FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

Welcome back Barry!

My first rodeo was debunking the full frame myth using math/equivalence and examples I shot to prove the point. Quite controversial and epic arguments.

Similar debates when I showed what’s necessary to capture real resolution without aliasing with a camera sensor and 1.5x oversampling. More epic arguments even after I shared that I spoke directly with ARRI and they were well aware of this fact. Fast forward to 2020 and oversampling is provided by Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji etc. Funny thing is the ARRI LF sensor isn’t using 1.5x: the key is the OLPF and we’ve got sufficient detail for the intended market.

I’ve been talking about doing exposure ramps and exposure invariant color for a while now. This is an important aspect of color science. ARRI wins here, everyone else is still playing catch up (or is it ketchup for this thread lol).

I’ve done enough research to confidently say the FX9 wins for IQ. C500 II has a touch screen, internal raw, FX9 doesn’t, etc. The Camera Cabal giveth and taketh haha.

I see folks are still arguing about color perception- right on! This is LetsArgueAboutCameraGear.com lol.

If I can be involved in the side by side test, I will be fair and help search for the truth, as always.
 
jcs said:
Seriously, if you disagree, present your case: provide evidence, facts, and logic (proof) to show how you arrived at your point of view (conclusion). Ad hominem really gets boring- it’s lazy and not very creative (crap did I just diss Ad Hominem lol).
Click to expand...

It's not an ad hominem attack, we discussed the flaws in that CVP test weeks ago. Stop trolling - now that is really boring.
 
jcs said:
Welcome back Barry!

....I’ve done enough research to confidently say the FX9 wins for IQ.
Click to expand...

I think I can confidently say you haven't.

Luckily for all of us, Geoff Boyle is currently digging in to his 2020 camera evaluation in the NetherLands. I think both cameras are involved. As always they will be limited tests, covering certain metrics and not others. This year they are bringing a large list of lighting instruments into the mix which will make the tests extremely valuable, if harder than ever to decipher, and even more contentious among real cinematographers and experts (myself certainly excluded).
 
Liam Hall said:
It's not an ad hominem attack, we discussed the flaws in that CVP test weeks ago. Stop trolling - now that is really boring.
Click to expand...

Construct a logical argument with evidence to support your point of view- calling someone a troll is more ad hominem.
I could tell the FX9 has more usable DR from many examples, the CVP test made clear what I already know from experience with Canon sensors blowing color early making a 15 stop claim nonsense. If ARRI is 14 stops there’s no way the C500 II is 15 stops (nor is the FX9). The FX9 behaved as expected when pushed, and fell apart more gracefully vs. the C500 II, which ghosted.

After proving that humans do perceive color similarly, some folks still argued that we can’t agree on color perception. Think for a minute with a critical mind- if that were true our reality would be radically different (and traffic lights wouldn’t be very useful).

It’s clear some are here to argue about anything/everything and provide no evidence or logic to support their position (instead going after the source).

Why exactly is the CVP test not useful in showing the FX9 has at least 2 stops more useable DR (useable color) vs. the C500 II? Just looking at C500 II footage and FX9 footage one can see what’s happening to color as it approaches white- I’ve pointed out examples in this thread. The CVP test showed the same results.
 
Barry G said:
I think I can confidently say you haven't.

Luckily for all of us, Geoff Boyle is currently digging in to his 2020 camera evaluation in the NetherLands. I think both cameras are involved. As always they will be limited tests, covering certain metrics and not others. This year they are bringing a large list of lighting instruments into the mix which will make the tests extremely valuable, if harder than ever to decipher, and even more contentious among real cinematographers and experts (myself certainly excluded).
Click to expand...

This is another common argument pattern, only the ‘experts’ know, and of course ‘I’m no expert, I’ll defer to the experts: the experts will save us!’

You’re implying I’m not an expert as a disqualification tactic, and guess what that is since you’re not debating the evidence- ad hominem again.

