Jump to content
Samuel Berger

Sony FS5 II is Garbage

Recommended Posts

Look at this sample video with shades of "PRETTY BABY" and "BILITIS".

 

 

 

Not cinematic at all. The comments section seems to agree.

 

From B&H: The camera records internally to dual media card slots and can continuously capture HD at up to 120 fps, with 8-second long bursts at 240 fps. Raw 4K recording is available with the addition of optional external recorders that also allow 4K recording at 50 and 60p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm. I disagree. The image reminds me of a cross between an EVA1 and a C200, and it's priced where the C200/EVA1 should be. Great value in comparison.

 

Really like the colors in that clip, too, which is not something I usually say where Sony is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam.. there is no pleasing some people :).. at last Sony get serious with their color science ..rather than re producing a color chart to precise levels.. even giving the cheapest camera they make, a touch of the Venice magic.. and people complain.. reading the comments from those things is never a good use of your time sir..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical Sony, looks like every Sony test I've seen. The Japanese seem to favor strong whites and low saturation with lack of contrast or any dynamics. "Lets show you examples of how nobody ever shoots" lol XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical Sony, looks like every Sony test I've seen. The Japanese seem to favor strong whites and low saturation with lack of contrast or any dynamics. "Lets show you examples of how nobody ever shoots" lol XP

 

Let's not forget the $500 additional Raw output licence....which doesn't include a way to record said Raw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the $500 additional Raw output licence....which doesn't include a way to record said Raw.

Well Arri does the same thing with licensing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does 'cinematic' mean, anyway?

 

People use that term like its some kind of 'standard' that everyone needs to live by - yet I have never seen a straight answer that everyone can agree on.

 

Here is a secret: 99% of 'straight from the camera' footage looks like crap. 100% of the 'cinematic' stuff you see has been touched by a really good color grader. In the case of this footage, it doesn't look 'bad' to me - or even un-cinematic. It's a little sharp for my taste, and the lighting seems rather harsh. They were clearly going for a 'look' in this clip.

Look, I have seen utter crap looking videos from Alexas, and seen amazing looking, very filmic videos from cell phones. It comes down to your ability as a cinematographer, and your color graders ability.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this "Lucent" look is not typical of Sony color science at all.. its taken a while but they are looking beyond purely "reproducing " colors accurately .. thats a Japanese camera manufacturing mind set.. which they do very well.. but that isn't always the "nicest" image ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this "Lucent" look is not typical of Sony color science at all.. its taken a while but they are looking beyond purely "reproducing " colors accurately .. thats a Japanese camera manufacturing mind set.. which they do very well.. but that isn't always the "nicest" image ..

Well it does represent the way Sony cameras are naturally, untreated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it does represent the way Sony cameras are naturally, untreated.

 

 

Sorry don't get your meaning here..? This Lucent look is Sony un treated ..? the opposite I feel.... at last they are actually looking at aesthetic,s rather than the more " engineer " mind set of purely re producing colors accurately .. which actually they do very well off a chart.. for Sony engineers this was their goal.. and fair enough.. but its not always the nicest looking picture.. Some thing Arri twigged long before .. I guess through input from DP,s from their film camera heritage ..when they started producing digital camera,s.. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it does represent the way Sony cameras are naturally, untreated.

First of all, there is no such thing as untreated, there are just different LUTs.

 

Second, how does anyone know how this clip has been graded?

 

Third, how many more times are we going to have threads comparing camera A with camera B based on Youtube clips of completely unknown provenance? I don't see anything particularly objectionable in this clip, certainly not anything that could be blamed on the camera, rather than on how it was lit or graded. Proclaiming a camera to be 'garbage' based on one You Tube video is ridiculous. If that's really the level of discussion, Samuel, maybe you should have just posted in the YouTube comments, rather than here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, there is no such thing as untreated, there are just different LUTs.

 

Second, how does anyone know how this clip has been graded?

 

Third, how many more times are we going to have threads comparing camera A with camera B based on Youtube clips of completely unknown provenance? I don't see anything particularly objectionable in this clip, certainly not anything that could be blamed on the camera, rather than on how it was lit or graded. Proclaiming a camera to be 'garbage' based on one You Tube video is ridiculous. If that's really the level of discussion, Samuel, maybe you should have just posted in the YouTube comments, rather than here.

 

Hi Stuart, I was addressing a number of things and image quality was really just one of them. Taking all of those things into consideration, the overall consensus among the forums and Youtube comments is that, for what it is and when it came out, "the camera is garbage". Hope that helps.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Taking all of those things into consideration, the overall consensus among the forums and Youtube comments is that, for what it is and when it came out, "the camera is garbage". Hope that helps.

So rather than posting an informed opinion, based on personal experience, you decided to post other people's opinion based on who knows what.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So rather than posting an informed opinion, based on personal experience, you decided to post other people's opinion based on who knows what.

 

Please don't embrace Whataboutism, thank you. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing. This forum is only useful as long as the information on it is accurate. When people start making posts critiquing cameras based on what they read in You Tube comments, those posts are not useful or accurate, and they have no place here.

 

Having an opinion is fine, let's all just make sure that our opinions are informed opinions.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Stuart, why the presupposition that I've only read YouTube comments, after I clarified that I've also read about the camera on specialised forums? And it doesn't make sense to assume that all the people I've read from don't have an informed opinion.

