Jump to content


Photo

Sony FS5 II is Garbage


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#21 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3378 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 April 2018 - 10:40 PM

 

I explained this a couple of posts above. I didn't just repost other people's opinions, I gave mine also, and said I've researched this camera, and that based on this, I don't disagree with the people who voiced that the FS5Mk2 is garbage.

 

Yes, you gave your opinion, which was based on other people's opinion. Have you used this camera? It seems you haven't. I'm still confused as to why you felt the need to start a thread here trashing a camera that you have no personal experience of.


  • 0

#22 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 22 April 2018 - 10:49 PM

Yes, you gave your opinion, which was based on other people's opinion. Have you used this camera? It seems you haven't. I'm still confused as to why you felt the need to start a thread here trashing a camera that you have no personal experience of.

 

Why ignore the part where I explained that I read more than "other people's opinion"? Specs, prices, trends, limitations, etc...those aren't just opinions.

I don't like this camera. I posted that I don't like this camera. No need to white knight for the FS5Mk2 ;-)


  • 0

#23 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4194 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 April 2018 - 10:59 PM

If the FS5 is garbage (and it very well might be) then post from experience, not hearsay.


Why do you care tho? Like, how does it hurt you or the forum.

The title may seem to be clickbait, but honestly I'd be pretty pissed if I was in his shoes too. There just doesn't seem to be a decent camera in the $5k - $8k range without dealing with lots of limitations... including having to spend thousands more to make a workable image.

So I do get his frustration and this camera doesn't solve any of Sony's issues, it's just the same thing over and over and over again. Same limitations, same color science, it's like they refuse to take what makes their F65 and Venice look good and push it down to their lower-end cameras in an attempt to hinder their performance so what... someone will rent a F65 instead? All of the Japanese brands do this... and it's pathetic. As much as I dislike the proprietary and accessory driven Red's, they aren't ever trying to push you to a higher end camera. All of their cameras function the same way from the Raven through the Weapon. 

This is why I like BMD... they aren't trying to hinder their lower-end cameras so you have to buy a higher end one to make a decent image.


  • -1

#24 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 22 April 2018 - 11:09 PM

The title may seem to be clickbait, but honestly I'd be pretty pissed if I was in his shoes too. There just doesn't seem to be a decent camera in the $5k - $8k range without dealing with lots of limitations... including having to spend thousands more to make a workable image.
 

 

Yeah it's a pretty common situation, unfortunately. There are thousands of disenfranchised buyers like me out there, and we don't like being ignored to the point that there are so few options.

 

The BMD stuff does address that situation but it's not yet "proven' enough that clients trust it.

 

In my case, after seeing puredrifting's epiphany with the C200 I decided that yes that is my final choice. It's not what about the C200 doesn't have, it's about what it already has. I have a 512GB CFast 2.0 card waiting for it, I can record 87 minutes of Canon Raw Light on that!


  • 0

#25 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7451 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 22 April 2018 - 11:14 PM

I don't honestly understand why every camera needs to be "cinematic." There's a whole world beyond that and honestly I think it's very important to take an approach of right tool for the right job/budget.

That all said, I am thrilled Samuel posted this up as I wouldn't have come across it otherwise.

He thinks it's garbage! Good! I don't agree, we can then discuss and dissect and really attack our own notions (one hopes) in a dialogue. I think dialogue is important; and I think it's better in a situation where you have numerous viewpoints which aren't hidden behind a user-name.

I don't see why we all need to get so heated all the time over things. What makes film great, I think, is really the myriad viewpoints it can incorporate.


  • 2

#26 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 22 April 2018 - 11:27 PM

Well, if you want to make cinema, it helps to have a cinematic image. ;-) If you watch Japanese TV to any extent, you see they really love their high frame rates. I don't know why they're in love with the 1980's Brazilian Telenovela look. I know "Isaura" was a big hit there and in the Soviet Union back in the day, but still...you'd think they'd grow out of that look now that digital video can emulate a few filmic qualities.

 

It's strange when any reality show on Auntie Beeb looks better than most things on NHK.


Edited by Samuel Berger, 22 April 2018 - 11:27 PM.

  • 0

#27 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7451 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 22 April 2018 - 11:31 PM

That's kinda the point, though, there is a range of what "cinematic" can mean and there are more types of shows than just movies, where many of these cameras fit.

Back in the day, it would be insane to bring out a 35mm camera to go shoot in the bush in africa, and rather "interesting" to take out a CP16 to a feature film; the cameras filled into their niches, and while they could do the job of the "primary" systems, and in the right hands, be amazing, that wasn't really what they were designed to do in the first place.

The same is true today. Could you make a movie on (literally any digital camera out there today) and make it cinematic? OF COURSE! Some will be easier than others, but that's not the point, the point is picking the system and designing systems which help shooters in their "typical" environment get from camera to screen as easily, reliably, and and familiarly as possible. 


