When it comes down to it, the audience won’t know the difference. As filmmakers we drive ourselves crazy with the nuances of the tech, but most of that is lost on the general public. That being said, it’s good practice to operate at the top of our game with the best gear we can afford. However, if you can’t afford the best, just use good techniques and the chances of somebody knowing you used an older camera are incredibly slim. Unless, of course, that older camera is recording SD to mini DV…then you might need to upgrade. 😊
I agree with you about the audience not being able to tell the difference between camera based on the color science. Also you can shoot in Log format and color grade to your taste. The part that is crucial to me (as a full time corporate content creator) is the autofocus. The difference between the FS5 and the FX-6 is astounding. As a production house, we charge companies thousands of dollars for this type of content, if the speaker moves around during the shoot it shouldn’t be a problem to keep focus. However, if my speaker is out of focus (based on the limitations of an eight year old camera that I use for a shoot) that’s just negligence on my part as the producer. If I am charging top dollar for the production, then my client should expect that I won’t “cut corners” on the quality and competency of the gear I use for my productions. If you shoot as a hobby, or for yourself then by all means you can work with and around the limitations of a camera released in 2015. However, when you charge clients for a job, a good reputation is the key to landing more business. Whenever I shoot a job, it’s with positive customer feedback in written reviews and video testimonials. If my content is substandard, I run the risk of losing future business and well deserved criticism from a client who paid for a professional video production. Technology has come a long way over the last 8 years and when my client has 4k60 in their pocket (iPhone) that can properly expose a scene, has lifelike color science and has tack sharp auto focus using Ai, then what’s my excuse for charging them thousands of dollars for my content using technology that is virtually obsolete at this point?
I disagree, videos like these are great research materials if your trying to cut costs on an independent film. And if you don't have the budget to test out a variety of cameras. It's not about which is better it's about,"can I spend less money with an old camera and still get a great image".
@@etei4120Again, it depends on what you’re doing. Independent projects that you are producing for yourself or for free, then yeah…go for it. But if I’m a company paying you $6,000 or more for a production and my speaker is not in focus there will be consequences. They will either demand a reshoot at no charge (which eats up your time and profit for that job) or they will sue you for substandard work and breach of contract. Further, it damages your professional reputation. (People should expect their content in focus). The time to experiment and push as much as you can get out of an old camera is when you have independent productions where the only satisfied customer has to be you the producer. The minute you decide to represent yourself as a business you lose the right to experiment with other people’s money.
Agreed. The FX6 technically produces an overall all cleaner image, however, If you can't create a compelling visual with an FS5, owning an FX6 will not magically fix that :P
I have different experiences on my FS5 Mark II's. I almost feel by the color of the shirt that the white balance was not on for your FS5 shot. While the focus is better on the FX6, there are situations where the FS5 crop sensor is highly desirable such as in wildlife video. It is difficult to beat. I cannot see enough justification to upgrade.
I do think the fs5mII is a significant upgrade over the mark I. I can’t comment on the mark II’s as I only have experience with the mark I. At the end of the day they are only tools, so whatever tool is best suited for your and your workflow is the better camera.
Thanks for this video -- I enjoyed it very much. One thing I'd like to add a comment about: Auto Focus. I'd much rather have 'stuck' focus (blur as the subject leaves the frame) than to see focus pulsing/hinting/searching. The blur you see from the FS5 when the talent pushes back to the chair is forgivable -- or possibly seen as an artistic choice by the viewer (depending on context)... but the focus hunting from the FX6 always looks bad (amateur). Obviously, in a real shooting environment there would be a reshoot, or focus puller, or different lighting, etc., to insure the shot is correct (with either camera), so this isn't really a knock against the FX6 (beautiful camera), but I don't think this is a huge knock against the FS5 either. I'd be curious to see focus tests (or issues) in various conditions (like outside overcast/bright sun... indoor full light, soft light, etc.) to explore where the FS5 fails. That's not a request, just a curiosity. Thanks again for taking the time to review/compare these two cameras!
