FS5: Would you buy a Fs5 right now.

GaryinCalifornia

GaryinCalifornia

Veteran
Reading over the thread about the new Panny or maybe it was in the one of the ones about the C200. Someone wrote about a rebate on the Fs5.

I see that with the rebate its $4,800. Body only.

A friend has the Atomos for the raw upgrade (another 500 bucks).

Another will loan me his Rokinons while he’s still in post or sell them to me for cheap.

I have until the 30th to get the free metabones.

Yes the others are coming. But thinking of killing 2 birds with one stone.

The savings between the Fs5 and or either the Panny or Canon.

I can put on the new roof that my farm house needs from all the rain and storms we’ve had this year. And also get a camera and not have to go into my retirement account, lol.

Also the thing that keeps me from pulling the trigger is that I’ve basically become a writer (option 2 scripts this year and maybe a third, like the producer, not the director, lol, but money talks) instead of being a producer/director due to my mother’s failing health. I’m a nurse or caretaker now.

So just trying to figure out things.
 
Take into account that none of these cameras will be available till probably January.
If you need a camera right now you need it right now.
 
The FS5 is a solid camera, it has a strong image and can do quite a bit with an external recorder.

Waiting till next year to buy a camera based on specs seems crazy, the C200 could come out and have tons of issues.

The FS5 works very well and is here now. I wouldn't wait.

Edit: Don't forget to take into account that E mount totally kicks ass.
 
To my opinion, you should reflect what you wish to do with the camera. What I understood up to now, the C200 seems to be great to use it as an ENG camera, where you can take the 8bit footage with a great color management without grading out of the box = direct from the camera. The footage seems to be nice, and if you have some Canon lenses that is great too.

The raw format in the C200 another questionmark. We do not know how great the 12bit raw footage will be (remember: Sonys 12bit footage has some weaknesses in the darks). The time you can record seems to be more limited due to the card capacity and that you have one slot only. With the FS5 and the Shogun you can use larger SSDs.

Up to now I am not sure if the C200 will get an internal 10bit codec. I miss that too, but the FS5 does not have that either.

The external output from the C200 seems to be limited too - for HD you can get 10bit by HDMI and SDI, but not for UHD or DCI 4K. But the FS5 can do that - with the raw update and the Shogun or 7Q+.

So all together the C200 seems to be far away from beeing an CINEMA camera to my opinion, what an FS7 alone or an FS5 + raw upgrade + recorder can be. The question boils down to what you need.
 
Wants vs needs. That's the difficult part.

When it comes to a feature you need to assess how likely it is that having that feature would bring you any work. Would you lose any potential work by not having ___________ ( insert feature )? Would you realistically gain any work by having ___________ ( insert feature ) ?

Even were the C200 or new Panny available for purchase right now, you are taking a risk purchasing a new model of camera that has yet to have any potential bugs worked out. Greater risk of purchasing a lemon than there is with a camera model that has been in use in the real world for a while. My father always advised me to never purchase the first of any new model of automobile and to instead purchase a model of vehicle that has been tried and tested by other consumers. Heeding that advice would mean waiting to purchase a C200 or Eva until a year or so after they are released.

Right now you can purchase a pre-owned C300 with a 90 day warranty and 30 day return policy for around $2800. That would leave you budget for purchasing your own Rokinons / extra batteries / filters / inexpensive matte box. All sorts of high-caliber work has been shot on the C300. Do you really need 4K? I own an Fs7, use it to shoot network tv / corporate / documentary / BTS for movies and I rarely get a request for 4K. Roughly 95% of the calls I receive are wanting plain old 1080.

Whatever the cost of any camera you need to add roughly 25% of that figure in additional budget for the accessories you will need / want. Outside of the cost of lenses there is the cost of media cards, card reader(s), camera case, lens case(s), pola filters, ND filters, on-camera light, etc. Accessorizing is potentially endless and it adds up quickly.
 
My two cents: There will always be other cameras coming. Deal with the now. If you are going to be making a living with the camera and it meets your needs, then go for it. It will pay for itself very quickly. If this is a fun thing, then you can wait forever and rent the new cameras when they come out and have a project you want to use them for. The deal sounds great, though if past rebates are any indication, it is likely that the pricing will remain low or the rebate continued after the current rebate ends, but only Sony knows for sure.

The FS5 is a nice camera. I use the 10bit HD a lot and the 4K 8bit internal on occasion. I have no need for the raw recorder at the moment. I like to travel light which is the special quality of the FS5. I did acquire the 18-110 Sony E-mount zoom lens. It is great for fast moving jobs. On occasion, I rent a second FS5 as a B camera.
 
