Andrew Reid

The flat one. Not quite LOG but better than Rec 709.

So far I've only had the camera for a few days so hard to really give a definitive answer. So far I'm not seeing any big image quality advantage from the FS5 over the A7S II, aside from rolling shutter obviously. And that is pretty important. The 4K looks a bit sharper maybe. I wouldn't upgrade on image quality alone. I'd upgrade for the form factor above all and the following: Built in variable ND (great feature!)Raw upgrade comingMuch longer battery run times and much quicker chargingMuch more dramatic slow-mo and full super 35mm sensor scan in 240fpsBetter monitoring and audioBetter connections (SDI and XLR)Much less rolling shutter in 4KBetter video ergonomics, nice top handle, no need to rig out with cage, etc.Better balancedNot as fiddlyThe built in EVF is articulatedAnd over the C100 II I would have to say off the top of my head: Speed Booster compatible for full frame lookInternal 4K recordingHigh frame rates / cache recordVariable NDPL mount adapter compatibile (can't wait to use my Cookes on it)

Of the alternatives Ebrahim selected the URSA Mini appeals the most as the 'complete' solution, but the power consumption will be mighty high compared to the FS5. It's great being able to run the FS5 off a camcorder battery and having it weight well under 1.5kg fully rigged out ready to shoot. The URSA Mini 4.6K will be at 2.3kg plus another 3kg for all the bits you will need to add to it - the V-lock battery is a big chunk of that. I wish Blackmagic would do an URSA Super Mini 2.5K which would be the old BMCC updated to a nice form factor with less power hungry cooling etc. running off a small battery. I loved that image. Oh and should get 2.5K ProRes and full 4:3 scan for higher vertical res and anamorphic. I find it a chore to carry a very heavy rig around on foot over wide distances in a city. It really slows down a shoot unless you have a crew.

That's just speculation tugela. Also there are two separate issues. There's the bug, not just the performance limitations of the codec. With the edge ripping this isn't internal codec related at all unless Sony are doing something really strange and applying compression / H.264 encoding to the feed that hits the monitor, magnified focus assist and uncompressed SDI. I don't think so! This looks to me like a 4K image processing bug. The performance in 10bit (internal 1080p) is worse than 8bit AVCHD on the C100 II so if Sony want to beat the Canon and live up to their own marketing text they will have to upgrade the 10bit mode.

I think the form factor, audio and ergonomics justify the cinema cameras for pros rather than image quality, so to cripple the FS5 is pointless of Sony, it should have had the same codec options as the FS7.

Even the GH4 has an ALL-I codec at 200Mbit/s... and that's $1400. $1400 vs $5600 The less you pay, the better the codec?! Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera, $1000 and under. 10bit ProRes and internal Cinema DNG raw! Indeed, c'mon Sony!!

7D doesn't do 240fps though does it?

The Sony FS5 has had a largely warm welcome from the video community but there has been one thing bugging a lot of owners and potential buyers alike - the quality of the internal codec. Just how good or bad is it? Read the full article

The 1D C's 4K in Canon LOG, no sharpening in post, definitely is softer / more organic (delete as appropriate) than the Sony A7S II / A7R II / FS5. Not really a bad thing to be honest.

Maybe this is why they now have 3 colour temperatures of S-Gamut on the FS5. Anyone had experience with FS7 raw? Issues?

You're right, the file names give it away! They look close though don't they, considering 500Mbit 4:2:2 on the 1D C and just 100Mbit 4:2:0 on the FS5. Grading is a powerful tool!

Nice to have one less thing to think about during a shoot. ISO? Ah don't care. Very liberating It's why the FS5 is nicer to use than the A7S II. You just stick it in S-LOG at the base ISO of 3200 and 1/50, then use the variable ND filter for all your exposure adjustments. One control suits all.

S-LOG and Canon LOG can be matched. In any situation. I'd even say S-LOG has an edge in some cases. It's true Sony have some puke like colour profiles and dreadful camera colours in the past but they are getting better all the time. The FS7 / FS5 / A7R II / A7S II do great Canon-matching colours if you can grade S-LOG without fucking it up. There's a lot of ugly grading out there.

If the colours are so 'puke' like, then surely Blondini you will have no problem telling these 1D C and FS5 4K frames apart...