Let’s professionally and politely debate the evidence. It’s irrelevant that I have a degree in Cognitive Science (perception) and have worked in imaging, AI, visual effects, produced multiple products specifically designed to improve skintones, written patents on imaging etc. This is not a cinematography debate on creative choices and style- that’s a complete different discussion. Anyone can think for themselves and construct logical proofs, regardless of background- which can then be debated by others using logic and evidence to form counter proofs.
 
jcs said:
Why exactly is the CVP test not useful in showing the FX9 has at least 2 stops more useable DR (useable color) vs. the C500 II?
Click to expand...

Isn't the CVP test only comparing the best FX9 codec to the C500's XFAVC? I believe he says in the very same review that the C500's Cinema Raw Light codec performs much better with regards to over/under color retention. So if you're only looking for capabilities with regards to dynamic range, I'm afraid that test doesn't tell us much. For that you would have to put Cinema Raw Light against the FX9.

As to what we do see in the test, it looks to me like Canon is purposefully de-saturating the extreme highlights and extreme dark areas when they encode XFAVC. I would guess that they are trying to emulate a filmic look here by de-saturating the highlights near white clipping on one end, and by getting rid of chroma noise as you approach black. In fact, I would suggest that this is a smart move which gives a pleasing image when exposed properly. If you really intend to shoot in an environment that has you 5 stops underexposed, then crank the ISO up (rather than boosting the exposure in post) and your 'problem' with Canon's color retention is solved.
 
Colin- you have a point with raw, however we’re comparing apples to apples. For raw, we’d need to compare raw vs. raw. That said, let’s see FX9 XAVC vs C500 II raw. I predict FX9 still does well since it has a better sensor (more HW DR).

I know from years of Canon DSLR and C300 II experience, as well as Sony mirrorless and Pro cam experience how the respective sensor tech behaves. ARRI has the best highlight color recovery- that’s the bar for the best right now.

Canon looks lovely if you don’t expose too hot, else say goodbye to skintones in post. More forgiving cameras are better tools- ARRI, Red, Venice provide more room to make mistakes and recover, and generally look better when exposed perfectly vs. lower end gear.

I currently own no Sony gear and only Canon gear- no ownership bias; focusing on evidence and logic.
 
jcs said:
You’re implying I’m not an expert as a disqualification tactic, and guess what that is since you’re not debating the evidence- ad hominem again.
Click to expand...

No. That statement was not questioning your level of expert-ness.

That statement questioned whether watching one, questionable side by side comparison, and the minuscule volume of youtube videos from these two cameras allows you conclude that one's IQ (one of my favorite scientific terms, by the way) is better than another's, and, beyond that, make a statement like: "Now that it’s clear the FX9 is the winner in IQ" which would make it appear that there is a consensus, or agreement on it as a fact. My statement simply refuted your claim that you've done your research. You haven't. There I said it again. You may need to consult your dictionary for the latest definition of your favorite latin phrase. Perhaps its changed since you read it last.

As for the experts I mentioned, who have been comparing cameras since the dawn of digital cinema, and provided that information to a cinematography community that consists of ASC, BSC members, and a host of camera industry writers and schmucks like me. Well, hell yeah... I trust them more than you. Perish the thought I'd trust a couple of incorrigible old guys with access to every camera and every light and a developed methodology for testing them, and then post that information without so much as a "camera A is better" statement.... versus whatever method you use to come to your conclusions.
 
Last edited:
jcs said:
Colin- you have a point with raw, however we’re comparing apples to apples. For raw, we’d need to compare raw vs. raw. That said, let’s see FX9 XAVC vs C500 II raw. I predict FX9 still does well since it has a better sensor (more HW DR).

I know from years of Canon DSLR and C300 II experience, as well as Sony mirrorless and Pro cam experience how the respective sensor tech behaves. ARRI has the best highlight color recovery- that’s the bar for the best right now.

