Andrew Reid

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!!

Like Mattias said, he's right the sensor is what makes the difference between those two. CMOS has a 'clearer' more modern look than CCD, which looks more analogue and more like a film stock. The Ikonoskop shared the same Kodak CCD as the Digital Bolex and I found the look differed a lot from the Blackmagic CMOS as well

This has nothing to do with compression. It's an early firmware bug and is visible on the uncompressed HDMI output to an external recorder as well. I don't think it even occurs in S-LOG

I believe you've got to look ahead when buying a camera like this. It isn't something I'm going to use for a week then chuck away The macro blocking bug doesn't bother me in the slightest. Two reasons - one it is a bug, and bugs get fixed. Two, it is getting a RAW output On the older sensor in the FS700, that raw output to an external recorder was one of the best images around. Users will testify. On the FS7 it will be even better and what's more you don't have to fight the ergonomics. By comparison the C100 II bores the crap out of me. Yeah I know it's a solid option. But the creativity of 240fps and RAW trumps peaking. Sorry but it does. I see the C100 is a lot of people's unicorn camera, it can do no wrong?! I'm quite familiar with the C300 and C100 II images. I once did a direct comparison with the 1D C. Well the 1D C walks all over it. The NX1 is better looking than the C100 II as well. If you want to know what an image free of compression looks like and 14bit colour then shoot raw on the 5D Mark III, it's no mystery. Done it, seen it. I know for a fact the C100 II's image does not look as good as raw from a camera half the price. So using it as some kind of magic imaging benchmark for the far superior FS5 isn't a good idea. 5D2 / 5D3 raw would be a better one if we're talking colour. The FS7 though is a big beast. I'd take the small size of the FS5 and variable ND filter any day. XAVC-L or XAVC-I are kind of a moot point when you're shooting 10bit ProRes from a RAW output, not to mention Cinema DNG. Dear Sony - Take my money Let's see how the internal codec pans out in the real world beyond the 200% magnified tests on Vimeo which probably highlight a bug rather than the actual potential of the camera. I rather like 100Mbit/s 8bit 4:2:0 on the A7S II, not many people complaining about that is there? There's no reason the FS5's codec should be any worse.

Ah this is a good sign. Our resident Canon fan is upset!! I do enjoy our little battles, Ebrahim - but you will soon be shooting on a Sony and here's why. The ergonomics are the main reason I bought it. They rock. The deal breaking issues are nothing of the sort. Your Oscar is in the post Ebrahim! Yes 10bit vs 8bit!!! We'll see about that. 4K 100bit to 1080p in post is far superior to 36Mbit/s AVCHD on the crappy C100. Effectively it is a 10bit 1080p 4:4:4 camera in that mode. Falls apart? 3200 as clean as on the FS7 and A7S II I will be showing this in due course. There have been some very dodgy early tests put out. I want adapters. I have PL adapters Novoflex Speed Booster for full frame A lot of very innovative and quality stuff that is completely out of the question on EF mount. It's not! A mega disadvantage for drone users then! Who the hell wants to be spending attention on a shoot in this way... for every 1 second you do engrossed in a waveform monitor is 1 second wasted directing or using your eye. Man, there are so many waveform monitors out there with the SDI / HDMI devices. Hardly a unique feature. EH? 240 is very high quality, similar to the 24p. It ain't coming! The C300 II is 4K and $16,000 is what Canon want for it. Do you think the will undermine that model by adding pretty much it's only selling point to a lower end C100 model for $5k? NOPE What about the variable ND. It's a biggy for real world practicality! There's very little difference between the FS5's image and the FS7. And when raw comes FS5 owners will be laughing. Canon don't warrant the attention at the moment. They're pathetic. Well considering how I already have the 1D C and that betters the C100 II's image in EVERY RESPECT you can use that as a benchmark in future articles. I won't be touching the $1500 camera sold for $5000 or contributing to Canon's stupidly high margins any time soon.