Thanks for your comment! The hunting is definitely a result of the auto focus settings I had set on the FX6. It was trying way to hard to keep focus. If I lessened the parameters it would have tried to hunt less. I like the ability to have these settings because you can fine tune the autofocus to do what you need it to do. On the fs5 there are no such settings so you are left to the camera's ability to focus. Thanks again for your comment!
@@maxwellcollinsdp "...on the fs5 you are left with the camera's ability to focus" ...or you can manually focus. FS5 has focus magnifier which enlarges the image 2X to check focus
Subscribed! Batman and the shirt got me. Also, i read that Sony eventually released a update option for external 4K 12-bit RAW but its a paid feature that isn't worth it in my book.
I'm curious as to what picture profiles you're shooting the cameras in. Were you shooting the fx6 in s-cinetone for example? I only ask because the fs5 looks like it might be in a flatter profile (log maybe?) rather than a straight rec709. I might be wrong of course.
They were both shot in Slog3.cine/SGamut3, which is Sony's flattest profile, and then converted to rec 709 using the same official Sony lut for both shots.
@@maxwellcollinsdp interesting, I wouldn't have expected them to come out so differently. That pretty much kills any thoughts about a multi am shoot that mixes the two I suppose. You could probably get something that's close enough, but would it really be worth the extra effort?
@@MultiMattRogers They have their differences but I still use them together, mostly because I don't have any other option. However, with a little extra effort in the color grading and correction they can match well enough.
@@maxwellcollinsdp good to know, although I'm also going to be doing some broadcast/live stream bits so I was thinking of getting an fx6 as the A cam and a cheap fs5 for the B cam. So the straight out of camera look is also kind of interesting to me. So now I'm a little stuck as to whether sacrificing SDI and good ergonomics for a better matching image with the FX30 is a better choice. To be honest, once I've paid for a raw recorder and the FS5 itself it will come to the same price as the FX30. I suppose that's the thing with budget gear, I'm always going to have to sacrifice something.
@@MultiMattRogers Yea buying gear is such a finicky thing nowadays. Something better is always right around the corner, but at the end of the day you need to find and get the gear that supports the work that you do and makes your job easier. Ever since I got the fx6 my job has just been so much easier, and I am so happy with it. In your case I probably would recommend the fx6 if you have the budget for it because itll make livestreaming easier, you could get away with the fx30 or fx3 but I dont think it makes your job easier. You could go for an fs5 but its just not as good as the fx6 and its still not that cheap because the mark 1 fs5 might as well be a paperweight. The mark ii would still be worth it but you'll still pay around $3-3.5k for it.
Wondering why you're at 2000iso with the FS5, it adds noise after 800. Also the 4k is bad unless you use an external recorder (you only get 4:2:0 internally). 2k is where it would be apples to apples.
The fs5 mark 1 can only record log footage at 2000 iso. The 4k does have poor color depth because of the 4:2:0 codec only being 8bit, but that doesnt mean it lacks detail or sharpness. The fx6 has the same 4k codec if you shoot in XAVC-L
@@maxwellcollinsdp I think your comparison was well done. I guess I'm looking to answer some specific questions. No question you're bound to have bad, blotchy 4k from internal records with fs5. Most went with the fs7 for that reason. No question the fx6 (being a new camera) will have the modern codecs, dual ISO, ect... I think the big question is if it's worth the extra $5-6k upgrade cost. Most of my shoots are still delivered in 1080p. And I already own a Shogun for 4k when needed.
@@unitysoundvideo8732 Thank you for the compliments! That's the beautiful thing about being a filmmaker right now, so many different and capable tools to fit the need of any filmmaker doing work today. It might not be an upgrade worth taking for some people and that's totally okay! I shoot most stuff in 420 8bit 4k on my FX6 and deliver 1080p just to save storage space
Thanks for your insights. Interesting video. Only problem I have is, that you uploaded it only in 1080p. This way all comparisonsn between 1080p and 4k don´t really make a whole lot of sense.
