The new Sony FS5

[User]

Would have been great to see the mic that is located in the handle, placed into the camera like the Ursa Mini.

Throw a little Loxia on there and you are going places in 1080 10 bit 4.2.2 style.

This thing is going to run with mucus!

[maxmizer]

Although this product does not have 4K 10 bit...not even in HDMI Output 

[IronFilm]

Although this product does not have 4K 10 bit...not even in HDMI Output 

basically it is an AMAZING 1080 camera, and just dipping its toe in the water for 4K

 

Remember, is a competitor for C100 mk2, so this approach means it crushes it 

[Mattias Burling]

basically it is an AMAZING 1080 camera, and just dipping its toe in the water for 4K

 

Remember, is a competitor for C100 mk2, so this approach means it crushes it 

Is there a side by side video somewhere that confirms this?

 

[MattH]

Is there a side by side video somewhere that confirms this?

 

No. In specs on paper it crushes it.

in HD:  10 bit 4.2.2 vs 8 bit 4.2.0

in 4k: 8 bit 4.2.0 vs nothing.

But your question, which was clearly actually a statement, is correct.  The specs may not necessarily translate into a better image.  The C100 with wide dynamic profile may give a nicer look out of camera than 10 bit slog, graded and converted finally to 4.2.0.   But I'd say theres more flexability there with the FS5 to either get a better image or a worse image.

 

I think it makes sense to think of the FS5 as a professional HD camera with a consumer 4k bonus.    A bit expensive for me though.  TV production is this things market.

[User]

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2015/09/the-sony-pxw-fs5-run-and-gun-super35-for-all/

[Oliver Daniel]

I shot some stuff again with XAVC-L on the FS7 in 4k - again I can see severe issues with macro blocking and blotchy colours, this time on skin! 

In Slog3, this camera in XAVC-L is going to struggle. It certainly is not a "cinema camera" like many websites are describing it as.

For this reason alone, the Sony FS5 is not a consideration for me - unless it's got some voodoo magic within it's own codec processing thingymabob!

[Don Kotlos]

I shot some stuff again with XAVC-L on the FS7 in 4k - again I can see severe issues with macro blocking and blotchy colours, this time on skin! 

In Slog3, this camera in XAVC-L is going to struggle. It certainly is not a "cinema camera" like many websites are describing it as.

For this reason alone, the Sony FS5 is not a consideration for me - unless it's got some voodoo magic within it's own codec processing thingymabob!

Definitely not a cinema camera but you can add a tiny ninja star and get 1080p 10bit 4:2:2 prores HQ when you want to approach cinema quality. That is if the 1080p does not come from pixel binning of course. 

 

[User]

I'm trying to get a sense of just how this camera‘s image is going to look in both 2k and 4k while we wait for examples other than that hipster VW fluff that released with the camera‘s announcement. Does anyone recommend looking towards FS7 material as an approximate gauge?

[Oliver Daniel]

I'm trying to get a sense of just how this camera‘s image is going to look in both 2k and 4k while we wait for examples other than that hipster VW fluff that released with the camera‘s announcement. Does anyone recommend looking towards FS7 material as an approximate gauge?

Yes, it should be very close. Probably identical in XAVC-L. 

The biggest difference is that the FS7 shoots in XAVC-I, and it's vastly superior!!

The form factor of the FS5 looks awesome though. It's hard to ignore this camera. 

[User]

I shot some stuff again with XAVC-L on the FS7 in 4k - again I can see severe issues with macro blocking and blotchy colours, this time on skin!

Hi Oliver. Thanks for jumping in here. Do you understand why these ‘severe issues‘ showed up? Under what conditions? Are others having these issues also? Is there a way around this?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I'd also like to know any experience with XAVC-L.

What are the issues? do they look 8bit related (banding), if so, it's unfixable, or does it look bitrate-related (macroblocking, falling apart), or chroma-subsampling related (weird edge fuzziness and pixelation), etc..

If XAVC L is really bad for cinema use, I do believe recording externally to a great codec like ProRes HQ 350mbps 4:2:2 would bring it extremely close the FS7/F5 UHD quality but just with the 8bit depth restriction, if the LongGOP 100mbps 420 nature of XAVC-L at least there's a very effecieny to get a great codec (a ninja star with a screw, and just treat the star card slots as the main media slots)

It's not perfect for some, but at the price, form factor, sensor, features I believe it's worth it. 

