I had assumed a larger sensor was "better". (Greater control of depth of field, greater sensitivity, etc.)
The point that so often gets missed is that greater dof, better sensitivity of the larger sensor is only true *IF WE TALK ABOUT THE SAME F STOP IN BOTH CASES*

And excuse my capitals, but that is often not the case, so the assumption goes out the window.

Think of a bit of basic optics. If the sensor in camera A has 4x the area of camera B, then it will follow that for equivalence (angle of view) it needs a lens of twice the focal length. It then follows that if both are to be (say) f2, the lens of camera A must be twice the diameter of camera B. Or 4x the area.

Conversely, if instead they each have the same diameter lens, then if for camera A it's f4, for camera B it will be f2.

The bigger sensor will have a higher base ISO rating for cam A than cam B (all else equal), and it should be 2 stops better. But f2 at ISO 400 should give exactly the same lowlight performance as f4 at ISO 1600, yes? So unless the diameter of the front element is larger there is no advantage in sensitivity OR dof terms in going to the bigger sensor.

Practically, what a larger sensor does is give the POSSIBILITY of using bigger diameter lenses, as it's increasingly difficult to make lenses with apertures bigger than around f2, certainly f1.4.

The VG900 has barely any active cooling and that sensor is likely entirely passively cooled.

So we can expect really bad rolling shutter from this cam as well? It's the HPX300 all over again then.

The VG900 has a visible heat sink area around the front end of that camera. Also, it line skips, so it's not reading all the pixels on that sensor. It might only be reading 1 line out of every 5 lines on the sensor grid. Well?... only a handful of people in the world can really tell you those read out numbers. (a few Sony engineers in Japan)

The VG900 only does 1080 and not 4k. So, it only needs about 2 million pixels per read cycle. 4k requires a minimum of 8 million and today, Sony often over samples to get down to 8. So by today's 4k standards, the VG900 has a very easy job at 1080.

FS5 HD Sydney footage

Sony PXW-FS5 Launch film "Free Spirit" on Vimeo

FS5 4K version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BLfI8dUXak&feature=youtu.be

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

At $6699 body only (suggested list price including taxes) this FS5 seems priced very high relative to the FS7...but a C100MkII killer for sure as it offers 4K and a few other things that lacks. Not sure it lived up to the "missing link" hype though...my English cynicism means am I not surprised!

Love the lighter weight and smallish size compared to the FS7 plus some of the cool variable/auto ND and flexible recording features. Pity 4K codec is only 4.2.0 and 100Mbps XAVC-Long GOP but at least it has some good external connections and they needed some differentiation to protect the FS7, understandably. I also like that it has 10 bit 4.2.2 HD, and that the HFR and burst options keep this quality.

I see this as a worthy successor to my C100 and the fact it takes relatively cheap SDXC cards and the same batteries as my PMW-300 and my former EX3 is a bonus as I have loads of them!

Official Sony info page below:


http://blog.sony.com/press/sony-expands-large-sensor-camera-family-with-pxw-fs5-4k-compact-super35-model/


As soon as one of my favoured UK dealers gets a pre-order link up I'm probably going to hit their link :-)

I've just pre-ordered a PXW-FS5 with CVP who have it (currently) listed at an opening price of £4,100 ex VAT and will price match. H Preston Media also have it (currently) listed very slightly less, £4,082 ex VAT. I've bough cameras from both of these very well respected UK dealers in the past (my C100 and PMW-300 respectively).

Now begins the waiting game...

Also, for the record, CVP currently list the C100 MkII at £3048.33 ex VAT (and I expect that might move downwards a bit after November, assuming the FS5 starts shipping on time!)

Just hoping the FS5 street price falls a bit before mine gets shipped - as the price sure does seem a bit high relative to the FS7 (which I've considered in the past but which don't want to lug around all day...). I ruled out the C100 MkII at it's launch as I'm not buying any more cams that don't have some kind of 4K capability anymore - even though I expect it will be several years before my clients want anything in 4K. Sure, the FS5 will only come with "entry level" 4K, i.e. 100Mbps 4.2.0 at 8-bit, but I think it'll be a terrific 4.2.2 10-bit XAVC 50Mbps HD cam.