  • 0

#28 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 22 April 2018 - 11:43 PM

I don't know that I agree, I think a camera has to start with a modicum of dynamic range and colour malleability to be forged into a cinema tool. The companies that make them throw the words "cinema camera" as marketing but I don't think there's really that many cameras that I would consider cinematic (there's that word again). I think Sony cameras are awful, I think BMD comes the closest to film when low-light isn't a factor, and Canon is just the best overall brand for cinematic video cameras, even though BMD has cinema at its core.

 

The irony is that auto-focus has always been unheard of in true cinema...until now. It's finally a "can't do without" thing because of Canon. Never in my life did I think I would have the slightest desire for such a feature, yet now I'm willing to pay $2000 more for it.


  • 0

#29 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3378 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 April 2018 - 12:00 AM

I don't like this camera. I posted that I don't like this camera. 

This camera that you have never used.

 

 I'd be pretty pissed if I was in his shoes too.

He's never even used the camera, let alone spent money on it. Why should he be pissed about anything to do with it?

 

 

Full disclosure. I've never used this camera either. I have no idea of its capabilities, or its limitations. If I ever find myself needing to use one, I'll test it, and see what it can or can't do, just like I do with every camera I use.


  • 1

#30 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 23 April 2018 - 12:19 AM

This camera that you have never used.

 
It's not worth using (to me) because it's not worth buying. The economics of it don't add up and it's actually a bit of a puzzle where Sony thinks it fits.
That the camera sucks isn't a fact in a vacuum. If it were the only camera in the world in its price range it might be worth a second look, but it's a crippled camera with no market for it except maybe in countries where common people don't usually own cameras. Like Mozambique.
 

Full disclosure. I've never used this camera either. I have no idea of its capabilities, or its limitations. If I ever find myself needing to use one, I'll test it, and see what it can, or can't do, just like I do with every camera I use.


Let me know if you think it's garbage when you do.


Edited by Samuel Berger, 23 April 2018 - 12:29 AM.

  • 0

#31 David Coughlan

David Coughlan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 April 2018 - 01:08 AM

 
It's not worth using (to me) because it's not worth buying. The economics of it don't add up and it's actually a bit of a puzzle where Sony thinks it fits.
 

 

I think it competes favorably with both the C100mkII and C200/EVA1. Arguably a better value than the C200 depending on how much people prioritize internal RAW and DPAF. 

 

4.7k base

+ 1.3k for Inferno

+ 500 for 1TB SSD for inferno

= $6,350

 

C200: 

 

Stripped down with the 6k base

+ 500 for 512 CFAST 

+ 500 for 5" external monitor

= 7,000, but missing EVF / really needs another $500 in rigging to be comparable

 

7.5k base 

+ 500 for cheap 512 CFAST

= 8,000


  • 0

#32 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 23 April 2018 - 03:30 AM

From what I understand the Lucent look is just affecting the REC709 gamma.. so that it gives a "similar" look to the Venice REC 709.. what would be great is if its just a software upgrade for all the other Sony camera,s.. F5/55 Fs7.. etc.. I think many owners would pay for this up grade..  bit of a shame its taken them so many years to actually do it.. it probably took someones retirement for it to happen..


  • 0

#33 Michael LaVoie

Michael LaVoie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 April 2018 - 09:23 AM

The skin tones on this look pretty decent.  I watched it on a calibrated HP Dreamcolor display.  That said, it had a few shots in direct sun where they definitely overexposed it.  Overall not bad.  Haters be hating.  Same old story.


  • 1

#34 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 23 April 2018 - 11:08 AM

 

I think it competes favorably with both the C100mkII and C200/EVA1. Arguably a better value than the C200 depending on how much people prioritize internal RAW and DPAF. 

 

4.7k base

+ 1.3k for Inferno

+ 500 for 1TB SSD for inferno

= $6,350

 

C200: 

 

Stripped down with the 6k base

+ 500 for 512 CFAST 

+ 500 for 5" external monitor

= 7,000, but missing EVF / really needs another $500 in rigging to be comparable

 

7.5k base 

+ 500 for cheap 512 CFAST

= 8,000

 

Except this isn't how I got from A to B. That may be how you'd reach a conclusion, but it doesn't characterise my thought process leading me to say it's not economically sensible.


  • 0

#35 David Coughlan

David Coughlan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 April 2018 - 11:25 AM

 

Except this isn't how I got from A to B. That may be how you'd reach a conclusion, but it doesn't characterise my thought process leading me to say it's not economically sensible.

 

So? You said (and I quoted): 

 

"The economics of it don't add up and it's actually a bit of a puzzle where Sony thinks it fits."

