marklondon

This is no contest. Chivo is going to win his 3rd straight.

For these reasons: 

- To see the difference compared to XAVC-I. 

- When there hasn't been enough card space for XAVC-I. 

On the Ebrahim vs Andrew debate:  

- Canon C cameras are awesome. They are popular for a reason. The focus peaking and usability is BY FAR the best I've used on any camera. 

- Sony have more bang for buck such as HFR/10bit.  Great to see them innovating. 

- Canon cameras are underwhelming but work amazingly well. Sony's are spec monsters but need a year to mature. Depends what's important to you? 

- The FS5 is not a cinema camera (yet). 

- No camera makers are crappy or garbage etc. Just different. It's great to have choice and see what works for your style.  

I hope you tried the camera before buying just for the specs. The FS5 has real dealbreaking issues, the edge tearing makes the 4K mode on this camera useless to almost everyone not willing to produce an image with horrible errors. Plus the raw update doesn't exist yet, and when it does it will be an expensive intermediate module plus an expensive license/firmware code. 

So it's really a 1080p camera effectively. And when you compare it to the C100II side by side you'll notice how specs tell a very different story than reality.

For example the higher 1080p codec on the fs5 is actually visually worse than the lower end codec on the C100II, it contains macroblocking and noise and fringing, just a worse performing codec algorithm for aome reason. Plus compared to the C100II it falls apart after 3200 ISO while the C100II is one of the best lowlight performers out there. Many professionals do NOT want to use lens adapters behind their glass, and definitelty don't want to deal with adapter bugs vs a native mount. The C100II when you hold both is a better built quality camera and certainly feels to be able to take a lot more beating. The C100 has an LCD always attached to the main body that's fully flexible and has a higher quality EVF, it also has a waveform monitor. The Canon has a 4K sensor, and the sensor is capable of 240p, but as we see with the FS5, enabling the 4K recording would result in not ideal 4K and bad aliased 240 with a small burst time and huge buffer wait, so they only do what the camera will produce perfectly, 1080p and 60p maximum. The Canon Log and colour rendition plus the Dual pixel AF is a major beating point. That's all with the C100 neing an older model so a newer model with UHD and a continuous high quality 120p mode (100% invetible) would crush some competetion.

(I am purposely playing the devil's advocate just to give prespective to readers) 

The FS5 has a few pluses the C100II doesn't (disregarding specs, just real world use), which is the very important SDI output, the availability of a super slo mo for specialitt shots when very high IQ, and the super brilliant clear zoomon the rocker especially for broadcast/news work. I loved the feature. 

Until Sony fixes the defected UHD mode, the C100II will keep being a very strong contender in real world usage and a better choice for many users. Having an FS7 quality 4K ability however would make the C100II obselete simply even for future proofing customera purchases even if they prefer the C100 they'll go for the FS5. 

To be honest, I am tired of hearing about a groundbreaking Sony camera and start getting flooded with bug and defect reports in real world use (FS5 dvxuser section), while see Canon making boring cameras with zero defect reports. 

 

@Andrew Reid Make some contacts and find someone with a C100II in your area and use them side by side alternating between the bodies and the image and you'll be surprised. It would be a very needed blog post too. 

The ergonomics and features-set of this camera are near perfect for my kind of work. 

I cancelled my Ursa Mini 4.6k not only because of a change in working preferences, but because I wouldn't be able to use the camera with ANY of my grip equipment. (I still want it though! Haha). 

The FS5 seems like a great cousin to the A7S II and A7R II. Although I've used the FS7 many times this year, the bulk of the camera and the compatible grip equipment really does hurt to the point I now have to properly exercise my back. Not that the FS7 is particularly heavy, after a few hours you really start to feel it. Hard.

My setup is much more portable now. Got some Lupolux Dual LEDs (v-lock powered) and a Scorpion Light Kit (which I fully recommend. Amazing kit!). Smaller cameras are a much better fit as its much more liberating. Loving the A7SII in particular.

Andrew highlighted this in the review regarding the macro blocking issues in XAVC-L. When using it on the FS7, the issues are very very severe: 

- Heavy macro blocking, above the mids in particular. 

- Macro blocking in skin tones under mixed lighting. Blotchy/ugly. (Fine under controlled lighting). 

- Terrible blocky quality with fine textures (hair) or moving particles (steam/smoke).

- Tearing/smearing of fine edges and reflective items. Purple fringey smudge look. 

-Colour blotches/pixelation in when lighting colour is mixed. (Such as tungsten with a blue kick on the edge of the face. Anything stylised is problematic). 

- Exceptionally noisey in Slog, especially when using HFR. Noise is INSANE in slo-mo Slog! 

- Captures audio 4 frames out of sync with footage. (Doesn't happen in XAVC-I). 

- Some very heavy aliasing on thin, fine details. (Like a steel fence). 

 

I'm not sure if these issues are as strong on the FS5, but as it stands it's a deal breaker. XAVC-L, in my experience, is absolute garbage. 

I'd like to see how the camera footage performs with external recording. The RAW upgrade sounds cool. But having a 7Q+ on top of the FS5 kinda defeats the object doesn't it? It would be ace to have a smaller version, like Atomos do with the Ninja Star. 

I'm looking forward to your review and seeing how this camera progresses. If XAVC-L is fixed/bypassed efficiently - I'm a confirmed customer!