B&H Photo's prices:

Sony PXW-FS5 XDCAM Super 35 Camera SystemÂ* PXW-FS5K B&H


Sony PXW-FS5 XDCAM Super 35 Camera System PXW-FS5 B&H Photo

I've just pre-ordered a PXW-FS5 with CVP who have it (currently) listed at an opening price of £4,100 ex VAT .............
I'm assuming that's body only, Andy?
Sure, the FS5 will only come with "entry level" 4K, i.e. 100Mbps 4.2.0 at 8-bit, but I think it'll be a terrific 4.2.2 10-bit XAVC 50Mbps HD cam.
Fully agree with the last bit, but as far as 4K goes, I think the codec is less important than other factors. For UHD, 4K means 4096x2160, QFHD means 3840x2160 (16:9). It's worth noting the FS5 is QFHD only - not "cinema" 4K - which may or may not be important, depending on usage.

Secondly, in QFHD the max framerate is 30 fps - not 60. Does that matter to you? Worth thinking about.

As far as the codec goes, then yes, 10 bit would be nice, but may be expecting too much in a camera in this price range? But 4:2:0 for 4K progressive is no problem at all - 4:2:2 has only been insisted upon in the past because of interlace. Now we're solely talking about progressive formats, there is no problem with 4:2:0.

If you don't believe me look at the latest version of the EBU tiering document - https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/r/r118.pdf . (Table on page 12) For UHD (very highest end production) they specify a minimum bitrate for long-GOP of 200Mbs, but for colour space "4:2:0 but 4:4:4 preferred". In other words, 4:2:0 is fine, but if only the best will do, go to 4:4:4 - 4:2:2 needs to be left behind with interlace.

How does XAVC-L 10-bit, 4:2:2 50mbps compare to MPEG2 8-bit, 4:2:2, 50mbps? In 1080 30P.
The FS5 does not have MPEG2.

Hi David,

Yes, body only.

Regarding the QFHD versus 4K UHD thing - then it seems that 4096x2160 4K will be available at some point in the future (along with Raw output) as a "paid for firmware upgrade". Not bothered about that now, but maybe one day I will be. I learnt a long time ago to buy techie things on what they will do out of the box, not on what might be promised but never arrive (or arrive eventually at some unknown price point).

Regarding 4K at 50/60 FPS, sure that would be great - this thing will only do 30 FPS in QFHD, but as far as I'm aware the only "4K" cam that is offering that at anywhere near this price point is the DVX-200...another cam I thought hard about. I'm passing on the DVX-200 as I'm not convinced by some of the footage I've seen during it's long drawn out (and IMHO badly handled) "launch".

I think I'll be fine with the HFR options in Full HD for a while (1080p50 was a must for some sports work I occasionally film) and the "burst modes" in Full HD might be great for certain things.

Thanks also for the clarification around 4.2.0 and 4.2.2 regarding 4K. I've read that elsewhere by you and others so, note to self, I won't get too hung up on it anymore.

How does XAVC-L 10-bit, 4:2:2 50mbps compare to MPEG2 8-bit, 4:2:2, 50mbps? In 1080 30P.
The FS5 does not have MPEG2.

Glen,

My Sony PMW-300 can shoot in a 4.2.2 at 50 Mbps XAVC at 10-bit (not sure what flavour of XAVC at that bit rate - off hand - but it will do higher XAVC bit rates). It will also do the XDCAM MPEG-2 in 4.2.2 at 50 Mbps. I've worked with both.

I think most would agree that, assuming your NLE can handle it (Adobe CC on my new Mac Pro can but CS6 on my old Mac Pro can't), XAVC is (generally considered) the superior, more efficient and modern codec (but is more computer intensive to edit with) whilst the XDCAM MPEG-2 codec is much easier to edit - but I'll let others such as David who have deep knowledge of these things comment.

