FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

Hi
I wasn't really looking for likes :)

The cameras a phantom flex,fs7 and nikon z6 and BMC micro
The FS7 is the one that is hard to give a solid 'standard' look to. (Slog2 and Sony issued LUT is my start point)

Id like a nikon look (the bosh drill) (but not burned in as is the case with the nikon - that look with flex, not the 8bit bake that the nikon gives but that as a start point)

Maybe the 500 and Fx9 now create decent start points - I dont think the FS7 ever really did

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Maybe the 500 and Fx9 now create decent start points - I dont think the FS7 ever really did
S
Click to expand...

Well theres no true holy grail, just taste and choices.

I like my FS7 and the venice lut look. Before i used the panasonic lutcalc and got a nice look.

Some like Arri, but some actually dont. I think the look suits drama productions especially well. Its often "filmic" but that can also go into tonality like depressing, serious, or even artsy, sort of. Well suited for a scandinavian crime series. But for documentary i dont like that look at all. And the cameras are heavy and cumbersome. Maybe for a documentary story about an old woman, or about the inner emotions of an aspiring artist. But i dont think neither color science or the actual camera fits for nature documentaries and the like.

What i dislike about the FS7 is that it looks soft, even in 4K. I first noticed that on the launch teaser with magenta cast and soft images. You cant upsharp it either. Those calling it sharp, comes from a time with SD and even BetaCam etc. i think. But i`ve grown up with RED and the fidelity it produces. I`ve also had the FS700+Odyssey7Q. Those prores files just look way better than the FS7, but it demands alot of rigging, batteries, cables, so i got rid of it and became a better photographer with the much more compact FS7.

FX9 comes alot closer to the fidelity from what ive seen on youtube. Its not sharpening, rather, just very nice microcontrast that gives a better percieved sharpness.
 
Downsampling from a 6K sensor is what you’re seeing. That’s why an A6500 produces sharper images than an FS7.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jcs
Discussion from 2017 regarding actual camera resolution before aliasing: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?356356-Actual-Camera-Resolution-Before-Aliasing . The final agreed number based on Nyquist and image tests (see the rotated grid images) was 2/3 or .66. Meaning take the Bayer sensor horizontal resolution and multiply it by .66 to get the actual possible resolution before aliasing. That's why the 4K C300 II and FS7 look soft, and why cameras in 2020 have ~6K, which is at least 1.5x oversampling (3/2 = 1.5) before downsampling to 4K. Note that 3840 *1.5 = 5.8K and 4096*1.5 = 6.2K, however aliasing can be minimized with the appropriate OLPF (still a big improvement over prior sensors).

ARRI's 2880 mode for HD: 2880*.66 = 1920: when asked directly ARRI agreed 1.5x/.66 was the correct ratio/factor.

Sony is doing an excellent job with FX9 6K => 4K downsampling: super detailed, and no visible aliasing seen so far. The C500 II looks comparatively softer, and some people like that. However real detail is lost, which limits punch-in in post, loss of detail for ultra wide shots, etc. FX9 / high-detail images can be softened if desired with diffusion on camera or in post. Will be cool when in-camera diffusion becomes an option (along with simulated halation), and could also be applied specifically to skin tones / faces (some cameras already do skin / face-specific processing). This would save time with physical camera filters or post work.

As NorBro stated, sometimes those stating the truth generate a bit of controversy. In the end, truth will be free.
 
Liam Hall said:
jcs, have you tested both cameras?
Click to expand...

Planning to if I have time- friend in LA has been planning a test with both cameras that keeps getting pushed. I'll also bring the little EOS R with my custom color profile for comparison. I have tested the C700 FF (posted footage here)- is that the same sensor and color science as the C500 II (both have a 5.9K FF sensor)?
 
jcs said:
Sony is doing an excellent job with FX9 6K => 4K downsampling: super detailed, and no visible aliasing seen so far. The C500 II looks comparatively softer, and some people like that. However real detail is lost....
Click to expand...

Not sure I've ever seen any evidence of this, at least in a side by side test, (the only kind that matters). The most recent side by sides (Reduser test) seem to show the exact opposite.
 
Barry G said:
Not sure I've ever seen any evidence of this, at least in a side by side test, (the only kind that matters). The most recent side by sides (Reduser test) seem to show the exact opposite.
Click to expand...

Looks like the test a friend is doing is in the morning- can't make that one, though might be able to make the evening test if that happens (low light exterior). They'll be providing me SOOC files for post testing and are doing tests I suggested. I would like to see how the cameras handle, including the viewfinder experience, balance, weight, curious about battery life (Canon might win there). C500 II has touch screen focus, FX9 does not, however if shooting with a VF up to eye, not really an issue (joystick used to select target). C500 II has D.IS, FX9 has post-only IS (hit or miss from reviews).

To my eyes when viewing in 4K on 4K displays the FX9 has more detail vs. the C500 II. Additionally, have seen complaints about the FX9 being too sharp/detailed and so far no complaints like that about the C700 FF or C500 II. When I posted footage for the C700 FF, I thought it looked decent (using my custom settings developed on the C300 II), however folks here on DVX didn't seem to care (no comments): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?365398-Canon-C700-FF-Skin-Tone-Test . In other threads the C700 FF was bashed quite a bit, mostly for the price. Looks like the C500 II is a similar/same sensor/color science and at about 1/2 the price there's more popularity.

