FS7: What Is To Be Gained?

digitalinnovations said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think there are a bunch of cameras that look better than the FS7.. including the URSA.

But 'the next step' always nearly means more grip/light/data/people/battery drain and many commercial environments make that not practical for reasons of cost/speed.

To some extent the FS7 is the top of a certain tree and another step will just make you fall out of the tree.

Do you really want more than 400MBS? If so you have a bunch of options right back to the Red Once, at many price points.

Have you actually ever used a 6 vlock_500Gb a day camera on a two day commercial shoot where you need to be charged and backup ready for the next day?

S
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
To some extent the FS7 is the top of a certain tree and another step will just make you fall out of the tree.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you here and it's making the choices very difficult to say the least.

morgan_moore said:
Do you really want more than 400MBS? If so you have a bunch of options right back to the Red Once, at many price points. Have you actually ever used a 6 vlock_500Gb a day camera on a two day commercial shoot where you need to be charged and backup ready for the next day?
Click to expand...

I have dealt with the larger battery consumption back in my ENG camera days. The initial expense of the batteries and chargers is not a fun experience but once you cross that bridge it just like any other battery system - weight aside but that doesn't worry me so much either. However, I have not dealt with larger file sizes than the FS7's 4K XAVC-I on a regular basis but lots of people do record ProRes via external recorders for various cameras and on the ARRI cams the internal ProRes tends to be robust enough for pretty much everything...it's not so much craving more "bits" just how those bits are used/processed. The Raw Lite of a C200 (which can be transcoded at the expense of time) or Raw of the UMP would be a different thing, I do agree with you there but those wouldn't be on every production and would definitely require some accommodations in terms of storage.
 
icarusfilm said:
I think I'm going to invest more into a faster and better davinci Resolve system.
Click to expand...

I am actually in the process of experimentation with that as well. I would love to be able to do everything right inside of Resolve but smooth playback is an issue which makes editing less than ideal but that is a WHOLE other thing.
 
Shooting skills, lighting skills and grading skills will do more than to go for another camera I think.

I've added a bunch of other Sony (and others) cameras to aid my shooting instead of getting something else than the FS7 and that has opened up a whole new area of work to me. But my FS7 is still the A cam for most jobs.
 
"A lot of people" (record fat data)

Maybe - or not? Possibly not so much in the "real world"

Yep drama people with DIT and cart.. and beardos with all week to download while browsing imstagram - but in your world?

Personally I want a quick dinner and bed when on the road and don't want to fiddle till midnight with hard drives

You don't reveal what your world is so it is hard to comment really.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
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.
Click to expand...

To each his own as they say.
 
morgan_moore said:
"A lot of people" (record fat data) Maybe - or not? Possibly not so much in the "real world".
Click to expand...

I would say that quite a few do with the plethora of external recorders out in the market which record to ProRes and Raw. I don't happen to and it sounds like you don't either from your statements but there are a lot of other people who work in different ways than ours. Not right or wrong...just different.

morgan_moore said:
You don't reveal what your world is so it is hard to comment really.
Click to expand...

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough in one of my earlier posts but I "shoot/edit/deliver" commercials and web content with some corporate mixed in...I partner with agencies and do direct-to-client...essentially I am a "production company" but since the vast majority of what I do is OMB that is open to however people choose to interpret it. I don't work in an environment where I "shoot and hand-off" or where I need to have a certain camera or features to fit within the ecosystem of other cameras / operators...I am in my own little, self-contained production "bubble" in a not-so-metropolitan area and my motivations for wanting to "step-up" are more or less self-imposed. I want to keep improving and producing bigger / better work and I believe by continually working towards that goal it will in turn attract that kind of attention and lead to more opportunities...if not, at the very least, the clients I do have continue to be thrilled with what we are creating together and I can continue to be proud of the work that I do. Maybe that concern comes from the fact that I do have such personal investment in every aspect of a project...I don't know but I've always been this way and want to learn more and improve as I can.

I don't know if any of that makes any sense to anyone but me :) or if you care but you asked so there ya go :)
 
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...

Guess you have to prioritize your requirements and make a decision based on them that way.