 

I gave what I consider a standard economic justification to try to explain where Sony thinks it fits, since from your comment it seemed like you may not have done this cost analysis before dismissing the camera outright.

 

Everyone places value on different things (which I also said), so it's possible that you see things differently from most buyers. Expecting camera manufacturers to price things based on how you value them and not a general market may not be a winning strategy for calculating economic sensibility, though. 


  • 1

#36 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 23 April 2018 - 12:19 PM

 

So? You said (and I quoted): 

 

"The economics of it don't add up and it's actually a bit of a puzzle where Sony thinks it fits."

 

I gave what I consider a standard economic justification to try to explain where Sony thinks it fits, since from your comment it seemed like you may not have done this cost analysis before dismissing the camera outright.

 

Everyone places value on different things (which I also said), so it's possible that you see things differently from most buyers. Expecting camera manufacturers to price things based on how you value them and not a general market may not be a winning strategy for calculating economic sensibility, though. 

 

That would depend on how much research the buyers have done and whether they are making the right comparisons, not random  ones like the cost of a Sony FS5Mk2 and the cost of a Canon C200.

 

We'd need some substantial examples of how "most buyers" see things before I could detail that question.


Edited by Samuel Berger, 23 April 2018 - 12:27 PM.

  • 0

#37 David Coughlan

David Coughlan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 April 2018 - 12:38 PM

 

That would depend on how much research the buyers have done and whether they are making the right comparisons, not random  ones like the cost of a Sony FS5Mk2 and the cost of a Canon C200.

 

Oh boy. YOU brought up "economic sensibility", I try to explain how most rational people determine that, and now you say comparing costs between two cameras in the same class is "random" ... Ok. 

 

Between this and your initial post I'm pretty sure you're just out for drama at this point. Good luck with finding a camera.


  • 1

#38 Matt Thomas

Matt Thomas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Other
  • Fort Wayne, Indiana

Posted 23 April 2018 - 01:09 PM

I bought the FS5 1 and upgraded so it can output RAW. Looks like the FS5 2 is no different except it comes with the RAW upgrade.

 

These two videos sold me on it originally, and I've loved it ever since. 

 

 

I don't think the sentiment of "FS5 m2 is garbage" has any merit. That being said, the video originally shared and the one that Sony put their name on, is garbage

 

Have we forgotten that it's not the tool it's the person using it?


  • 0

#39 Daniel Klockenkemper

Daniel Klockenkemper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 23 April 2018 - 01:29 PM

Catching up on this thread, I think that it only illustrates how ill-defined the term "cinematic" has become.
 
Surely whether the images are cinematic or not is the work of the person(s) making it, and not the camera? 
 
If you attribute any "cinematic" quality to your images being a result of your chosen camera purchase, I think you do the greatest disservice to yourself. 
 
Camera manufacturers are guilty of encouraging this; just one example, Blackmagic puts this line at the top of the Ursa Mini Pro page: 
 
"The world’s first digital film camera with professional broadcast camera features and controls!"
 
Which just seems like word salad thrown at a wall to see what sticks; an attempt to please everyone.  
 
...
 
As someone who shot film exclusively for several years, I feel I have a decent handle on what qualities of an image are "filmic" in some respects.  I've also tested and used digital cameras from many different companies in more recent years, and my personal hierarchy - based on my own experience - is quite different from others in this thread.  
 
Given that so many people's opinions vary so greatly, making a flat-out proclamation that "Camera X is garbage" is quite obviously stating opinion as fact, and borders on provocation.  It doesn't make this forum helpful, useful, or friendly. 
 
"This video from camera X that was shot and graded in a particular way doesn't have the qualities that I define as cinematic" is a different statement, and it could even be a true one. :) But then you'd actually have to define what those qualities are, which might actually lead to an respectful and meaningful debate.  

  • 2

#40 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 23 April 2018 - 01:32 PM

I bought the FS5 1 and upgraded so it can output RAW. Looks like the FS5 2 is no different except it comes with the RAW upgrade.

 

These two videos sold me on it originally, and I've loved it ever since. 

 

 

I don't think the sentiment of "FS5 m2 is garbage" has any merit. That being said, the video originally shared and the one that Sony put their name on, is garbage

 

Have we forgotten that it's not the tool it's the person using it?

 

I watched that second video you posted, didn't watch much of the first one because the 1080p plus excessive added grain would further separate me from experiencing the camera.

 

I can't say I liked that "Free Spirit" video. This might be a case of user error but there's highlights clipping everywhere and about a minute and a half in, when they walk into the woods, the image falls apart. The trees turn to mud, and later on, the grass is patchy and the plaid white shirt starts glowing.

 

I think some of this could have been solved by using a Canon.


  • 0


Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Technodolly

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape