Sensible to buy new FS5 now, or wait?

[Doug Jensen]

As much as I like my FS5 I don't use it often enough to keep it anymore. I also have an FS7 and F55, so the FS5 doesn't get used very much. So if you want a nice, clean, mint condition camera, from a seller you can trust, I've got your camera right here :-) I'll sell it for $4K and it has the optional RAW upgrade license installed and current firmware. Includes all original packaging and the battery and charger have never even been taken out of the box.

Photos taken this summer: UsedGear1
Paypal or Visa/MC accepted.

[Cliff Totten]

There is one more avenue you could go down and look at, the FS700R. Yes, its more "clunky" than an FS5 but you can get it really cheap today. Now, you need an Atomos recorder to take that 4k raw sensor data out....but lemme tell you, that image quality is excellent. In fact, the FS700R, FS7 and FS5 all use the same sensor, readout algorithm and raw protocol. I do suspect that Sony used a heavier OLPF over the FS5 sensor. (Hence, the resolution difference between the FS700 and FS7) Sony was VERY concerned about protecting the FS7 sales from the FS5. The FS700R didnt have any real limitations back in its day. They just gave it everything they could and made that sensor and raw protocol the "foundation" for the cameras thereafter. If you look at the FS5 raw data and see the metadata tags, they still say "FS700" on them. Lol.. Sony didnt even bother to change the flags to "FS5". Id bet the FS7 raw metadata says the same too. I guess is not important or maybe Sony internally just calls it the "FS700R protocol"??

Anyhoo,..I sold my FS5 after using it for two jobs. I bought it used at B&H and and literally sold it for $800+ more than I got it for after Kumamato went down. FS5's were hard to find for 3 months and people were desperate! (My FS700 still stays today using that 12bit raw)

Dougs offer looks good. I can tell you that the FS5 is a completely different camera when you take that 12bit raw from it. Im not a big fan of the 4:2:0 bit CODEC on the FS5. Getting 4:2:2, 10bit ProRes is a much nicer option. You also bypass the XAVC-L internal noise reduction too. I think cleaning it in post is more accurate.

The ergonomics of the FS5 are spectacular! Im waiting for that body with that A7S-II full frame, killer, monster, Godzilla sensor....whew, the thought of that dream camera gets me arroused!! :-)

Oh...Im also licking my chops over that Panny EVA-1 with 5.7k raw and dual native 800/2500 ISO.

[Stewart Hemley]

Hi Doug. Great offer but my associate already placed an order. We have it on the understanding that if we don't like it, we'll probably get the FS7. But I doubt you'll have any problem selling yours. After all, look who used it...

Cliff, yes that's an interesting thought, but above also covers that one.

It's great all this interest; I feel sort of spoilt. Thanks guys.

[Cliff Totten]

Did you order the raw option? I believe that is not refundable. Do you own Atomos or Convergent Design recorder that supports raw sensor data? I can tell you that it's BIG difference from the internal 8bit MEPEG CODEC. (Especially using log)

[Stewart Hemley]

Cliff, it had the raw option as part of the offer so that's no problem. No, we've never needed an external recorder as all our cameras have had a deent internal codec. It's another factor in the equation. It will give quality that's near enough (for the use it is aimed at) but will be more unweildy with an Atomos bolted on. I've already arranged with the dealer to get some footage from an F7 to compare so it will be decision time next week. And by that time Sony will have made their intentions clear, maybe. Cheers guys.

[Stewart Hemley]

Well, Sony didn't replace the Fs5 or the FS7 and my sky didn't fall in but I did buy the FS7. Tried the 5 and it was great to use but for me it just had a little too much noise in lowish light and the codec was fine for normal grading but wouldn't take much pushing. To be fair, it was never meant to. The 7 was better so for me it was worth the extra.

Already I prefer the handling to the C300.2. And the colours are certainly closer to the subject than the Canon ever got, which makes grading much faster. I mentioned that I need to "bond" with my gear for me to do my best stuff with it and I have already bonded with the 7. Taking a guess, Sony will wait a while to replace both models but even if they don't, I have a camera that will do what I want for a few years, certainly until it's paid for a few times over.

And as a side note, I learned just how inaccurate internet received wisdom can be. I had gone along with the notion, that I have not once seen questioned, that Canon colour is superior to Sony’s. Rubbish. In my experience it’s the other way round, and quite significantly. To be fair, I don’t know whether Sony have changed their colour science over the last couple of years but in my mind it is far superior to Canon’s. Not sure I have time to push this view around the net but it’s about time somebody did. IMHO.

Many thanks to the people offering views.

[Andy Wilkinson]

Great camera the FS7 - Enjoy your new cam! (I might buy the MkII version in the spring - just depends how things go).

[Cliff Totten]

Lol....with that FS7, you took a giant "step up" over the FS5. I'd really say the FS7 is in a completely different league. Congrats, you will be happy for a long time with that camera!

Awesome.

Yes, the FS5 IS noisy has Hell.

Canon colors are pretty damn good out of the box but yes, you CAN get those same exact colors with Sony with a small amount of adjustment in post.

[Stewart Hemley]

Cheers, Andy, Cliff.

Andy, I was tempted by the FS7 mk2 but basically I would have paid an extra £3k for the variable ND filter. I know there are other bits improved but as great as the filter is, it's not worth that much. Just my view FWIW.

[Mark Watson]

Per Sony vs Canon color, I like what I get out of the XF305, and the FS7. I don't shoot people much, but the thing I always hear from folks who's opinions I respect, is that the Canon color science makes people's skin look right/good. So, maybe it's that one area that the reputation revolves around. With so many image controls available in the cameras and grading software, I would think it doesn't matter much to most folks anymore (except maybe for speed of getting your footage out the door). With 4:2:2 and 600Mbps, you can push and pull quite a bit. I am really looking forward to returning to Hong Kong this winter with my FS7 to re-shoot all the places I have previously shot with my XL-H1A and XF305. A very photogenic locale.

Congrats on your purchase!

Mark

[Stewart Hemley]

My Canon AF305 was one of my favourite cameras of all time, and there have been (too) many. Tack sharp lens, great colour, light weight, etc. Not great in low light but overall a brilliant camera. Except it was "only" HD. I've needed 4k for a while and so it had to go but it's much missed.

Yes, the skin tones of the Canons are where they have built their reputation, and where Sony needed to work harder, according to the gurus on the net. But my testing with the FS7 has not backed that up. Initial tests on my two kids, who are half Japanese, half English, proved the Sony was fine. Then I did a shoot for a client, some of which was under mixed lighting including the dreaded flouros, and the result was not so fine - quite a few guys with lobster complexions. I handled it ok in Resolve but it was hard work. I was shooting with Slog3cinegamma and you can't use white balance, you're restricted to one of three presets that Sony deems appropriate. Don't like that at all. That worried me so I did a follow-up test with similar lighting and found that if I do a white balance (in HG4) then it's fine. Just as accurate as the various Canons I've used. So I guess I'll be using HG4 under mixed lighting. Interestingly, HG4 had almost as much dynamic range as the Slog3 and for run'n'gun you also have auto iris for emergencies. Overall, I'm preferring the FS7 over the Canon C300 mk2 by quite a margin.