Sounds almost like you have no reason to change camera's at all, especially if your clients don't get in the way of what you shoot with, or have to worry about doing post on your slog footage. This is a great place to be. I'd say if you want to get more mileage out of the FS7 then just add the ability to shoot RAW with an Odyssey for example and you'll open up a whole new level if image quality if you want. I recently bid on a coloring job shot with the FS7 and RAW on the Odyssey and was blown away by the quality. If RAW is something you only need on certain occasion, this solutions makes a lot of sense.

So if you can put up with the pains you might have with Sony color science the odd time, I say stick with the FS7 and put any money you have burning a hole in your pocket into other gear that will increase the level of production quality or allow you to work faster/smarter.

Another "smart" investment would be a 2nd camera like a Sony mirrorless camera or FS5… something that can work as a b-cam to your FS7 or even in place of it for certain projects where the FS7 might be less suitable.

P.S. I agree the color science of the URSA 4.6K is great - I almost ditched my F55 for one when the 4.6K was released but as much as I love BMD and even own some of their products I just wasn't feeling confident about using their camera for the level of productions I was starting to get involved with. Perhaps things are different now regarding the URSA's but I'm not up to speed on where they tend to sit.
 
Hello Dennis! Thank you for chiming in; I know you too have debated with the many "pros" Sony brings to the table alongside the troublesome areas...I don't want to call them "cons" because a lot of it boils down to personal taste and preferences.

I may have to look at experimenting with the FS7's Raw workflow but for some reason I have it in my head that there were some issues there but those may have been long resolved and I may be doing what I HATE... when people keep stating there is an issue where there is none OR it has been fixed via firmware or manufacturing.

starcentral said:
...Another "smart" investment would be a 2nd camera like a Sony mirrorless camera or FS5… something that can work as a b-cam to your FS7 or even in place of it for certain projects where the FS7 might be less suitable.
Click to expand...

I actually have an A7rII that I use for B-Cam or for when mounting the FS7 is too risky or cumbersome; setting them both to S-Log2 allows them to inter-cut nicely. In fact, I have a shoot tomorrow with the pair.

starcentral said:
P.S. I agree the color science of the URSA 4.6K is great - I almost ditched my F55 for one when the 4.6K was released but as much as I love BMD and even own some of their products I just wasn't feeling confident about using their camera for the level of productions I was starting to get involved with. Perhaps things are different now regarding the URSA's but I'm not up to speed on where they tend to sit.
Click to expand...

I totally understand and have been there myself and I don't even work on the same level of productions you do. When the Ursa Mini Pro was released I received one the first week they began shipping but I had some issues with FPN so I sent it back BUT I just recently pulled up some test shots I have on-hand and it appears somehow the processing even within Resolve eliminated some of the issues I saw because now they are not as blatant even in the old footage. Plus I think they addressed some issues in-camera via firmware and adding a kind of "blackshading". It still doesn't make it a run-n-gun, low-light monster by any stretch but maybe more suitable for more produced shoots.
 
Jeremy
Thanks for outlining you situation.

Be clear - I think the fs7 has a thin file and all of my lights are too weak - I want more - I used to shoot stills and owned a Hasselblad and digital back so am used to deeply malleable files.

I'm also mainly shooting 'in house' so am my own arbiter of quality. But I also do some OMB event shooting and am under a director on occasion who may want long roll shots and a decent monitor image delivered to them.

In terms of cameras the doesn't seem to be an option that is a clear next step.

I think the c200 is very interesting and I lost where reds have got to. Both would appeal as long as I could keep the 7 for long roll work.

To some extent I do think 444/raw data is great from everyone.

The Vari and f55 (65) Venice are doubtless amazing but the gimbal ability and af of the c200 makes it a lead option.

I get Arri too but not really as an in house camera - Arri win because any a:c in the word knows how to use it and every rental house has the bits and every producer specs it (through ignorance? Or a clean 200p?)

All of these I would keep my 7 and get too given budget!
 
Last edited:
I have one thought that may help bring clarity?

Can you afford to keep the 7 and get something else?

Can you afford two cameras.

I'd ideally want a OMB cam which might be 7, Eva or c300ii (or c200 after testing the thin codec)

And a "Project" camera which might be Red, Arri mini c200, or even used Alexa studio or f65/f35 or c200, or f55

As for 8bit compacts like the a7 I'm not a fan - I prefer my bmc micro.
 
Last edited:
morgan_moore said:
Can you afford to keep the 7 and get something else? Can you afford two cameras.
Click to expand...

