FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

Grug said:
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.
Click to expand...
So far I've found the rolling shutter on full frame to be perfectly acceptable, but if it was going to be problematic, wouldn't you just switch to S35 for that shot?
 
Clermond said:
Canon AF face tracking test. Not so bad at all.

https://vimeo.com/385056873
Click to expand...

Really good in studio. I would use it.

But it struggles in low light. Saw an electronic focus spinning back and forth for quite a while on one of the shots. But im not buying a camera for shooting auto-focus in such conditions.

The manual focus hunt in low light is actually quite nice i think. The electronic hunting was too fast and synthetic, doesnt have the same artistic feeling to it.
 
Martin.G said:
But it struggles in low light. Saw an electronic focus spinning back and forth for quite a while on one of the shots. But im not buying a camera for shooting auto-focus in such conditions.
Click to expand...

It's way better than I could do that manually as solo shooter in these conditions. I would buy it exactly for that if the price wasn't such a hurdle.
 
Martin.G said:
Really good in studio. I would use it.

But it struggles in low light. Saw an electronic focus spinning back and forth for quite a while on one of the shots. But im not buying a camera for shooting auto-focus in such conditions.

The manual focus hunt in low light is actually quite nice i think. The electronic hunting was too fast and synthetic, doesnt have the same artistic feeling to it.
Click to expand...

Would love to know what (and when) you mean by "electronic focus spinning back and forth for quite awhile" versus the "manual focus hunt" that you liked (all shots were electronic or "auto" focus). As the person who was out there, I'd say this camera, in that light, with that much movement, and shakey as hell camera work, did remarkably well, and when it lost focus for pretty obvious reasons (face became nothing but hair, or stepping out of the frame) the camera seemed to very quickly recover in a pretty tough situation. It seemed to not only be looking for a face, but to be looking for "her" face. FWIW, we were experimenting with various settings throughout that 5 minute shoot, mostly to see if it would hold focus as she crossed behind that pole, that's a specific situation, and making it work well, by slowing down the responsiveness, compromises other types of shots. As was originally posted, and not properly "reposted" by Clermond :-{}, this was not a shoot, or even a proper test, but a location scout, in extremely challenging lighting for AF, with camera work that was entirely of the moment, involving a shaky old codger completely unfamiliar with his new toy. I wanted to see when the system would break down, so we'd have some sense of its limits when we get out there for the real shoot. I'm pretty happy with how it performed. It's more reliable than any focus system I've used before, and it seemed to mostly be focused when and where I want it to.

I can tell you, that from what I've seen, the Canon currently doesn't lock into a face that is as small in the frame as the Sony does (although it will hold a tracked face further into the distance than it will initiate tracking). I have suspicions that it's better than the Sony at staying locked when the head turns or goes behind something, and that the algorithm canon uses for smoothing out the focus it a little prettier.
 
The Canon cameras also have the option of just letting you manual focus and tell you when the face is in focus. I actually find this to work better than a one shot auto focus or continuous focus. Another option is to have the camera do a manual focus assist in which activates auto focus only when the focus is very close to being sharp. This should stop hunting and allows you to do regular focus pulls without missing critical focus.
 
cpreston said:
The Canon cameras also have the option of just letting you manual focus and tell you when the face is in focus. I actually find this to work better than a one shot auto focus or continuous focus. Another option is to have the camera do a manual focus assist in which activates auto focus only when the focus is very close to being sharp. This should stop hunting and allows you to do regular focus pulls without missing critical focus.
Click to expand...

The FX9 has the same feature. It knows if you’re trying to focus on a face and will correct for you if you are short or go past a little bit.
 
Additional resource for those interested in learning more about the C500 mkII from an actual user:

Matt Porwoll's Deep Dive

//MARK: This is the second (and last) time I'm posting this link. No relation to Matt and there is no commercial interests here. I just sympathise with the effort it takes to create resources of this kind. I also remember Matt doing a pretty balanced review of the C300 mkII, back when.
 
