Jump to content
Samuel Berger

Sony FS5 II is Garbage

Recommended Posts

Well, if you want to make cinema, it helps to have a cinematic image. ;-) If you watch Japanese TV to any extent, you see they really love their high frame rates. I don't know why they're in love with the 1980's Brazilian Telenovela look. I know "Isaura" was a big hit there and in the Soviet Union back in the day, but still...you'd think they'd grow out of that look now that digital video can emulate a few filmic qualities.

 

It's strange when any reality show on Auntie Beeb looks better than most things on NHK.

Edited by Samuel Berger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's kinda the point, though, there is a range of what "cinematic" can mean and there are more types of shows than just movies, where many of these cameras fit.

Back in the day, it would be insane to bring out a 35mm camera to go shoot in the bush in africa, and rather "interesting" to take out a CP16 to a feature film; the cameras filled into their niches, and while they could do the job of the "primary" systems, and in the right hands, be amazing, that wasn't really what they were designed to do in the first place.

The same is true today. Could you make a movie on (literally any digital camera out there today) and make it cinematic? OF COURSE! Some will be easier than others, but that's not the point, the point is picking the system and designing systems which help shooters in their "typical" environment get from camera to screen as easily, reliably, and and familiarly as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that I agree, I think a camera has to start with a modicum of dynamic range and colour malleability to be forged into a cinema tool. The companies that make them throw the words "cinema camera" as marketing but I don't think there's really that many cameras that I would consider cinematic (there's that word again). I think Sony cameras are awful, I think BMD comes the closest to film when low-light isn't a factor, and Canon is just the best overall brand for cinematic video cameras, even though BMD has cinema at its core.

 

The irony is that auto-focus has always been unheard of in true cinema...until now. It's finally a "can't do without" thing because of Canon. Never in my life did I think I would have the slightest desire for such a feature, yet now I'm willing to pay $2000 more for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like this camera. I posted that I don't like this camera.

This camera that you have never used.

 

I'd be pretty pissed if I was in his shoes too.

He's never even used the camera, let alone spent money on it. Why should he be pissed about anything to do with it?

 

 

Full disclosure. I've never used this camera either. I have no idea of its capabilities, or its limitations. If I ever find myself needing to use one, I'll test it, and see what it can or can't do, just like I do with every camera I use.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This camera that you have never used.

 

It's not worth using (to me) because it's not worth buying. The economics of it don't add up and it's actually a bit of a puzzle where Sony thinks it fits.

That the camera sucks isn't a fact in a vacuum. If it were the only camera in the world in its price range it might be worth a second look, but it's a crippled camera with no market for it except maybe in countries where common people don't usually own cameras. Like Mozambique.

 

Full disclosure. I've never used this camera either. I have no idea of its capabilities, or its limitations. If I ever find myself needing to use one, I'll test it, and see what it can, or can't do, just like I do with every camera I use.

Let me know if you think it's garbage when you do.

Edited by Samuel Berger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's not worth using (to me) because it's not worth buying. The economics of it don't add up and it's actually a bit of a puzzle where Sony thinks it fits.

 

 

I think it competes favorably with both the C100mkII and C200/EVA1. Arguably a better value than the C200 depending on how much people prioritize internal RAW and DPAF.

 

4.7k base

+ 1.3k for Inferno

+ 500 for 1TB SSD for inferno

= $6,350

 

C200:

 

Stripped down with the 6k base

+ 500 for 512 CFAST

+ 500 for 5" external monitor

= 7,000, but missing EVF / really needs another $500 in rigging to be comparable

 

7.5k base

+ 500 for cheap 512 CFAST

= 8,000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand the Lucent look is just affecting the REC709 gamma.. so that it gives a "similar" look to the Venice REC 709.. what would be great is if its just a software upgrade for all the other Sony camera,s.. F5/55 Fs7.. etc.. I think many owners would pay for this up grade.. bit of a shame its taken them so many years to actually do it.. it probably took someones retirement for it to happen..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The skin tones on this look pretty decent. I watched it on a calibrated HP Dreamcolor display. That said, it had a few shots in direct sun where they definitely overexposed it. Overall not bad. Haters be hating. Same old story.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it competes favorably with both the C100mkII and C200/EVA1. Arguably a better value than the C200 depending on how much people prioritize internal RAW and DPAF.

 

4.7k base

+ 1.3k for Inferno

+ 500 for 1TB SSD for inferno

= $6,350

 

C200:

 

Stripped down with the 6k base

+ 500 for 512 CFAST

+ 500 for 5" external monitor

= 7,000, but missing EVF / really needs another $500 in rigging to be comparable

 

7.5k base

+ 500 for cheap 512 CFAST

= 8,000

 

Except this isn't how I got from A to B. That may be how you'd reach a conclusion, but it doesn't characterise my thought process leading me to say it's not economically sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except this isn't how I got from A to B. That may be how you'd reach a conclusion, but it doesn't characterise my thought process leading me to say it's not economically sensible.

