gene_can_sing

FS700 with a wimpy image? I hardly think so Andrew. You used it for 1 night and you make such a quick judgement without really getting to know the camera? 
 
Here's a much more accurate review of the FS700 by Rick Burnet, who has used the FS100 extensive since it was first release and knows more about the FS100 than just about anyone I know of. He knows the FS100 inside and out; and shoots good work with it very regularly.
 
------------
 
Rick writes:
 
"Okay, just got done with two full days of shooting the FS700 in the woods. I can say WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that the FS700 colors with the CINE gamma are absolutely better than the FS100 in every way. I am literally blown away with the latitude and highlight handling I am getting. Everything I shot was just spot on for the color I wanted. I left the white balance on 4700K and never needed to change it.
 
One really interesting thing for me is that there is so much detail in the blacks when I am exposing for skin. We had a 5Dm3 with us as well shooting and it was interesting to see how much more latitude we were getting on the FS700. I will say this though, we went from a 7D to 5Dm3 and the difference between both was really easy to see. Th 5Dm3 was holding A LOT more detail. The colors out of it were a more crushed obviously than the FS700.
 
I can't believe I waited so long to get the FS700.
 
Sensitivity does seem to be a bit less than the FS100, but nothing I care about. It's still SO clean. 
 
Latitude in the CINE modes is amazing. Wow, there is A LOT of detail in the image. More than I expected. 
 
For those with an FS100 that are not terribly happy with the colors, if you love everything else about the FS100 then I can say, it's worth the leap. I don't see that "Sony" look that I've seen on other cameras. My shots are EXTREMELY neutral meaning that the colors look completely natural. (I think I set saturation to -2).
 
I still contend that the FS100 has some heavy sensitivity to red, which is now gone."
 
------------
 
Like Rick, I have had a similar experience with the FS700. It has a very nice image, and also, the motion jitter that comes with the FS100 is gone as are sensor reflections.
 
The thing with the FS700 is that it does NOT have a nice pre-graded look unlike the Canons and the BMC which have an excellent stock profile. The FS700 needs to be shot in the Cinegamma profiles, which are excellent, but flat-ish and need grading for every shot. The FS700 stock profiles are horrible and should not be used. If you like to grade, it's a great camera. If you like a nice out of the camera look, it's not the camera for you.
 
Don't believe us? Here's a few videos from the FS700 that really show it's true potential when avoiding the stock profiles
 
https://vimeo.com/63439928
 
James Vernon says he just shot it with Cinegamma 4 with mostly stock settings and just did a pretty basic grade in After Effects
 
https://vimeo.com/63336544
 
This was shot with the S#ity Sony Kit lens. Show really how unique a feeling you can elicit from this camera with the slow motion, and unlike the BMC, you can shoot into the sun.
 
https://vimeo.com/58754398
 
A spot I shot, nothing really fancy, just simple grading
 
https://vimeo.com/48711717
 
Just some dailies from a music video I shot. Unprocessed footage from the camera.
 
Check out my URL for a quite a bit of FS700 stuff. It's a legit camera for sure.
 
www.builtbyUgene.com
 
I just DP'd 3 spots for the SyFy Channel (Major cable channel in the USA) and the client loved the FS700 footage. I've shot stuff for other channels like Bravo as well, and every time the clients love the footage they are getting
 
There's so much good stuff shot with the FS700. The biggest downfall of the FS700 is that it is associated with the FS100 which has a pretty bad aesthetic IMO - weird colors, bad highlights, strange motion, clinical and sterile looking. The FS700 fixes all that and you would know that if you spend more than a few hours with it. For me, I couldn't even care less about 4K RAW. RAW is such a huge workflow killer. Great in theory, but in reality, dealing with it in post is expensive and time consuming just because of the gigantic storage space.
 
The internal codec isn't super great, but it's pretty good, certainly as good as the GH3 and you can't stop raving about how great that camera is. Before you proclaim a camera as great or a total failure, you should spend some real time with it. You shot with the FS700 briefly and proclaimed it a failure. You haven't even shot with the BMC 4K, yet judging by all the coverage you give the camera, you've already deemed it a success and are hyping the hell out of it before anything is really even know about it.
 
All I'm saying is spend real quality time with the equipment if you are going to write about it.

