FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
No, he isn’t.
JPNola
Veteran
Now James, I said the differences do no matter as much as the culture makes them out as mattering. You rather dishonestly spun that into my having said they do not matter, period. All the stuff about going outside and throwing a ball- childish of you, James. I clearly did not say or even suggest the differences should not be discussed. I spoke to the level of importance given to them ( and the obsession with them, hand-wringing over them, and WEIGHT given to them. )
You took offense to my post and did so by choice. You wildly spun it into what is was not and then knocked down the straw-man of your own fabrication. Which is the sort of thing done in idiotic political sparring. I’d prefer you respond to me like an adult and a professional.
Discuss color science and differences in cameras all you like. I’ll join you in that from time to time. I was only reminding that in the greater scheme of things the differences are not as significant as discussions here often suggest they are and the differences are not of as much importance as the culture here might suggest.
Thousands upon thousands of hours debating color science and such, people creating videos comparing color science, debating / arguing over skin-tone reproduction, hand-wringing over which camera model has better highlight rolloff or less noise or wider latitude, concern over whether a camera can shoot internal raw vs external raw, people outright rejecting a camera because it does not shoot internal raw or does not record 6k and on and on and on.
My point was that all of that often loses the way, so to speak. It is discussed and obsessed over more than elements of cinematography such as lighting, framing, depth of field, visual story-telling, etc. that have far greater impact on the product and, I argue, are more important to the art of cinematography than things such as bit-rate, codecs, and gamma profiles.
I’m suggesting to keep the engineering in perspective. And to also remember that the differences between the image produced by the various makes and models of cameras is not that significant, as evidenced by the fact that experienced, professional DP’s often cannot tell the images from different cameras apart. If the differences between the images produced by cameras were significant there would not be a website named “Shot on what?” that informs DP’s as to what make and model produced the images. It would be readily apparent and people would not have to go sleuthing to confirm their educated guesses, right?
Honestly, I thought twice about submitting that post because I knew it risked being interpreted as “all of you are silly and stupid for wasting time on this”. Which was not the intent. The intent was to note something considered politically incorrect in the DP / pro-video culture: that lenses and cameras don’t matter nearly as much as the culture makes both out to matter. The quality of images produced by a $40,000 Zeiss cinema lens is not 20x better than that of a $2000 EF lens and in the end lenses do not matter as much to the final product as other facets of cinematography such as lighting. Great lighting and a Roki beats weak lighting with Zeiss Supremes. Great lighting and visual storytelling with a GH2 beats weak lighting and weak storytelling with a 16K resolution, 70-stops of dynamic range, 1000mbps bit rate camera.
Others have brought this up here in a different manner when they spoke about the culture, the camera makers, and consumerism continually pushing us towards the next latest-greatest ( 8K is here! And super-raw! ), which leads to making it out to matter more than it does. Tom’s documentary is put on hold for 4 years until he can come up with the funds to shoot in 8k, rather than mere HD. Megyn puts off buying a camera until she can get a camera with that internal raw that she doesn’t actually need but thinks she needs as a result of the culture, online discussion like that which takes place here, causes her to think she needs. “What?? No internal raw? Well forget that camera, then. “.
- excuse the long-windedness of the post. I was hit by a car while on a job and have a lot of time on my hands while I recover. I learned a downside to wearing camera-black and learned it the hard way. Another month to go until I can attempt to walk again.
G
Guest
Guest
Wait what?! Hold on, i just have to divert here, that is awful! Sorry to hear that! I’ve been there. Sucks. I’m hoping for a full recovery!
In the meantime, yeah, keep posting, i’ll give you a hard time when i can, but i’ll also appreciate your contributions.
I think the only thing I find mildly irritating about this entire discussion is any suggestion that you can make a camera A vs camera B conclusion based on the various clips available on the nets. I hear lots of discussion of various aspects of skin tones and how they relate to other cameras C, and D, and how that because some camera 2, or 3 that they used looks just like Camera IV, and therefore camera B must be better than A. Especially when reviewer C hasn't touched any of the cameras except, the Camera 2 that they used to own, and remember well.