 

As you know, I'm in a research phase and learning as much as I can so I can make an informed buying decision. We've even discussed Sony cameras even though I've never been impressed by their colour science. I spend a lot of my free time researching cameras and reviews and specs, and learning what they mean.

Edited by Samuel Berger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people start making posts critiquing cameras based on what they read in You Tube comments, those posts are not useful or accurate, and they have no place here.

I've shot with the FS7, F5 and F55, with a professional crew on commercial shoots (one would assume "better" cameras than the F5) and didn't much care for the results. I've spent enough time shooting with the Dragon, Epic, Alexa XT, C100/C300MII and of course the BMD cameras to give MY opinion on the matter. No, I don't shoot that much commercial product anymore, but I still shoot stuff all the time and most importantly, I edit and color OTHER PEOPLE'S shows, so I understand how workable the image of various cameras really is.

 

Having an opinion is fine, let's all just make sure that our opinions are informed opinions.

 

I think it's ok... he gave evidence in the video and his opinion. What's the problem with that?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Stuart, why the presupposition that I've only read YouTube comments, after I clarified that I've also read about the camera on specialised forums? And it doesn't make sense to assume that all the people I've read from don't have an informed opinion.

And what exactly was the purpose of your post here? You weren't offering any personal experience, just reposting other people's opinion, without referencing who they were, or why they were reliable, and all under a clickbait title.

 

 

he gave evidence in the video and his opinion. What's the problem with that?

He gave no evidence whatsoever that could be attributed to the performance of the camera, just another You Tube video that had no details of post production at all.

 

 

If the FS5 is garbage (and it very well might be) then post from experience, not hearsay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what exactly was the purpose of your post here? You weren't offering any personal experience, just reposting other people's opinion, without referencing who they were, or why they were reliable, and all under a clickbait title.

 

 

He gave no evidence whatsoever that could be attributed to the performance of the camera, just another You Tube video that had no details of post production at all.

 

 

If the FS5 is garbage (and it very well might be) then post from experience, not hearsay.

 

I explained this a couple of posts above. I didn't just repost other people's opinions, I gave mine also, and said I've researched this camera, and that based on this, I don't disagree with the people who voiced that the FS5Mk2 is garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I explained this a couple of posts above. I didn't just repost other people's opinions, I gave mine also, and said I've researched this camera, and that based on this, I don't disagree with the people who voiced that the FS5Mk2 is garbage.

 

Yes, you gave your opinion, which was based on other people's opinion. Have you used this camera? It seems you haven't. I'm still confused as to why you felt the need to start a thread here trashing a camera that you have no personal experience of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you gave your opinion, which was based on other people's opinion. Have you used this camera? It seems you haven't. I'm still confused as to why you felt the need to start a thread here trashing a camera that you have no personal experience of.

 

Why ignore the part where I explained that I read more than "other people's opinion"? Specs, prices, trends, limitations, etc...those aren't just opinions.

I don't like this camera. I posted that I don't like this camera. No need to white knight for the FS5Mk2 ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the FS5 is garbage (and it very well might be) then post from experience, not hearsay.

Why do you care tho? Like, how does it hurt you or the forum.

 

The title may seem to be clickbait, but honestly I'd be pretty pissed if I was in his shoes too. There just doesn't seem to be a decent camera in the $5k - $8k range without dealing with lots of limitations... including having to spend thousands more to make a workable image.

 

So I do get his frustration and this camera doesn't solve any of Sony's issues, it's just the same thing over and over and over again. Same limitations, same color science, it's like they refuse to take what makes their F65 and Venice look good and push it down to their lower-end cameras in an attempt to hinder their performance so what... someone will rent a F65 instead? All of the Japanese brands do this... and it's pathetic. As much as I dislike the proprietary and accessory driven Red's, they aren't ever trying to push you to a higher end camera. All of their cameras function the same way from the Raven through the Weapon.

 

This is why I like BMD... they aren't trying to hinder their lower-end cameras so you have to buy a higher end one to make a decent image.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The title may seem to be clickbait, but honestly I'd be pretty pissed if I was in his shoes too. There just doesn't seem to be a decent camera in the $5k - $8k range without dealing with lots of limitations... including having to spend thousands more to make a workable image.

 

 

Yeah it's a pretty common situation, unfortunately. There are thousands of disenfranchised buyers like me out there, and we don't like being ignored to the point that there are so few options.

 

The BMD stuff does address that situation but it's not yet "proven' enough that clients trust it.

 

In my case, after seeing puredrifting's epiphany with the C200 I decided that yes that is my final choice. It's not what about the C200 doesn't have, it's about what it already has. I have a 512GB CFast 2.0 card waiting for it, I can record 87 minutes of Canon Raw Light on that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't honestly understand why every camera needs to be "cinematic." There's a whole world beyond that and honestly I think it's very important to take an approach of right tool for the right job/budget.

That all said, I am thrilled Samuel posted this up as I wouldn't have come across it otherwise.

He thinks it's garbage! Good! I don't agree, we can then discuss and dissect and really attack our own notions (one hopes) in a dialogue. I think dialogue is important; and I think it's better in a situation where you have numerous viewpoints which aren't hidden behind a user-name.

I don't see why we all need to get so heated all the time over things. What makes film great, I think, is really the myriad viewpoints it can incorporate.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Glidecam



    Tai Audio



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Visual Products



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    CineLab



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Paralinx LLC



    Ritter Battery



    Metropolis Post



    Serious Gear



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Wooden Camera



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Abel Cine


×
×
  • Create New...