FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

NorBro said:

[Not my video.]
Click to expand...

So far the FX9 footage is looking better in color, character, skintones, highlights, and overall look vs. the C500 II (ex. C300 II owner, currently shooting 1DX II (A), EOS R (B); dig Canon DSLR colors (including raw stills), lost interest in Canon Cinema color with C300 II; C500 II looks like C300 II color (though very nice improvement in real detail, slomo, raw support, smaller/lighter vs. C300 II)).

Calling shenanigans on Canon's claim of 15 stops DR. Let's see a side by side live model skin tone ramp for under/over exposure along with usable recovery in post vs. any (now ancient!) ARRI Alev.3 based camera (rated at 14 stops).

The surfing video has blown highlights in the sky, overexposed skintones, and lackluster color. Hard to say at this point if it's mostly grading, however most of the C500 II footage has this look, whereas the FX9 footage tends to pop more, and generally has been more appealing to the style I prefer: Eastman/Kodak EXR 100t 5248 film (many of your favorite films shot on this: https://shotonwhat.com/film-negative-stock/eastman-exr-100t-52487248 ). Super rich saturated colors that still look good. ARRI is very good at this kind of look too. Pushing saturation to the limit, especially skintones, and having it still look good (great!) is a challenge if the color science can't handle it. It's easy to dial back color for specific moods. Low sat looks are a great way to (try to) hide weak color science.

Note that the color options for Canon Log on the EOS R aren't very good for pushing saturation as noted above: I don't use CLog for that reason (use totally custom color via picture styles + HTP and get superior color with only a slight loss of color in the highlights (but not total DR!) vs. CLog). I prefer the color I get from the 1DX II and EOS R (with custom picture styles) vs. anything I got with the C300 II and Canon's Cinema Color (tried every option, including tweaking the color matrix): Canon's DSLR/mirrorless color science looks better for skintones in my experience. And Sony's latest color science, Venice/S.Cinetone/SLog3 is looking really impressive, especially considering where Sony was a few years ago!
 
The canon surf vid is IMO not graded properly, the FX9 vid the skin tones are not much. HOnestly it seems that unless one is handy with resolve these cams dont look much better than my FS100.
 
morgan_moore said:
The canon surf vid is IMO not graded properly, the FX9 vid the skin tones are not much. HOnestly it seems that unless one is handy with resolve these cams dont look much better than my FS100.
Click to expand...

Saw some guys using an FS100 last year, and then I got to light for a DP using one. Pretty good camera. Holds up.
 
I’ll say this though, the FS100 “holds up”. I thought digital video would have been further along in 2020.

When the Arri Alexa AlevIII, Red Dragon, and whatever high DxO scoring Nikon hit the scene, i thought, ok, digital has technically surpassed film, now we have a good baseline to actually start building on...... instead, nothing changed.

In some ways, we went backwards. Bigger sensors means bigger lenses, and throwing out all the things we were used to.

At the same time, there isn’t an awful camera, even the iPhone X on up are looking good these days. So, while i am sad the highend isn’t further along, i really can’t complain. Fx9, and C500ii and the FS100 are all good cameras.

But with all the companies reporting shrinking profits, and EOL products, and complaining about the cellphone, i’m kind of like:
49445874467_f1914b9230_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Examining the skin tones for FX9 + Tokina AM:PM video, we can see that makeup and lighting are affecting skintones. Watch both actor's skin tones change in the various shots. It's pretty clear some shots are missing quite a bit of blue, which make skin look a bit yellow, and one actor appears to have full foundation/base and we're not seeing actual skin but makeup- which is fairly colorless (pale/flat). See the color in the background of those shots- really pops and separates the subjects.

Does the FX9 get near the Venice or Alev.3 cameras? Not clear- we'd need to shoot all cameras in the same conditions (light, makeup, sets) and see what happens. That said, the FX9 examples so far have more character/mood/emotion vs. C500 II. Is that just the people behind the work, or is there something going on in the default color science that moves the creators into those looks? I have noticed image aspects of FX9 footage that tend toward 'video': perhaps the classic hue-luminance tricks can help there (or just pull highlights more in post), and the FX9 seems to be really clean: adding some subtle grain can help.

Otherwise, the FX9 just seems like a more fun tool to work with in terms of color & default looks. Canon L lenses tend to be more warm vs. Sony/Zeiss- a shame there's no way to get working AF with Canon lenses on Sony cameras for video. Thus when comparing the two cameras, probably helpful to shoot both with the same lens to see what the respective sensors and color science are doing.