Excellent video Maxwell! I hope you'll be able to create additional videos like this one with various scenarios, examples, and lighting both indoors and outdoors.
ugly fx6 focus hunting. didn't expect that. sony are famous for AF but this is not going to work for me. happy to find on a review and before buying it!
It doesn’t hunt like this all the time. Speaking for the 3 months I’ve had and used the camera and ita autofocus its really good in most situations. No autofocus is flawless, but this one is really good. It does struggle in dark areas and with eye af when the eyes are obstructed. If I had the camera on subject tracking for this it wouldn’t have hunted like it does in my video. Thanks for watching!
Oh shoot! My bad man! Its not really much of a review, it was just a quick look at some of the features between the two cameras that I was most excited about.
@@maxwellcollinsdp ok, my tired comment also doesn’t make much sense tho… because tbh they are both great cameras and at there best there isn’t much difference. You can get an FS5 for like 2k and a ninja 5+ for it and unlock everything it can do for less than a FX6 and have better quality raw video and about the same dynamic range at SNR1.
@@offic.dzanjo3048 the FX6 is the much better camera. better image, better AF, better sensor, better color. Definitely selling my FS5II soon, and upgrade. My A7s3 easily looks much better on shoots.
@@scotthayesproductions5715 I’ve used and graded both extensively…. It’s honestly not that different. FX6 internal vs FS5 Raw. And an FS5 km2 with raw is a lot cheaper. Because I’m not talking about charts, properly used real world experience.
@@offic.dzanjo3048 I am not speaking of image quality, but operation. The FX6 is just a MUCH better camera. I really need to sell my FS5 and Shogun Inferno.
When it comes down to it, the audience won’t know the difference. As filmmakers we drive ourselves crazy with the nuances of the tech, but most of that is lost on the general public. That being said, it’s good practice to operate at the top of our game with the best gear we can afford. However, if you can’t afford the best, just use good techniques and the chances of somebody knowing you used an older camera are incredibly slim. Unless, of course, that older camera is recording SD to mini DV…then you might need to upgrade. 😊
You are spot on! Its really a matter of understanding how these tools can benefit you. But 9 times out of 10 no one could spot the difference
I agree with you about the audience not being able to tell the difference between camera based on the color science. Also you can shoot in Log format and color grade to your taste. The part that is crucial to me (as a full time corporate content creator) is the autofocus. The difference between the FS5 and the FX-6 is astounding. As a production house, we charge companies thousands of dollars for this type of content, if the speaker moves around during the shoot it shouldn’t be a problem to keep focus. However, if my speaker is out of focus (based on the limitations of an eight year old camera that I use for a shoot) that’s just negligence on my part as the producer. If I am charging top dollar for the production, then my client should expect that I won’t “cut corners” on the quality and competency of the gear I use for my productions. If you shoot as a hobby, or for yourself then by all means you can work with and around the limitations of a camera released in 2015. However, when you charge clients for a job, a good reputation is the key to landing more business. Whenever I shoot a job, it’s with positive customer feedback in written reviews and video testimonials. If my content is substandard, I run the risk of losing future business and well deserved criticism from a client who paid for a professional video production.
Technology has come a long way over the last 8 years and when my client has 4k60 in their pocket (iPhone) that can properly expose a scene, has lifelike color science and has tack sharp auto focus using Ai, then what’s my excuse for charging them thousands of dollars for my content using technology that is virtually obsolete at this point?
I disagree, videos like these are great research materials if your trying to cut costs on an independent film. And if you don't have the budget to test out a variety of cameras.
It's not about which is better it's about,"can I spend less money with an old camera and still get a great image".
@@etei4120Again, it depends on what you’re doing. Independent projects that you are producing for yourself or for free, then yeah…go for it. But if I’m a company paying you $6,000 or more for a production and my speaker is not in focus there will be consequences. They will either demand a reshoot at no charge (which eats up your time and profit for that job) or they will sue you for substandard work and breach of contract. Further, it damages your professional reputation. (People should expect their content in focus). The time to experiment and push as much as you can get out of an old camera is when you have independent productions where the only satisfied customer has to be you the producer. The minute you decide to represent yourself as a business you lose the right to experiment with other people’s money.