It's not so much that I'm hung up on 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0.
It's my broadcast clients who are insisting upon at least a 50mbps, 4:2:2 in 1080/60i or 30P codec for a camera.
That's why I'm wondering if XAVC-L 50mbps, 10-bit, 4:2:2 is the same as or better than XDCAM 50mbps, 8-bit, 4:2:2. Can I sell it to my clients?
I can explain the difference between 4:2:0 in progressive and interlaced to them until I'm blue in the face, but they won't budge. The producers i deal with are rarely camera pros and only go by what they've been told by their engineers.
I have never had a broadcast client (or any client) request 1080/60P. Not once.

It's not so much that I'm hung up on 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0.
It's my broadcast clients who are insisting upon at least a 50mbps, 4:2:2 in 1080/60i or 30P codec for a camera.
And for HD (1080) I think the insistence on 4:2:2 is fair enough - my previous post was about UHD - 4K and QFHD, when 4:2:0 should be fine for the vast majority of work. (And when it's not, it's likely to need 4:4:4.) Even if the HD material starts off progressive, it may end up treated psf - and it's the psf/interlace factor that led broadcasters to insist on no vertical subsampling.

But all the UHD variants are progressive - end of story.
That's why I'm wondering if XAVC-L 50mbps, 10-bit, 4:2:2 is the same as or better than XDCAM 50mbps, 8-bit, 4:2:2. Can I sell it to my clients?
I suspect in strict quality terms the answer is likely to be "better". But the question is whether it will fit into their workflow? The bigger the organisation, the more rigid their workflows may be, and the less they may want any codec or delivery method that they're not used to.

And whilst there is a lot about the FS5 to admire, then why oh why not take more account of legacy issues and include the legacy XDCAM codecs? You may not choose to use such rather than XAVC if you have full control of the production path, but what to do if your client has XDCAM as their in-house format and can't handle XAVC?
I have never had a broadcast client (or any client) request 1080/60P. Not once.
That doesn't surprise me too much as 1080p/60 isn't a broadcast format, and now UHD is here is never likely to be - I'd expect a leapfrog to 2160p/50(60).

May be it's a case of Rome not being built in a day - but everybody expects it to be! Wanting everything all at once. Together with what Andy says about true 4K (4096x2160) likely coming to the FS5 as an upgrade, that makes me feel a lot better about the FS5. I can see it being highly popular with the low budget cinema people, and they're the ones who are most likely to want the cinema aspect ratio. For a lot of the other work, QFHD is fine.

And for the "cinema" applications, the announcement that it will gain RAW for external recording is only likely enhance it's appeal here.

And whilst there is a lot about the FS5 to admire, then why oh why not take more account of legacy issues and include the legacy XDCAM codecs? You may not choose to use such rather than XAVC if you have full control of the production path, but what to do if your client has XDCAM as their in-house format and can't handle XAVC?

.
Yeah, I'm surprised they don't have XDCAM HD. Especially when it has XDCAM written right on the side of the camera body. There are lots of broadcast clients who use this and it's integrated into their workflow.
Hopefully it can be added in a future upgrade. Is it possible, for some reason, you can't record this codec onto SD cards?

Is it possible, for some reason, you can't record this codec onto SD cards?
Good point, and I think you may have got it.

Personally, I'd have been happy with XAVC and XDCAM 35Mbs - the latters pretty popular in the UK for the likes of news etc, and normally to SDHC cards via an SxS adaptor.

4:2:0 in 4K on the FS5? Really? Still shooting certain things with PXW-X200, I will wait for more 4k offerings, I hate that darn grip on the FS7 plus that slow power zoom lens.

I wonder if that kit lens is any good? Having a power zoom might be nice.
I might consider this, but really need to give thought to lens selection, could get carried away and get pricey. Would probably need something wide and something fast to go with it.
Since I can't find any specs on stabilization, I assume there's nothing internal and all down to lens etc. I like the 'Active' mode on my X70 for HD shooting, too bad there's nothing like that.

I wonder if that kit lens is any good? Having a power zoom might be nice.


