FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

Liam Hall said:
I went to the Sony FX9 demonstration by Alister Chapman in London today. The FX9 is a solid upgrade from the FS7; the sensor is better, ergonomics are better, the handle and the LCD/VF are better, but in other ways it just underwhelms. The much-lauded S-cinetone was meh, the recording options haven't moved on from when the FS7 came out five years ago and don't even try using a non-Sony E-mount lens. Overall, I left one step closer to returning to Canon.
Click to expand...

I was concerned about the non-Sony E-mount lens compatibility because almost all my glass is Sigma EF mount I've been adapting with the MC-11 adapter. Initially, I was really excited about the FX9 implementing the same AF as the latest Sony A7 series cameras because my Sigma glass works amazingly well via the MC-11 on my A7iii.

Then I saw the reviews of everything but Sony glass not working so well. Bummer. I reached out to Sigma to express my concern. I don't want to have to swap an entire lens kit. Besides, I really like the way my Sigma Art glass looks. Sigma related to me that they have yet to get their hands on a FX9 camera, and until Sony has settled on their latest firmware Sigma is unable to develop firmware updates for their lenses to ensure compatibility.

I was mostly concerned that the FX9 was on their radar, but I've been led to believe it is, and as soon as Sigma gets their hands on a fully developed FX9 they'll have their engineers on the case.

All that said -- I don't see myself swapping my lens kit any time soon.
 
Liam Hall said:
I went to the Sony FX9 demonstration by Alister Chapman in London today. The FX9 is a solid upgrade from the FS7; the sensor is better, ergonomics are better, the handle and the LCD/VF are better, but in other ways it just underwhelms. The much-lauded S-cinetone was meh, the recording options haven't moved on from when the FS7 came out five years ago and don't even try using a non-Sony E-mount lens. Overall, I left one step closer to returning to Canon.
Click to expand...

S-Cinetone probably isn't something I'd be using much, unless it was a controlled, minimal dynamic range kind of shot. I believe it's a picture profile with Rec 709 color space.
 
Yes, S-cinetone is just a picture profile. It's designed for people who can't understand Slog. And like you, I'm heavily invested in EF glass, including Sigma Art primes. Alister Chapman actually said, "don't even think about using an adapter on this camera", which seemed like an odd comment considering one of the benefits of the E-mount is its versatility.
 
Liam Hall said:
Yes, S-cinetone is just a picture profile. It's designed for people who can't understand Slog. And like you, I'm heavily invested in EF glass, including Sigma Art primes. Alister Chapman actually said, "don't even think about using an adapter on this camera", which seemed like an odd comment considering one of the benefits of the E-mount is its versatility.
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of Sony cameras and a fan of Sigma glass.

While it makes sense that native Sony glass will always work better than adapted lenses since they're engineered to work together, I've been amazed by how well Sigma's lenses have worked via the MC-11 on the A7iii. Every functionality of Sony glass works on my Sigma EF via the MC-11 on the A7iii. Would AF work even faster with a Sony lens? I'm sure it would, ever so slightly, but the A7iii AF is so fast anyway I'm not sure I'd notice the difference. If FX9 is borrowing the same technology as Sony is saying -- the AF will be amazing and I expect Sigma will crack it too.

While I don't expect the AF to work on the FX9 immediately, I do expect Sigma to release firmware for their lineup to ensure compatibility with the latest and greatest. Sigma will want FX9 users buying their full frame lenses.
 
It will certainly be handy if they're able to get the Sigmas optimised to work well with it. One really nice aspect of the Sigmas is that you could have a set of Cine versions for normal work, and a set of stills versions for use with autofocus, and the glass will match perfectly.
 
Liam ,was the comment about "dont even think of using adaptors" referring to the AF.. rather than just a general statement ..
 
My understanding of S-Cinetone is that it is a 15 steps of DR in a pretty WYSIWYG picture profile. For people shooting non log footage that's quite an option. Not sure if that's true, but a lot of my clients don't want log and are better off without IMHO.
Personally I think people who claim they need log or even frankly 10 bit to color correct footage must be working with pretty badly shot footage to begin with. A good shooter should get you close enough so that everything is in correctable range. Log does offer more DR and potentially prettier flesh tones but if Cinetone can solve those 2 issues its a real plus.
 
LennyLevy said:
My understanding of S-Cinetone is that it is a 15 steps of DR in a pretty WYSIWYG picture profile. For people shooting non log footage that's quite an option. Not sure if that's true, but a lot of my clients don't want log and are better off without IMHO.
Personally I think people who claim they need log or even frankly 10 bit to color correct footage must be working with pretty badly shot footage to begin with. A good shooter should get you close enough so that everything is in correctable range. Log does offer more DR and potentially prettier flesh tones but if Cinetone can solve those 2 issues its a real plus.
Click to expand...

Can one have a pretty 15 stop profile? I would suggest not. 709 is about 8 stops so any 15 stop profile will look flat and terrible. It will look like log (in fact basically has to be log or a normal profile with a very hard knee as 2 stops will be displayed over the range of one if it is not)

THis profile must chop off DR or have a very hard knee or be very low contrast - it has to to compress 15 into 8.

That doesnt mean that compent shooters cannot get good results while using it or other baked looks. Exposure must be good and DR controlled with lighting/ND grads. Perfectly adequate for many many jobs.
 
Last edited:
Donny 123 said:
Liam ,was the comment about "dont even think of using adaptors" referring to the AF.. rather than just a general statement ..
Click to expand...