@@etei4120 good point. I think a lot of us are in that camp.
Agreed. The FX6 technically produces an overall all cleaner image, however, If you can't create a compelling visual with an FS5, owning an FX6 will not magically fix that :P
This would be fair if both cameras were doing external ProRes, and been graded with Aces. That's a comparison I would love to see.
I have different experiences on my FS5 Mark II's. I almost feel by the color of the shirt that the white balance was not on for your FS5 shot. While the focus is better on the FX6, there are situations where the FS5 crop sensor is highly desirable such as in wildlife video. It is difficult to beat. I cannot see enough justification to upgrade.
I do think the fs5mII is a significant upgrade over the mark I. I can’t comment on the mark II’s as I only have experience with the mark I. At the end of the day they are only tools, so whatever tool is best suited for your and your workflow is the better camera.
@@maxwellcollinsdpOnly difference with Mark 2 is the ability for external 12bit 4k
Thanks for this video -- I enjoyed it very much. One thing I'd like to add a comment about: Auto Focus. I'd much rather have 'stuck' focus (blur as the subject leaves the frame) than to see focus pulsing/hinting/searching. The blur you see from the FS5 when the talent pushes back to the chair is forgivable -- or possibly seen as an artistic choice by the viewer (depending on context)... but the focus hunting from the FX6 always looks bad (amateur). Obviously, in a real shooting environment there would be a reshoot, or focus puller, or different lighting, etc., to insure the shot is correct (with either camera), so this isn't really a knock against the FX6 (beautiful camera), but I don't think this is a huge knock against the FS5 either. I'd be curious to see focus tests (or issues) in various conditions (like outside overcast/bright sun... indoor full light, soft light, etc.) to explore where the FS5 fails. That's not a request, just a curiosity. Thanks again for taking the time to review/compare these two cameras!
Thanks for your comment! The hunting is definitely a result of the auto focus settings I had set on the FX6. It was trying way to hard to keep focus. If I lessened the parameters it would have tried to hunt less. I like the ability to have these settings because you can fine tune the autofocus to do what you need it to do. On the fs5 there are no such settings so you are left to the camera's ability to focus. Thanks again for your comment!
@@maxwellcollinsdp "...on the fs5 you are left with the camera's ability to focus" ...or you can manually focus.
FS5 has focus magnifier which enlarges the image 2X to check focus
Subscribed! Batman and the shirt got me. Also, i read that Sony eventually released a update option for external 4K 12-bit RAW but its a paid feature that isn't worth it in my book.
Thanks for the subscription! I don't believe that its a paid update for the FX6. If you are referring to the FS5 I do believe that is true.
I'm curious as to what picture profiles you're shooting the cameras in. Were you shooting the fx6 in s-cinetone for example? I only ask because the fs5 looks like it might be in a flatter profile (log maybe?) rather than a straight rec709.
I might be wrong of course.
They were both shot in Slog3.cine/SGamut3, which is Sony's flattest profile, and then converted to rec 709 using the same official Sony lut for both shots.
@@maxwellcollinsdp interesting, I wouldn't have expected them to come out so differently.
That pretty much kills any thoughts about a multi am shoot that mixes the two I suppose. You could probably get something that's close enough, but would it really be worth the extra effort?
@@MultiMattRogers They have their differences but I still use them together, mostly because I don't have any other option. However, with a little extra effort in the color grading and correction they can match well enough.
@@maxwellcollinsdp good to know, although I'm also going to be doing some broadcast/live stream bits so I was thinking of getting an fx6 as the A cam and a cheap fs5 for the B cam. So the straight out of camera look is also kind of interesting to me.
So now I'm a little stuck as to whether sacrificing SDI and good ergonomics for a better matching image with the FX30 is a better choice.
To be honest, once I've paid for a raw recorder and the FS5 itself it will come to the same price as the FX30. I suppose that's the thing with budget gear, I'm always going to have to sacrifice something.
