FS7: What Is To Be Gained?

D

digitalinnovations

Well-known member
The time has come to add a new camera and I am very close to pulling the trigger on an ARRI Amira but I wanted to get some input from some of you to be sure I am weighing out all of the options. I guess I’m trying to be logical and make sure it’s the right move for me... just because I “can” doesn’t mean I should.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your viewpoint) for me I have the ability to chose my gear autonomously and don’t have requirements or requests from my clients for specific equipment - the gear just needs to do its job. On the other side of that “coin” though, I’m not going to be able charge more simply for the fact of having a more expensive camera system or magically have more time for the setups / shoots I do. So I’m looking at what will help me raise the bar, so to speak, within those constraints.

Currently, I am shooting with an FS7 rigged out with cage / shoulder mount, rails, matte box, follow focus, etc. so the majority of my support gear is capable of handling the added weight; with the exception of possibly getting a heavier-duty tripod head. For most of the shoots I use Milvus primes but if it’s “run-n-gun” I go to a lot of the usual suspects / photo zooms (24-105 and 70-200).

So where do I go from here? The FS7 has been a great camera overall in reliability and even the images to a certain degree - with the exception of the sometimes difficult nature of the color science. But ARRI (although the current golden child) isn’t the only game in town with better color science and potentially greater / more pleasing DR. There is a lot of talk about Panasonic’s in the Varicam LT for one. Then there’s Canon’s but to me they all look a like (which speaks to their consistency) but I think you want to see some improvement from a 5D to a C100 to a C700, no? There’s even Blackmagic’s... people compare it directly to the ARRI color science. That would put 3 other cameras in contention... Varicam LT, C200 (I don’t think the C700 warrants the extra cost just for a larger camera body and with internal Raw buying extra 256gb CF Fast cards is doable) and then even the Ursa Mini Pro could be considered. The Varicam LT has me tempted as it hits in that middle ground BUT what is really gained over the FS7 in real world use? The price is high enough (in my opinion) that it needs to be easily discernible otherwise the C200 or UMP are smarter business.

Obviously, this could go on and on but I’d love to get some thoughts from others in similar positions / experiences.
 
I am kind of in the same place. I'm eying the Varicam LT. The Amira is very heavy very power hungry and not true 4k so not Netflix/amazon compatible. The varicam has a great color it's a robust camera that pretty much hits all the marks and the dual ISO is very useful. On the other hand I have to say that when shot in cine Ei with nice glass and a competent post the FS7 looks really really good. So I am having difficulties justifying tha hassle of selling it and getting something else. The other issiue is that every single production company and TV network knows the fs7 and know what to expect. So for now I'm sticking with the fs7 but I would gravitate to the varicam lt.
 
If you're not gonna be able to charge more for an Amira over your Fs7, you're either getting great rates for the 7, or you don't need to get an Amira. While not as much as an Alexa, the Amira is definetly considered to be in a different class than an Fs7 and should command a premium over its rate.

VariCam's have been my bread and butter for the last decade and I really wanted to like the V35 and LT, but there are still a lot of things about them that push me away, besides the fact that I have no clients asking for them. I had the LT on loan/demo for several weeks during the summer and while there was a lot to like, I think Panasonic dropped the ball on things that would drive me crazy if I owned it. The control panel is great and very responsive, but they mounted it in the dumbest place ever. You have to dig into the menu for some things that should be accessed quickly(like certain TC settings), the audio menu can be confusing(hey here is an idea, everyone go back to having physical switches and dials like we used to), only one card slot, the Panasonic shoulder mount is crap and it takes forever to swap the lens mounts, no global shutter, long reboots after certain changes... It also did some weird things with my 17-120.
 
I think that's the question FS7 owners ask themselves. Where to we go from the FS7?

It's far from perfect but works so great in most situations and it's often difficult to charge more just because a more expensive camera is used. Amira would be nice to get that image quality but it's larger, heavier, power hungry and cost way more and unless you really can up your daily rate I'd stick with the FS7.
 
