FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
No one else appears to be using the same technique: no one else matches performance in exposure invariant color and color accuracy either. Patents likely protecting their designs (sensor, color science, etc.).
EDIT: some ARRI sensor patents from circa 2007; a few more years before they expire (circa 2028): https://patents.google.com/?q=ARNOLD+AND+RICHTER+KG+sensor&oq=ARNOLD+AND+RICHTER+KG+sensor
This looks like the key patent claim, from: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/98/69/eb/50ec67d99a56b5/US7952629B2.pdf :
Nice work Michael Cieslinski! (inventor). Patent expires 2029-10-09.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Yeah, the C700FF looks like the +5 could go either way. The noise on the shirt for the Venice and the C700FF starts at -1. So, very cool to see cameras favouring the highlights.
Watch the shirt on the under exposure. At 0 or base exposure, the shirt is already showing some noise, and at -1 the Venice is already dancing quite a bit. That surprised me. The C700 wasn’t much different. But that is a how i’d prefer it. I much more often want to hold onto highlights than anything else. Most cameras look good in the sweet spots.
The C700FF sensor has some real horse power, so, it will be interesting to see how it is implemented in the C500ii.
The Sony A7sii shows good dynamic range, but has a lot of what you have been talking about in this thread, the colours just mess up in the extremes.
Last edited:
It would be cool to see how the Red Ranger compares too, e.g. perhaps better shadows?
Impressive to see how far Sony and Red have come in improving exposure invariant color and of course highlight behavior.The C700 FF goes green low, and magenta high, just like the C300 II (+ loses color low and high). Perhaps Canon improved this with the C500 II?
When we don't have a model/friend available for tests, sometimes a quick self test is helpful (I prefer writing, directing, shooting vs. being on camera. Red eyes: not high (not that there's anything wrong with that lol), they were spraying chemicals to clean an air conditioning system at work during the day job):
This was shot back when AF wasn't welcomed in the pro market (4 years ago), and when folks thought the A7S II had terrible skintones (agree default settings weren't as good as they are now, and no where near e.g. S-Cinetone and SLog3 (latest)). When we look at the highlights in the skin, we can see the little A7S II doing a bit better than the C300 II. Always seemed like the A7S II was right up there with the C300 II in terms of DR, and SLog2 (+ SGamut3.cine + ~16 sat) being almost identical to CLog was (is) easy to grade with a simple curve. To my eye the A7S II did just fine compared to the C300 II in terms of color/skintones and the cameras matched fairly easily (though some colors outside skintones are fairly different and would require secondaries to more closely match).
Should be pretty easy to match the C500 II to the FX9: all these cameras are (slowly) converging toward the Alexa: better accuracy, exposure invariant color, highlights, and usable DR.
If the rumored EOS R5 is really the new A7S III/IV (think of Canon and Sony as part of one big family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu), that will certainly shake things up and is welcomed (have a lot of Canon glass, though would switch to Sony if the tides turn that direction). Keiretsu can also explain the matching jigsaw puzzle features of the C500 II and FX9.
Agree in the normal range of exposure, C500 II and FX9 are pretty close (I still see an FX9 edge; more of a look pref. than tech. advantage); to crown a winner in a vs. thread for IQ, could perhaps be determined in the highlights (+5, +6) and maybe also exposure invariant color performance.
Impressive to see how far Sony and Red have come in improving exposure invariant color and of course highlight behavior.The C700 FF goes green low, and magenta high, just like the C300 II (+ loses color low and high). Perhaps Canon improved this with the C500 II?
When we don't have a model/friend available for tests, sometimes a quick self test is helpful (I prefer writing, directing, shooting vs. being on camera. Red eyes: not high (not that there's anything wrong with that lol), they were spraying chemicals to clean an air conditioning system at work during the day job):
This was shot back when AF wasn't welcomed in the pro market (4 years ago), and when folks thought the A7S II had terrible skintones (agree default settings weren't as good as they are now, and no where near e.g. S-Cinetone and SLog3 (latest)). When we look at the highlights in the skin, we can see the little A7S II doing a bit better than the C300 II. Always seemed like the A7S II was right up there with the C300 II in terms of DR, and SLog2 (+ SGamut3.cine + ~16 sat) being almost identical to CLog was (is) easy to grade with a simple curve. To my eye the A7S II did just fine compared to the C300 II in terms of color/skintones and the cameras matched fairly easily (though some colors outside skintones are fairly different and would require secondaries to more closely match).
Should be pretty easy to match the C500 II to the FX9: all these cameras are (slowly) converging toward the Alexa: better accuracy, exposure invariant color, highlights, and usable DR.
If the rumored EOS R5 is really the new A7S III/IV (think of Canon and Sony as part of one big family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu), that will certainly shake things up and is welcomed (have a lot of Canon glass, though would switch to Sony if the tides turn that direction). Keiretsu can also explain the matching jigsaw puzzle features of the C500 II and FX9.
