Could also be focus. A little uncontrolled test it seems? But still noticable.
The one thing really standing out is how crappy the sony color is. Magenta hooo :grin:
FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
Could also be focus. A little uncontrolled test it seems? But still noticable.
The one thing really standing out is how crappy the sony color is. Magenta hooo :grin:
Grug
Veteran
It's in the "Canon EOS C500 Mark II" FB group, I can't find a way to share the post, but it was a comment by "Rasmus" in a "hello" thread that Brett Danton started.
If you FB search "C500ii Rolling Shutter" the thread should pop up.
theraptor56
Active member
Wow. The FS5 continues to kick tail.
The color balance looks bad on both of them, and the Canon footage appears to be mostly out of focus. ( given the size difference in the sensors, the Canon footage should have been stopped down one more stop to have the same DOF )
cpreston
Veteran
Actually, the size of the 120p on the Canon is in a 1080p S16 crop. And it doesn't include DPAF which might be part of the reason the test is out of focus. Even so, the 120 fps is always going to look like trash on a Canon until they start doing some type of oversampling.
Thank you!
I'm a Canon guy, but so far the footage that has been posted of the C500 II has been completely uninspiring, while I continue to see beautiful stuff being posted of the FX9. Not sure why that is, but everyone that gets a C500 II seems to want to post unboxing videos of themselves and then shots of their crappy coffee maker or closeups of a box of cereal, whereas the FX9 owners have been regularly posting gorgeous stuff like this:
https://vimeo.com/383382022
and
https://vimeo.com/384441991
and
https://vimeo.com/382285262
and
https://vimeo.com/382407533
I think that first link shows some of the most "cinematic" FX9 footage shot so far. I keep looking for inspiring C500 II footage that was shot by a competent person. But every clip I find is some crappy home movie under horrible, mixed lighting. People have had that camera in their hands for a few weeks now, so it's strange to me that there isn't much decent footage out there showcasing it. Frankly, almost everything I've seen so far could have been shot with an iPhone.
https://vimeo.com/383382022
and
https://vimeo.com/384441991
and
https://vimeo.com/382285262
and
https://vimeo.com/382407533
I think that first link shows some of the most "cinematic" FX9 footage shot so far. I keep looking for inspiring C500 II footage that was shot by a competent person. But every clip I find is some crappy home movie under horrible, mixed lighting. People have had that camera in their hands for a few weeks now, so it's strange to me that there isn't much decent footage out there showcasing it. Frankly, almost everything I've seen so far could have been shot with an iPhone.
The IQ is horrible compared to many other cine cameras and mirrorless hybrid cameras. Can this be fixed via a future firmware update ?
cpreston
Veteran
I don't have the C500, but I doubt there is much that can be done. It is just a straight sensor read of the 1080p crop and it is going to look soft compared to any of the other formats coming from the camera. Canon's don't do high frame rates.
yes that's very interesting. Maybe they got serious jobs with it... or waiting for the one day in year they need shoot raw footage.
and thx for posting my vid.
Last edited:
I went outside with both cameras and shot a quick test by myself. Not super scientific and the Canon is a bit out of focus. My hand is more in focus than the gun, but it's still softer than the FS5, and on the footage there is noticeable color noise. Again the FS5 displays aliasing, you can see it on the top of the gun, the Canon has no aliasing but is noisy.
The weather has been **** here the past couple days so I haven't had time to do much testing or shoot anything exciting.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Who cares about weather? I shot some slow-motion test footage in my kitchen one afternoon a few years ago with my FS5 and those videos have earned enough money from stock to cover a little more than half the cost of the camera.
Grug
Veteran
Handled properly, the FX9 really does look superb. It's putting out the best damned 300Mbps footage I think I've ever seen. Given how good it looks on my 32" 4k Monitor 2.5' from my face, the quality looks acceptable for basically anything you'd care to shoot - which was not something I was expecting having seen a great deal of XAVC300 from FS7s and F5s. The downsampling really does make all the difference with a bayer-pattern sensor.