I am blown away by the image, but this statement is so true. The 2.3x crop factor is a huge draw back that very few BMC fans boys mention. 2 weeks ago, I shot a music video that took place primarily in a car. We had to use a Tokina 11-16 on an FS700. On the 16mm end, it was tough to fit both people in. With a 2.3x crop factor, it would have been impossible to get those shots. I'm not a wide angle shooter at all, in fact I generally prefer longer lenses. With that said, there have been numerous times where I had to pop on the Tokina 11-16 or else the shot just would not have worked because of crazy tight spaces.
 
I think the real revolution will come when BMC comes out with the Super 35mm version with some higher frame rates. Then the S#!T will really hit the fan. But this camera is an great start. 
 
After using the FS700 with it's high frame rates which is amazing for projects like music videos, artistic pieces, B-Roll for docs and sports, I just cannot go back to a camera that only shoots 24fps, which is fine for narrative, but 24fps is just too limiting once you've had a taste of high frame rates and the amazing drama and sexiness that is created, especially when done correctly and not gratuitously. 
 
For me, I would gladly sacrifice some image IQ for a super 35mm or wider sensor and high frame rates.

We recently shot a music video for song that was really slow, atmospheric and meandering. We used my FS700 and it was mainly shot in 60fps (with a few shots at 120 and 240) and it looked GREAT because the song was so slow and mellow that the slow motion just complimented it so well.

The FS700 is so flexible in so many ways BESIDES the frame rates. I would NOT even consider the C100 just because it does not have slow motion (sorry, but 60i does not qualify). That is such as joke to not have at least 60p in 2012. For the BMC, I can understand no slow motion because it's only $3000 and it has RAW, but for Canon, no excuses. I think if all you shoot is narrative and events, than 24fps only is fine and so is the C100. But for subjects like music videos, sports, B-Roll for documentaries or just the occasional tricked out shot; slow motion just adds so much drama to those typs of shots that 24fps just cannot do.

Furthermore, after being on Canon for almost 4 years, I am happy to get away from the baked in Canon look. I LOVE the FS700 Cinegammas, especially Cinegamma 1 as it's really nostalgic and filmic looking and so great for grading. Unlike many, I like the form factor of the FS700. I shoot tons of handheld (since it's a look I love) and I do it just bare bones, no rig, no extra EVF, just using what is on the camera and I get great shots handheld.

I think if the C100 was around 5K, it would be a hit, but the FS700 (especially is really hard to beat at that price). Rumor has it that Sony is about to announce a Codec upgrade for the FS700 very soon. Possibly in-camera 4:2:2 50mbps. I certain hope that is the case, and if it is, the C100 will be lost even before it launches.

I think the C100 is really just a camera for the Canon fan boys. For people who want value, they are going to look elsewhere at BMC or Sony.

Maybe in 2013, Canon might finally break the Gaaasssspppppp...... the 60p barrier. For them, it's a long, long time coming.

We recently shot a music video for song that was really slow, atmospheric and meandering. We used my FS700 and it was mainly shot in 60fps (with a few shots at 120 and 240) and it looked GREAT because the song was so slow and mellow that the slow motion just complimented it so well.

The FS700 is so flexible in so many ways BESIDES the frame rates. I would NOT even consider the C100 just because it does not have slow motion (sorry, but 60i does not qualify). That is such as joke to not have at least 60p in 2012. For the BMC, I can understand no slow motion because it's only $3000 and it has RAW, but for Canon, no excuses. I think if all you shoot is narrative and events, than 24fps only is fine and so is the C100. But for subjects like music videos, sports, B-Roll for documentaries or just the occasional tricked out shot; slow motion just adds so much drama to those typs of shots that 24fps just cannot do.

Furthermore, after being on Canon for almost 4 years, I am happy to get away from the baked in Canon look. I LOVE the FS700 Cinegammas, especially Cinegamma 1 as it's really nostalgic and filmic looking and so great for grading. Unlike many, I like the form factor of the FS700. I shoot tons of handheld (since it's a look I love) and I do it just bare bones, no rig, no extra EVF, just using what is on the camera and I get great shots handheld.

I think if the C100 was around 5K, it would be a hit, but the FS700 (especially is really hard to beat at that price). Rumor has it that Sony is about to announce a Codec upgrade for the FS700 very soon. Possibly in-camera 4:2:2 50mbps. I certain hope that is the case, and if it is, the C100 will be lost even before it launches.

I think the C100 is really just a camera for the Canon fan boys. For people who want value, they are going to look elsewhere at BMC or Sony.

Maybe in 2013, Canon might finally break the Gaaasssspppppp...... the 60p barrier. For them, it's a long, long time coming.