 

So? You said (and I quoted):

 

"The economics of it don't add up and it's actually a bit of a puzzle where Sony thinks it fits."

 

I gave what I consider a standard economic justification to try to explain where Sony thinks it fits, since from your comment it seemed like you may not have done this cost analysis before dismissing the camera outright.

 

Everyone places value on different things (which I also said), so it's possible that you see things differently from most buyers. Expecting camera manufacturers to price things based on how you value them and not a general market may not be a winning strategy for calculating economic sensibility, though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So? You said (and I quoted):

 

"The economics of it don't add up and it's actually a bit of a puzzle where Sony thinks it fits."

 

I gave what I consider a standard economic justification to try to explain where Sony thinks it fits, since from your comment it seemed like you may not have done this cost analysis before dismissing the camera outright.

 

Everyone places value on different things (which I also said), so it's possible that you see things differently from most buyers. Expecting camera manufacturers to price things based on how you value them and not a general market may not be a winning strategy for calculating economic sensibility, though.

 

That would depend on how much research the buyers have done and whether they are making the right comparisons, not random ones like the cost of a Sony FS5Mk2 and the cost of a Canon C200.

 

We'd need some substantial examples of how "most buyers" see things before I could detail that question.

Edited by Samuel Berger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That would depend on how much research the buyers have done and whether they are making the right comparisons, not random ones like the cost of a Sony FS5Mk2 and the cost of a Canon C200.

 

Oh boy. YOU brought up "economic sensibility", I try to explain how most rational people determine that, and now you say comparing costs between two cameras in the same class is "random" ... Ok.

 

Between this and your initial post I'm pretty sure you're just out for drama at this point. Good luck with finding a camera.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the FS5 1 and upgraded so it can output RAW. Looks like the FS5 2 is no different except it comes with the RAW upgrade.

 

These two videos sold me on it originally, and I've loved it ever since.

 

https://vimeo.com/138889050

 

I don't think the sentiment of "FS5 m2 is garbage" has any merit. That being said, the video originally shared and the one that Sony put their name on, is garbage.

 

Have we forgotten that it's not the tool it's the person using it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catching up on this thread, I think that it only illustrates how ill-defined the term "cinematic" has become.


Surely whether the images are cinematic or not is the work of the person(s) making it, and not the camera?


If you attribute any "cinematic" quality to your images being a result of your chosen camera purchase, I think you do the greatest disservice to yourself.


Camera manufacturers are guilty of encouraging this; just one example, Blackmagic puts this line at the top of the Ursa Mini Pro page:



"The world’s first digital film camera with professional broadcast camera features and controls!"



Which just seems like word salad thrown at a wall to see what sticks; an attempt to please everyone.


...


As someone who shot film exclusively for several years, I feel I have a decent handle on what qualities of an image are "filmic" in some respects. I've also tested and used digital cameras from many different companies in more recent years, and my personal hierarchy - based on my own experience - is quite different from others in this thread.


Given that so many people's opinions vary so greatly, making a flat-out proclamation that "Camera X is garbage" is quite obviously stating opinion as fact, and borders on provocation. It doesn't make this forum helpful, useful, or friendly.


"This video from camera X that was shot and graded in a particular way doesn't have the qualities that I define as cinematic" is a different statement, and it could even be a true one. :) But then you'd actually have to define what those qualities are, which might actually lead to an respectful and meaningful debate.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought the FS5 1 and upgraded so it can output RAW. Looks like the FS5 2 is no different except it comes with the RAW upgrade.

 

These two videos sold me on it originally, and I've loved it ever since.

 

https://vimeo.com/138889050

 

I don't think the sentiment of "FS5 m2 is garbage" has any merit. That being said, the video originally shared and the one that Sony put their name on, is garbage.

 

Have we forgotten that it's not the tool it's the person using it?

 

I watched that second video you posted, didn't watch much of the first one because the 1080p plus excessive added grain would further separate me from experiencing the camera.

 

I can't say I liked that "Free Spirit" video. This might be a case of user error but there's highlights clipping everywhere and about a minute and a half in, when they walk into the woods, the image falls apart. The trees turn to mud, and later on, the grass is patchy and the plaid white shirt starts glowing.

 

I think some of this could have been solved by using a Canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This might be a case of user error but there's highlights clipping everywhere and about a minute and a half in, when they walk into the woods, the image falls apart. The trees turn to mud, and later on, the grass is patchy and the plaid white shirt starts glowing.

 

I think some of this could have been solved by using a Canon.

The second clip has obviously been fairly aggressively graded. The whole clip is somewhat over chroma'd and it's high in contrast as well, which accounts for the clipped highlights.

 

Images from any camera, including Canon, will fall apart if you push them far enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I watched that second video you posted, didn't watch much of the first one because the 1080p plus excessive added grain would further separate me from experiencing the camera.

