FS7: Thinking about purchasing an FS7 for an upcoming project

egproductions

egproductions

Veteran
I'll usually rent cameras for larger projects that require anything more than a BMPCC or DSLR, however, I have a big project that I landed for the summer and am considering just buying an FS7 and then selling it afterwards (or at least that is the lie I am telling myself to justify the purchase). The main reasons I think it will be good for this project is the resolution, high speed frame rates and sensor size. The dynamic range, potential for raw, internal NDs, low light performance and all the other great things about the camera are just bonuses. I've done a decent amount of research into the camera but really just want to get peoples opinions on things that they were less than happy about with the camera. I know the BMPCCs look great on paper, but there were so many challenges and frustrating things about them that it just wasn't worth it for me in the end. Please help me fill the gaps with things I haven't been able to find in a google search.

What are some bad things about the camera?

Is there still a white balance issue with magentas?

Money aside, should I be considering the FS700 with an oddesy at this point or is the FS7 a better setup?

I've seen conflicting things with regards to whether the FS7 can record 240fps. can it? Is it burst or continuous?

I'm considering getting the sony 24-135 f4 for run and gun shooting. I also have lots of very nice EF glass. Does the 24-135 hold its own?

I've heard of issues with the metabones speedbooster ultra. Have these issues been addressed?

Any other thoughts welcomed (including where to buy, new or used, resale value, etc.) Thank you!
 
egproductions said:
I'll usually rent cameras for larger projects that require anything more than a BMPCC or DSLR, however, I have a big project that I landed for the summer and am considering just buying an FS7 and then selling it afterwards (or at least that is the lie I am telling myself to justify the purchase). The main reasons I think it will be good for this project is the resolution, high speed frame rates and sensor size. The dynamic range, potential for raw, internal NDs, low light performance and all the other great things about the camera are just bonuses. I've done a decent amount of research into the camera but really just want to get peoples opinions on things that they were less than happy about with the camera. I know the BMPCCs look great on paper, but there were so many challenges and frustrating things about them that it just wasn't worth it for me in the end. Please help me fill the gaps with things I haven't been able to find in a google search.

What are some bad things about the camera?

Is there still a white balance issue with magentas?

Money aside, should I be considering the FS700 with an oddesy at this point or is the FS7 a better setup?

I've seen conflicting things with regards to whether the FS7 can record 240fps. can it? Is it burst or continuous?

I'm considering getting the sony 24-135 f4 for run and gun shooting. I also have lots of very nice EF glass. Does the 24-135 hold its own?

I've heard of issues with the metabones speedbooster ultra. Have these issues been addressed?

Any other thoughts welcomed (including where to buy, new or used, resale value, etc.) Thank you!
Click to expand...


I'm using it daily, including today, to shoot a feature and am very happy with it. Had the FS700 previously which was also a great camera except for the codec which the Odyssey would solve. I shoot in Cine EI which never had any issue with white balance and the issue is pretty much gone from other modes. It can only record 180fps in camera but I never need higher, and it's no longer burst, it can record indefinitely. Only issue I have is mine is looking a bit worn in places for a 3 month old camera, paint is wearing off the handgrip extension and the mounting rod for the viewfinder sometimes scrapes the camera body. Just cosmetic stuff that doesn't matter if I keep it but does matter for resale. I expect resale value to hold up pretty well since there was not an announcement of a direct competitor as expected ( I don't consider any camera that lacks built in ND's or is not in the same price range to be a direct competitor, your opinion may vary). It was a great choice for my feature. I'm shooting internal 4K for the purpose of reframing/ scaling if needed, and I can deliver in 4K for theater projection if needed, or downconvert to 2K. The XAVC isn't RAW but is as good as it gets short of RAW- very easy to grade compared to AVCHD of the FS700. The dynamic range is great. I just watched a feature I shot in 2012 on the AF100 and the difference in DR is phenomenal and it makes it possible to shoot certain scenes that couldn't have been shot before with the same limited grip equipment.

I'm really glad I chose the camera for my particular purpose and glad I didn't opt for a RED or other camera that would have required external recorders and additional crew. I've also taken it along multiple times on "regular jobs" which are business profiles, and have found it to be a capable R & G camera. The end product is noticeably different from profiles shot by my trusty HVX.
 
Last edited:
I've worked in the rental world 17 years. Sales side for 3. Gotta say the following. #1, I'd be pleased to consult with you on the purchase. I'm not a move the boxes kind of guy. #2 The camera configuration for you should depend on budget, shooting needs, codec to record to, genre of production, lens options you own now and lens option you'd like to be shooting with. What you mean by run and gun...? Some peeps like for R&G some don't. Do you need 240 FPS or does internal 180 serve the purpose? There is nothing terribly bad about the camera. Because it has so many options / genres where it is being used it does face some challenges of trying to be good for every application or shoot style. You could say it is a Swiss army knife of cameras... lots of different tools / applications but each tool may have a compromise compared to purpose built tools. This
camera ticks a lot of different boxes but some of those boxes may have some compromises compared to cameras purpose built for certain applications or how you want to operate/shoot.
 