Jeremey, what's the reason for getting a new camera? For my understanding with a higher priced Arri you should either get better rates or reach a new class of work and customers or both, better rates and customers. What would be the benefit of a C200 or a UMP over a FS7?
 
I know why I would like to be rid of the fs7..

Its too heavy
It forgets cache record
It's not 444/raw lite
It's soft above 72fps
It's got no audio in HFR
Playback is awful (no scrubbing)
It only writes to one card creating data insecurity
Etc

So I know my hit list for a new camera.

It seems like you don't know yours.

But before I bought that camera I'd concentrate on other stuff that makes shoots great for my clients
-great remote monitor
-more lighting
-cn17-120
-always having an assistant
-a second fs7 !

I've never really been on a shoot where the fs7 was the weak link.

I seriously think you need to question your thought process.

And pick an Amera up - they are stupid heavy
 
Given Amera money to rekit I'd probably get

Fs5 and 18-110 for running about and c200b/Ursa for "studio" work

..Or an Alexa mini if I was in a position to give up on "the running around"

Although I'm not sure the mini is better than the c200b
 
I agree with Sam. Unless you can afford a Venice, I'd try and squeeze another year out of the FS7 and spend your spare cash on gear that will make an immediate impact to your production.

morgan_moore said:
It's soft above 72fps
Playback is awful (no scrubbing)
Click to expand...

My two pet hates too.

These are two things I'm finally getting some of my clients to understand.
morgan_moore said:
-always having an assistant
-a second fs7 !
Click to expand...
 
digitalinnovations said:
The time has come to add a new camera and I am very close to pulling the trigger on an ARRI Amira but I wanted to get some input from some of you to be sure I am weighing out all of the options. I guess I’m trying to be logical and make sure it’s the right move for me... just because I “can” doesn’t mean I should.

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your viewpoint) for me I have the ability to chose my gear autonomously and don’t have requirements or requests from my clients for specific equipment - the gear just needs to do its job. On the other side of that “coin” though, I’m not going to be able charge more simply for the fact of having a more expensive camera system or magically have more time for the setups / shoots I do. So I’m looking at what will help me raise the bar, so to speak, within those constraints.

Currently, I am shooting with an FS7 rigged out with cage / shoulder mount, rails, matte box, follow focus, etc. so the majority of my support gear is capable of handling the added weight; with the exception of possibly getting a heavier-duty tripod head. For most of the shoots I use Milvus primes but if it’s “run-n-gun” I go to a lot of the usual suspects / photo zooms (24-105 and 70-200).

So where do I go from here? The FS7 has been a great camera overall in reliability and even the images to a certain degree - with the exception of the sometimes difficult nature of the color science. But ARRI (although the current golden child) isn’t the only game in town with better color science and potentially greater / more pleasing DR. There is a lot of talk about Panasonic’s in the Varicam LT for one. Then there’s Canon’s but to me they all look a like (which speaks to their consistency) but I think you want to see some improvement from a 5D to a C100 to a C700, no? There’s even Blackmagic’s... people compare it directly to the ARRI color science. That would put 3 other cameras in contention... Varicam LT, C200 (I don’t think the C700 warrants the extra cost just for a larger camera body and with internal Raw buying extra 256gb CF Fast cards is doable) and then even the Ursa Mini Pro could be considered. The Varicam LT has me tempted as it hits in that middle ground BUT what is really gained over the FS7 in real world use? The price is high enough (in my opinion) that it needs to be easily discernible otherwise the C200 or UMP are smarter business.

Obviously, this could go on and on but I’d love to get some thoughts from others in similar positions / experiences.
Click to expand...

I was in the exact same position a little while ago. But I didn't want to get a second camera, which is what you seem to want? I wanted to replace my FS7 which I have been suffering with since I had bought it.

Very important to decide what's more important for you before you even start looking at options. You will not find a camera that will give you everything.

