FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

morgan_moore said:
Been fooling on twitter.. on HFR.. but I am serious

@sammorganmoore
You should always be able to outshoot your clients phone - many phones do 960p. $15g cams should eat that - maybe at 720

@sammorganmoore
Cams are basically 90s tech - it’s emabarrasing

@sammorganmoore
Fs700 250, fs7 180, fx9 120 - yay!
Click to expand...

LOL, well played :P


As much as I want to upgrade my fs7 to the fx9.... the fs7 is just still a great workhorse. I have the original mk1, since 2015, still working hard and well.

A big part of upgrading is keeping the same dang accessories and not starting fresh, so that really gets me leaning towards the fx9 over the c500ii, even though I have to admit the pictures the c500ii makes are gorgeous.
 
Wes. said:
LOL, well played :P


As much as I want to upgrade my fs7 to the fx9.... the fs7 is just still a great workhorse. I have the original mk1, since 2015, still working hard and well.

A big part of upgrading is keeping the same dang accessories and not starting fresh, so that really gets me leaning towards the fx9 over the c500ii, even though I have to admit the pictures the c500ii makes are gorgeous.
Click to expand...

Something to be said about being familiar with a camera too. I’d trust someone with a good eye and really knows how a camera renders, over the camera model with the biggest digit.
 
I just had a bit of fun pricing the two cameras from scratch, everything you would need but lenses, and the numbers came out as follows:

C500 Mkii: $26,210.97

FX9: $17,424.93
 
Wes. said:
LOL, well played :P


As much as I want to upgrade my fs7 to the fx9.... the fs7 is just still a great workhorse. I have the original mk1, since 2015, still working hard and well.

A big part of upgrading is keeping the same dang accessories and not starting fresh, so that really gets me leaning towards the fx9 over the c500ii, even though I have to admit the pictures the c500ii makes are gorgeous.
Click to expand...


The thing for me, at this point in time, is this:

Zero requests from any existing client or from any perspective client for full-frame.


Clients all fine with s35 thus far. Just completed EPK for 3 films, all were fine with s35.

The adoption rate isn’t what it was from 2/3” HD to s35 4k. The industry is not flocking to FF. If anything it is a slow, splintered migration.
 
JPNola said:
The thing for me, at this point in time, is this:

Zero requests from any existing client or from any perspective client for full-frame.


Clients all fine with s35 thus far. Just completed EPK for 3 films, all were fine with s35.

The adoption rate isn’t what it was from 2/3” HD to s35 4k. The industry is not flocking to FF. If anything it is a slow, splintered migration.
Click to expand...

^ This is pretty much exactly my thought. Do I want a new camera? Sure - but I always want the latest & greatest. Do I need it? Nope. And to really get the best out of either of these cameras (including AF) - it would also mean investing in more native glass as well.
 
Last edited:
Its true that people are not asking for it ...Yet. But Full Frame is a small part of the advantage of FX9.
Autopfocus, Dual Iso's esp for cine Ei , and white balance in Cine Cine EI are a big deal.
 
JPNola said:
The thing for me, at this point in time, is this:

Zero requests from any existing client or from any perspective client for full-frame.


Clients all fine with s35 thus far. Just completed EPK for 3 films, all were fine with s35.

The adoption rate isn’t what it was from 2/3” HD to s35 4k. The industry is not flocking to FF. If anything it is a slow, splintered migration.
Click to expand...

Depends on your market of course .. but the FF sensor is really about the down sampling .. the 4K /HD has more data and you can see it on screen .. and it doesnt just look sharper .. some production people will see this or their editor will tell them.. so if you have 5 other local camera folks all looking for the same work and 3 of them have an fx9 you will probably have to join them at some stage ..also the S Cinetone ,no grade needed is way way better than Fs7 Rec 709..in color but also in high light roll off.. people will see this difference sooner or later and those with the fx9 ,and of course same skill ,personality levels will have an advantage in the freelance market ..
 