The SELP18105G is a nice compromise. I use it on an FS100 and I don't even mind the insane distortion (which is compensated for on everything except the FS100). The zoom isn't fast when using the knob on the lens, but it's quick if you whip the dial.

This camera might serve whatever demographic it's intended for. Not for 4K digital cinema shooting, unless you add an external recorder etc. to get 4K 10bit or RAW it seems. The DVX200, URSA Mini and the newly teased RED camera look more enticing for my purposes and probably some others. Good to wait some more.

I like it. Right size so I can fit into a carry on pelican case (FS7 was HUGE!), good price, codec bitrate that won't destroy my storage solution at the moment. The ND filter is cool and the modular form factor works for me. Grip looks comfortable and the LCD is in the right place for my shooting style. RAW would be a perk down the line. The EVF looks like the one from the AX100 which is small but high quality.

I was hoping for 150Mbps and I got 100Mbps. That'll work for the moment. SDXC storage is nice compared to the spendy options that are developing right now. I was looking for a 4K C100 and I think we got it. As a stopgap to the next level (RAW, 60p, etc) I'm liking what I'm seeing.

Curious about auto focus abilities and wondering if the ISO can be changed via dial without having to set individual values to the L/M/H switch.

EDIT: ISO can be adjusted via hand grip joystick.

There is a reason Sony is not investing the time into looking into UHS-II SD technology: 1. Panasonic is already doing it with MicroP2 2. It has potential to cannibalize XQD sales.

This camera is PERFECTLY capable of outputting 60p in 4K, they just want you to get the RAW upgrade to do so (wishful thinking here) or they just want you to stick to UHS-I cards.

Had support been added for UHS-II, 150mbps 60p would have been possible on SDXC.

As it stands right now, I'm not interested. No 60p (which is supposed to be the next broadcast standard) is a deal breaker. Also, did you notice how the XLR positioning kind of harkens to Panasonic's odd XLR positioning?

Plus, the XDCAM branding should not be on a camera which supports ZERO legacy codecs.

What's my best bet to put my hands on one of these without flying to Amsterdam? Particularly on the left coast?

Excuse my ignorance.

I had assumed a larger sensor was "better". (Greater control of depth of field, greater sensitivity, etc.)

In reading this thread over the last few days, it appears that this is not necessarily so.

I personally can't see putting a smaller sensor on a more expensive camera, then putting a full frame sensor on its baby brother.

Can someone educate me?

Arguably S35 is the "optimal" size, and it is by far the most common size in Hollywood.

For many reasons such as: most cinema lenses used are designed for it, it gives shallow DoF but not so shallow it makes the focus puller's job impossible and takes get ruined, it isn't too prohibitively expensive to build sensors for (as sensor size goes up, costs rise even more sharply!), lenses are not too prohibitively expensive either (ditto the same point), and the same points apply to weight/portability too (compare the size of Pentax 645Z with a lens, a smallish medium format camera, with a Sony NEX camera with a pancake lens!).

In short, S35 can be seen by many as the current "sweet spot". Thus the bigger a sensor gets as it gets closer to S35, that is a good thing, but once it gets bigger than S35 that is bad.

Note: some of these points are inherently subjective, thus a few people will instead argue FF/VistaVision is instead the "sweet spot". A few mad folks will even argue for medium format! :-P

I wonder if that kit lens is any good? Having a power zoom might be nice.
I might consider this, but really need to give thought to lens selection, could get carried away and get pricey. Would probably need something wide and something fast to go with it.
Since I can't find any specs on stabilization, I assume there's nothing internal and all down to lens etc. I like the 'Active' mode on my X70 for HD shooting, too bad there's nothing like that.

I own that lens, it is a really nice run and gun lens, and far cheap/wider/lighter than the Sony 28-135mm f/4

Get a few primes with this, and a longer lens for your tale needs (plus perhaps a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 in Nikon F Mount for your UWA uses) and then you're quite well sorted with lenses.

