Sony FX9 vs VariCam LT

M

Mountain Wolf Films

Member
I'm on the fence between these two.

The colors on the VariCam are beautiful, as VariCam colors are, and have always been, but Sony's new color science is nothing to scoff at either...

General thoughts about these two cameras and how they stack up against eachother?
 
I think it all comes down to what you personally want. Dont worry about brand names or anything... I would suggest finding a rental house that has both and doing your own tests. Every cameraperson works/shoots differently. We can all regurgitate white sheet specs until we are blue in the face but we only find tools that work within our workflow/budget by using them in real world situations. I'm a fan of both the varicam line and Sony and their cinealta line (more so the CCD models but thats besides the point). There are quite a few cameras I jumped on long ago when I didnt know better due to marketing hype, only to realize I hated them and thought they were over hyped garbage. Go find them, test them and then make your purchase :)
 
A good comparison.

Ultimately, it would come down to personal preference and intended use.

For most people, the ease of use and smaller body, full frame, auto focus, variable internal ND, fast boot times, and good battery life, and e mount, would be big deciding factors.

The main reason to go for the Varicam, is if the image quality speaks to you. And perhaps the rolling shutter is better than the Fx9. The body is a bit bulky, like a slimmed down F35. Totally manageable, but not as svelt as the newer camera designs. The Varicam also requires a EVF or LCD purchase to make it fully operational. And one would have to consider media costs between the two systems.

This is a good comparison, as i think it highlights the appeal of the Varicam sensor.

I’d imagine if you bought the Fx9, you’d love operating, but be working around the Sony video look. Recent Venice LUT’s and S-cinetone reduce those concerns. But verdict is still out. And if you got the Varicam, you’d be wishing it were smaller and more modern.

Both cameras are very compelling.

I’ve seen good and bad results from both.

Will try to get a comparison of both together. However, netflix has several shows shot on Varicam. And the Sony examples should continue to flood in.
 
Last edited:
And don't forget build-quality. I really dislike the actual body design of the LT, but it's built like a MF'n tank.
 
Run&Gun said:
And don't forget build-quality. I really dislike the actual body design of the LT, but it's built like a MF'n tank.
Click to expand...

Haha! Yeah, it feels solid and rugged. Buttons and knobs are big enough for gloves and feel they’ll last. Though, the soft silicone feel of some of those buttons feel they may wear out eventually. I question the logic, but i don’t have enough experience with that type of button to know for sure. And rubber on the rec button gives a false positive feedback. However, i do love the fact that the buttons are accessible even with gloves. I have only used the camera once, so, somethings may just be a first impression. I really felt the image was very nice.
 
I think I would be leaning towards the FX9 with it much newer tech and AF plus you can use it in either FF or S35. Back in 2017 I did a bunch of tests between an LT and FS7. Most of my work was and still is, what little is left as it dwindles away, is 709. What I wanted to do was compare Pana's V-LOG 709 straight out of camera with a comparable dynamic range out of an FS7 but that meant using Custom mode with a LOG gamma in the FS7. Dynamic range in things like skies, clouds and shadow being more important to me than color. Always been able to get matching color out of the two so that wasn't high on my valuation. On the FS7 using Custom and S-LOG2 gamma gave me a 709 encoded output similar to Panasonic's V-LOG 709. Which is basically a 709 encode straight out of the LT's V-LOG. Very little difference back then so I would maybe expect the FX9 with its later tech and extra stop of range to be ahead of the LT doing the same comparison today. The biggest difference was not to do with images but price of media and readers back then. Still the same today I think you'll find. All I have left of those tests is an MP4 of some exteriors in my back street. Both cameras were used at their native ISO's of 800 on the LT and native 2000ISO on the FS7 as it was in S-LOG2. All clips shot with Canon PL 15.5 x 47mm. May give some indication that if the FS7 and the LT were that close back then that the FX9 should by rights be ahead today... Possibly? Comparison clip here:

Chris Young

https://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/egst5z

LT V-709.jpg FS7 SLOG2.jpg
 
For some reason, the Varicam image just looks better.

While, i agree, the Fx9 probably out specs the Varicam LT in almost every regard, but pricing aside, one would have to consider the image quality and workflow. The LT, even with the price drip will be more expensive than an Fx9 with not only lower specs, but also not the same amount of modern features. So, this is one of those situations, where if someone is considering either camera, they’d really have to test both, because the only fight these cameras have is in image quality. And between these cameras, it is a subjective choice.
 
James0b57 said:
because the only fight these cameras have is in image quality. And between these cameras, it is a subjective choice.
Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree with that. What about weight, ergonomics, features, functions, lens compatibility, and other bells and whistles that are quite different from each other? From that standpoint the cameras are very different from each other. And I would argue that if the differences in picture quality are so slight that you have to put them side by side and run them through a shootout to figure out what those difference are -- then those differences don't matter. Choose one and get to work. Clients and viewers won't notice whatever minuscule differences that only a pixel peeper can find. Personally, I would make my choice based on many other factors before image quality because they are both good enough.

About 15 years ago I spent a few days shadowing/interviewing Bill Warner, the founder of Avid, for a CNN business show and he said something that has always stuck with me. The harder it is to choose between two choices, the less it matters which one you pick. In other words, if the differences between two things (cameras, cars, dessert, sandwich, etc.) are that close, then either one will satisfy your needs ,so just pick one and move on. This has made my decision making so easy in life. Just pick one and get to work.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I have to strongly disagree with that. What about weight, ergonomics, features, functions, lens compatibility, and other bells and whistles that are quite different from each other? From that standpoint the cameras are very different from each other. And I would argue that if the differences in picture quality are so slight that you have to put them side by side and run them through a shootout to figure out what those difference are -- then those differences don't matter. Choose one and get to work. Clients and viewers won't notice whatever minuscule differences that only a pixel peeper can find. Personally, I would make my choice based on many other factors before image quality because they are both good enough.

About 15 years ago I spent a few days shadowing/interviewing Bill Warner, the founder of Avid, for a CNN business show and he said something that has always stuck with me. The harder it is to choose between two choices, the less it matters which one you pick. In other words, if the differences between two things (cameras, cars, dessert, sandwich, etc.) are that close, then either one will satisfy your needs ,so just pick one and move on. This has made my decision making so easy in life. Just pick one and get to work.
Click to expand...
How are our ideas conflicting?

In the other areas, there really is no fight. They are quite different. When compared objectively, there really is no comparison.

The only way they are similar objectively, is that they can both do well in many of the same jobs, if someone isn’t interested in AF.

After that, it comes down to which image is preferred. I tend to prefer the Varicam look, but i know with work in post or many hours designing a custom LUT, that i could possibly get equal or better results with the Fx9. Possibly. But i don’t know. Would have to test. Meanwhile, the Fx9 has a very nice modern high end video look, that previously only the top cinema cameras had available.

A while back, i was jumping between Red MX and F55, and i found that while the F55 was technically better, the MX gave a certain quality more easily described as less “video”. I still ended up selling the MX and switching to F55, but it was a beast trying to wrangle the Sony look out of that camera.

You and i are kind of on the same page, just emphasizing different sides of the argument.
 
I really like what I am seeing from varicam LT and the Sony FX9. Just curious, how do you think the image out of the Kinefinity Mavo LF would compare to these two cameras in DR and highlight roll off? I have also been impressed with many of the images coming out of that camera. I also prefer its color science over the BM cameras.
 
Wendt said:
I really like what I am seeing from varicam LT and the Sony FX9. Just curious, how do you think the image out of the Kinefinity Mavo LF would compare to these two cameras in DR and highlight roll off? I have also been impressed with many of the images coming out of that camera. I also prefer its color science over the BM cameras.
Click to expand...

Kinfinity, i’d have to ask. My friend has a Kinfinity and recently shot on a Varicam LT. He may have a better opinion.
 
Wendt said:
I really like what I am seeing from varicam LT and the Sony FX9. Just curious, how do you think the image out of the Kinefinity Mavo LF would compare to these two cameras in DR and highlight roll off? I have also been impressed with many of the images coming out of that camera. I also prefer its color science over the BM cameras.
Click to expand...

The Mavo LF shoots very nice pictures. From what I've seen it's about on par in image quality. This a good review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CR1Yy-NHkk
He did settle on the FX9 for his new camera though.
 
I got a Varicam LT in September, just before the rebate offer here in Europe ran out. So I am a bit biased. ��

The FX9 has a few things going for it. Sensor size, good autofocus and most importantly, it will replace a lot FS7s and FS5s. So if you have a lot of jobs in broadcast and have to play nice with the look and post-production workflow of companies with a lot of Sony cams, it's a no brainer. The colours are very very good as well. It's in a very different league than the FS7. Once raw recording will come, we will see pretty awesome stuff shot with this camera.
Downsides, for me, are the rolling shutter (at least in full-frame), the body style, menus and the horrible way the image clips. You have tons of DR, but when it clips you get a hard 'video'-ish edge on the spot that clips. The Varicam handles that much better. More Alexa like. I think it's down to the olpf. You can simulate this in post, but it's an extra step and not always easy to implement fast.
And, last but not least, if you shoot over 30fps, you use the S35 crop of the senor. I shoot 90% at 'double' fps to get great slow motion when I need it.

I like the body size and weight of the LT better because I like to shoot with the camera on my shoulder. The LT is a very balanced camera. And the weight helps to eliminate small wiggles. It's not light, but very manageable. The menu system is better on the LT. Boot time is about 15 seconds (video out to external recorder is about 10 seconds) and physical audio controls are very limited. You have to restart to change resolution and frame rate. So if you do a lot of run and gun solo stuff, this might not be ideal. I haven't had any issues, anticipating what I'm about to shoot usually solves these issues.
No autofocus, but most quality lenses don't have autofocus either. I record the raw output to a Shogun 7 (cheaper than 2 P2 cards) and that yields a fantastic 4k 50p image in Prores and Prores Raw. Love it. Better than the internal AVC-Intra LT codec. Even the 240 fps HD crop looks decent via the raw output. This setup likes batteries though. 150Wh gets me about 2 hours. And you can not start an external recorder if you do not record internally. There is no noise reduction on the raw feed, so you can see some noise. Especially at 5000 iso. But it looks pretty organic. The image obviously falls apart if you underexpose severely, but the amount of colour that is still present is astonishing. I have shot things I could hardly monitor on the shogun (even on the waveform there was hardly any info) and all the colour was still there and looked natural. Pretty sick. Detail and sharpness are obviously gone in those circumstances. Build quality is very very nice. A tank indeed.
I am still exploring the limits of this machine, love working with it and love the look it gives me. I paired it with a Canon 18-80 cine zoom for run and gun. Slow at T4.4, but a servo and a decent zoom range for a very good price. And almost no breathing. I have a few old Mamiya 645 Sekor Cs I use as primes if I'm not renting. They look great as well.

Try to get your hands on both and see which one suits you best. As long as you don't have to fit in a client workflow your images get you jobs more than your gear. Both are very capable machines, so there is no 'wrong' choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top