Alister was referring to the AF functionality of 3rd party E-Mount glass and adapters. Not the image results if that's what you are referring to. What he actually said was:

"But what I have found is that non Sony lenses have not worked well. I have been testing a range of lenses on various pre-production cameras. Maybe this situation will improve through firmware updates, I would hope so, but I honestly don’t know. The E-mount Sigma 18-35 and 20mm art lenses I tried were not at all satisfactory. The AF worked, but in what appears to be a contrast only mode. The autofocus was much slower and hunted compared to the fast, hunt free AF with the Sony lenses. You would not want to use this which is a great shame as these lenses are optically very nice."

http://www.xdcam-user.com/category/pxw-fx9/

Chris Young
 
I asked the Sony engineer during the demo and he said it has its own profile. Instead of going into STD and choosing a rec 709 profile, there’s now another curve that cinetone is under. So the menu would say something like

STD
HG
CINETONE
SLOG

I asked if it was like a hypergamma but they weren’t very direct about it. They did say that they’re messing with the shoulder and knee to create the “look.”
 
I might be wrong now (as sony has become less rare) but one consideration of FX9vC500 is the cost of lensing.

Assuming you are now sitting at all manual and looking for a couple of AF zooms 24-X and 70-200 being the norm - one will fare much better with canon.
I love the 70-200f4 which is £300 for the non IS version. A big saving over a sony 70-200 new. This could easily make a big hole in the price difference.
 
Donny 123 said:
Liam ,was the comment about "dont even think of using adaptors" referring to the AF.. rather than just a general statement ..
Click to expand...

With Alister, you always have to judge his comments in view of his pro-Sony bias, which often leads to misleading or indeed plain wrong statements, but it was said in the context of AF, but was said so dismissively I did wonder whether he meant something more general - in terms of adjusting iris for example.
 
LennyLevy said:
My understanding of S-Cinetone is that it is a 15 steps of DR in a pretty WYSIWYG picture profile. For people shooting non log footage that's quite an option. Not sure if that's true, but a lot of my clients don't want log and are better off without IMHO.
Personally I think people who claim they need log or even frankly 10 bit to color correct footage must be working with pretty badly shot footage to begin with. A good shooter should get you close enough so that everything is in correctable range. Log does offer more DR and potentially prettier flesh tones but if Cinetone can solve those 2 issues its a real plus.
Click to expand...

We were told by Alister it's around 10 stops, 709 is 6.

S-Cinetone is designed for clients like yours. It will still need a tweak to make it look good, but it's a much better straight out of camera look than the FS7. Oddly, I noticed that same magenta cast the FS7 suffered from. Of course, that was glowingly described as 'warm reds' - I sat there thinking, "no mate, it's a magenta cast."
 
morgan_moore said:
I might be wrong now (as sony has become less rare) but one consideration of FX9vC500 is the cost of lensing.
Click to expand...

I have 13 EF lenses, none of which will work with the AF on the FX9. I wouldn't call it a deal-breaker, but it certainly makes the C500 mkII more attractive.
 
Liam Hall said:
With Alister, you always have to judge his comments in view of his pro-Sony bias, which often leads to misleading or indeed plain wrong statements, but it was said in the context of AF, but was said so dismissively I did wonder whether he meant something more general - in terms of adjusting iris for example.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply sir.. I think this could be the reason Sony are putting out these new cine lenses.. maybe thats just the deal.. for this amazing AF function to really work at its absolute best.. well then you have to have Sony lenses.. either stills for the budget end or these cine ones for the higher end for the best of both worlds.. although they are not super expensive as cine lenses go.. for many long time Sony users that will be worth it.. I guess you get the camera and the 3 zoom lenses they are putting out for around $25K.. they might even sell them as a deal I suppose next year..
 
Donny 123 said:
I guess you get the camera and the 3 zoom lenses they are putting out for around $25K.. they might even sell them as a deal I suppose next year..
Click to expand...

I was hoping to see the new 16-35mm but they didn't have it at the demonstration. They were very keen on pushing the old 28-135 claiming, while it was underwhelming on the FS7, it will be fantastic on the FX9. I managed to resist the temptation to debunk that utter nonsense.

The AF was very impressive though. It will help a lot of shooters, not just news/eng folk.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
I was hoping to see the new 16-35mm but they didn't have it at the demonstration. They were very keen on pushing the old 28-135 claiming, while it was underwhelming on the FS7, it will be fantastic on the FX9. I managed to resist the temptation to debunk that utter nonsense.

The AF was very impressive though. It will help a lot of shooters, not news/eng folk.
Click to expand...

Yes I dont buy that 28-135 lens thing .. its the kit lens because they are trying to shift it .. as all kit lenses usually are ..
 
FX9 used for more ENG work and that 28-135 looks like a nice option. I'd just wish they could make something similar but faster and they probably will release their other cine zoom lenses with E-mount this coming spring. Shorter range but at T3.1.
 
Liam Hall said:
With Alister, you always have to judge his comments in view of his pro-Sony bias, which often leads to misleading or indeed plain wrong statements, but it was said in the context of AF, but was said so dismissively I did wonder whether he meant something more general - in terms of adjusting iris for example.
Click to expand...

Not going to name names or anything, but the gentleman I spoke to at Sigma noted that Alister is being paid by Sony.

I countered that Alister is merely reporting what is true right now. His real-world experience is that non-Sony lenses aren't fully compatible with FX9. But how would they be if these other companies (like Sigma) haven't even seen the FX9 in person yet, much less had an opportunity to reverse engineer the functionality? Sigma did an incredible job already making their lenses compatible with the latest A7 AF, so I'm confident they'll deliver similar outstanding performance with the FX9.

Metabones on the other hand -- I've never had a great AF experience with my EF lenses adapted by Metabones to my Sony cameras. If someone owns a bunch of Canon EF lenses I wouldn't count on their AF working well with the FX9 any time soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top