thinking of trading in my FS5 for a DVX200...

My short list 15 months ago came down to the DVX200 and the FS5. I shot with both for a couple hours before I made my decision to go with the DVX200. Briefly, for me, it came down to:

1) My work does not require interchangeable lenses. In fact, the hassle (changing and carrying lenses, dirty sensor) and expense (multiple lenses) is a detriment.

2) The DVX200 is about $2000 less

3) The DVX200 low light capability was acceptable. The FS5 is better in low light.

One of my friends came down to the same two choices and selected the FS5. We're both still happy with our purchases, but still have some "Oh, I wish my camera did that" conversations.
 
I've used the FS7 not FS5 but I'd say it's a question of do you really want or not want lens interchanging, the larger sensor and all that entails. In some ways it's comparing apples with oranges, I'm happy with my DVX-200 it does what I need it to do beautifully.
 
Why can't you have both? I'd rather have a camcorder for reality work and an interchangeable lens system for narrative work. They're just two different tools for different jobs.

However, if you can only have one system...if "minimal hassle on the day" is the most important aspect of your system (that includes form factor, time involved, size of your kit, etc) then a unibody camcorder is the way to go. DVX200 is arguably the best and most exciting, full-featured, one of those on the market today.
 
I own an FS5. I thought about purchasing a DVX200 but decided to go with the FS5 in large part because of the small form factor as well as the full resolution slow motion capability vs the bulkiness of the DVX200 and the lower resolution slo-mo. I also like the lens interchangeability of the FS5. The DVX200 seems to go on sale a lot so you may be able to get one $2k less than an FS5 and of course you don't need lenses. I am happy with my FS5.
 
Thanks for all the input everyone.

I know I'm fortunate enough to have a FS5 so it's not like I hate my camera. I have switched my attention from narrative films to docs and feel like the fs5 is too much camera for what I want to do. I like the idea of not needing to swap lenses or honestly have to worry about which lens to use.

The dvx200 seems like a better choice for me so if I end up being able to unload the fs5 I think I'll go that route. But since we are not the richest of people I'm sure it will be a tough sell and I still have a great camera at my disposal!
 
Larry Chapman said:
In fact, the hassle (changing and carrying lenses, dirty sensor) and expense (multiple lenses) is a detriment.
Click to expand...

You could just stick a zoom lens on the body and never take it off. You can find various options from Sony that would probably match the quality of the optics and speed of the DVX200 lens.
 
I shoot weddings with my DVX200. I have a shoulder rig for it. I use an Anton Bauer battery and so can power a light if i need it. For one videographer weddings it saves a lot of hassle. Being able to zoom for the perfect frame is great. I love the crispness and the low light capability is almost okay. The one thing it can't do is that dreamy bokeh look in the bridal prep. I wish I had the FS5 for that! Of course most wedding videographers that I see on FB and elsewhere seem to shun the DVX200.
 
Some of those guys that might shun it may be wedding cinematographers. The fixed-lens cameras are dated in terms of image quality compared to the interchangeable lens systems.

The reliability of the traditional cameras are second to none, but if you put high-quality glass (and you don't have to spend thousands) on the FS5, for example, it will blow the DVX200 out of the water with its IQ.

I've seen wedding guys carry both; the fixed-lens zoom cameras for overall coverage where it's the best tool for the unpredictability, and a smaller mirrorless/DSLR (maybe a G85 or GH5 along with the DVX200) for the cinematic b-roll.
 
But the G85, GH4, GH5, and DVX200, all have the same 4/3" sensor size. So depth of field works the same between them. You'd need an extremely fast, long lens to get the kind of bokeh you would from a wider lens on a camera with a 135-size sensor. You're using the wrong tools. If you want to get images that look like they were shot with a 135-size sensor camera and a fast portrait lens, then you need to shoot with a 135-size sensor camera and a fast portrait lens. It used to be us 2/3" ENG guys had to work pretty hard with ND and zooms to get shallow depth of field for interviews and such. Nowadays you can just use a 5D. The Super 35 sensor of the FS5 (paired with an appropriately fast lens) yields a lovely cinematic image because the Super 35-type is the bar raised from the film days. APS gets fairly close, so even a 7D or a T6i is a good choice for this sort of image. DVX200 is a fine camera, but another 4/3"-type sensor camera with a faster lens (considering both at 12.8mm, DVX200 at f/2.8, with, say, a micro 4/3 sensor camera with a DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4 lens), will get shallower depth of field...albeit only by one stop. In 135 terms, you'd be using a 24mm at f/2.8 to achieve the same effect....so if you opened up the 24mm on a 5D to f/1.4 you'd suddenly have a stop-shallower dof. So that portrai look you'd want to get with a 4/3" sensor camera? You'd need a 43mm f/0.9 lens just to get close to what an 85mm f/1.8 does on a 5D. Personally, I don't want to follow focus at f/0.9. lol
 
TheDingo said:
Totally agree, but the DOF would be the same as the FF 85mm f/1.8 lens. ( in other words the follow focus would be equally tough with either camera )
Click to expand...