I would also like to know if anyone tried/seen the quality of HD from the FS7, is it C100/300 quality? 

[Oliver Daniel]

Hi Oliver. Thanks for jumping in here. Do you understand why these ‘severe issues‘ showed up? Under what conditions? Are others having these issues also? Is there a way around this?

I'd also like to know any experience with XAVC-L.

What are the issues? do they look 8bit related (banding), if so, it's unfixable, or does it look bitrate-related (macroblocking, falling apart), or chroma-subsampling related (weird edge fuzziness and pixelation), etc..

If XAVC L is really bad for cinema use, I do believe recording externally to a great codec like ProRes HQ 350mbps 4:2:2 would bring it extremely close the FS7/F5 UHD quality but just with the 8bit depth restriction, if the LongGOP 100mbps 420 nature of XAVC-L at least there's a very effecieny to get a great codec (a ninja star with a screw, and just treat the star card slots as the main media slots)

It's not perfect for some, but at the price, form factor, sensor, features I believe it's worth it. 

I would also like to know if anyone tried/seen the quality of HD from the FS7, is it C100/300 quality? 

The severe issues are banding, macro-blocking and some kind of blotchy color stuff going on. Take note this is in Slog3/CineEl - I'm not sure if there are issues in other PP's.

In the latest instance, it was a female face. It was a very well lit face using daylight LED's. Her face was a cocktail macroblocking mess... like bits of magenta smeared with yellow. Tried many, many grades and all had the same issue. Various shots. 

Other times it's been detail in the highlights - lots of banding and macroblocking. Especially clouds, trees, anything hazy looking (like smoke). Also there's alot of fringing/smearing/fuzziness around some bright highlights, like someone has drawn round them with a crayon. 

The exact same compositions in XAVC-I have NONE of these issues. Just flat-out fantastic and very clean. 

I've shot XAVC-L in 1080p on FS7 too. I've not really seen any issues that I recall. I'm not sure if that is camera-related or the conditions in which I filmed. 

Personally I think the FS5 looks great, but should do some tests before to see if these image issues can be avoided (or see if they are there at all). 

[User]

First class Oliver! Thanks.

Sorry, one more question: Have these issues you‘ve experienced been reported by other FS7 users?

Yes I agree this camera really holds a lot of promise. Of course manufactures will conspire to build in limitations and compromises, but it‘s good to know what some of those are based on previous iterations. And maybe we can 'hope' that Sony will work some voodoo in the FS5 to knock these out.

[Oliver Daniel]

First class Oliver! Thanks.

Sorry, one more question: Have these issues you‘ve experienced been reported by other FS7 users?

Yes I agree this camera really holds a lot of promise. Of course manufactures will conspire to build in limitations and compromises, but it‘s good to know what some of those are based on previous iterations. And maybe we can 'hope' that Sony will work some voodoo in the FS5 to knock these out.

No probs.

I'm not sure if other users have experienced anything, although I think most shoot in XAVC-I, due to the lack of support from NLE's (I know FCPX now does). 

When I get the camera from the rental house, the previous user always has it set in Slog3/Cine-El and 4k 60p in XAVC-I, so it gives a good indication of what people are using the camera for. 

[User]

Solid. Thank you once again Oliver

[jgharding]

As long as clients demand Canon color, the King's Ransom will be paid.

ARRI easily fetches an Emperor's Ransom.

If Sony could provide something closer to F35/F65 color on these cameras, that might make a difference. Most of Sony's recent promo videos have little skin tones, and even landscape colors can look off.

The FS7 can't even match the C300 in basic color accuracy in this simple test: https://vimeo.com/113558024

While it might be possible to grade the FS7 to look better, it's a lot of work. Time is money.

Another point is ease (and speed) of use during a professional shoot. Canon's are easy and fast, and reliable (not clear if the bugs or complicated slow menus of the FS7/FS5 have been fixed).

 

I've yet to have any client ever demand a specific camera unless it's something high end, certainly I've never had one ask for "Canon colour" but your mileage may vary. Once I had one want a 5D cos they'd heard of it from a friend. When I explained what the C series were they sheepishly let me pick my own camera!