I did a lot of research, then decided to buy the FS7 when it was first released.
Prior to this, I owned a FS700 and rented F55s, F5s and C300s.

On my last 3 shoots, I've recorded 4K in camera... and I couldn't be happier.

I own a Sony 24-135, which is an amazing lens for the money, partly because it's parfocal...
I can alter my frame without refocusing, but I use other lenses for run and gun.
(note: the 24-135mm is not as sharp as my 24-70 F2.8 Zeiss, but it's a longer lens)

Personally, I have no interest in metabones or speedboosters, I'm slowly selling all my stills lenses...
I think cine lenses will replace the use of non parfocal still zooms in a few years.

I've posted some of my research here:
http://indiecameras.com

Bill Kerrigan - DOP
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
514 486 8456
http://www.kerrigan.ca
 
Have you noticed a difference in Picture Quality if you downrez to 1080p from 4k as opposed to recording straight to 1080p?
 
I did a test once and there was a difference, but not a dramatic one. I'm shooting in 4K mainly to have the ability to reframe or scale without a resolution penalty.
 
Madp said:
Have you noticed a difference in Picture Quality if you downrez to 1080p from 4k as opposed to recording straight to 1080p?
Click to expand...

There may be, but it seems to me that the 1080p up to 60fps takes advantage of high quality downscaling from 4k. So the 1080p image appears to have much more resolution than older 1080p cameras like the F3. For me, I see this when I shoot things like trees in winter.

If you're shooting a high end narrative, music video, or short form commercial, consider 4k or raw, but otherwise, if your delivery is 1080p, you're probably more than fine shooting 1080p and saving on storage and post.
 
morgan_moore said:
4k is sharper
Click to expand...

The question was whether 1080p derived in camera compared to 4k derived in camera downconverted to 1080. Your three word response is so short it's not clear you're answering the question asked. I don't think anyone argues that 1080p in the FS7 compares directly to 4k in the FS7.
 
The 1080 has a misty veil and a bit more magenta, but yep most of my projects have not made me feel I should use uhd for 1080 delivery

I have a 'serious' project soon (I hope) and I will argue for 4k and probably mark my monitor down, more to reframe and stabilise and have options than purely for those extra 3LPI

it must be said though that 'peeping' is hard to do and actually the difference on a complex scene may be more apparent in oeverall perception than you would guess from this test.

S
 
Thanks for all the thoughts/opinions/screenshot... I have no need for reframing/zooming, but I'm glad you brought up stabilization...
 
Because you are perfect?

Id never plan a zoomed shoot like doing an interview with no coverage.

Just las week I shot an interview with my sticks in the mud and my horizon was 5% off level - haste of the job - I didnt spot it. So a reframe will occur.

A small reframe, and a bit of colouring (for example) Im guessing the 1080 will start to break.

S
 
Viddovation said:
If you're shooting a high end narrative, music video, or short form commercial, consider 4k or raw, but otherwise, if your delivery is 1080p, you're probably more than fine shooting 1080p and saving on storage and post.
Click to expand...

I find the FS7 to be a very sharp camera. I was shooting something on a 5D and felt like I was getting cataracts based on how soft the image was.
 
I only do narrative work and everything will be double checked before moving on... So the only thing I would consider 4k for is better picture quality, and I may be considering it for stabilization, as I will be doing some hand held shots. But I'm leaning 1080 right now.
 
morgan_moore said:
Because you are perfect?

Id never plan a zoomed shoot like doing an interview with no coverage.

Just las week I shot an interview with my sticks in the mud and my horizon was 5% off level - haste of the job - I didnt spot it. So a reframe will occur.

A small reframe, and a bit of colouring (for example) Im guessing the 1080 will start to break.

S
Click to expand...

That might be bit harsh. I doubt any of us are perfect, but if the frequency with which re framing is desirable is low, then the costs in media and storage of 4k may not justify themselves. Certainly thats the case with some of my clients.
 
Madp said:
I only do narrative work and everything will be double checked before moving on... So the only thing I would consider 4k for is better picture quality, and I may be considering it for stabilization, as I will be doing some hand held shots. But I'm leaning 1080 right now.
Click to expand...



Comes in handy for reading scene numbers on an iPad also.

reframe sample 1.jpg
reframe sample 4.jpg
 
Is the 24-135 in demand? Will I be able to sell it easily in a few months?

Is the Speedbooster Ultra good or does it have issues?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top