Canon looks lovely if you don’t expose too hot, else say goodbye to skintones in post. More forgiving cameras are better tools- ARRI, Red, Venice provide more room to make mistakes and recover, and generally look better when exposed perfectly vs. lower end gear.
Click to expand...


As you say, we will see. Personally, if you're really trying to test the extremes of sensor capabilities, I would argue that 'apples to apples' dictates an evaluation of best available internal codec vs. best available internal codec. After all, when we are testing a Red camera, we don't compare using the ProRes LT.

And as for Canon looking lovely 'if you don't expose too hot', I would argue that if you're over (or under) exposing an image by more than 4 stops, you've got bigger issues than your camera sensor technology (like the operator). Nonetheless, I agree that forgiving tools are ideal.
 
Tom Roper said:
Should do away with camera versus camera topics. They always end up in the same place and nobody's mind is changed. To collaborate constructively it is not necessary to crown a king, just shoot great film.
Click to expand...

If you like film and narrative, then you know, the best drama and story telling happens in the vs threads.
 
jcs said:
Construct a logical argument with evidence to support your point of view- calling someone a troll is more ad hominem.
I could tell the FX9 has more usable DR from many examples, the CVP test made clear what I already know from experience with Canon sensors blowing color early making a 15 stop claim nonsense. If ARRI is 14 stops there’s no way the C500 II is 15 stops (nor is the FX9). The FX9 behaved as expected when pushed, and fell apart more gracefully vs. the C500 II, which ghosted.

After proving that humans do perceive color similarly, some folks still argued that we can’t agree on color perception. Think for a minute with a critical mind- if that were true our reality would be radically different (and traffic lights wouldn’t be very useful).

It’s clear some are here to argue about anything/everything and provide no evidence or logic to support their position (instead going after the source).

Why exactly is the CVP test not useful in showing the FX9 has at least 2 stops more useable DR (useable color) vs. the C500 II? Just looking at C500 II footage and FX9 footage one can see what’s happening to color as it approaches white- I’ve pointed out examples in this thread. The CVP test showed the same results.
Click to expand...


Calling a troll a troll is not ad hominem. Did you miss the bits where I said we have discussed this already? Do you understand the difference between latitude and dynamic range? Do you know the exact methodology used by CVP? Have you shot RAW on the FX9? Have you compared FF to S35 on both cameras or used either in a real world setting?Do you even work with cameras?

Oh, and by the way. I own both a Sony FS7 and a Canon C500 mkII and will probably buy an FX9 too. So, let's be clear I have no bias here. Both FX9 and C500mkII are excellent tools.
 
Last edited:
Colin Nusbaum said:
Isn't the CVP test only comparing the best FX9 codec to the C500's XFAVC? I believe he says in the very same review that the C500's Cinema Raw Light codec performs much better with regards to over/under color retention. So if you're only looking for capabilities with regards to dynamic range, I'm afraid that test doesn't tell us much. For that you would have to put Cinema Raw Light against the FX9.

As to what we do see in the test, it looks to me like Canon is purposefully de-saturating the extreme highlights and extreme dark areas when they encode XFAVC. I would guess that they are trying to emulate a filmic look here by de-saturating the highlights near white clipping on one end, and by getting rid of chroma noise as you approach black. In fact, I would suggest that this is a smart move which gives a pleasing image when exposed properly. If you really intend to shoot in an environment that has you 5 stops underexposed, then crank the ISO up (rather than boosting the exposure in post) and your 'problem' with Canon's color retention is solved.
Click to expand...

Colin, thanks for circling back to an argument that was made here quite awhile ago. These types of tests shouldn't be done on compressed material, certainly compressed material with a LUT applied, unless that's the only thing available from the camera. I believe what you describe is happening because of the application of the canon LUT, which does greatly desaturate highlight skin tones, and surpresses highlight yellows (kinda like Arri does), and when displayed as rec709, looks better because of it. When you grade the Canon XF-AVC without that LUT, you find there can be too much color information in the highlights and shadows, and that it needs to be contained to fit in Rec.709. (this really flys in the face of what some folk think that test shows regarding the canon).