Barry G said:
... As was originally posted, and not properly "reposted" by Clermond :-{}, this was not a shoot, or even a proper test, but a location scout, in extremely challenging lighting for AF, with camera work that was entirely of the moment, involving a shaky old codger completely unfamiliar with his new toy. I wanted to see when the system would break down, so we'd have some sense of its limits when we get out there for the real shoot. I'm pretty happy with how it performed. It's more reliable than any focus system I've used before, and it seemed to mostly be focused when and where I want it to.
Click to expand...

very sorry if I did this wrong.
I was very impressed about the AF results in these conditions.
 
Barry G said:
Would love to know what (and when) you mean by "electronic focus spinning back and forth for quite awhile" versus the "manual focus hunt" that you liked (all shots were electronic or "auto" focus). As the person who was out there, I'd say this camera, in that light, with that much movement, and shakey as hell camera work, did remarkably well, and when it lost focus for pretty obvious reasons (face became nothing but hair, or stepping out of the frame) the camera seemed to very quickly recover in a pretty tough situation. .
Click to expand...

Im not sure what has happened here, as i clearly remember a distinct electronic autofocus hunting back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, rapidly, at some point. But i cant find it now. Rewatching it looks good enough / decent / usable, the conditions applying as you say.

Could`ve been Vimeo stuttering for all i know.

Thanks for doing a test under such conditions, its nice to know before buying what the limits are.
 
AndreeOnline said:
Additional resource for those interested in learning more about the C500 mkII from an actual user:

Matt Porwoll's Deep Dive

//MARK: This is the second (and last) time I'm posting this link. No relation to Matt and there is no commercial interests here. I just sympathise with the effort it takes to create resources of this kind. I also remember Matt doing a pretty balanced review of the C300 mkII, back when.
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting this. Matt’s posts are always extremely informative, and he has to be one of the nicest guys in the biz.
 
Clermond said:
very sorry if I did this wrong.
I was very impressed about the AF results in these conditions.
Click to expand...

No worries. Old school forum etiquette. When you want to share a post, share the actual post with a link, not just the media. Least that’s what I was learnt. :-)

Martin.G said:
Im not sure what has happened here, as i clearly remember a distinct electronic autofocus hunting back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, rapidly, at some point. But i cant find it now. Rewatching it looks good enough / decent / usable, the conditions applying as you say.

Could`ve been Vimeo stuttering for all i know.

Thanks for doing a test under such conditions, its nice to know before buying what the limits are.
Click to expand...

Funny I got that stutter a couple of times right after I posted it. I think it was a Vimeo glitch. I have to say that’s one of the real improvements, especially in Face Only....it almost never hunts, or even looks past the current tracking plane. In the second underpass video I posted, there is a moment where it shifted to the background, and then quickly recovers. I’m pretty sure I’d switched over to face priority to see what it would do, but otherwise, it was rather gainfully attuned to holding on her as long as she didn’t leave the frame.
 
Barry G said:
No worries. Old school forum etiquette. When you want to share a post, share the actual post with a link, not just the media. Least that’s what I was learnt. :-).
Click to expand...

Hmm I'm not sure what you mean with "share the actual post with a link"?
I shared the embedded video plus the direct link below? Wrong? Apologies if so.
 
The FX9 also has an AF setting called "face only" that leaves the lens focused on the last place it saw a face. It's very handy for when people turn their head or go behind a pole and you don't want the focus to slam to infinity. Very smart.
 
Clermond said:
Hmm I'm not sure what you mean with "share the actual post with a link"?
I shared the embedded video plus the direct link below? Wrong? Apologies if so.
Click to expand...

Like what Andre did above with Matt's post. He's linking to the original material, including the text. It's not a big deal, but if there is context in the text that helps others understand the imagery, it's just a better way. Also, seeing as it was originally posted on this forum, by linking to it, it's not "double-posting", which is also "old school bad forum etiquette", which keeps the appropriate discussion, questions and answers in one place...but who knows what the kids do these days. :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top