For those of us who have pre-ordered the FS5 or eager for news I've just seen this comment by Alister Chapman on his FB page. Sound promising…

Direct quote below:

"Spent the evening shooting with the FS5 last night. Not ideal weather as it rained, but I'm impressed. It's a very easy camera to use. The 18-105 power zoom works surprisingly well and it's almost like having a PMW-200/EX1 type camera where you can just run and gun, zoom in, zoom out with ease. The small EVF is actually pretty good, it's OLED so has really good contrast and is sharp, just a little on the small side. Variable ND is great for coping with changing light without altering the DoF. Not had a chance to closely examine the footage yet, I shot a mix of S-log3 and Cinegammas but at the first look, it appears to be very good. At 3200 ISO it is very sensitive and noise is well managed. There are LUT's for the VF and LCD but not the SDI/HDMI output. Really nice to have the same super slowmo functions as the FS700 again, appears to be less prone to aliasing."

And just to add to this…I was filming in a Boxing Club last night with my C100 in minimal kit mode (without my Ninja Blade mounted), just using the poor EVF and mostly the LCD screen for focusing/framing etc. It was fun dancing around the action trying not to get in the way/on the end of a stray punch!!!

Couldn't help think whilst I was filming it all (for HD web delivery) just how useful 1080p50 (and even 1080p240 bursts, now and again) would have been to have had as options :-)

A much better EVF than the C100's really poor one would have helped too (even with my C-Cup it's barely adequate…) although I mainly used the LCD screen as I needed to keep aware of the fast moving action in my surroundings!

The one thing I think I'll struggle with on the FS5 is the lack of Wave Form Monitor - I use it really often on my C100.

What do you guys think about doing ENG style shoots (following faster moving subjects, or uncontrolled subjects) with these style cams (i.e. sensor size/shallow DOF, lens zoom range limitations compared to fixed lens ENG cams) in general? I have only used C100 a few times and it was for talking heads or situations where I was quite far from subject so focus plane was more compressed.

One thing I like about the ENG cams is that you DON'T have to futz with switching lenses all the time. I shot B-cam on some interviews the other day with a 5DM3 and 24-105. I was probably 4 feet or less from the subject to get a tight CU at the end of the zoom range. If I understand correctly, with an S35 sensor cam I could have backed up to all of about 6 ft away.

Do you guys find you can stop down enough/crank up your ISO enough to get enough DOF to not be manually tracking focus all the time (especially on a BOXING MATCH. Sheesh!)?

I love the look of those types of cams but worry about the practicality in the field.

Using the FS-100, I found the servo focus ring to be more of a problem than the shallow DOF. Using a mechanical focus ring, I could keep them in focus most of the time.

Hmm. Good point. I guess I'm spoiled by almost always using manual rings. I tried out the X70 at a local store and that ring was one of the things that put me off it (though maybe more 'cause of the long throw than the servo-ness of it).

I get on pretty well with the C100 for run-n-gun BUT the main limitation is the very short focus throw on my (Canon stills) lenses...which is why I also have a PMW-300 and use that in certain work. Horses for courses.

It is possible to get a pretty decent "keep" rate for shots using cameras like the C100 once you know the limitations but there is no doubt it's a lot easier sometimes on my PMW-300. However, that won't go as wide as the C100 with an ultra wide angle on it, won't produce such pretty pictures (especially in low light where the Sony will get soft when shot wide open) and of course does not allow such control over DOF, when you want that - especially in controlled interviews etc. Skin tones also look a lot better on the Canon.

I suspect the FS5 will be a similar beast to the C100 for ENG - although with the servo controlled (via camera zoom rocker) 18-105mm Sony G kit lens it'll perhaps allow one to operate it a bit more like an ENG camera (Alister Chapman inferred as much in a Facebook comment this morning).

Just to clarify some information that I posted yesterday on this thread. Initial reports said there was not a Waveform Monitor on the FS5 - which worried me a little as I use the WFM on my C100 and Ninja Blade a lot.

Very good news!

Just to clarify some information that I posted yesterday on this thread. Initial reports said there was not a Waveform Monitor on the FS5 - which worried me a little as I use the WFM on my C100 and Ninja Blade a lot. Well, this hands-on article says the FS5 does have a WFM - thank goodness! It has some other interesting information/impressions about the camera too.



