FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

[Martin.G]

I wouldnt switch them all out. I dont do RnG with prime lenses for the most part.

Perhaps get a 70-200 f4 in addition to the 24-70 f4 i already have from Sony.

But the price isnt that huge in Norway between these two cameras. So im still looking at the Canon for lens reasons.

 

[Donny 123]

Who wants to be an average shooter...

J/k

To be fair, and I have said this many times in this thread, I like both cameras but given I own a lot of EF lenses, occasionally do anamorphic work, occasionally use PL mount lenses, do an awful lot of slow-mo and would like my A cam on a gimbal rather than my B cam, the C500MKII is a better fit for me at this moment. I think Sony have done a stellar job with the FX9, they have improved a lot of things over the FS7.

Eloquent and to the point sir ..

 

[Donny 123]

Eash shooter needs different things. For example the FX9 being too long for a gimbal could not affect some but ruin it for others.

If gimbal work is their main pony show .. buy a steadicam .. I mean you wouldn't want to put the c500 on a Ronin s would you .. although the Alexa mini was made specifically for gimbal /steadicam and its more popular than its bigger brother .. and probably end the "big" Alexa line pretty soon.. but agreed sir .. horses for courses ..

 

[Liam Hall]

I wouldnt switch them all out. I dont do RnG with prime lenses for the most part.

AF is addictive, you'll find you want to use it more than you anticipated, particularly on interviews - with a prime I can happily shoot wide open and let face-detect AF keep the important bits sharp.

 

[Martin.G]

AF is addictive, you'll find you want to use it more than you anticipated, particularly on interviews - with a prime I can happily shoot wide open and let face-detect AF keep the important bits sharp.

Shhh, dont use reasoning. My wallet doesnt like it :grin:

 

[Guest]

Try shooting FF 60fps on an FX9 or shooting anamorphic or using PL mount lenses s with i-data or shooting RAW internal or using AF with your collection of EF lenses or putting it on a gimbal, but sure it is cheaper.

These are some of the reasons i have it listed higher on an on-going cinema camera list:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?366226-The-New-Cinema-Camera


However, not all jobs are the same. Based on my experiences in broadcast and eng, i really like what the Fx9 offers in day to day efficiency and price. And for the price difference, i could afford a mirrorless on a light weight gimbal for those b-roll money shots. Which would increase speed, vs reconfiguring a C500ii from tripod/shoulder to gimbal and back. That said, i have seen the Fx9 on a gimbal. Considering how short e-mount zooms can be, and that the Fx9 is about the same length as the Fs7, this should be doable.

These are two nice cameras with a lot of overlap, but ultimately following difference design logic.

If i used the camera seldom, or rented on for the first time, i feel like the C500ii is more simple and intuitive. But the Fx9 has all the controls on the operator side. The C500ii has manual audio control on the dumb side, and would require the add-on to get audio back onto the operator side.


Clearly, there is a winner, and the answer is always “you are right”

 

[Barry G]

Yes but the average shooter doesn't need all that fancy stuff...

I remember a few years ago when the only thing "average Sony shooter" needed was high frame rates, given that the color on the FS7 was not necessarily the thing that people talked about. Now the average shooter doesn't need those things, apparently. Frankly all this A vs B stuff is kinda below us. We should be talking about how to best use our tools, and sharing information based on experience, asking questions that inform our decisions. I know, that's boring.

For someone like Liam, or me, who has a lot invested in canon...the C500II makes a lot of sense and is priced very well given it's feature set (C700FF with internal raw for half price). For someone more invested/experienced in Sony gear, I'm quite sure the FX9 makes just as much sense, and is priced just as fairly given is slightly more limited feature set. So I guess for the "average" shooter that doesn't need all that "fancy stuff" the FX9 is a good option. (at 2/3 the price of the C500). (although I'd suggest the biggest "fancy stuff" is the full Frame sensor, which is the headline feature of these cameras...if you really don't need fancy stuff, then the C200 can be had for almost half of what the FX9 goes for -- with slightly less fancy stuff.

Liam -- earlier you said you'd probably be getting an FX9 to add to the C500II..is that still the plan?

 

[Guest]

I remember a few years ago when the only thing "average Sony shooter" needed was high frame rates, given that the color on the FS7 was not necessarily the thing that people talked about. Now the average shooter doesn't need those things, apparently. Frankly all this A vs B stuff is kinda below us. We should be talking about how to best use our tools, and sharing information based on experience, asking questions that inform our decisions. I know, that's boring.

This thread has been the most informative discussion on the internet concerning these two cameras that i’ve seen. It combines technical information, polls tests and comparisons from across the web, and includes very important personal preference and emotional choice logic. The A/B discussion has highlighted how each camera wins depending on the intended use. And since we all have different uses, the scope of the discussion has remained wider here than many of the narrow views in other places on the internet.