"Handled properly" is of course the key though. Here's some new footage from the C500ii that's been handled properly, and it looks gorgeous too:
Yeah, I saw that one recently. It's very nice. Looks good. But for some reason it doesn't really inspire me, or get me excited, like some of the stuff I'm seeing coming out of the FX9. But perhaps there are simply more FX9 cameras out in the world at this time, and we may have to wait a little longer to see some truly breathtaking footage from the C500 II pop up. Right now though, I'm absolutely loving everything I've seen shot with that Cinetone/Venice profile. Man, they really nailed it. I wish Canon had a non-Log based profile as good as that Cinetone one.
JPNola
Veteran
Is the FX9 winning this contest so far?
In regard to the FX9 I am seeing rave reviews.
The recently posted feedback on the C500mkii, from an owner, was more “meh, no better than C300 mkii unless you shoot in raw”. Even a self-professed “Canon guy” is wowing over the FX9. Unless I misinterpreted, the Aussie color-science guru said the FX9 has the best color science he has seen from any camera ever.
In regard to the FX9 I am seeing rave reviews.
The recently posted feedback on the C500mkii, from an owner, was more “meh, no better than C300 mkii unless you shoot in raw”. Even a self-professed “Canon guy” is wowing over the FX9. Unless I misinterpreted, the Aussie color-science guru said the FX9 has the best color science he has seen from any camera ever.
My opinion on this is that I think part of it might be is that Canon color, while good, is old. Everyone is used to seeing it, whilst the venice look is new and different, and far better than the old sony color.
I knew I could get good color out of both cameras, to me the ease of use of the Canon is what won me over. I had a C100 for several years and loved it, but the C300 II was underwhelming and too expensive at the time, so I bought a FS5. While it got the job done for me, I really hate shooting on it, it's not fun. In my personal opinion, the Cinema EOS line is just easier to use and that just makes shooting more enjoyable for me.
I still love the canon look. One of my favorite shot films was shot on 5D iii and C500.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQmmaiWHYHQ
The trailer is a little dramatic. The film is rather feelgood. Having such great compositions and beautiful locations surely help. But the way i see it, Canon doesnt come in between the filmmaker and his vision. Sony a7s ii and FS7 etc. can do that if you dont keep it under control.
Venice LUT has made my life easier with FS7 for sure. FX9 could be a good purchase. But then again, C500 II autofocus tracking looks like a gamechanger for making "talking heads" alot better with talent movement and camera movement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQmmaiWHYHQ
The trailer is a little dramatic. The film is rather feelgood. Having such great compositions and beautiful locations surely help. But the way i see it, Canon doesnt come in between the filmmaker and his vision. Sony a7s ii and FS7 etc. can do that if you dont keep it under control.
Venice LUT has made my life easier with FS7 for sure. FX9 could be a good purchase. But then again, C500 II autofocus tracking looks like a gamechanger for making "talking heads" alot better with talent movement and camera movement.
I'm a Canon guy (c100, c200), and I can admit the FX9 footage, so far, looks better or more "cinematic" with less effort. Even the autofocus seems to be on par, if not better, than the C500ii. What still has me on the fence is the lack of touch screen on the FX9. I'm tempted to wait until the 1DX3 comes out to see which camera can be most efficient, with least amount of effort.
I loved the C200, but raw was such a pain to process prior to editing in premiere.
I loved the C200, but raw was such a pain to process prior to editing in premiere.
Grug
Veteran
I'm certainly hearing a lot more chatter about the FX9 than the C500ii, but to be fair, the Sony is a lot cheaper, and plays in a different class of camera to the 6k 2.1Gbps Canon, so it was always going to appeal to a broader segment of the market.
The rolling shutter performance on the Sony isn't unusable, but it's very underwhelming. And for a lot of people, that's going to be problematic.
The FX9 colour test was a measure of spectral range and accuracy. Now if Sony's wildly varying colour science over the years has taught us anything, it's that accurate colour, does NOT necessarily mean good colour.
That said, colours straight out of the FX9 look lovely.
There's been so little properly shot stuff on the C500ii released that I don't think it's really possible to judge it based on samples yet.