Alister Chapman recently shot with a pre-production model. His review is here:

The Sony PXW-FS5. Run and Gun Super35 for all. | XDCAM-USER.COM (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2015/09/the-sony-pxw-fs5-run-and-gun-super35-for-all/)

I was able to ask Alister via a Facebook Q&A whether the camera had a WFM. He said he did NOT see a WFM as an option on the camera he used, only a histogram. Now, bear in mind Alister used a pre-pro model, so this may change. Or not.

I really hope it will have WFM....

It's especially important to have this tool when shooting QFHD at just 4.2.0 with the 100Mbps XAVC-Long GoP as, from what I have read, one needs to get exposure absolutely right/it's not too forgiving and it won't take too much manipulation in post.

Did the FS700 have a WFM? (since some of the guts of this camera appear to be similar).

Did the FS700 have a WFM? (since some of the guts of this camera appear to be similar).
Nope, no waveform on the FS700.

I have that lens and I like it. Sony designates it as a "G" series lens. Therefor by that badge it is not a kit lens. A "G" series lens by their definition means it is supposed to match their Zeiss lenses in quality. That "G" badge is a bit of a stretch in my opinion but it is a good lens and not a kit lens. It is tack sharp and matches all of my Canon "L" glass in that category. I don't think they would ship a 4K camera without a sharp lens and this one will do it.

The constant aperture is a necessity for me and it has it. The zoom is reasonably quick. It is of course a servo so MF is not good but it is usable when you need it. You don't need MF often as the AF is excellent. It Zooms internally so you have no extension problems. Being F4 it is very light yet feels solid.

Now with all that said this is the lens that is well documented to have a problem on some FS series cameras like the FS700. At the wide end it distorts and pincushions. NEX series cameras have internal processing that corrects this. I don't now what all of the compatible series are but it is strange to me that a lens requires electronic correction.

I am completely sold on Sony's e-mount system because I am heavily invested in Canon "L" series glass and it is awesome to be able to use it all with a Metabones adapter.

I think the 18-105 G servo is a good place to start with this camera. The e-mount will let you take your lens selection any place you want to go.

Kind Regards,

Steve

Now with all that said this is the lens that is well documented to have a problem on some FS series cameras like the FS700. At the wide end it distorts and pincushions. NEX series cameras have internal processing that corrects this.
The FS700 now supports the 18-105 since the last firmware that came out quite some time ago.
At least in HD. In raw output I don't think it can correct.

I have that lens and I like it. Sony designates it as a "G" series lens. Therefor by that badge it is not a kit lens. A "G" series lens by their definition means it is supposed to match their Zeiss lenses in quality. That "G" badge is a bit of a stretch in my opinion but it is a good lens and not a kit lens. It is tack sharp and matches all of my Canon "L" glass in that category. I don't think they would ship a 4K camera without a sharp lens and this one will do it.


Just a nitpick: the 'G' designation comes from the Minolta days for their professional series of lenses (in a-mount) when Sony acquired the company and entered the SLR photography market.

And I agree that the 18-105/4G lens is nice - very improved, especially compared to the older 18-200 kit lens (we use both - the old lens is quite softer, even in HD resolution with the EA50 we use it with).
Often the 18-105 is paired with an a6000 mirrorless camera as a general purpose zoom lens, with very satisfying results.

N.F.

I really hope it will have WFM.....
Saw one at a demo yesterday, Andy, and the answer is "yes".
I shot B-cam on some interviews the other day with a 5DM3 and 24-105. I was probably 4 feet or less from the subject to get a tight CU at the end of the zoom range. If I understand correctly, with an S35 sensor cam I could have backed up to all of about 6 ft away.

Do you guys find you can stop down enough/crank up your ISO enough to get enough DOF to not be manually tracking focus all the time (especially on a BOXING MATCH. Sheesh!)?