@@MultiMattRogers Yea buying gear is such a finicky thing nowadays. Something better is always right around the corner, but at the end of the day you need to find and get the gear that supports the work that you do and makes your job easier.
Ever since I got the fx6 my job has just been so much easier, and I am so happy with it. In your case I probably would recommend the fx6 if you have the budget for it because itll make livestreaming easier, you could get away with the fx30 or fx3 but I dont think it makes your job easier. You could go for an fs5 but its just not as good as the fx6 and its still not that cheap because the mark 1 fs5 might as well be a paperweight. The mark ii would still be worth it but you'll still pay around $3-3.5k for it.
Wondering why you're at 2000iso with the FS5, it adds noise after 800. Also the 4k is bad unless you use an external recorder (you only get 4:2:0 internally). 2k is where it would be apples to apples.
The fs5 mark 1 can only record log footage at 2000 iso. The 4k does have poor color depth because of the 4:2:0 codec only being 8bit, but that doesnt mean it lacks detail or sharpness. The fx6 has the same 4k codec if you shoot in XAVC-L
@@maxwellcollinsdp I think your comparison was well done. I guess I'm looking to answer some specific questions. No question you're bound to have bad, blotchy 4k from internal records with fs5. Most went with the fs7 for that reason. No question the fx6 (being a new camera) will have the modern codecs, dual ISO, ect... I think the big question is if it's worth the extra $5-6k upgrade cost. Most of my shoots are still delivered in 1080p. And I already own a Shogun for 4k when needed.
@@unitysoundvideo8732 Thank you for the compliments! That's the beautiful thing about being a filmmaker right now, so many different and capable tools to fit the need of any filmmaker doing work today. It might not be an upgrade worth taking for some people and that's totally okay! I shoot most stuff in 420 8bit 4k on my FX6 and deliver 1080p just to save storage space
Thanks for your insights. Interesting video. Only problem I have is, that you uploaded it only in 1080p. This way all comparisonsn between 1080p and 4k don´t really make a whole lot of sense.
Good point! Thanks for commenting!
You should compare FS5 to the FX30 which is also APSC...
Oooo that's a good idea! I don't have an fx30 but I am considering it as a B-Cam!
Excellent video Maxwell! I hope you'll be able to create additional videos like this one with various scenarios, examples, and lighting both indoors and outdoors.
Thanks! Maybe I will try a few different scenarios
50mb vs 90mb makes a difference!
ugly fx6 focus hunting. didn't expect that. sony are famous for AF but this is not going to work for me. happy to find on a review and before buying it!
It doesn’t hunt like this all the time. Speaking for the 3 months I’ve had and used the camera and ita autofocus its really good in most situations. No autofocus is flawless, but this one is really good. It does struggle in dark areas and with eye af when the eyes are obstructed. If I had the camera on subject tracking for this it wouldn’t have hunted like it does in my video. Thanks for watching!
Fs5 vs a6700😅
fs5 has better skin tones!
This review don't make much sense ....
Oh shoot! My bad man! Its not really much of a review, it was just a quick look at some of the features between the two cameras that I was most excited about.
@@maxwellcollinsdp ok, my tired comment also doesn’t make much sense tho… because tbh they are both great cameras and at there best there isn’t much difference. You can get an FS5 for like 2k and a ninja 5+ for it and unlock everything it can do for less than a FX6 and have better quality raw video and about the same dynamic range at SNR1.
@@offic.dzanjo3048 the FX6 is the much better camera. better image, better AF, better sensor, better color. Definitely selling my FS5II soon, and upgrade. My A7s3 easily looks much better on shoots.
@@scotthayesproductions5715 I’ve used and graded both extensively…. It’s honestly not that different. FX6 internal vs FS5 Raw. And an FS5 km2 with raw is a lot cheaper. Because I’m not talking about charts, properly used real world experience.
@@offic.dzanjo3048 I am not speaking of image quality, but operation. The FX6 is just a MUCH better camera. I really need to sell my FS5 and Shogun Inferno.