Last edited:
alaskacameradude said:
Well........it depends. The FS5 DOES have a internal 10bit codec in HD. Not in 4K. So it
depends on what you are shooting.....
Click to expand...
True, with HD you have 10bit with the FS5. But today I would not purchase a 10bit system for HD only. The minimum should be to use an external recorder for 10bit UHD.
 
JPNola said:
Wants vs needs. That's the difficult part.

When it comes to a feature you need to assess how likely it is that having that feature would bring you any work. Would you lose any potential work by not having ___________ ( insert feature )? Would you realistically gain any work by having ___________ ( insert feature ) ?

Do you really need 4K? I own an Fs7, use it to shoot network tv / corporate / documentary / BTS for movies and I rarely get a request for 4K. Roughly 95% of the calls I receive are wanting plain old 1080.
Click to expand...

I think "Build and they will come" can apply here. Granted, we are talking two completely different ballparks between an fs5 and an F55, but I wasn't getting calls for an F5 or F55 and I definitely wasn't getting calls for 4K/UHD, but I knew it was a popular camera and I bought it and put the word out immediately and I've done lots of jobs that I got JUST because I had the camera.

4K is already here, and while I may not shoot it everyday, I'm glad I have it when asked for it. It's another arrow in the quiver...
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
I can put on the new roof that my farm house needs from all the rain and storms we’ve had this year. And also get a camera and not have to go into my retirement account, lol.

Also the thing that keeps me from pulling the trigger is that I’ve basically become a writer (option 2 scripts this year and maybe a third, like the producer, not the director, lol, but money talks) instead of being a producer/director due to my mother’s failing health. I’m a nurse or caretaker now.

So just trying to figure out things.
Click to expand...

If you're primarily a writer and not a cameraman then why even get a camera like the Sony FS5 at all? If a person is not out there shooting every week (or at the very least a few days out of every month) on shoots that "need' such a camera, then I think they're better off not owning one.

Instead rent the few times you need one, or your DoP will be bringing his camera.

If you really **really** want your own personal camera, then for those solo shoots or other no budget shoots without a budget, get yourself one of these: Panasonic G80 (4K + IBIS + good stills + a polished implementation) or BMD Micro (or Pocket, but then you won't have 60fps slow motion, or full size HDMI, or a bigger battery, or genlock, or more) Cinema Camera (raw, ProRes, great dynamic range, lovely colors, or a secondhand Sony PMW-F3 (built in ND filters, XLR inputs, timecode, 444 output, s-log, SDI, & more!). Any of these three can be found for around US$1K or significantly less.
 
Option the scripts for some eating and spending money. lol probably going all into a new roof on my farmhouse. More damage than I thought after climbing up there last Friday.

I’m primarily a producer who has produced over 12 films who wants to direct now. I’ve rented everything from Arri film cameras to 2 Alexa’s on the last feature I produced and probably every HD format in-between those and Red.

I prefer not to shoot it myself. But because of time, money and my mother’s health I might have too. Done a few old Christian music videos all shot on film and a few old TV spots (a few shot on video) as a director/dp and I’ve even done B camera sometimes on a few of my early feature producing gigs.

A post house that will do the post as their investment prefers 4k from a better camera. Less time they’ll spend fixing things. We’ve even joked that my stedicam/b camera friend who I’d like to shoot it can bring over just one of the Alexa’s they use or even one of the F7’s they use sometimes on a major CBS show, that would be best of all.

But it seems he’s not getting a break. They’ve finished the season, but have shot 2 of next years shows and he said in an email last week. They might shoot one or two more.

And I’ve been sharpening my skills again with a g7 and playing around with film convert, etc.

And by owning the camera, I can use it for other things later on.

If money was no problem. I’d probably go for an Amira. But the way digital is always changing for the better and for the worse (always something new around the corner) something simple that’ll get the job done is all I need right now. And I remember back in the day when an Avid film composer costs close to a 100k, if you can't pay it off in less a year or less. Don't buy it because they'll always be something newer and better around the corner. But luckily some things have gotten cheaper. :)
 
Last edited:
I had a shot at one with the Q7. An AC friend from LA told me about it. But by the time I got the email and he got a break in the middle of a shoot. The person had sold it. The guy needed money. 6k for both.

Just wonder about the storage on shooting raw... but probably would shoot pro-res, that's what we did with the Alexa's and the footage came out so much like film... even shooting that way.
 
You can shoot raw half raw prores and 12bit 444 2k and you can do it today without waiting for firmware 3rd Party Accessoires for 4.5-6k +recorder.
 