Donny 123 said:
Depends on your market of course .. but the FF sensor is really about the down sampling .. the 4K /HD has more data and you can see it on screen .. and it doesnt just look sharper .. some production people will see this or their editor will tell them.. so if you have 5 other local camera folks all looking for the same work and 3 of them have an fx9 you will probably have to join them at some stage ..also the S Cinetone ,no grade needed is way way better than Fs7 Rec 709..in color but also in high light roll off.. people will see this difference sooner or later and those with the fx9 ,and of course same skill ,personality levels will have an advantage in the freelance market ..
Click to expand...

Advantages, certainly. But just not as much going from Fs7 to FX9 as there was going from, say, EX3 to Fs7. Or as much as going from Sony 700 to Fs7.

Put it this way, whatever the number of Fs7’s that sold 1 year into its release, do you think the FX9 will match or best that figure?

4K was such an “it” thing when it came out. The industry culture was that you had to have 4K or be left behind. Anyone who was anybody moved to 4K. But with 6K, not so much. There is a bit of K-fatigue this time. An “oh boy, here we go again.” eye-roll. And there is the whole diminishing return thing as resolution increases.
 
Graded similar frames very quickly to match somewhat in skin tones. These cameras can be easily matched and both provide good results. One of the cameras has better highlights, and I also prefer that camera's overall color science for skintones and accuracy. Same Zeiss Supreme Prime 50 on both cameras.

TwoCams.jpg


One camera was 5.9K raw (chosen by the DP) into 709 WideDR (PP CC), the other was S-Cinetone (709), 3840 image provided.

Comments after working with both cameras:

  • Resolve 16 (latest) can handle Canon CRM (raw) files, but not the Sony MXF (XAVC)
  • PP CC handled both, however the 5.9K raw files don't play smoothly (Ultra high end 10-Core PC, GTX 1080, etc.)
  • Not a fan of the buttons on the Sony
  • Not a fan of the loud fan on the Canon
  • The VF on the C500 II tested was $4K (not included with the $16K camera (touch screen only included))
  • The VF on the FX9 was surprisingly good, especially if one is going to use AF (included in price)
  • The C500 II has touch focus, FX9 does not. If using a VF, not an issue
  • For test charts, Canon has a slight edge in real detail before aliasing (even though the image is slightly softer)
  • The FX9's sharpness can be turned down in camera to match the stock-softer Canon if desired

For those using PL cinema lenses, the FX9 is an amazing deal.
For those needing AF and already own Canon still lenses, I'd weigh the cost of Sony lenses vs. the price difference. There are other reasons to prefer the Canon, however for image quality and bang for buck, Sony wins this round.

It was fun debating about and comparing these cameras in person- thanks to everyone involved!

It looks like Canon is winning in the DLSR (1DX III) and mirrorless world (EOS R5), which is where I'm focused for cameras in the near future (stills + video). Nice to see manufacturers improving quality and resolving issues we've noted over the years. Soon we'll have to start debating lighting, maybe even story!
 
jcs said:
Comments after working with both cameras:

  • Resolve 16 (latest) can handle Canon CRM (raw) files, but not the Sony MXF (XAVC)
Click to expand...


  • ???? What ? I'm using Sony MXF XAVC every day in Resolve 16. That's my stock FS7 codec in my stock editor. Plus I've already had FX9 footage through without issues. No issues what so ever so I am somewhat confused? Not that that is hard these days!

    Hmm! Sony on the right I think.

    Thanks for the comparo. Sort of thing I like to see and your feedback was indeed helpful. Both cameras look good. If you couldn't get decent pictures out of either of these cameras you are in the wrong job.

    Chris Young
 
cyvideo said:
???? What ? I'm using Sony MXF XAVC every day in Resolve 16. That's my stock FS7 codec in my stock editor. Plus I've already had FX9 footage through without issues. No issues what so ever so I am somewhat confused? Not that that is hard these days!

Chris Young
Click to expand...