And I don't want to do that, either! lol I generally expose for a T4/5.6 split in Super 35 and above. When I AC, I can pull focus at T2.8 or so. But when I DP (and operate and focus), I light for something manageable. Every now and then you need a super speed to get some kind of creamy portrait, but I'd never do that on, say, a Steadicam shot. T4 is hard enough when the camera's flying! :D
 
JRJphoto said:
But the G85, GH4, GH5, and DVX200, all have the same 4/3" sensor size. So depth of field works the same between them. You'd need an extremely fast, long lens to get the kind of bokeh you would from a wider lens on a camera with a 135-size sensor. You're using the wrong tools. If you want to get images that look like they were shot with a 135-size sensor camera and a fast portrait lens, then you need to shoot with a 135-size sensor camera and a fast portrait lens. It used to be us 2/3" ENG guys had to work pretty hard with ND and zooms to get shallow depth of field for interviews and such. Nowadays you can just use a 5D. The Super 35 sensor of the FS5 (paired with an appropriately fast lens) yields a lovely cinematic image because the Super 35-type is the bar raised from the film days. APS gets fairly close, so even a 7D or a T6i is a good choice for this sort of image. DVX200 is a fine camera, but another 4/3"-type sensor camera with a faster lens (considering both at 12.8mm, DVX200 at f/2.8, with, say, a micro 4/3 sensor camera with a DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4 lens), will get shallower depth of field...albeit only by one stop. In 135 terms, you'd be using a 24mm at f/2.8 to achieve the same effect....so if you opened up the 24mm on a 5D to f/1.4 you'd suddenly have a stop-shallower dof. So that portrai look you'd want to get with a 4/3" sensor camera? You'd need a 43mm f/0.9 lens just to get close to what an 85mm f/1.8 does on a 5D. Personally, I don't want to follow focus at f/0.9. lol
Click to expand...

Wish you would stop thinking in such depth. I'm starting to get a headache. LOL That is why God invented deep focus. Actually nice analysis. Jason, do you have a follow focus system for your DVX? If so, what brand?
 
Design Media Consultants said:
Jason, do you have a follow focus system for your DVX? If so, what brand?
Click to expand...

I own a cheap Fotga DP500IIS follow focus unit that works surprisingly well for anything but maco product shots (slight bit of play you can feel on short pulls). For giggles I hooked up a 15mm LWS rails system to the DVX200 at one point, with the mattebox and a bunch of other stuff (before I got the clamp-on system I use for everything but reality work)...including the Fotga. So, the teeth [0.8 pitch / 32 mod] grip the focus ring okay enough to get a focus pull...and, honestly...there are three ways to grip a focus ring, which I will now explain in EXCRUCIATING detail...to simplify things:

IMG_5336.jpg

Item 1 is an illustration of the way we video peeps normally operate the FIZ rings. Pretty standard.

IMG_5338.jpg

Item 2 illustrates, by comparison, the way a stills photographer operates FIZ rings. Standard for stills photographers (who know what they're doing).

IMG_5334.jpg

Item 3 illustrates the position of the focus puller's hand when a follow focus unit is in use. Note how the wrist doesn't have to strain itself getting the fingers to wrap around the lens. Instead, the forearm, wrists and hand simply extend out from the elbow in a very relaxed position, allowing the fingers to do most of the work, with slight adjustments from the wrist. Now, you can focus smoothly without having the bend the elbow to drag the forearm into the camera behind the wrist.

You can work much better with a follow focus unit. But, damn, it adds so much to the already front-heavy camera. It's not just the FF, it's the rod support system, too. And a camera like this doesn't really want a FF system. It's focus pulls are pretty short most of the time. I have mine set to Fine and it works well. But, on longer shoots, I wish I had a follow focus unit. That particular Fotga brand is the cheapest I'd ever want to go. It's built pretty well and can handle the...aggressive tone...of my PL-mount lenses. I've used (rented or had caused to rent) Chrosziel, the original RedRock Micro, and the OConnor, follow focus unitys. If I were to buy an excellent FF today from experience, I'd go with the OConnor, hands-down. However, I really like Bright Tangerine and everything they're doing. I never used an Arri mattebox or follow focus, but some of those engineers now work at BT and I know they're good for it. Their Viv is really solid. Anyway, I'm sure their FF is just as sexy.
 
I have used fs7 for a year and DVX200 for live shows for few weeks

DVX200 is good if you can stay under 800 ISO, 1000 will be the max I will push it. after 1000 ISO highlight blowout too fast. the stabilizer is excellent, and it has the slowest (speed wise) motorized zoom for camera under 6k USD.
unless you are shooting live events or live concerts or sports with decent lighting. Dont trade your fs5.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top