"I like to travel light which is the special quality of the FS5. I did acquire the 18-110 Sony E-mount zoom lens."

So I guess you decided to not travel so light after all, eh? That lens is awesome but it's a monster.
 
Get the FS5 and a recorder. The price for the FS5 and an Odyssey or Atomos are at an all time low right now in the industry. I own an FS5 + Atomos Shogun Inferno + a lot of different e-mount glass (i.e. zeiss batis, zeiss loxia, veydra mini primes) and have used lenses of the likes of Xeens and the Fuji Mk series (both very affordable to rent) all of which require no lens adapters and produce stunning 4k images on the Sony platforms.

With this combination you get pretty much the same sensor as the FS7, 12-bit SDI raw output (additional cost even for FS7), Pro-Res Raw + Regular Pro-Res (good latitude and render times in FCPX), 4k 4-sec burst @ 120fps, 2k continuous @ 240fps, and 10-bit 1080 @ 120fps continuous "in-camera" all of which are capable of HDR transmission, you have the Auto-ND filter (can get away with no matte-box for run-gun), Auto-focus with native lenses, Removable grip for recording on gimbals, (3) XLR inputs, insanely small form factor for this grade of video IQ, etc., shall I go on?

I have friends with C200, C300, Ursa Mini, and a Red Scarlet-W. Here is what I can say about all them in comparison.

Canon and the Red by far have better color prior to post but nothing that a good grade in resolve can't change. The Canon raw is NOISY (noisier than Raw from the FS5) but somehow it still looks pleasing (almost film grain-esque). The Canons slow-motion is extremely limited in comparison and at an additional cost (with lower resolution outputs and frame rates) I cannot justify investing in either of those two cameras (C200 / C300) despite their better "out of the camera" color and "look" to the footage.

Shooting with S-log 3 on the FS5 does require more grading in post but its 4k footage is cleaner and offers much better frame rates in comparisons to the Canons. Furthermore, with HDR workflows becoming the new "Jazz" and Youtube / Vimeo providing better 4k / 2k support (and most likely HDR in the future) I think having a 1080 only workflow will become a thing of the past within the next few years so from and investment perspective I would want at a bare minimum 4k/2k 10-bit @ 60-120fps to at least be able to compete with indies with GH5's /G9's.

I can even make better points when comparing the cost of my friends Scarlet-W setup to the cost of my FS5 setup as to why the FS5 is such a good deal despite its many flaws...

Despite the huge difference between 16-bit and 12-bit dynamic range, both cameras shoot 4k@120fps, 2k@240fps, and 1080 @ exceedingly high frame rates. Both are capable of HDR, both have XLR outputs and professional audio, both can shoot raw, have waveform monitoring, false color, focus peaking, and a multitude or professional adjustment. Both do pretty poor in low-light and both produce noise if not exposed properly but the Red has larger exposure latitude in Post. The red has much better compression, codecs, color, noise sensitivity, and has a better slow-motion cadence / look, but at a total cost of around $20,000 versus $6,000. Think of what $14,000 can buy you in glass, follow-focus, lighting, sound, wire-less video transmission, gimbals, shoulder-rigs, etc. all to help in the aid of improving workflow and overall production.

Furthermore think about what most clients really request and how sensitive are their eyes to dynamic range, shadow noise, skin-tones, artifacts, etc? I know the majority of the clients I work for (business / corporate) probably couldn't notice the difference between 8-bit and 12-bit and definitely would not notice the difference between my FS5 4k footage and my friends Red 4k footage. At the end of the day businesses are placing videos on Instagram, facebook, hosted websites, vimeo, youtube, etc. They aren't watching them on Flanders recording monitors and most of them sure as hell aren't going to spend more $$$$$ just because you tell them you have "a better camera".

Yes the FS5 is flawed. But almost every camera is from some point of view. There is always a trade-off. I say pull the trigger. I think you will quickly see what the little FS5 is capable of. With a recorder I wouldn't trade it for an FS7 without. Just my two cents even though many disagree.
 
gibbygoo said:
"I like to travel light which is the special quality of the FS5. I did acquire the 18-110 Sony E-mount zoom lens."

So I guess you decided to not travel so light after all, eh? That lens is awesome but it's a monster.
Click to expand...

No, not really. Longish, yes. Heavy, no. and it takes the place of many other lenses and can be operated like a real video lens.
 
Hi been doing some research on FS5 - I noticed you said " Both do pretty poor in low-light and both produce noise if not exposed properly"
I am wondering at what is the highest ISO you can go before it gets noisy - I shoot with FS700 at 3200 in low light and it is borderline - wondering how the FS5 would do

thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top