Here's the C500 II looking better than the FX9 (more accurate / pleasing looks, though not shot side-by-side at the same time):

FX9 not quite there in color accuracy perhaps, however still looks pretty good with likely a bit more usable DR (also super clean- could use some grain):
 
Last edited:
Those two videos also show off that brownish Sony “mojo”. I’m actually surprised Panasonic didn’t run with that sort of colour tone, given their Varicam and HVX cameras had that warm mojo back in the day. Instead Panasonic went for accurate, but the larger audience didn’t seem to care or notice.
 
Last edited:
This all feels like artists discussing the differences between two brands of oil paint and giving it far, far more significance than it actually has. It’s fun. And interesting to us. I get that. It is fun video geeking with fellow video geeks. But so much of it is hair-splitting and in the big picture it doesn’t much matter. Other factors- lighting, camera placement and movement, depth of field, framing, visual storytelling, etc matter so much more than color science or dynamic range or bit rate or highlight rolloff, or other video engineering.

I venture that half the working DP’s, if not greater, could not consistently discern footage from an Alexa vs C500mkii vs Fx9. Honestly, much of the time someone characterizes images from a camera as overly magenta or having too much green-cast or being too cool in reproducing skin tone, I’m not seeing it. At least not initially. I have to work to even see it. Add to that the fact that none of us are viewing on the same type and make of display in the same conditions with the same eyes and brain.

Just about any film that won an Academy Award for cinematography could have been shot on any of numerous “budget” cameras using Rokinon lenses and the films still would have won those Best Cinematography Oscars. It is somewhat of blasphemy in the DP / Colorist culture to say that the cameras and lenses do not matter anywhere close to as much as the culture treats them as mattering. But it is the truth. The Revenant could have been shot on a Lumix GH2 and it would be just as good a film. Well, I’ll amend that to it would only have been minimally less good of a film.

DP’s have done this since there were first DP’s. Only where they used to give far more importance to film stock than merited they now give far more importance to camera electronics and software than is merited.
 
Lol.

Oh goodness.

We are camera nerds and we do care about these things. And there are differences between cameras. Why is this a bad thing?

Genuine question to JP.


I notice subtle differences and nuances between cameras and lenses. Out side of the camera industry, few people care. But it does matter within our work. It is strange that in the one place people should be talking about the differences, we get car metaphors and people saying it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter than go hang out on some football forum. No one wants to come to dvxuser to talk about how “oh wait, guys, the camera doesn’t matter after all, ha, we were way off! Let’s go throw a ball around and drink some beers and talk about cars”.

Yeah, what was i thinking seeing differences between cameras and appreciating the design choices of the teams that make them.

Can someone please quote Steve Yedlin out of context again?
 
Last edited:
The purpose of DVXUser.com I mean LetsArgueAboutCameraGear.com is to argue about camera gear. So JPNola's position is another argument: all good lol.
 
Sigma fp and Blackmagic Design Pocket 6K may be frowned upon in some quarters but, some limitations aside, they can produce beautiful imagery. FX-9 and C500 MKII have superior workflow and will be dominant performers in the "we can't afford the Alexa" category. 500 MKII may even encroach (sort of a football term) onto the Alexa territory due to its auto focus and low light performance. Sometimes, just OK is not OK but very good is good enough.

And that's not a Steve Yedlin quote either.
 
DLD said:
Sigma fp and Blackmagic Design Pocket 6K may be frowned upon in some quarters but, some limitations aside, they can produce beautiful imagery. FX-9 and C500 MKII have superior workflow and will be dominant performers in the "we can't afford the Alexa" category. 500 MKII may even encroach (sort of a football term) onto the Alexa territory due to its auto focus and low light performance. Sometimes, just OK is not OK but very good is good enough.

And that's not a Steve Yedlin quote either.
Click to expand...

There are many situations, even if all cameras cost the same, an Fx9 or C500ii might win out against a Red or Arri. When you look deeper, these new cameras have some clever tricks that some of the elite cine cameras can’t do.

I am disappointed you didn’t quote Yedlin.
 
James0b57 said:
Lol.

Oh goodness.

We are camera nerds and we do care about these things. And there are differences between cameras. Why is this a bad thing?

Genuine question to JP.


I notice subtle differences and nuances between cameras and lenses. Out side of the camera industry, few people care. But it does matter within our work. It is strange that in the one place people should be talking about the differences, we get car metaphors and people saying it doesn’t matter. If it doesn’t matter than go hang out on some football forum. No one wants to come to dvxuser to talk about how “oh wait, guys, the camera doesn’t matter after all, ha, we were way off! Let’s go throw a ball around and drink some beers and talk about cars”.

Yeah, what was i thinking seeing differences between cameras and appreciating the design choices of the teams that make them.

Can someone please quote Steve Yedlin out of context again?
Click to expand...

Well yes but the truth is JP is right .. all this hair splitting between the fx9 and the canon .. no one can tell .. sure passes the time of day .. but JP is 100% right
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top