For someone like Liam, or me, who has a lot invested in canon...the C500II makes a lot of sense and is priced very well given it's feature set (C700FF with internal raw for half price). For someone more invested/experienced in Sony gear, I'm quite sure the FX9 makes just as much sense, and is priced just as fairly given is slightly more limited feature set. So I guess for the "average" shooter that doesn't need all that "fancy stuff" the FX9 is a good option. (at 2/3 the price of the C500). (although I'd suggest the biggest "fancy stuff" is the full Frame sensor, which is the headline feature of these cameras...if you really don't need fancy stuff, then the C200 can be had for almost half of what the FX9 goes for -- with slightly less fancy stuff.

Liam -- earlier you said you'd probably be getting an FX9 to add to the C500II..is that still the plan?

The Fx9 is not just priced fairly based on less “fancy stuff” or “slightly more limited feature set”, as there are a few big deals for run n gun shooters: variable ND for seemless transitions walking indoors to out, without rolling the iris, more head room in the highlight latitude(on test confirms this, but will keep an asterisk here), better AF, better out of box ergonomics for tripod/shoulder work. Affordable e mount adapters for any lens in existence, manual audio controls on the operator side out of box. These are not “slightly less” for some work, but actually “slightly more”. Just depends on the intended use.

 

[morgan_moore]

If gimbal work is their main pony show .. buy a steadicam .. I mean you wouldn't want to put the c500 on a Ronin s would you .. although the Alexa mini was made specifically for gimbal /steadicam and its more popular than its bigger brother .. and probably end the "big" Alexa line pretty soon.. but agreed sir .. horses for courses ..

Donny I have a Movi pro and one certainly might want to use one of these cameras on it. Both are a tight fit, the extra unit on the FX9 would basically make it too big for a Movi pro. If you have tried a Ronin2 or Movi XL you will know they are basically too big for handholding.

It would seem to me to be a major difference between the cameras as those gimbals (movi pro, ronin 2) are pretty standard on many corporate shoots.

 

[Barry G]

This thread has been the most informative discussion on the internet concerning these two cameras that i’ve seen. It combines technical information, polls tests and comparisons from across the web, and includes very important personal preference and emotional choice logic. The A/B discussion has highlighted how each camera wins depending on the intended use. And since we all have different uses, the scope of the discussion has remained wider here than many of the narrow views in other places on the internet.

Agreed, however there is plenty of "my favorite camera is better than your favorite camera" stuff (and your camera isn't as good as the Alexa LF that nobody here owns) that's not grounded in good information, best practices etc, and education. That's what I'm referring to as "below us".

The Fx9 is not just priced fairly based on less “fancy stuff” or “slightly more limited feature set”, as there are a few big deals for run n gun shooters: variable ND for seemless transitions walking indoors to out, without rolling the iris, more head room in the highlight latitude(on test confirms this, but will keep an asterisk here), better AF, better out of box ergonomics for tripod/shoulder work. Affordable e mount adapters for any lens in existence, manual audio controls on the operator side out of box. These are not “slightly less” for some work, but actually “slightly more”. Just depends on the intended use.

It does have a more limited feature set. It doesn't and won't ever shoot 6k. It can't currently shoot raw without an extension unit that will probably push it's price right up there with the C500II. It can't shoot FF in 60p. There is no EVF available. There is no professional power/battery system available.

The other things you mention are all up for discussion but aren't features. Ergonomics? both cameras have their strengths as has been discussed here. ( I know the fx9 lets you put it on your shoulder without a rig...but boy..I hope you have a really strong right arm, or a really long lens if you think that setup is balanced). Latitude -- the FX9 wins by 1/2 stop in the highlights and loses by at least that much in the shadows. AF? -- both cameras have excellent systems, the FX9 has more sensitive face tracking at distance/smaller size, the Canon wins in user control and selectability, and possibly in AI subject recognition. Sure you can adapt lenses for the FX9 (although isn't there some issue as to them working with the new AF?), but Canon has actual mounts for the lenses that most people use..I've never really heard of anyone wanting to mount a Sony lens on a canon...although I'm sure somebody would like to. blah...blah...blah... See this is where it gets boring...this endless comparison that's only there to prove "my" camera is better.

As I said...both cameras make sense given the buyer's needs, wants and history. There's no need to prove one is better. Both are great. The FX9 may very well be your cup of tea. The C500II is mine. Lets just enjoy our tea, right?

 

[Liam Hall]

Liam -- earlier you said you'd probably be getting an FX9 to add to the C500II..is that still the plan?

It's still an option but is less likely now. I have a couple of clients who were keen I stayed with Sony. I have now schooled those clients. Also, I was concerned about the ergonomics of the C500MKII and thought for some jobs I might be better on the FX9, but I've tweaked my shooting technique, my muscle memory has improved and now having battle-tested it on challenging shoots around Central America I'm really enjoying shooting with it. I take it to Africa on Saturday and I know it will be a joy to use.

