FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

Assuming we're doing this for money, I think image quality keeps sliding further down the list of prioritized reasons to purchase/not purchase a camera, at least in this price bracket. I'm appreciative of the back and forth observations/arguments, but I find them more beneficial in understanding the super-technical parts of a video image (I have a long way to go) rather than as a tool to decide on which camera to purchase.

Because it's highly responsible to look at the whole picture (is this a pun?), I've taken a step back and created a simple buying guide that anyone can use when deciding between the fx9/c500 ii, which covers every major scenario:

- work directly with clients who let you choose equipment - use the camera you like most.
- huge amount of work comes from owning the more popular camera in your market - the decision will be made for you soon enough, don't even think about the alternative.
- hiring the camera for a project that can't take advantage of any specific features eg. smaller body, vari-ND or raw - go with the cheapest rate every time.
- combination of multiple scenarios already listed - congratulations, you're an extremely busy video professional.
 
James0b57 said:
Grading contrast in doesn’t stress a codec as much as digging into the shadows for more roll off.

Adding contrast to me doesn’t count as heavy grading as a verb, but more of heavy grading as an adjective. Haha, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I know where you’re coming from*, but as a statement, this isn’t correct. Adding contrast means spreading out the available code values in the mid tones (stressing the codec), while compressing the values in the highlights & shadows. Expanding the shadows spreads out the available code values in that part of the curve, while compressing the rest. *Certainly, the shadows have less available code values, and more noise, so it’s easier to expose errors in that area, but especially with log gammas, that would generally ‘using it wrong’. Generally the most important areas of any image are the mid tones, and areas where the skin tones live. Stressing out the mid tones can expose banding, color anomalies, and noise in those areas, and are also common examples of how most footage is graded. (Especially log gammas). When I stress test a codec, I routinely stretch to death all parts of the curve to see what it will do. All areas have importance, but I’d say mid tones are the area I pay the most attention to. Shadows the least.
 
Last edited:
Edit:

I made a comment, that was a joke, but i keep forgeting, this is writing and sarcasm or other variations don’t work.
 
Last edited:
When compairing files from fs7, c300mk2 and Alexa mini, I think the most obvious difference in IQ is how the noise characteristic’s of the image sensors gets translated into a compressed video-file. The alexa has a lot of fine grain ”rolling” down in intensity from the mids, the c300mk2 is similar but with less colour in the mids and the fs7 has a very sharp transition from superclean to heavy noise (esp visible in ungraded slog3). The alexa seems to bring this noise with a ”colour granularity” from scene data, which looks very good and esp. with a low compression that keeps the ”grains” intact. The c300mk2 seems to hold a fine grain with its 410mbps, the fs7 seems to put out a very clean and clear image until the noise starts, where the codec starts to break down quickly, blocking up in magenta and blue swaths.
 
I`ve noticed that magenta noise thingy, indeed. Especially on some stock footage i did recently on black acrylic surface with white marble stone on top. Super clear marble, but with magenta rock reflection underneath.

Does the FX9 have the same issue, anyone know?
 
rob norton said:
Assuming we're doing this for money, I think image quality keeps sliding further down the list of prioritized reasons to purchase/not purchase a camera, at least in this price bracket. I'm appreciative of the back and forth observations/arguments, but I find them more beneficial in understanding the super-technical parts of a video image (I have a long way to go) rather than as a tool to decide on which camera to purchase.

Because it's highly responsible to look at the whole picture (is this a pun?), I've taken a step back and created a simple buying guide that anyone can use when deciding between the fx9/c500 ii, which covers every major scenario:

- work directly with clients who let you choose equipment - use the camera you like most.
- huge amount of work comes from owning the more popular camera in your market - the decision will be made for you soon enough, don't even think about the alternative.
- hiring the camera for a project that can't take advantage of any specific features eg. smaller body, vari-ND or raw - go with the cheapest rate every time.
- combination of multiple scenarios already listed - congratulations, you're an extremely busy video professional.
Click to expand...

Where are you going to publish your buying guide? I'd like to see it. Is it going to be a YT video or a PDF or an article?
 
puredrifting said:
Where are you going to publish your buying guide? I'd like to see it. Is it going to be a YT video or a PDF or an article?
Click to expand...

Sorry, that was the entire guide. Didn't mean to get your hopes up Dan!

I believe if anyone is even considering such a major purchase, they should be at the level where they can decide for themselves. More importantly, they should also remove emotions from the equation and let their situation as a business form the reason for choosing one over the other. Unless of course you're in the category where you have the freedom to use whatever tools you like. But like you say - it's a business first.