I used to be a fan of resolution test charts, however online folks didn't agree when aliasing started and when detail was gone. Thus now feel that shooting faces/people is the best test, as that's what most of us shoot (+ color is more important). The C700 FF and C500 II have decent 4K now, again since this is a 'vs.' thread, calling a winner (if one exists) vs. the FX9 is a fair conclusion to make where one camera is better than the other in specific areas, e.g. IQ. Overall use cases are very personal/project dependent- can't declare a winner.

EDIT: looking at the C700 FF test again, I'm seeing mids going magenta and shadows going green, same as we've seen with the C500 II (though perhaps less now, only in deeper shadows?). Still looks OK and most people wouldn't notice- prefer cameras that don't do that (Sony has had similar issues in the past, e.g FS700, A7S.1 I owned (A7S.2 was a bit better)).
 
Last edited:
jcs said:
To my eyes when viewing in 4K on 4K displays the FX9 has more detail vs. the C500 II.
Click to expand...

It would be great to see what you're looking at when making that determination. I have a 5k monitor here...but I'm sure I can view at 4k. Again, there have been very few side by sides between these two cameras, but in the most recent ones, it was pretty apparent that the C500 was more detailed. (And very clearly, I'll say here that I'm not claiming that the C500 is more detailed. Just trying to clear up your statement from a few posts back where you said the FX9 was more detailed and the C500 was softer, and that the loss of detail was problematic, which I don't believe is evident). All the other stuff in the last post really isn't at issue. And res charts (shot properly) are probably the best way to compare cameras in terms of detail and aliasing.Sure there is disagreement, that's what forums are for, but certainly no less disagreement than on a human face. (Other standardized scenes, like DPReviews "studio scene" are even more helpful, as they show different types of detail, but I don't know of a video focused site that has tested cameras in this way. )
 
Barry G said:
It would be great to see what you're looking at when making that determination. I have a 5k monitor here...but I'm sure I can view at 4k. Again, there have been very few side by sides between these two cameras, but in the most recent ones, it was pretty apparent that the C500 was more detailed. (And very clearly, I'll say here that I'm not claiming that the C500 is more detailed. Just trying to clear up your statement from a few posts back where you said the FX9 was more detailed and the C500 was softer, and that the loss of detail was problematic, which I don't believe is evident). All the other stuff in the last post really isn't at issue. And res charts (shot properly) are probably the best way to compare cameras in terms of detail and aliasing.Sure there is disagreement, that's what forums are for, but certainly no less disagreement than on a human face. (Other standardized scenes, like DPReviews "studio scene" are even more helpful, as they show different types of detail, but I don't know of a video focused site that has tested cameras in this way. )
Click to expand...

SlashCam.de usually seemed to do pretty good thorough tests, including with charts. Their FX9 skintone footage didn't look as good as their C500 II footage (which doesn't match e.g. the REDUser test where the FX9 looked a bit better than the C500 II), and their test charts make the FX9 look quite poor, lower resolution, even blurry- this doesn't match any FX9 footage I've seen. What lens, was it in focus (chroma issues)? The charts look swapped based on the example FX9 & C500 II. Slightly blurry is going to look generally more pleasing on faces, a bit more organic, which is what I've seen from the C500 II (and C700 FF) whereas the FX9 has been very crisp and detailed, and I realized some may not like that straight from camera, and thus suggested using a diffusion filter (or do it in post).

https://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Tes...Bildqualitaet-fuer-Broadcast-und-Cinema-.html

FX9:
1882-FF_ISO340_4K-FF_ISO340_4K.jpg


C500 II:
1882-CanonISO6K4KC500Mk2-CanonISO6K4KC500Mk2.jpg


FX9 + Contrast
1882-FF_ISO340_4K_REc709-FF_ISO340_4K_Rec709.jpg


C500 II + Contrast
1882-Canon_ISO340_4K_FF_Kontrast_RAW-Canon_ISO340_4K_FF_Kontrast_RAW.jpg


Again, the charts seem backwards based on footage seen so far.

For the upcoming FX9 and C500 II test, they will be using high end glass on both cameras and shoot fine details to get another point of reference (not clear if a good chart is available: e.g. ISO 12233 or eq. for 4K/6K). It appears the evening shoot is a go, I'll do my best to join them for the test. If you or anyone has anything you'd like tested, ask away and perhaps we'll have time to test/check feature.
 
shemster said:
Look at this video. FX9 has better AF than C500ii.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzcDCr_xSYM
Click to expand...

Note the WB is off on the FX9 shot (too much green):

C5F9a.jpg

FX9 +20 (magenta) in Photoshop ACR (only change):

C5F9b.jpg

To my eye the FX9 looks more detailed and color is pretty excellent compared to prior Sony offerings. The C500 II has lower contrast and a pastel look (lower satuation)- the FX9 could be adjusted to match if that's a preference. See the video full screen in 4K to examine detail (at smaller scales, higher contrast looks more detailed).
 
FX9 with post diffusion: now it's kinda soft, lower contrast, yet still holds a lot of detail in the skin (including color variation at larger scales), which appears a bit lost on the C500 II shot (this is not a totally fair example: we really need to compare files coming out of the cameras):

FX9Diffusion.jpg

Higher resolution:
FX9Diffusion.jpg
 
This discussion makes me feel bad for not caring about any of this nearly as much as any of the participants in the discussion. :embarasse
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top