I love the look of those types of cams but worry about the practicality in the field.
There need not be any significant difference operationally in depth of field terms. With a large sensor you will get the same dof as with a smaller sensor by going to a smaller aperture. You may think "but that's no good if the light is poor"!? but remember bigger sensor means much higher base ISO - so it's back to square one. (Something like an EX1 may have had max aperture of f1.9. With the kit lens on the FS5 it's f4 - but a very high base ISO - see what I mean?)

Of course, put a fast prime on a large sensor and that's when it changes. Then you really will get very shallow dof and excellent low light performance - but think of it as an option that's being given, not an inevitability.

Downside is zoom range. Do you need a good wide angle AND a 10/12x zoom without changing lenses?
If so, that's when they become at a disadvantage compared to 1/2" or 2/3" cameras.

Just to be very clear on lens options here are the two choices you have with very similar specs. This shows how far Sony will push that "G" designation. Both lenses are e-mount and compatible:

This is the 18-105 G F4 the FS5 can come with:

Sony E PZ 18-105mm f/4 G OSS Lens SELP18105G B&H Photo Video (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=11001011&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi)

This is the recommended lens for the FS7, a true broadcast quality lens for a broadcast camera:

Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 G OSS Lens SELP28135G B&H Photo Video

Decide how much you want to spend and take your pick. But, as I said before, the e-mount is awesome, your lens options are almost limitless. I run several Canon and Sony lenses on my two EA50s. As Nick said, the only lens I am not crazy about is the original kit lens my first EA50 came with. It is truly a kit lens. The 18-105mm G is a huge step up.

Kind Regards,

Steve

This is the recommended lens for the FS7, a true broadcast quality lens for a broadcast camera:

Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 G OSS Lens SELP28135G B&H Photo Video (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082051-REG/sony_selp28135g_e_pz_28_135mm_f_4.html)
I would cough up the $2500 in a heartbeat... if I never planned on shooting a wide shot again.

28mm at a 1.5x crop factor is a 42mm equivalent. Nice if I was a portrait photographer, but I gotta grab an establishing shot every now and again!

Regarding if the FS5 has a Wave Form Monitor or not...

Saw one at a demo yesterday, Andy, and the answer is "yes".


Thanks for this clarification David as I've read several conflicting reports about this - Fantastic news!

That is great news!, hope its a normal production feature and not only on a demo unit I also have read several reports waveform is not a feature

No waveform, Scott Hui did an unboxing vid and answered some questions on FaceBook and unfortunately said it has no waveform



https://www.facebook.com/groups/Sony.FS5/

Damn! Bad news.

If I shoot XAVC, then archive a project, then need to use that raw video again in 10 years... what are my chances of finding something to play/edit XAVC at that time? AVCHD feels so much more... un-proprietary.

If I shoot XAVC, then archive a project, then need to use that raw video again in 10 years... what are my chances of finding something to play/edit XAVC at that time? AVCHD feels so much more... un-proprietary.

Ten years-- ?? - I'd guess that your chance of at least being able to read (play) the xavc data are pretty good. In my opinion, Sony and Microsoft are the two companies who really maintain backward capability in their products the best. Will edit systems still support it? -- that's a whole other question. Every time a new apple operating system is released I have something that won't work properly with it anymore. Not to mention the thousands of dollars of computer peripherals I've jettisoned because canon never wrote new drivers (for new operating systems) making their old hardware useless.

Plus of course the really important part of the question -- how are you archiving to make sure the data stays good for 10, or 15, or 25, or 50 years. Time flies and hard drives can die when sitting on the shelf...

I copy the data on to an external hard drive mirrored onto a separate external hard drive. Every time capacity increases significantly, I copy multiple drives onto one new drive. I recently copied all of my 500gb drives and one of my 1TB drives from ~8 years ago onto one (er, two) 4TB drives. It's not foolproof, but it works.

Point being, the avi files and the .mov files from back then are all still readable. The more obscure the codecs get, the less likely that is. If XAVC is the next h264 we're in the clear. If it's the next Jaz drive we're in trouble. ;-)

Since you guys brought this subject up......What do you think is going to be the next, or if ever, universal (or close to it) connectivity platform/protocol. We have gone backwards since the days of firewire. I loved firewire. Granted it was not robust and a few issues but EVERYTHING worked with it. Cameras, computers, switchers, hard drives, and a ton of other peripheral devices.