I decided that for me the most important was image quality and the look of the image. I put this above resolution, ISO, weight and everything else. One of the things that wore me out with my FS7 was the video look. I was just tired of fighting it. I wanted something that didn't look like video out of the box. Something that didn't need so much work in grading to just start looking decent. So I put image quality and image looks above all. Once I decided what was most important to me the choice became much easier. Since it was before the Venice was even announced there were only 2 obvious choices. Alexa or some of the other Arris or the F35. It didn't make sense to replace my FS7 with an Ursa Mini Pro. The image looks a bit better but still not there and it has a lot of things worse than the FS7. Quality control is horrible too. I don't like the Canon look much either. I also think they look like video. They do look nicer out of the box than the FS7. But I was after that could have fooled me it was shot on 35mm look. The Canons don't have it. They look like video too unless you start adding grain, film looks etc. So I would be back at same problem I had with FS7.

I also looked at Varicams. Had a LT for a whole week to test. But it has the same problem as the others. Out of the box it looks like video. I knew that by just looking at the Varicam demos. So many video looking shots in them. But since I was buying I wanted to make sure I checked it myself. The dual ISO is nice and it has other nice things like 4K. But I put image quality and image looks above all that. Again I would be back at FS7 territory having to use film looks and other tricks and still be disappointed. So I stuck with my priorities.

In the end I went with an used Alexa. I preferred that over a new Varicam. It was the right decision for me. I considered a F35 very seriously. But The Arri being more mainstream and having a built in recorder to easy to use SxS made a difference in the end. But I think I will still add a F35 in the near future. I love the image too much. Many times it looks better than the Alexa. Like when people are against the sun and the color is also nicer somehow. Maybe cremier. But for now the Alexa was the right choice for me. I have no regrets. You know how many clients complain I went from a 4K FS7 to an Alexa? Exactly ZERO! Actually those who know about cameras liked it.

I went with an used Alexa because I don't care about weight. I care about image quality. The Amira and Mini were much more money and didn't give me more of that. I don't care about 4K so the fake 4K in the Amira and Mini wasn't tempting at all. They don't really look sharper even if I cared. So used Alexa was perfect fit for me.

Now I have no more problems. No more suffering with trying to make the FS7 be something it's not. I'm a happy man. IMO even if rates don't go up the camera makes my life easier and makes me happy with the image out of the box. This is worth more than anything for me. But you need to decide what your priorities are. If mine was to get a camera with more resolution for example the Alexa would have been wrong. Only you can know your needs.:thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Run&Gun said:
VariCam's have been my bread and butter for the last decade and I really wanted to like the V35 and LT, but there are still a lot of things about them that push me away, besides the fact that I have no clients asking for them. I had the LT on loan/demo for several weeks during the summer and while there was a lot to like, I think Panasonic dropped the ball on things that would drive me crazy if I owned it. The control panel is great and very responsive, but they mounted it in the dumbest place ever. You have to dig into the menu for some things that should be accessed quickly(like certain TC settings), the audio menu can be confusing(hey here is an idea, everyone go back to having physical switches and dials like we used to), only one card slot, the Panasonic shoulder mount is crap and it takes forever to swap the lens mounts, no global shutter, long reboots after certain changes...
Click to expand...

Yes this too.
 
Playback is awful (no scrubbing)

Word on the street is that atmos monitors have client friendly scrubbing interface (and LUTs) - im in the Q for an atmos on loan.

If one cares about client experience.

HD link + Atmos could be a worthy upgrade to the FS7
 
Clermond said:
...For my understanding with a higher priced Arri you should either get better rates or reach a new class of work and customers or both...
Click to expand...

You are correct and my ultimate objective would be to reach a "new class" of work / clients. What I was trying to say in my original post was that I won't be able to just instantly raise rates on my existing clients just for purchasing a new camera system; I think there was some misunderstanding from some and that's my fault because I wasn't clear. I will be able to move that "needle" a little but not in the manner some of you are familiar with - where a camera is it's own line item - but moving forward, with new clients, that rate will be increased from the start.

It sounds like a lot of you work in a different production environment (to mine) where you either need to have certain features / cameras for that particular pipeline are required / requested. In my work, since I shoot/edit/deliver, it is like a "production bubble" so I don't have those stipulations but surely there are some that work in similar fashion to me so are familiar with this conundrum?