It is great for what it is. Of course there are a few things that it isn't... for example it's not a lightweight solution to carry around a location or a quick to start up point / shoot / done kind of camera. It's the kind of camera to bring onto a set for hours, a labour of love, getting the lighting right and really taking time over it. It will be very rewarding! Same in post! A slow camera but a great one.

And your contribution is......... ?

I agree. But the one thing the RED MX does have going for it is the raw codec. It's much nicer to work with than Cinema DNG and offers a much larger range of compression settings.

S-LOG 2 needs to upgrade you, not the other way round

Awesome. That is one helluva deal for the image you'll get!! And not short of accessories is it The codec is a good reason to go Red. It's very impressive. How is low light?

It really depends. If you count F1.2 at ISO 3200 low light and a well exposed image (I do) then the FS5 will be clean, as long as you don't mis-grade S-LOG in post and ramp up the black level. ISO 6400 is also good. ISO 12,800 and up better using the A7S II. The FS5 is certainly not a bad low light camera. I don't count super clean ISO 800 to 3200 as bad in low light. Better to compare it to the Blackmagic URSA Mini 4.6K or Red Dragon.

I've not noticed it in S-LOG at ISO 3200 yet... Will test it some more and try and reproduce it. I've not updated the firmware yet to the latest one, but I don't think that makes a difference. I've set the colour mode for S-LOG 2 to Rec.709 and raised the blacks, trying to mimic Canon LOG. Early shots look good in this mode, not yet shot enough with it to know if I will keep this setting. I've also been delving into the camera 'saved settings' XML file, unfortunately it's not a text file like on the original F5 where you could edit it to enable 4K! Would love to find a way to enable other codec options on the FS5! In my opinion the raw tap can't come soon enough to the FS5. It isn't acceptable for Sony to keep putting out faulty firmware in release cameras or crippled codecs that aren't any better than what they have in a $1000 compact.

I don't tend to enable Gain terminology on the camera, I use ISO. So it does it in ISO mode over a certain value as well?

It sure does and this is one area I think I can finally agree with Ebrahim on! I will be putting the case for one directly to Sony. They also need to fix the edge ripping bug in 4K when not shooting S-LOG. That's clearly an image processing bug rather than a codec issue and it occurs even to an external recorder. I still think even in it's current early-firmware state the 8bit 4K on this camera delivers better image quality than the C100 II when handled right. We could do with watching the overall images next, not just the flaws. I really love what this camera can do creatively! Here's an interesting comparison by the way between the C100 and C100 II Neither can do smooth backgrounds particularly well, plenty of macro blocking and compression noise going on even at low ISOs. It's an ok image... solid... but I still think the FS5 is capable of more. 8bit 4K 4:2:0 looks better on the FS5 than the best 8bit 1080p 4:2:2 from the C100 II.

S-LOG 3 shows banding in the sky in 8bit. S-LOG 2 is actually pretty good. I don't need to buy a C100 II just to show or inform people at all! I can show perfectly well what the FS5's image is like by comparing it to 14bit raw on the 5D Mark II/III. I plan to do that. And 1D C is 500Mbit/s 4:2:2. Another good reference point for codec quality. How does the C100 II have something magic? So magic that I MUST shoot with it to give an informed opinion on what the FS5 codec is like? Anyone who thinks the C100 has a better codec and better colour than the FS5 is just not looking at the right FS5 material, correctly graded or shot.

So far I'm finding 10bit to be a bit of a pointless endeavour on the FS5, the 8bit 4K is much better. I am pretty sure they have only stuck it in for marketing purposes. 50Mbit/s is way too low for 10bit. 10bit it is a lot of data to compress the hell out of down to 50Mbit/s. With 10bit you need a higher bitrate just to maintain basic quality levels - and that is before you even think about taking advantage of the 10bit gradation. Ideally you should have 200Mbit/s+ Will be interesting to an external recorder though. It was meant as a joke. The C100 is definitely not as good as the 1D C which I will be using as the benchmark for the FS5 comparisons coming up on EOSHD It's good for AVCHD but it won't beat a well tuned, well shot FS5 for image quality. C100 codec is not exactly macro blocking free either!!