The more I look at my C500II footage without the LUT the more it looks like the FX9 in the skin tones (more yellow, deeper highlight tonality). So is this a case where Sony's LUT approach is better, or just better when you push the crap out of it? Personally, I didn't think much of the skin tones from the Sony in that test, and I can say that while I like the look of the canon image without the LUT on my iMac Pro, the LUT-ed image looks better (I'd say perfect) on the LG OLED I watch from the couch at night. Perhaps Canon has it right.

As I stated way back when, the CVP test is analyzing a "look" applied on top of compressed material, not the camera's actual output. And that's a big problem.


....(and given the timing, that "look" (LUT) may have actually been the older c300II LUT, not the one released with the new camera).
 
Liam Hall said:
Their test is so seriously flawed any self-respecting professional should ignore it.
Click to expand...

Do they ever officially call it a test? At a glance, it seems they do a tidy job of using terms like “review” and “controlled comparison”.

The videos are obviously more about promoting CVP and introducing the cameras than anything else. Just wondering if we should further any misconception about them being more than that.
 
Its a review of the Fx9, from a retailers point of view. It's designed to sell that camera. Period. It's not a comparison, really. I've expected them to do a similar review of the C500 mk II that's equally glowing, and I'm surprised that's not happened. ProAV's videos I think are more informative and don't try to pretend they aren't enthusiastic about selling both cameras.
 
Let’s debate images vs. perceived qualifications, which is totally irrelevant in a technical debate: evidence and logic matter, nothing else. I’ve posted many examples here to show how I reached my conclusions. Let’s see more FX9 vs. C500 II exposure ramps on skintones and discuss the results. Seeing how far each camera can push saturation on skintones is another useful test.

If one believes Canon’s sensors have more DR than Sony- show us the evidence to support your assertion. All the examples I’ve posted or discussed show Sony has the DR advantage.

If one disagrees and doesn’t have any evidence or logic to support another view, going after the source isn’t helpful in finding truth.
 
Liam Hall said:
Calling a troll a troll is not ad hominem. Did you miss the bits where I said we have discussed this already? Do you understand the difference between latitude and dynamic range? Do you know the exact methodology used by CVP? Have you shot RAW on the FX9? Have you compared FF to S35 on both cameras or used either in a real world setting?Do you even work with cameras?

Oh, and by the way. I own both a Sony FS7 and a Canon C500 mkII and will probably buy an FX9 too. So, let's be clear I have no bias here. Both FX9 and C500mkII are excellent tools.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh Liam! Now let’s see counter evidence and logic to support your view that the C500 II has more DR and usable color recovery in the highlights vs the FX9. Focus on those two simple capabilities.
 
jcs said:
Let’s debate images vs. perceived qualifications, which is totally irrelevant in a technical debate: evidence and logic matter, nothing else. I’ve posted many examples here to show how I reached my conclusions. Let’s see more FX9 vs. C500 II exposure ramps on skintones and discuss the results. Seeing how far each camera can push saturation on skintones is another useful test.

If one believes Canon’s sensors have more DR than Sony- show us the evidence to support your assertion. All the examples I’ve posted or discussed show Sony has the DR advantage.

If one disagrees and doesn’t have any evidence or logic to support another view, going after the source isn’t helpful in finding truth.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by, 'perceived qualifications'? Also, I don't agree that 'evidence and logic' is all that matters. We are talking images here, a lot of how humans react to images is subjective or emotional. You can't always put numbers on it.

The fact is, both of these cameras are capable of producing great images. They are slightly different in spec and design - one camera may suit your circumstances better than the other. A better debate to have would be which camera is better for you and why - which is why I started this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top