But yes, my end goal would be to keep moving up that ladder in terms of the quality of work I produce and clients I work with.


Clermond said:
...What would be the benefit of a C200 or a UMP over a FS7?
Click to expand...

In this particular "head to head" I am not sure...it appears they both have a 1-stop in DR advantage over the FS7 and the better color science (subjective). And yes, I would be shooting MY version of "higher end" stuff on the C200 in Raw Lite and run the MP4 for the quick & dirty projects. I have and still do use the C100 for this purpose but it's getting a bit long in the tooth and work like some of the new features in the C200 and the ability to record Raw Lite makes it even more tempting.
 
Last edited:
Sttratos said:
I was in the exact same position a little while ago. But I didn't want to get a second camera, which is what you seem to want? I wanted to replace my FS7 which I have been suffering with since I had bought it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply; lots of great "food for thought" included.

Again, I probably need to clarify...it's always tough to know at what point to stop typing before I bore people to death...but right now I have two camera "packages" that I use based on the needs of each shoot. For stuff that is at the lower-end or quick-turn I still use a C100 but for the higher-end, more time for setup and post-production I use the FS7. So if I went with say an Amira, it would be replacing the FS7 obviously. I may even drop the FS7 to those jobs that used to be C100 or sell it - that is TBD.


Sttratos said:
I decided that for me the most important was image quality and the look of the image. I put this above resolution, ISO, weight and everything else. One of the things that wore me out with my FS7 was the video look. I was just tired of fighting it. I wanted something that didn't look like video out of the box. Something that didn't need so much work in grading to just start looking decent.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much exactly where I am. While true 4K is nice for re-framing, etc. I don't have a single client requesting it or that care and I don't see that changing for a few years. Since I handle everything on my productions I would much rather have a camera that would save me hours in post-production trying to massage the image and use that time on-set at the acquisition stage.

Sttratos said:
It didn't make sense to replace my FS7 with an Ursa Mini Pro. The image looks a bit better but still not there and it has a lot of things worse than the FS7. Quality control is horrible too.
Click to expand...

The quality control is what scares me the most on the UMP; the images from that sensor look great but you have to get a good sensor. The ISO being limited to 800 is also a bit worrisome coming from the FS7 @ ISO 2000; reality is probably one stop less though. I know the ARRI sensors have "limited" ISO range but you can still push to 1600 if you have to where with the UMP you cannot but if I'm being honest, that sensor/color/camera has always been very tempting...if you can get a solid sensor/camera copy.

Sttratos said:
I also looked at Varicams. Had a LT for a whole week to test. But it has the same problem as the others. Out of the box it looks like video. I knew that by just looking at the Varicam demos. So many video looking shots in them. But since I was buying I wanted to make sure I checked it myself. The dual ISO is nice and it has other nice things like 4K. But I put image quality and image looks above all that. Again I would be back at FS7 territory having to use film looks and other tricks and still be disappointed.
Click to expand...

While a bit disappointing to hear, I'm glad you had some real world experience with the Varicam LT. Like you, I saw the majority of the clips I could see online had the video-look to them but there were some glimmering hopes...and then when you see the Netflix's stuff like Ozark shot on the sensor you also start to have hope but the fact is: there are lots of other things that go into achieving that look and the type of stuff I'm currently shooting cannot compare so I need a camera that can provide the best possible starting point.

Sttratos said:
Now I have no more problems. No more suffering with trying to make the FS7 be something it's not. I'm a happy man. IMO even if rates don't go up the camera makes my life easier and makes me happy with the image out of the box. This is worth more than anything for me.
Click to expand...

I love this ^ and it sounds like we are/were in similar situations.

Thank you again for taking the time to write all that out.
 
digitalinnovations said:
But yes, my end goal would be to keep moving up that ladder in terms of the quality of work I produce and clients I work with.
Click to expand...

I think this is your key-question, what do you need to move up the ladder. There are a lot of factors that maybe more important than a new camera. What is it that makes the people already there different from you? Is it their cameras, skills, network, experience, marketing. I'd find that out first.
 
