NEX-FS100U compared to Canon 5Diii

[Silas Barker]

I was just wondering how this camera, the NEX-FS100U, compares to the Canon 5Diii?

I already have the canon 5Dii with fast lenses, and was wondering how it compares. IF I did make the switch I would need new glass I am expecting. Thinking about getting this or the Canon 5Diii

I currently own the Sony Z5 and Ex1r as well if its similar to those at all

[Alister Chapman]

No need to change your glass. Just get the Metabones E to EF adapter and you can use your Canon glass on the FS100 and FS700 (or any other E-Mount camera) and the camera will control the iris and the IS will work.

[Chad Whelan]

Hey Silas, I would trade my fs100 for an EX1R if your interested:)

[Matt Davis]

Originally Posted by Silas Barker

I was just wondering how this camera, the NEX-FS100U, compares to the Canon 5Diii?

Having worked with the 5dii and 550D/T2i, I'd say that the FS100 is going to give you a more detailed picture, more tonality in the blacks, no aliasing or moire to speak of (though you can find it if you torture it), but you'll have slightly less of the 'Full Frame 35mm aesthetic' if you're into wafer thin Depth of Field.

Canon does a bit of magic on skin tones that the FS100 does not.

Canon have no problems with skin highlights, the FS100 does - and it gets 'fugly' quickly. Not as much as another camera I've come across, but it's why I'm trading up to the FS700. It's a very specific thing with highlights and the red channel clipping, but it's the difference between the two images (I assure you the Canon did the same as the EX1).

The FS100 provides a lovely slick 'corporate' image which can do 'indie' too when treated carefully. The Canons, the 5Dii especially, have a look but it's hard to steer them away from that. The foibles such as recording length and shadow detail mean that my shooting style is better addressed with the FS100, but nothing does 'talking head' quite like a Canon.

As far as sharpness, and the lack thereof between 5dii and 5diii, you can put that back with sharpening in your NLE (which is where it should be done if you have the time). There's something approaching 'trepanning' that you can do to your 5diii to improve its sharpness, but it looks too scary in the resale department for me.

I switched from EX1s to FS100 last year, and had a little run with EX1 jobs this month. I'm looking forward to going back to FS100 in terms of image and lens quality. Having done a series of interviews around Europe and Middle East with a T2i earlier, 'rustic' black and shadow handling, and golfball grain in low light, makes me wish I could have taken the FS100 instead (job required 29.97 throughout and I bought a PAL FS100 - irrelevant now, of course).

[Silas Barker]

Thanks for the replies....

The super slow motion of the FS800 sounds awesome!

[Chris Johnston]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

No need to change your glass. Just get the Metabones E to EF adapter and you can use your Canon glass on the FS100 and FS700 (or any other E-Mount camera) and the camera will control the iris and the IS will work.

You have a metabones adapter and the IS works on your Canon glass?

[Matt Davis]

Originally Posted by Chris Johnston

You have a metabones adapter and the IS works on your Canon glass?

PMJI - but I have a Metabones adaptor, and the IS works on my Canon 17-55 2.8 beautifully. Have been informed that EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM also works like a charm, so will be testing shortly.

[Thomas Wong]

5D and FS100, both has their features

for workflow, i like FS100 for XLR audio, Focus Peaking, Autofocus (with sony lens), Endless recording
for quality, i still like 5Dmk2, you can easily get very sharp image, or you need very top glass for FS100 to get sharp image (i compare kit lens and sony 16-50, i can tell the difference by the camera LCD)

and for control, i prefer 5D, you can access aperture, iso, white balance, shutterspeed, with one hand without looking the body. For FS100, buttons are on the side, and you will always need to look and find the button. Canon can have many steps for iso change. FS100 is a camcorder, you can only set High-Mid-Low (only 3 setting on iso/gain)

the quality is very different between 5D and FS100, they are two different thing, you need to try and see if you like the FS100.

I sell all my canon lenses, they worth quite a lot of money, and you can use those money to get some cheaper lens for FS100. You probably have a 70-200 2.8 IS, it worth $1600-1700, for FS100, i bought an old Nikon 80-200 F2.8, it's the same class as Canon 70-200 and it's only $450

[Chris Joy]

I agree with what's been said already, its a different look, different handling and a different workflow. I switched from a 5d2 mainly because of overheating, audio and the handling.

The FS100 has never overheated on me, I live in Florida and my other cameras overheating was/is a really frustrating issue. Your recording time is only limited to your card space, its not an issue for me, but if you shoot events no need to worry about when to restart recording.

The 6 picture profiles in the FS100 are almost infinitely adjustable, you're not just adjusting the four parameters in the neutral profile to -2 like the 5d2 (I didn't like cinestyle), you have so much control over the look - too much sometimes. Thankfully there are some great color profiles from Doug Jensen, Abelcine and Frank Gelncarin that really make the FS100 shine, you can get some very cinematic looks right out of the camera.

I was really sick of running dual audio and synching in post. I don't record long takes, lots of moving around and start/stop so after a shoot I wind up with tons of individual files. Its embarrassing how many times I forgot to hit the record button on my zoom when I had the 5d2. Luckily I had the Rode VMP so I always had a decent audio track. The dual XLR's with full control of audio is such a welcome change. I couldn't get consistent accuracy with pluraleyes, so I found myself spending a lot of time aligning my audio tracks. The FS100 will pay for itself with time saved right there.

