grug]

Is your neck so bad that you can't wait 12 months for the 4K S35 Alexa? If the problem is the price it will cost and I HAD to go lighter, I would just buy a S35 Alexa Mini and use that for a while. Are you being pressured for 4K? I have not been yet. I think when they hear Arri and Alexa they must forget about 4K or something. Maybe it's because every movie is made with an Arri and if it's good enough for Hollywood it's good enough for them. I don't know. But I only get demanded 4K in low end corporate stuff. But then I pull out my FS700 with 7Q and they shut up. 4K they have and it has been enough. But doesn't happen very often.

To me if I was in your shoes I would stay Arri at any cost. Do you really think you will be happy with something else after shooting Alexa so long? I'm not sure I could. Not even the Venice has convinced me yet. I'm starting seeing some of that video look in Venice stuff. Mainly small demos. I'm sure Top Gun will look great. But Oblivion with the F65 also looked great. But it was about the only F65 movie which looked great. Most others had that video look somewhat. So jury on Venice is still out for me. Varicams are a no starter. Too much of a video look. Same with the Canons. Unless C500II is in another league completely. Blackmagic is not even a topic.

I sold my FS7 because of the video look. Not looking forward to getting back into the video look.

So I'm only selling my Alexa when I can justify buying an Alexa with higher rez. The only thing which could make me leave Arri is if Sony would make a 4K F35. But that will never happen. So I don't see myself out of the Arri train any soon.

It's not about the color science only. It's the whole image. If you are in the camp who thinks you can match any camera in post, then fine. I'm not. Or every video would look like it was shot on Arri. And the video look would have disappeared forever. But it's not like that.

Good luck with your decision. Hope you will find something to make you happy.

Could I stay put with my current cameras? Yes. But I'm basically at the point now where I need to book in a chiro session after every shoot - so anything I can do to improve that situation, I'm firmly in favour of.

Moving away from Arri is risky, there's no doubt about that. It's certainly still the standard here (for good reason), and nothing is quite as easy to get great looking images from (though I can't say I've "struggled" getting the images I want from other cameras, it just takes more finessing in the grade).

Ultimately, there's always going to be something newer and better round the corner, so that's not really something I worry about. But as someone who is already very well equipped with cameras, there's a lot that I have to justify before making a decision in any particular direction (the losses I'll incur selling what I have, and the costs of getting something new).

The C500ii is exciting to me because (on paper) it has just about everything I'm looking for in a camera, and the price is incredible. But (as we've all seen before) paper specs mean very little. I already learnt that lesson with the F5 - a camera with INCREDIBLE bang-for-buck (specs-wise), but one that ultimately attracted ZERO interest in the narrative and commercial worlds where I'm doing most of my work (though it's huge in the documentary/corporate/TV worlds).

So it isn't just a question of what the camera can do, it's a question of what the market wants (and is willing to pay for). On that basis, the Mini LF remains the top choice to my mind. But it'll come down (as usual) to testing out the options (Mini LF, Venice and C500ii) side-by-side. And seeing which (if any) seems most appropriate for my particular needs.

 

[Sttratos]

Could I stay put with my current cameras? Yes. But I'm basically at the point now where I need to book in a chiro session after every shoot - so anything I can do to improve that situation, I'm firmly in favour of.

Moving away from Arri is risky, there's no doubt about that. It's certainly still the standard here (for good reason), and nothing is quite as easy to get great looking images from (though I can't say I've "struggled" getting the images I want from other cameras, it just takes more finessing in the grade).

Ultimately, there's always going to be something newer and better round the corner, so that's not really something I worry about. But as someone who is already very well equipped with cameras, there's a lot that I have to justify before making a decision in any particular direction (the losses I'll incur selling what I have, and the costs of getting something new).

The C500ii is exciting to me because (on paper) it has just about everything I'm looking for in a camera, and the price is incredible. But (as we've all seen before) paper specs mean very little. I already learnt that lesson with the F5 - a camera with INCREDIBLE bang-for-buck (specs-wise), but one that ultimately attracted ZERO interest in the narrative and commercial worlds where I'm doing most of my work (though it's huge in the documentary/corporate/TV worlds).

So it isn't just a question of what the camera can do, it's a question of what the market wants (and is willing to pay for). On that basis, the Mini LF remains the top choice to my mind. But it'll come down (as usual) to testing out the options (Mini LF, Venice and C500ii) side-by-side. And seeing which (if any) seems most appropriate for my particular needs.

Ouch, if it's at that level for you neck, then it sounds like an emergency indeed.

It's interesting that your experience with the F5 is exactly mine with the FS7 and why I sold it.

The extra finessing in the grade not needed with the Arris is what I love and am a slave of now.

Sounds to me Alexa Mini LF or the new Mini 4K S35 is your ticket. It would be mine if I was in your shoes.

For me I'm keeping my Alexa till every job I have demands either 4K or FF or both!