I can afford two cameras in the sense of keeping the FS7 and whatever the new camera would end up being, yes. But buying two additional cameras, I probably wouldn’t do that - then it becomes too tough “draw lines” as to what camera is used for what...in addition to the expense of course.

I think you’ve summed up kind of where I’ve been leaning but unable to express...using the FS7 for the more run-n-gun stuff, multi-cam with the A7rII, etc. and the new system for the “higher end”, more produced work...if that new system is truly “better” than the FS7.
 
Last edited:
I've been following this discussion and I feel like the Varicam LT should be your next camera.

The price is right ( more economical than an Alexa MINI or Amira ) and it ticks all of the boxes for which the Fs7 falls short for you. The Varicam LT is a similar form-factor as the Fs7. Unlike RED or ARRI you won't need a bunch of expensive accessories and add-ons. Pretty much ready to go out of the box.

There is a Varicam LT kit on ebay for $19k. Cards, shoulder plate- the works.


excerpt from Tobias Mennle's review:



"The Varicam LT´s images are stunningly beautiful and a revelation. For me, they are a lifetime dream come true. What came to my mind when watching the footage from this master camera for the first time: Oh my god. This looks like film. Like gorgeous 35 or 65mm film. And maybe even better.

Compared to an FS7 this is a big, heavy and powerhungry camera. Perfect, tanklike but elegant build quality down to all the details. I was shocked by size and weight first (its a full 4 kilos with just the handle, EF mount and viewfinder arm), but while watching and grading my footage I realized that for giving me 65mm film quality the Varicam is actually quite tiny.

The "Panasonic film look" is not marketing waffle, but simply amazing, and it is not one look, but THREE basic looks, with gradual transitions between them: Chrystal clean (but not digitally cold) 65mm, velvety 35mm, grainy gritty S-16mm. The Varicam LT has film´s rich and detailed colour reproduction, and at least film´s dynamic range with a truly superb highlight roll off. But in many ways it takes us far beyond film, as it is affordable, great in low light, and very easy to use from shooting to postproduction.

After 15 years of cinematography on Kodak 16mm, 25 years of still photography on mainly Fuji films, and 10 years of often frustrating digital cinematography, the Varicam knocked me off. Suddenly this awesome image quality is in my life and in my budget. Workflow with AVC Intra 4:2:2 with Resolve 12, a Pegasus R6 raid and a new iMac is basically the same as it was for 8bit HD on a MacBook Pro for the last five years. This is revolutionary."

http://cinescopophilia.com/comparing-to-the-panasonic-varicam-lt-to-the-sony-fs7-camera/


edit- Don't put the gimbal consideration over color science. From everything I read I think it likely that the Varicam LT will knock your socks off and you will fall in love with it. The C200 isn't as much a camera that anyone falls in love with. Go big.
 
I think your choice now falls maybe into a fork of "dude" or "cinematographer"

A 'dude' camera would go on a gimbal and want HFR - c200 Eva (and raw recorder - interesting but Unknown) Red - Alexa mini.

'Cinematographer' - varicam - used Alexa studio (cheap!)- red- f 35 55 65 Venice

--

Of course the F55 is modular.. Big brother to FS7.. or add a raw recorder and you have a great 'cinematographer' camera add the new raw recorder and you can get a Venic 'Brain' later.

Personally I'd go down the dude road - but I love a camera on a vehicle and carrying a Romford Atlas head literally makes me feel ill :)
 
Last edited:
I did side by side tests with the FS7, F3, Varicam LT and Alexa before I made my decision. Could help with your decision as to me it was as clear as day. I advice you to do your own side by side tests with all cameras you are considering. There is no better way. A picture is worth a 1000 words. You will see the truth in front of your eyes.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to voice a contrary opinion to most here. From what you describe Jeremey, I think the Amira sounds like the ideal candidate.

It's a fantastic camera to work with. Terrific ergonomics, all of the features you need for small crew productions, light enough to wield easily even if you are shooting solo, and those fabulous Arri highlights that are still just so much harder to clip than anything else out there (which lets you get away with less light and less grip than any other camera).

The vast majority of clients who ask for 4k are totally fine with Arri's '4k' (in fact I've had 'Arri 4k' requested specifically, multiple times recently), so that's a non-issue for most things.

For someone wanting to up the quality on direct to client productions, I think it's a great option. And unlike most other cameras out there, it has zero compromises at any frame rate from 1-200fps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top