I prefer having camera functions accessible with the buttons on the side of the FS100. If you want to enable/disable peaking, zebras and so on - just hit a button. Its larger and a little heavier and IMHO a better form factor for handheld stuff. With the big NPF-970 battery you can shoot all day with just one, bring three of them and you're set for a week.

When you crank the ISO/gain, you really see the difference in noise, the FS100 is cleaner and the noise is a much finer grain. Some say the FS has more of a "video" look than the 5d2 in the way motion is captured. The picture profiles, lenses and grading seem to make all the difference. I can't compare as I no longer own the 5d2. I do know when you hit the S&Q mode, the slow-mo on the FS100 is just fantastic. I like 60p so much I want to find a way to step up to the FS700 just for the 240fps.

Then there's lenses - the Nex mount is able to adapt more lenses than anything with a mirror. I switched form Zeiss lenses to Rokkor - something I wanted to do for awhile but Rokkors need to be modified or the mirror needs to be shaved in order for them to play nice with a DSLR. On the Nex its just a $30 adapter. Lots of MF lenses have such a great look in the way they render the image, my only modern lenses are the adapted SAL16-50/2.8 so I have a fast zoom and the E-mount 24/1.8, 18-55 and 50/1.8 for OSS. I'm selling the Zeiss 24 in favor of more vintage glass.

The biggest drawback compared to the 5d is the crop factor and the need for ND filters. In good light if you want shallow DOF, the FS100 base ISO is 500 (0 gain), so you have to stop down or add a ND filter. Its a crop sensor (or whatever you want to call it, please no flaming about the technical aspects) so you lose the full frame look, if you shoot a lot of wide angle you have fewer options with the FS. I'm getting the Tokina 11-16 for ultrawide shots.

There are lots of other nice touches that have really made the switch even better for me, you can shoot 1fps for easy time lapses, there's a button to review the take you just recorded - no menu diving to review footage, there are three separate record buttons, you can get 4:2:2 color space with an external recorder, the FMU can serve as an built-in dual recording system and so on.

Overall its been a positive switch for me. I like the image and the workflow better with the FS100, its meant fewer compromises and I no longer have to explain to clients that my still camera actually shoots video that will look good when broadcast. As a bonus I've been able to ditch the rig needed for audio gear and to make the 5d hand-holdable. The proceeds from rig part sales will go into more MF glass.

[Thomas Wong]

We'd never had overheat problem in North America, all our crews used 5Dmk2 without overheating, even we filmed in a concert that run for 3 hours. But I heard many people has overheat problem.

i have the same lenses as yours with a nikon 80-200mm 2.8 push/pull. I am looking for a used Tokina 11-16mm with Alpha mount too, so i can get autofocus with the LAEA2.

I am thinking to get rid of SAL1650 to get a zeiss 24mm, Can you tell me why you want to sell the Zeiss? it should produce much sharper image than the SAL1650, and i like the F1.8 that i can still film in very low light without pop up the gain. I am thinking, 16mm - 50mm range, i could just walk a couple steps forward/backward to get the 16-50mm, isn't it?

[Silas Barker]

The only reason I would be interested in the Sony fs100 or fs700 is the slow motion - which in that case sounds like it might better to rent one of those cameras for the specific shots I might need super slow motion in.....Thanks for the comments guys!

[Chris Joy]

Originally Posted by Thomas Wong

We'd never had overheat problem in North America, all our crews used 5Dmk2 without overheating, even we filmed in a concert that run for 3 hours. But I heard many people has overheat problem.

i have the same lenses as yours with a nikon 80-200mm 2.8 push/pull. I am looking for a used Tokina 11-16mm with Alpha mount too, so i can get autofocus with the LAEA2.

I am thinking to get rid of SAL1650 to get a zeiss 24mm, Can you tell me why you want to sell the Zeiss? it should produce much sharper image than the SAL1650, and i like the F1.8 that i can still film in very low light without pop up the gain. I am thinking, 16mm - 50mm range, i could just walk a couple steps forward/backward to get the 16-50mm, isn't it?

I shoot on tripods a lot and often indoors where I can't move much or space is tight - so the extra width and the zoom range of the 16-50 is a blessing. I don't find the 24 to be very Zeiss-like, it doesn't have the crazy contrast that my ZE and C/Y lenses had. Its a nice lens, but its not a $1000 (now $1100) piece of glass. The 50/1.8 is sharper, just as fast and has OSS for all of $300. To me the 24 should be more in the $500 range. I have a Rokkor 24/2.8 that's as sharp, renders nicer IMHO and cost less than $200. The FS is so good in low light, I don't find the extra stop of the Zeiss necessary. For me, sometimes I just don't want to mess with 4 or 5 lenses, the 16-50 covers a great range, its really fast, every bit as sharp as the 24 IMHO and because its parfocal you can easily recompose on the fly with the zoom and not lose focus. I just haven't been blown away by the 24, not anything like the ZE's I had with the 5d2 - which really are something special. I'm considering moving from the 24 and some of my Rokkors to a few adapted ZF's, but that's another thread...