I obviously own camera B...or is it A?...can't remember, but I'd never make a statement that it's skin tones are better than the other camera, because I haven't used it, graded it or posted it. I only know that I'm pretty happy with it. Given my experience with it, I would strongly disagree with some of the comments that have been made about it concerning how well skin tones are rendered at various exposures and under various types of light. But of course I would, I've actually shot with it.
(...and anyone suggesting that Camera A, or is it B?...shite...is more capable of more "lively" saturated skin tones because of the AM
M clip, just might want to take a look at the "production design" first. Funny what a blue gel on the background of almost every shot will do for skin tones, on top of some very (previously mentioned) caked-on foundation.)
I obviously own camera B...or is it A?...can't remember, but I'd never make a statement that it's skin tones are better than the other camera, because I haven't used it, graded it or posted it. I only know that I'm pretty happy with it. Given my experience with it, I would strongly disagree with some of the comments that have been made about it concerning how well skin tones are rendered at various exposures and under various types of light. But of course I would, I've actually shot with it.
(...and anyone suggesting that Camera A, or is it B?...shite...is more capable of more "lively" saturated skin tones because of the AM
M clip, just might want to take a look at the "production design" first. Funny what a blue gel on the background of almost every shot will do for skin tones, on top of some very (previously mentioned) caked-on foundation.)
G
Guest
Guest
I think the only thing I find mildly irritating about this entire discussion is any suggestion that you can make a camera A vs camera B conclusion based on the various clips available on the nets. I hear lots of discussion of various aspects of skin tones and how they relate to other cameras C, and D, and how that because some camera 2, or 3 that they used looks just like Camera IV, and therefore camera B must be better than A. Especially when reviewer C hasn't touched any of the cameras except, the Camera 2 that they used to own, and remember well.
I obviously own camera B...or is it A?...can't remember, but I'd never make a statement that it's skin tones are better than the other camera, because I haven't used it, graded it or posted it. I only know that I'm pretty happy with it. Given my experience with it, I would strongly disagree with some of the comments that have been made about it concerning how well skin tones are rendered at various exposures and under various types of light. But of course I would, I've actually shot with it.
(...and anyone suggesting that Camera A, or is it B?...s*%te...is more capable of more "lively" saturated skin tones because of the AM
Can i at least ask you to qupte or name the people that have such extreme views on this forum?
I'm with Barry and JP on this one. Couple of years ago when people were whining about how bad Sony skin tones were in Custom I posted some untouched shots of the same people in custom and Slog and no one could tell the difference though they were absolutely certain they knew which was which and how bad the custom ones were. Maybe they are bad if you don't go through the trouble of coming up with your own look or your own matrix , but if you do you can make any of these cameras look good. When you didn't grade it yourself and its gone through compression to get it to the web and you're looking on a cheap computer monitor .....
I'm not saying you might not prefer the look of one over another or find it easier to get the look you want, but you can't tell much from looking at someone else's stuff on the web.
I'm not saying you might not prefer the look of one over another or find it easier to get the look you want, but you can't tell much from looking at someone else's stuff on the web.
Last edited:
have you come for an argument .. yes.. no you haven't ... he is right .. there is very little difference between these camera,s.. both can make a great image .. its just down to personal preference of needs for your particular shoots.. but yes its fun to crap on about why your choice is best .. but you could also go for a walk in the park.. kick the dog .. and clean your lenses ..
Good post JP. And wishing you a speedy & full recovery.
G
Guest
Guest
Why are you even imagining kicking a dog, you sick fukk.
I said I found certain opinions lacking in merit, and mildly irritating. Never said these opinions were extreme. As they have been stated by a number of people across this and other threads, I think rather than make it personal, which it isn’t, it’s best to speak about the opinions. Making things personal on forums, as you experienced in the comments above, never ends well.
G
Guest
Guest
Sure, but vague references to behaviors is not helpful either.
If someone was actually saying anything extreme, then let’s talk about it. There are at least two replies to my comments that presume extremity, yet i am positive about both cameras.
Is the C500 II the same sensor / color science as the C700 FF? If so, here's footage shot on the C700 FF:
Here's an example of the best I could get out of the C300 II (goal: ARRI quality for skintones):
Video example:
EOS R in mixed lighting:
1DX II, studio lighting:
All the examples (including the C700 FF) use custom picture styles to improve Canon's color (Filmic Skin)- the goal was to get as close to ARRI as possible, including in mixed lighting. ARRI is still way ahead- it's great to talk about and compare to their quality, as that's an excellent goal worth attaining.