 

[Liam Hall]

These are some of the reasons i have it listed higher on an on-going cinema camera list:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?366226-The-New-Cinema-Camera


However, not all jobs are the same. Based on my experiences in broadcast and eng, i really like what the Fx9 offers in day to day efficiency and price. And for the price difference, i could afford a mirrorless on a light weight gimbal for those b-roll money shots. Which would increase speed, vs reconfiguring a C500ii from tripod/shoulder to gimbal and back. That said, i have seen the Fx9 on a gimbal. Considering how short e-mount zooms can be, and that the Fx9 is about the same length as the Fs7, this should be doable.

These are two nice cameras with a lot of overlap, but ultimately following difference design logic.

If i used the camera seldom, or rented on for the first time, i feel like the C500ii is more simple and intuitive. But the Fx9 has all the controls on the operator side. The C500ii has manual audio control on the dumb side, and would require the add-on to get audio back onto the operator side.


Clearly, there is a winner, and the answer is always “you are right”

Good post James. What are the effeciencies you see with the FX9 over the Canon?

 

[morgan_moore]

'Fairly Priced'

Im struggling to see the FX9 as winning that! I think it will last 4 years and the canon 6 (spec wise), so $/pa is the same.

Add some FX9 modules and the $/pa is higher.

Over the life of the FS7 log has gone from weird to standard, the same may happen with raw over the next four.

 

[Guest]

There is no professional power/battery system available.

I know DC tap isn’t my fave, but the Fx9 does at least have big boy battery options. And once the module is released there is be “native” v-mount.

The other things you mention are all up for discussion but aren't features.

...ehhhh

You sure sure having manual audio controls on the operator side isn’t a feature for run n gun?

 

[Liam Hall]

I know DC tap isn’t my fave, but the Fx9 does at least have big boy battery options. And once the module is released there is be “native” v-mount.

So does the Canon. My V2 module turns up tomorrow. Not sure if I'll use it much, we'll see...

You sure sure having manual audio controls on the operator side isn’t a feature for run n gun?

Certainly, a weird piece of design, but actually you get used to it pretty quick. It's not difficult to reach around and turn the dial while checking the level on the screen.

 

[Guest]

It does have a more limited feature set. It doesn't and won't ever ....Ergonomics? both cameras have their strengths as has been discussed here. ( I know the fx9 lets you put it on your shoulder without a rig...but boy..I hope you have a really strong right arm, or a really long lens if you think that setup is balanced). Latitude -- the FX9 wins by 1/2 stop in the highlights and loses by at least that much in the shadows. AF? -- both cameras have excellent systems, the FX9 has more sensitive face tracking at distance/smaller size, the Canon wins in user control and selectability, and possibly in AI subject recognition. Sure you can adapt lenses for the FX9 (although isn't there some issue as to them working with the new AF?), but Canon has actual mounts for the lenses that most people use..I've never really heard of anyone wanting to mount a Sony lens on a canon...although I'm sure somebody would like to. blah...blah...blah... See this is where it gets boring...this endless comparison that's only there to prove "my" camera is better.

As I said...both cameras make sense given the buyer's needs, wants and history. There's no need to prove one is better. Both are great. The FX9 may very well be your cup of tea. The C500II is mine. Lets just enjoy our tea, right?

“You are right”

 

[Guest]

'Fairly Priced'

Im struggling to see the FX9 as winning that! I think it will last 4 years and the canon 6 (spec wise), so $/pa is the same.

Add some FX9 modules and the $/pa is higher.

Over the life of the FS7 log has gone from weird to standard, the same may happen with raw over the next four.

Hopefully, it is a nice option to have. And it should be standard on anything with a “cine” badge. At least under the current realities.

 

[Barry G]

...ehhhh

You sure sure having manual audio controls on the operator side isn’t a feature for run n gun?

.

Ha...ok.. you win that one. . I guess there's a reason that body is so much longer than the Canon. I'm not sure that preferred placement of a feature is actually a feature... more a benefit..but "you're right". The canon placement isn't ideal. I'll only be running and gunning with the extension unit...and I wasn't even going to mention the option for 4 xlr inputs with that battery extension (and smart side added controls)...but now I have to... if they ever deliver the GD thing..

 

[Barry G]

Man, what are you going on about? I like the C500ii. Yes. Tea. Or vino on the coast.

Wasn't talking about you...but about the issue we were discussing...that being the endless "A is better, B is better". Although I have to say I prefer Grenache to Pinot (most days).

 

[Guest]

Wasn't talking about you...but about the issue we were discussing...that being the endless "A is better, B is better". Although I have to say I prefer Grenache to Pinot (most days).

You’re right.