Personally though, I always grade everything and I feel I'm pretty good and quick. I also shot with C100 and RX10ii on a shoot the other day and matched them close enough with about 10 minutes grade work. C100 does still look nicer, but it's a tiny percentage nicer better in terms of final product, and not worth paying three times the price if I'm going to own a camera IMO, so I feel we will be switching gradually unless something changes in Canon price structure.

Sony even produced an Slog2 LUT to emulate Arri colour (less saturated highlights), which i find useful.

If someone ever does request Canon and we've gone Sony, I'll hire it for a day, rather than own such a severely depreciating asset with such a remarkably higher price! I think having internal 4k and high speed of a Sony will be worth it.

The only things that worry me now in FS5:

• lack of waveform mentioned above, that's news to me!? I use waveform a lot. Sounds annoying...
• Sony menus are always pigs.

 

[jcs]

I've yet to have any client ever demand a specific camera unless it's something high end, certainly I've never had one ask for "Canon colour" but your mileage may vary. 

A better way to phrase would be "Canon level color or better" (Canon, Nikon, ARRI, etc.). I've found that even well-colored/corrected FS700/A7S footage still can't look as good as 5D3 RAW (even H.264), etc. For stills (skintones), the A7S isn't even considered. Again, the A7S shooting raw stills can look good, however the 5D3 will look better in the same conditions. For run & gun, the A7S is a much better video camera than the 5D3 (especially if shooting RAW video), however if color image quality is the most important factor, especially for people and skintones, the 5D3 is a better choice.

As you noted the C100 looks better even after correcting the RX10ii. If you showed a client, without telling them which is which, could they tell the difference? I've done tests where I didn't tell the client which was which, and they strongly preferred the Canon over the Sony. While in this case they may not demand Canon-level color, when given a choice they prefer the better color provided by Canon level cameras or similar/better (Nikon, ARRI, BM, Red Dragon (see Narcos on Netflix), etc.).

Sony can do excellent color (F35, F65 (See Lucy, Oblivion)) however they are holding back on the lower end camera. While the FS5/FS7 are much lower cost vs. the C300.2, time is money- how many hours of extra work equates to the extra $8K for the C300.2? Factoring in the Sony's won't ever look as good as the Canon (until or if Sony ups the color quality), the C300.2 makes sense for professional work. Factoring in Sony's slow and buggy UI's and usability issues and the C300.2 looks even better.

[jax_rox]

A better way to phrase would be "Canon level color or better" (Canon, Nikon, ARRI, etc.). I've found that even well-colored/corrected FS700/A7S footage still can't look as good as 5D3 RAW (even H.264), etc. For stills (skintones), the A7S isn't even considered. Again, the A7S shooting raw stills can look good, however the 5D3 will look better in the same conditions. For run & gun, the A7S is a much better video camera than the 5D3 (especially if shooting RAW video), however if color image quality is the most important factor, especially for people and skintones, the 5D3 is a better choice.

Except the 5D isn't a better choice - the A7s is far superior in almost every aspect, regardless of what your own personal opinion of how the colour holds up. Stills is a totally different story, but we're not talking stills here. 

I can tell you that where I may have seens 5Ds and 7Ds as B-cams to cameras like C(x)00s or similar-tier cameras in the past few years, I'm now seeing A7s' as B (or C) cameras. I have a DP friend who sold his BM cameras he was using as B and C cams for his F55 and replaced them with A7s'.

As you noted the C100 looks better even after correcting the RX10ii. If you showed a client, without telling them which is which, could they tell the difference? I've done tests where I didn't tell the client which was which, and they strongly preferred the Canon over the Sony. While in this case they may not demand Canon-level color, when given a choice they prefer the better color provided by Canon level cameras or similar/better (Nikon, ARRI, BM, Red Dragon (see Narcos on Netflix), etc.).

The C100 was/is a $6500 camera. The RX10ii is a <$2000 camera. If the C100 didn't look better, then that would be a pretty awful impeachment against Canon. The fact that it does get so close should be troubling for Canon. 

Do you say the same thing about Blackmagic? What a terrible camera it must be that the RED or Alexa still look better than it.

I'm also going to go ahead and say that a client who you're shooting their gear on an A7s or RX10ii as an A cam is likely not in a position to demand better (x) because they don't have the money to be able to. I'm not using my A7s as an A cam on anything but the lowest of budget shoots, but I'm happy to use it on those lower budget shoots (much happier than using a 5d or similar) and extremely happy to use it as a B or C cam.