An extraordinary amount of time and effort was spent to improve Canon's color in camera: color and skintones are more important than all other camera parameters IMO. After all that work, I'm not going to do it again on any future camera: the default color has to be excellent, especially skintones, else will wait for a camera that passes the color quality test. From what I've seen to far, the C500 II doesn't pass the test- looks just like C300 II or C700 FF. The C500 II is a nice camera, with true 4K finally and other useful features, however ARRI (anything), Red Monstro VV, and Sony Venice are the only cameras that interest me in terms of excellent default color and skin tones. If the EOS R II or A7S III/IV have 10-bit, I can definitely work with them (and not tie up a bunch of cash in a soon-to-be-obsolete camera system). Red Komodo is also compelling, and surprisingly I haven't seen anything not reasonably pleasing re: skintones from the latest ZCams!
If I had to use a C500 II or FX9, I'd have no problem getting decent color & skintones, however if given the choice, I rather shoot on cameras with better default color: less work, time is money, and there's also a fun factor which perhaps needs more discussion. If a camera's look motivates one to go out and shoot more (especially if not being paid!), that says a lot about the camera and looks it can create. The FX9 might not be as accurate as the C500 II, however it does appear to be a more fun camera to shoot with based on the looks of examples posted online so far. Ergonomics between cameras could change the actual fun factor. Right now shooting with the little EOS R + CMIT5U (and $30 preamp!) + digital IS, with or without a one-handed gimbal is so fun and liberating. Cameras will continue to get smaller / become more flexible, and that's what I prefer. At the top of the food chain, the ARRI Alexa Mini LF is far more popular then the full size version, so arguments that bigger is better is fine as personal preference, however the market is going toward smaller cameras.
It's a classic pattern- when one cannot counter comments that bother them (perceived to be inaccurate etc.), many folks turn to good 'ole ad hominem and go after the person or persons making the comments. Folks can do as they please, however using that pattern radically reduces one's professional credibility. Perhaps best to stick with countering points vs. going after the speaker(s) personally.
Here's an example of the best I could get out of the C300 II (goal: ARRI quality for skintones):
Video example:
EOS R in mixed lighting:
1DX II, studio lighting:
All the examples (including the C700 FF) use custom picture styles to improve Canon's color (Filmic Skin)- the goal was to get as close to ARRI as possible, including in mixed lighting. ARRI is still way ahead- it's great to talk about and compare to their quality, as that's an excellent goal worth attaining.
An extraordinary amount of time and effort was spent to improve Canon's color in camera: color and skintones are more important than all other camera parameters IMO. After all that work, I'm not going to do it again on any future camera: the default color has to be excellent, especially skintones, else will wait for a camera that passes the color quality test. From what I've seen to far, the C500 II doesn't pass the test- looks just like C300 II or C700 FF. The C500 II is a nice camera, with true 4K finally and other useful features, however ARRI (anything), Red Monstro VV, and Sony Venice are the only cameras that interest me in terms of excellent default color and skin tones. If the EOS R II or A7S III/IV have 10-bit, I can definitely work with them (and not tie up a bunch of cash in a soon-to-be-obsolete camera system). Red Komodo is also compelling, and surprisingly I haven't seen anything not reasonably pleasing re: skintones from the latest ZCams!
If I had to use a C500 II or FX9, I'd have no problem getting decent color & skintones, however if given the choice, I rather shoot on cameras with better default color: less work, time is money, and there's also a fun factor which perhaps needs more discussion. If a camera's look motivates one to go out and shoot more (especially if not being paid!), that says a lot about the camera and looks it can create. The FX9 might not be as accurate as the C500 II, however it does appear to be a more fun camera to shoot with based on the looks of examples posted online so far. Ergonomics between cameras could change the actual fun factor. Right now shooting with the little EOS R + CMIT5U (and $30 preamp!) + digital IS, with or without a one-handed gimbal is so fun and liberating. Cameras will continue to get smaller / become more flexible, and that's what I prefer. At the top of the food chain, the ARRI Alexa Mini LF is far more popular then the full size version, so arguments that bigger is better is fine as personal preference, however the market is going toward smaller cameras.