 

 

That's kinda my whole point. It's not about what's straight out of the camera it's about what the camera enables you to do.

 

It's why Soderbergh can shoot a feature on an iPhone. You're going to tell me that because it's overly processed that discounts the tool used to tell the story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's kinda my whole point. It's not about what's straight out of the camera it's about what the camera enables you to do.

 

It's why Soderbergh can shoot a feature on an iPhone. You're going to tell me that because it's overly processed that discounts the tool used to tell the story?

 

What, an iPhone? No, an iPhone is a weird thing to use for a feature. Nothing to do with overprocessing, it's a gimmicky thing. Like the PXL2000.

 

Yeah. Exactly like the PXL2000 now that I think about it. Can make phone calls with it, though. Couldn't call anybody on the PXL2000. Couldn't...order pizza. Or prank call the bar. I never prank called the bar. It's illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive realized my Bentley is garbage .. after a heavy night, I crashed it into parked police car on Santa Monica Blvd..now the car doesn't work .. WTF.. ! and I have a court date.. that car is total crap..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the key complaints is that the FS5Mk2 is an FS5 with a firmware update. Others say that it will bring you to tears. Some FS5 owners are thinking of using black nail polish on the ND knob to pass it off as an FS5Mk2 to clients.

 

One FS5 owner sobbed that if you currently have the raw firmware upgrade and are shooting 12-bit raw out via SDI to an external recorder there is absolutely zero point to upgrade. Especially considering the recent addition of Apple Pro-Res Raw which is now 12-bit raw instead of 10-bit standard pro-res and should offer even more latitude in post production which asides from all the crying will totally outperform any baked in LUT Sony can give a sobbing cinematographer from their Venice color science.

 

Ironically the A7 III appears to have better autofocus than most Sony cinema cameras. This is why the Canon is superior, because they made people, who never thought they'd use AF, pay a premium for that feature. Atomos just released a Ninja V, too, so if you pair that with the A7 III why would you need a lacrimogenous FS series? The A7 III has IBIS too...hmmm....

 

There seems to be minimal hardware difference in the FS5Mk2. I guess it was an attempt to use up unsold FS5 parts. I haven't used this sorrowful camera but I hope it doesn't feel like a cheap piece of plastic like Panasonic's schizophrenic EVA1.

 

If you can read through all the crying, "as idiotic as it sounds, it would almost seem that the mkii was just being used to market Sony's even newer and refined color science of Venice."

Edited by Samuel Berger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just is what it is.. its a very cheap s35mm camera .. that is for sure easier to be dealing with than a DSLR.. its just a step up from that.. it has the very nice variable ND..(wish the f5/55 had this).. good HD.. not great 4K 8 bit.. unless to an ext REC..and the Mk2 has a much nicer color science.. I would buy it as a B camera if I had the need rather than an Alpha series stills camera.. or climbing Everest ..E mount you can put just about any lens on it..I mean it cost not much more than a fancy Mattbox .!! but sure if you don't like it.. well.. just don't buy it.. some people dont like chocolate .. it takes all kinds ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think FS5II is garbage, just an intent to put FS5, it price, it clear SDI output, magical internal auto nd filter and ProRes Raw in the mind of a lot of filmmakers that are comming from MILC and DSLR world, since the MkI is now 3 years old. I think its a good intent. Sony Venice internal gamma curve its amazing and Sony have been developing it for years.

Alister Chapman, its a well knowed sony guru, has something to tell about it:

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2018/04/pxw-fs5-ii-secret-sauce-and-venice-colour-science/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think FS5II is garbage, just an intent to put FS5, it price, it clear SDI output, magical internal auto nd filter and ProRes Raw

It records Long GOP 8 bit 4:2:0 internally, which is a sub-standard codec developed for streaming on the internet, not for camera originals.

 

Yes, you can use an external recorder to capture, but there will be a $1600 license fee to make your camera spit out raw + the external recorder.

 

It looks like the price will be close to the same as the 1st gen, which puts it at exactly the same price point as the Ursa Mini Pro. Which sure, doesn't have the slow-mo function, but it does record RAW internally AND all the flavors of Pro Res which are necessary for today's discerning clients.

 

in the mind of a lot of filmmakers that are comming from MILC and DSLR world, since the MkI is now 3 years old. I think its a good intent. Sony Venice internal gamma curve its amazing and Sony have been developing it for years.

DSLR world? What is this 2009? I mean if you don't own a $5k+ camera now, you aren't going to be excited about this new FS5MKII. As one reporter at NAB put it; this is the most incremental upgrade Sony has done since the FS7MKII. They're not really solving any of the major problems, they're just continuing to make out of date products that require add-on's to work.

  • Upvote 1

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.



  • Tai Audio



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    CineLab



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Abel Cine



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Serious Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Paralinx LLC



    Metropolis Post



    Glidecam



    Visual Products



    Ritter Battery



    Wooden Camera


×
×
  • Create New...