Now we are back to a plethora of connectivity with no clear winner. There is a great divide between HDMI and SDI with SDI supposedly being the pro standard. But even if you pay dearly and go that rout HDMI is still a necessity. And on computers HDMI is output only, not I/O. Thunderbolt looked promising for a while, but Mac started it and is now dropping it from their lightweight air platforms as soon as PC computers started using it. USB 3.0 seems to be promising for high speed computer peripherals but no camera I am aware of has it integrated into a camera.

I made a mistake and bought a Black Magic Intensity Shuttle just to give me a device I could hook a camera up to my lap top on set for many reasons. Supposedly it had plug ins for all of the Adobe software I wanted to use plus its own proprietary capture software. What a joke, almost nothing works except the BMD software that causes problems with other Adobe software. It is absolutely useless. It came in thunderbolt or USB 3.0, I chose Thunderbolt and I now think USB 3.0 would have been a better choice. It is six months old and destined to never be used again.

So....codecs, hard drives, and archiving for storage and playback ten years from now. Good luck predicting that one. But I understand exactly what Mike is saying about AVCHD feeling less propitiatory. But it is not exactly VHS or DVD. I have an AV bone yard of old stuff that will never be resurrected, anyone remember Zip Drives? But there is still a VHS deck and two DVD players integrated into my editing suite.

I will give Sony credit for the FS5. It is obviously not a cutting edge UHD camera. It is a work horse camera with options for those of us that work in current standards and also has the upcoming standards that will become more prevalent. I hate the term future proof, it is a marketing term that insults my intelligence. I see the FS5 as a great camera for today's working pro that has options for him to deliver in formats that his clients want.

Did I say I miss FIREWIRE? One cable, one protocol, and everything from cameras to computer peripherals worked with it. Yes I know it went through three evolutions. I don't think we will ever get that lucky again, there is to much money at stake to keep us buying new gear.

Steve

I found firewire to be flaky, so I can't say I share your longing for it. Always felt like you'd ingest an hour long tape as one clip and the dog would brush against the cable 52 minutes in, and the clip would be unreadable and you'd have to start over from the beginning and waste another hour. When they came out with the ability to "auto clip" shots from HDV, always felt like I'd lose a single clip from the middle somewhere, and then thoroughly freak out when I couldn't find a line of crucial dialogue, only to find it was still on the tape but didn't ingest.

I moved from HDV to 5DMkII and being able to deal with individual clips from the camera straight through the edit and into export was the most glorious thing ever. I loved the images from that camera more than any cam I've ever had, but the usability (audio in particular) is the worst.

But I digress.

My hope, Steven, is that codecs (particularly widespread ones) will become easy to come by in the future... try and load up that XAVC on your 2034 Mac Pro and it won't load, just a few keystrokes will download the driver. It seems like storage is cheap, information is vast, it won't be like trying to find something in 1988 when you had to dial 50 BBS's to find a file... it'll be much quicker and easier.

Interface-wise, HDMI is a terrible idea and every year I am more and more surprised that camera and peripheral mfr's choose it, but it is as close to a standard as we have right now. I expect SDI to persevere, but HDMI's successor will be wireless, not cables.

Outside of that, I feel like USB3 is a decent idea (although adoption is slow), I'm particularly intrigued by USB-C (which you can insert either way) that I expect to see more of.

I was thrilled to learn the FS5 would use SD cards and not some crazy-expensive hard-to-find card only available online. I like the idea that if I fly out of town and need 3 cards and only bring 2, I can buy one at basically any drugstore for a reasonable price.

Overall, I'm celebrating nearly 30 years as a computer nerd, and I've never seen a time with so few cables and so much convergence. Computer-wise, everything connects with USB, and as far as cameras I feel like it's as good or better than it's never been. Even codecs I don't feel like I have the problems I used to, and backwards compatibility is built-in like it has not been in the past.