Maybe instead of the mostly terrible "vs" type youtube comparisons, two shooters in the same market with similar skills, drive etc. are given either the fx9 or c500 ii, then at the end of the year they have to reveal how much money is in their bank accounts. That would be more useful than seeing a camera spin on a turntable with xmas lights in the background.
 
Some people are just better at making money than other people. Many shooters would be able to make more money than both above with a cheaper yesteryear camera.

[I think some of the most talented people out there will never make the money they deserve.]

As far as YouTube, it's just an everyday mix of content. You have those who have a genuine interest in providing information and educating, and those who would like to entertain you, or both. I think a balance is nice.
 
Here's a really solid comparison test of AF performance:


It doesn't go into AF settings, and I'm sure both cameras have a lot of capacity to tweak and fine-tune the settings for smoother results when focus is lost (etc.). But out of the box, the FX9's tracking abilities are pretty tremendous. Really impressive stuff.
 
Great 'Flying Fox' tracking. Worth pointing out the Sony didn't even revert to the background after losing the face for a second after the recoil like the Canon did (both did when the subject exited the frame as they should have).
 
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they both have settings to hold the focus when the subject leaves the frame/focus is lost though. So it's a characteristic that can be changed if need be.

The complexity of the AF options makes a full assessment of what's possible with each a pretty big undertaking. But if this test is with default settings, Sony's clearly doing something very right.
 
With the Canon DSLRs/mirrorless', the settings to fine-tune AF are disabled/greyed out with many lenses (even Canon's own). Wonder how it's going to be with these two and their glass.
 
Grug said:
Here's a really solid comparison test of AF performance:
Click to expand...

Interesting that both cameras lose focus for a moment near the end of first shot with the woman in the pink outfit.

I know that this wasn't a grading test, but I preferred the color from the Canon camera for the indoor pink outfit shot.
 
Moving side-profiles are nightmares for AF face-tracking systems. Sometimes it's better to just use the box.

Nevertheless...for anything short of major acting that can't take the risk, either is so so useful to have.
 
morgan_moore said:
yep

Canon will..
shoot raw on a gimbal.

raw will be the norm in 3 years

raw appears to be a mess on the FX9

With FF canon mount is less stupid than canon/S35

I think the canon looks like a 5-7 years camera.

Im sure the AF is adequate on both.
Click to expand...


Interesting how the importance placed on raw has withered over the course of this thread, especially after the sharing of some tests where the FX9 footage held up better than the C500mkii’s raw.
 
JPNola said:
Interesting how the importance placed on raw has withered over the course of this thread, especially after the sharing of some tests where the FX9 footage held up better than the C500mkii’s raw.
Click to expand...

If raw has limited advantage over good 10- or more bit compressed, file size indeed wins. The most impressive aspect of the FX9 in those tests was how well it recovered using 709 gamma (S-Cinetone). That's probably a wide DR 709, similar to ARRI and Canon? So that would mean not only has raw been put on notice, so has log!

EDIT: Sam makes some good points and rates the FX9 better in highlights, C500 II better in shadows, and overall FX9 is below Alexa and Venice (C500 II after Monstro & Helium): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...Camera&p=1986815937&viewfull=1#post1986815937
 
Last edited:
JPNola said:
Interesting how the importance placed on raw has withered over the course of this thread, especially after the sharing of some tests where the FX9 footage held up better than the C500mkii’s raw.
Click to expand...

Hmm! Yes. This hasn't gone unnoticed. I know in my world of doco, corporate, sport and events a good recoverable solid performing 709 workflow just saves so much time not to mention storage space. All said and done my average client wouldn't really know, understand or care about the differences in workflow and how I got to the end result as long as they are happy with it. A simple quick 709 workflow delivers for me on a practical and financial level. But then again I'm a bit old school.

Chris Young
 
JPNola said:
Interesting how the importance placed on raw has withered over the course of this thread, especially after the sharing of some tests where the FX9 footage held up better than the C500mkii’s raw.
Click to expand...

It seems that there are two things.. either
a) Raw doesnt work - aka is not what it is cracked up to be.
or
b) reviewers dont know how to use it.

With either of these conditions in place then there would not be an interest.

If you can pull 2 or 3 stops in either direction or add any 'look' without causing artifacts everyone would surely want that in thier pocket??

If you have any experience of a (still) NEF in capture one or a canon (still file) in Photoshat then you would want that. (both are 14 bit files)

Does the current 'raw video' deliver that? I dont see it.

==

I quite often shoot 10-30s per day for my studio clients - so data rate is no problem - quality is however as often wierd size is required. On tues im doing a timelapse where upright is the primary delivery but 'some lanscape' is also required so it is crop city once again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top