Perhaps you have the paid Studio version?

I had to buy it, since 4K 10-bit XAVC doesnt work in the free version anymore.
 
Firstly, jcs, thanks for the comparisons. I don't always agree with your statements but I think you are genuine so that's ok.

And not to be too critical, I suspect the grading was not carried out by a genuine colorist, ie, someone who really knows Resolve. The chart on the laft shot is clearly "pinker" than the one on the right - which I also think is the Sony. The right hand chart is probably more accurate in color. This has given the face (if it's yours I hate you for being so young :) a pinkish tint, though of course that could be the more accurate for all I know. But again, thanks for offering.

About Resolve, like Chris I have never had a problem with any files from mp4 to 8k Red. I have the studio version and it's vital to have a machine that can handle it.
 
Martin.G said:
Perhaps you have the paid Studio version?

I had to buy it, since 4K 10-bit XAVC doesnt work in the free version anymore.
Click to expand...

This is correct. Didn't realize the freebie version doesn't run 10-bit XAVC anymore. Sneaky move BM?

Chris Young
 
cyvideo said:
This is correct. Didn't realize the freebie version doesn't run 10-bit XAVC anymore. Sneaky move BM?

Chris Young
Click to expand...

In 14/15 versions there was so little reason to buy Studio. I guess they got bills to pay and had to make some changes to their income. And i enjoy the program and the quality so much that its good on them to get paid.

Its funny how crappy Premiere Pro is on the same footage as Resolve cuts through like butter... PPro is a choppy experience even with great hardware.
 
Clermond said:
RAW to WDR REC709 conversion vs internal Cinetone REC709 is something that shouldn't be considered on the same level.
Click to expand...

Why my good sir shouldn't they be considered on the same level? Whether you go over the mountain or around it if the end result of the journeys are the same or have a very similar end result then both paths can indeed be considered equally and together and both approaches can be considered as valid. Both approaches are based on the logic that they will support evidence-based results and the evidence it there in the image results for us to see. Ergo comparisons are valid regardless of approach.

I still think the Sony is on the right if the highlight above the resolution circles on the chart are anything to go by. Better highlight handling on the FX9. This observation of mine is purely based on observing other sources of footage from the two cameras in question. I my be wrong but I'm prepared to put my bet on the right hand image as being the Sony. Would be interesting to find out?

Chris Young
 
Martin.G said:
I guess they got bills to pay and had to make some changes to their income.
Click to expand...

More than happy to pay the amount they ask for the Studio version as for the $$$s there is not much out there to compete with Resolve at anywhere close to the price. More power to them at BM. Same results here Resolve mows through footage other NLEs choke on even when on good hardware.

Chris Young
 
Thank you all for your excellent info.
Regarding ressolve, please correct me if i was wrong, but it is not a mature choice for editors to replace premiere pro yet.
for coloring i think it is more powerful but for editing it still needs more work.
 
JPNola said:
Advantages, certainly. But just not as much going from Fs7 to FX9 as there was going from, say, EX3 to Fs7. Or as much as going from Sony 700 to Fs7.

Put it this way, whatever the number of Fs7’s that sold 1 year into its release, do you think the FX9 will match or best that figure?

4K was such an “it” thing when it came out. The industry culture was that you had to have 4K or be left behind. Anyone who was anybody moved to 4K. But with 6K, not so much. There is a bit of K-fatigue this time. An “oh boy, here we go again.” eye-roll. And there is the whole diminishing return thing as resolution increases.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree they might not sell the same as the fs7.. which I think was actually because Canon were very slow to make a 4K version of the C300.. almost all the C300 owners I know, bought fs7,s because they suddenly needed 4K at a good price .. most of my work is 4K now .. esp corps .. also totally agree there is the K BS factor .. but really I wouldn't be surprised if the 6k down sample thing will become the next fad that production will get sucked into .. honestly I think it will happen .. and there are alot of fs7/f5/55,s for sale now ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top