It's a classic pattern- when one cannot counter comments that bother them (perceived to be inaccurate etc.), many folks turn to good 'ole ad hominem and go after the person or persons making the comments. Folks can do as they please, however using that pattern radically reduces one's professional credibility. Perhaps best to stick with countering points vs. going after the speaker(s) personally.
Its a term ,not taken literally .. you need to get of the house a bit.. let your mom have a turn on the computer ..
theraptor56
Active member
That's where I'm at right now with the FX9. I wanted to fully familiarize myself with the camera before using it on any paid work so have been running around with it shooting a variety of things. I found myself thinking about doing more freebie shooting just because I was enjoying it so much. FX9 is the largest camera I've owned to date, so it's surprising to me I like shooting with it. I just want to see what image I capture next. Fun place to be.
cpreston
Veteran
My takeaway from your C700 test is that the C700 doesn't do particularly well at compensating for lighting sources with different spectrums. Most of the time I am not sure what I am looking at in people's skin tone tests, but I agree that the skin tones are bad in that C700 test. The right side looks like it was lit by an old green spiked LED, the left by an old HMI bulb, and the backlight might be a partially gelled tungsten. Still I have no idea how to compare those results to a different camera. Maybe an Arri would compensate for the lighting and even out the skin tones without color correction, but I have no reference for comparison.
Not a direct answer - which has been already answered - but related. It looks like any "modern" lens designed for either FE or EF mount will have a fully functioning AF. Older AF lenses may be slower under some scenarios but the newer stuff is almost perfect.
It's a little hard to glean much information from these tests as they are, as you said, lit with unknown sources that don't seem matched, and at least the ones I looked at aren't "side by sides", and they seem to be an attempt to hit an amorphous target (the Arri homage).
Regarding the C700 and compensating for different spectrums. Geoff Boyle, last year, posted a very specific comparison of different camera responses to a tungsten light and a tungsten LED (unnamed). These were made at the cameras 3200 preset, and as Geoff would always tell you, the only thing being looked at here is how they render the different lights at that preset (so...not overall picture quality, or what the camera is capable of etc). What it shows is, while Alexa and Venice look the best under tungsten, when you bring an LED into the situation, the canon cameras, in particular the C700FF, are probably the most consistent, along with Venice. (what I do know is that the canon tungsten preset has always been "off" (something that, by the way, they've corrected in the C500II), but it's remarkable how well the C700FF corrects for the additional green (in skin tone, green looks yellow) output by the LED compared to many of the cameras tested, especially RED. I guess this only matters if you're using LED instead of hot lights, but I'm sure nobody's doing that.
https://vimeo.com/363241953
It's interesting the Shane Hurlbut chose the original C500 for the Need for Speed night exteriors because of it's tendency to 'see" the yellow (green) of the sodium vapor around the Valley where the Alexa sort of ignored it. (the original C300 was similar in this aspect). From what I've seen under tungsten, sodium vapor, Metal Halide, and some very mixed and old fluorescents, the C500 Mark II definitely sees less of this yellow(green), mostly with the LUT's applied. The LUTs also seem to downplay yellow in skin tones under daylight, although grading without their LUTs generally restores that in a generally pleasing way.
I spent the day yesterday shooting interviews and B-roll under a white variety of lighting conditions and sources. I don't find grading the C500 mark II for pleasing skin tones difficult at all. With a properly white balanced capture, I generally arrive at a very nice look with nothing but contrast and saturation controls. The canon LUTS lean towards a red/pink skin with a compressed "Arri" highlight. Grade without these LUTs and the skin tones have a fuller range of highlights and a more "honey" colored bias (I'd say it's a bit more natural looking and is easier to adjust than the coloring from Canon's LUTS.)
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
You see a lot of these expensive cameras with different tones in that test, and if you saw most of them separately in a random video, most wouldn't think too much of each one. But watching them in succession (again), sometimes you don't know what to think anymore. My own opinion has changed over the years and currently I find myself leaning towards a bit more green (not too much) than magenta. And I'm sure that will change again.