If you can't be bothered spending the time to get it looking right (as you need to with any camera, not just a Sony), then shoot with PP off. Funny thing about Sony is you can shoot with PP off and get extremely good results. On a 5D, you get pretty mediocre results on Natural, and marginally better when shooting with some kind of flat picture profile.

Sony can do excellent color (F35, F65 (See Lucy, Oblivion)) however they are holding back on the lower end camera. While the FS5/FS7 are much lower cost vs. the C300.2, time is money- how many hours of extra work equates to the extra $8K for the C300.2? Factoring in the Sony's won't ever look as good as the Canon (until or if Sony ups the color quality), the C300.2 makes sense for professional work. Factoring in Sony's slow and buggy UI's and usability issues and the C300.2 looks even better.

Did you lift this from Canon marketing material...? 

Seriously, why does this forum have to be a 'man, the camera brand that I like is just so much better than any other, let me tell you all the incredibly subjective reasons, that I will pretend are objective reasons, why'

Can't we celebrate all the great things of all the great cameras out there? Some people can't get good colour out of Sony. Many, many  people who use them for professional work all the time, can. If you're one of the ones who struggle to get good colour out of a Sony, then it probably isn't for you. But that doesn't mean that someone else can't get an incredible image out of it. By the same token, the fact that you like Canon better is totally fine. But it doesn't mean that for every other person out there that Canon is an objectively better looking camera.

Go and watch TED 2. I watched it quite recently, and throughout the movie I kept thinking 'man, that colour looks very similar to what I can get out of an F5, or even the A7s'. Do you think that movie looks awful? You may think the F65 et al. look vastly different from the rest of the range, but it really doesn't. There are, of course, some major differences, but the overall look is not all that dissimilar. I've seen some movies in which I hated  the colour that were shot on the Panavision Genesis or F35. I've seen some awful stuff shot with BM, Canon, RED, Alexa, and almost every camera out there. I've also seen some amazing stuff. I've also shot with many of these cameras, because I like to use each ones different look to my advantage and to further the cinematic storytelling. The Alexa may look better than the RED, but for a clean, cold, sci-fi I'm shooting, I might prefer the look of the RED. Or the BM. Or an FS7. Does that make it the wrong choice? Certainly not.

 

[jcs]

jax_rox it's not about anyone struggling to make Sony color science look as good as other companies ('par' at this point would be Canon, Nikon, BM, Red (latest color science), ARRI). It's about not wasting time, as well as still not getting a Sony to look as good as other cameras with far less effort. Over the years I've purchased more Sony video cameras than any other brand. I was reasonably happy with Sony cameras until I learned that other brands provide much better color with far less effort. I'd rather spend the extra money on a C300.2 than an FS7 as the final product will look better, namely skintones. $8K in a professional setting isn't really that much money. Why waste time with sub-par color science and buggy designs? The most popular professional cameras have the best color science. ARRI has the best color science and for the last few years is used on all Academy award winning films. Red has really upped their game lately (e.g. Narcos on Netflix). I call it like it is, no religious favoritism: Sony currently provides sub-par color science and their designs are currently buggy and harder to use vs. the competition. Sony keeps adding more features and complexity while ignoring the three most important elements for a camera: reliability, color science, and ease of use.

Regarding other cameras looking bad: it's easy to make any camera look terrible, it's a different story making a camera look great. The better cameras get used more (Canon, Red, ARRI) as they provide a means to get better results with less effort. Red used to be unreliable and had marginal color science for skin tones (compared to the competition). While Red cameras are still way too complicated compared to ARRI, they have upped their color science to look really good, easily past everything from Sony except the F65.

Regarding Ted2- I only watched the trailer and the skintones and overall color looked pretty good. Again, the F65 looks great compared to all the other current Sony cameras. Sony does have a 'look' and I understand your point regarding 'looks similar' to down line cameras. However, similar isn't enough for skintones- very minor changes provide a strong emotional reaction that something's wrong- the "Uncanny Valley" effect. I can get decent skintones out of the FS700 and A7S, it's just that other cameras get there faster, with less effort, and the final results tend to look better. If cost was not an object- what camera would you choose for skintones for an A camera?