I’d like to chip in with a first post here. Great forum by the way and Ive picked up some useful tips about setting up the FS7 - thanks.

Just as a bit of context, I started with 16mm film, embraced the digital thing with U-Matic, then Betacam, etc, used stuff from JVC, Sony, Panasonic, Arri, Red and Canon. Just about the opposite of a fan boy, I guess, and not exactly a spring chicken…

The last two cameras I owned were a Canon C300 then the C300 mk2. I hadn’t used Sony since way back because of the received wisdom about the superior colour science of Canon and the video look of Sony. Re the colour: I want to use a naughty word beginning with “boll” and ending with “ocks”, but I won’t. I began to lose patience with the 300/2 for a few reasons so compared it with the FS7 and even out of the box I preferred the FS7. Some intensive testing later I stand by that. IMHO Sony colour beats Canon at the moment. There is no such thing as accurate colour, there will always be part of the spectrum that is wrong, but some cameras are closer than others and I find the FS7 closer than any Canon I have used. I’ve found that if you get the exposure right on the FS7 then skin is very close, and skin is usually the critical bit. I always shoot log and grade in Resolve and for me it takes a tiny adjustment to get the tones I want. I know this is almost blasphemy but it’s what I have found with my shooting. I bought the FS7 a few weeks ago and have no wish whatsoever to return to Canon. I wonder how many people (not those posting here - I respect your views as you have probably done the tests and made your decisions based on your needs) have actually made side-by-side comparisons in real shooting conditions, and how many simply parrot the “official” view? I was guilty of that but now I see the light…

Re the video look, I won’t be quite so rude about that but I do dispute it somewhat. Yes, they all have that look, including Red, but excepting Arri. It’s difficult to pin down what causes that but too much sharpening definitely plays a part. Lenses also play a part and I’m starting to explore what gives me the look I want. I do find that log in the Sony is less “videoy” than in the others, except Arri. I don’t use raw because of time constraints.

Just my two cents but I put my money where my mouth was and am happier with the FS7. And thanks again for a great forum.
 
Sttratos said:
I decided that for me the most important was image quality and the look of the image. I put this above resolution, ISO, weight and everything else.
Click to expand...

This to me does just not compute.

Of course that depends on your shooting environment. But heavy cameras that eat light.. eat grip and lighting and the manpower to move that grip and lighting.. and shots that look 'pro' often are lit and may have the camera in motion.

A couple of 5ds with a good grip and lights package, well crewed, probably creates more engaging content than an Amera on sticks with an under rated head lugged about by a knackered operator.
 
Great first post Stewhem and no need to apologize for stating you’re opinion. I welcome it and I’m sure the majority of others do as well. There is no “right answer” (in MY opinion) and when it comes to color / motion cadence (the video-look) it’s a matter of taste and opinion as to what you like.

For me, I’m not looking for the “most accurate”... I’m looking for what is the most flattering or pleasing colors and a lot of times that won’t be what’s accurate. And once again, it’ll skew based on taste. It just so happens that a lot of people seem to agree on ARRI right now. But the mind is a funny thing so some of that could be because it’s elusive due to price and that makes us all desire it more... I’m just trying to sort out options before spending too much and then thinking “Ehh...yeah it’s fine.”

I actually have considered some of the other ideas being kicked around (so keep them coming) of ways to “get more” out of the FS7 platform. The wireless transmitting for monitoring has been tempting but in my work I so rarely have clients on-set / on-location that would use it...the ROI isn’t there for a quality system. I’ve tried the cheaper ones (like Nyrius) and only had problems / dropped connections.

Higher-end lensing is also a consideration but it’d need to be fast zooms, cover full frame and either be PL or EF to improve my shooting experience and that gets super expensive - again an issue with ROI and how much would be gained over the Zeiss Milvus primes in terms of image quality on the FS7?

It’s a great time for all of us; we’re spoiled with choices and as mentioned earlier...the FS7 is such a dilemma because it does do a lot of things and reasonably well so when you’re looking to progress the “next step” isn’t so clearly laid out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top