Agree in the normal range of exposure, C500 II and FX9 are pretty close (I still see an FX9 edge; more of a look pref. than tech. advantage); to crown a winner in a vs. thread for IQ, could perhaps be determined in the highlights (+5, +6) and maybe also exposure invariant color performance.
Teddy_Dem
Well-known member
There is a Full Frame Cine Camera Shootout on Reduser right now. Results will be revealed on Thursday, Feb 6th:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?180359-Full-Frame-Cinema-Shootout-2020
https://vimeo.com/388857434
4K 10 Bit Prores version can be downloaded from here:
https://vimeo.com/388805758
And to copy and paste the details:
"This comparison is between the following cameras (not in this order)...
Red Monstro
Red Gemini*
Red Helium**
Sony Venice
Sony FX9 S-Cinetone
Sony FX9 SLog-3
Arri Alexa Mini LF
Canon C500mII
Sigma FP
*Gemini used for studio and low light test only
**Helium used for studio only
All cameras were shot in their RAW codecs except the FX9 which was shot in XAVC-I 10bit. All cameras were lightly corrected using RAW controls in Resolve on a single timeline and split screened on a common calibrated Rec709 monitor for a neutral rendering. The AF capable cameras were shot with AF set to facial tracking.
The whole test was shot on Sigma 50mm T1.5 cine and 50mm 1.4 ART AF lenses except for the Canon C500mII which was shot with a 50mm 1.2 EF since there was no PL mount or EF Sigma available at the time of shooting.
Internal ND's or Firecrest NDs were used for exposure control. All exposures were set using a common waveform and native low/hi ISOs.
We intend this test to explore the subtle tonal and color differences between these cameras. Please watch and vote on your favorite in the poll, in a few days we'll reveal the actual cameras and see if your preferences line up with our expectations."
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?180359-Full-Frame-Cinema-Shootout-2020
https://vimeo.com/388857434
4K 10 Bit Prores version can be downloaded from here:
https://vimeo.com/388805758
And to copy and paste the details:
"This comparison is between the following cameras (not in this order)...
Red Monstro
Red Gemini*
Red Helium**
Sony Venice
Sony FX9 S-Cinetone
Sony FX9 SLog-3
Arri Alexa Mini LF
Canon C500mII
Sigma FP
*Gemini used for studio and low light test only
**Helium used for studio only
All cameras were shot in their RAW codecs except the FX9 which was shot in XAVC-I 10bit. All cameras were lightly corrected using RAW controls in Resolve on a single timeline and split screened on a common calibrated Rec709 monitor for a neutral rendering. The AF capable cameras were shot with AF set to facial tracking.
The whole test was shot on Sigma 50mm T1.5 cine and 50mm 1.4 ART AF lenses except for the Canon C500mII which was shot with a 50mm 1.2 EF since there was no PL mount or EF Sigma available at the time of shooting.
Internal ND's or Firecrest NDs were used for exposure control. All exposures were set using a common waveform and native low/hi ISOs.
We intend this test to explore the subtle tonal and color differences between these cameras. Please watch and vote on your favorite in the poll, in a few days we'll reveal the actual cameras and see if your preferences line up with our expectations."
G
Guest
Guest
Very cool! Thanks Teddy!
Teddy_Dem
Well-known member
While the order is not the same as the list provided. I believe the order remains the same through the range of tests.
I wish they had been able to include the Lumix S1H in this test. It would have been great to see it up against these other cameras.
G
Guest
Guest
Just look for the Sigma fp and the Alexa and see if they are the same number in each test.
Liam Hall
Veteran
so which one is sony and which one canon
The magenta one is Sony:grin:
JPNola
Veteran
I am aware that the question is in the context of image produced by the camera. That said, for myself, the image produced by the camera is less a factor in my camera-buying decision than ergonomics and demand for the camera model. Camera X may have better color science than Camera Y, but the better ergonomics of Camera Y will result in my being a better shooter than with Camera X. I'll end up with better shots. More creative shots, more shots in focus, possibly more content than with Camera X. The more I enjoy using a camera the better the footage going to Post.
mediocre footage with fantastic color science < fantastic footage with mediocre color science
camera model with fantastic color science and low client demand < camera model with mediocre color science and high client demand
None of the color science matters if you don't get the job. If the ergonomics of a camera makes you miss a shot, the color-science of the shot never acquired doesn't matter. Know what I mean?
Ha! Without the job you can't afford any of these wonderful toys.
And for ergonomics, I do find it interesting when people dismiss a hybrid camera like the Panasonic S1H without ever using one, because it doesn't have the traditional cine form factor. For run'n'gun work, I find hybrid cameras very quick to set up and start shooting with, especially if it has IBIS that makes handheld work possible. I wouldn't want to use it with a crew, but for small projects it can be a lot of fun. ( I'm very interested to see what the Fujifilm X-T4 brings to the table when it comes out )
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Nice test! Really, all this tells me is that just about every camera there can look fantastic if the image is properly exposed. And if you're going to wildly overexpose or underexpose your footage, you should buy camera 1.