Sony released a new body today the FX5 - Seems to be the next iteration of the FX3 line with open gate, triple base ISO, internal RAW, and some other goodies. Seems like it would be perfect for the ol' sony wet and dry optic options and could be a popular option.

It seems like it won't fit in an FX3 housing... so lets see if anyone makes a housing for it. So many cameras in this space at the moment, it seems like it will be hard for the housing companies to decide which one to support.

PetaPixel

Sony FX5 Has a New Sensor, Open Gate, Internal RAW, and S...

The new Sony FX5 answers nearly ever criticism levied against the FX3.

I saw that announcement too and wondered about it. Since it has been quite some time since I have held a Sony camera, much less dived with one, have they solved their underwater water white balance issue that caused an ugly green cast to all my old videos?

33 minutes ago, SwiftFF5 said:

I saw that announcement too and wondered about it. Since it has been quite some time since I have held a Sony camera, much less dived with one, have they solved their underwater water white balance issue that caused an ugly green cast to all my old videos?

As a Canon shooter....I think so? I believe the latest iterations of the cameras can White Balance for deeper water without the issues they used to have. I have worked with some Sony footage recently and it looked great, but that was not deep footage.

Can't speak for other models but Sony A1 CWB is great even at 30m depth. Official metadata say like WB >9900 but Lightroom often displays WB at above 15000K.

CWB at depth is what is going to remain to be seen on FX5. Unlike other models with square pointing at white target FX5 calculates CWB from the entire frame (!) pretty much like Canon was evaluating the picture in the past. I haven't use Canon underwater but those who did - how good and up until which depth was that process?

And it looks like Marelux, Nauticam, and Ikelite will be making housings for the FX5. Nothing on the official channels but Blue Water Photo (and Backscatter for Nauticam) have housings listed for pre-order.

I am sure that all the main brands will produce a housing for the FX5.

The FX3 is the de facto standard for small to medium productions in broadcast and even cinema. With the FX5 Sony has really created a ultimate doomsday device in this market segment. The video camera really has everything. Although everyone was asking for built in ND filters, in these sizes current technology still does not allow them.

It is a pure video camera (it does not take photos) and the menus are the same as the Burano and the Venice.

The form factor is the same as the FX3 but it is a bit chubbier. Also the controls are fundamentally different from the FX3.

At first I was afraid it would have the same problem as the ZR, meaning that the menus were only fully accessible via touchscreen. In reality it has 6 customizable buttons, but it no longer has the joystick on the right and you navigate with the wheel on top instead. So even Nauticam, which had a housing for the FX3, will be forced to redesign many things. I hope it will be a Cinema series housing like the one for the C50.

To get an idea of the controls and menus, which are completely different from the S and R lines, this short video is very explanatory.

https://youtu.be/H9Bq2JphOTs?si=k1TMyvDjpO1HGh7K

If anyone is thinking about it, CVP's review is certainly one of the most complete, but it lasts nearly 1 hour.

Philip Bloom is the only one who had access to the beta firmware with 5K at 240p that will be available in a year.

CWB is still a big IF. It calculates WB from the entire frame but how who knows. Gerald mentioned it briefly and I didn't find any other mention. On FX6 you are supposed to zoom in to fill the frame and that won't quite work underwater in one man one hand operation... little details make or break 🤔

Is CWB still a big deal when you're shooting in 16 bit raw as the FX5 does? I currently shoot with a Sony A7SIII and use CWB all the time but I have a selfie stick with a whitebal card on it mounted to my Ultralight camera sled. I set my lighting, push the selfie stick down, take a white balance, and then I am good. Super easy as a one man show.

2 minutes ago, ScubaBC said:

Is CWB still a big deal when you're shooting in 16 bit raw as the FX5 does? I currently shoot with a Sony A7SIII and use CWB all the time but I have a selfie stick with a whitebal card on it mounted to my Ultralight camera sled. I set my lighting, push the selfie stick down, take a white balance, and then I am good. Super easy as a one man show.

Custom WB could be a problem shooting in H.265/264 but in internal 16-bit linear X-OCN RAW video allows you to change and fine-tune white balance non-destructively in post without losing image quality.

9 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

Custom WB could be a problem shooting in H.265/264 but in internal 16-bit linear X-OCN RAW video allows you to change and fine-tune white balance non-destructively in post without losing image quality.

Yes, that is what I thought. It looks like a great camera to me.

55 minutes ago, ScubaBC said:

Is CWB still a big deal when you're shooting in 16 bit raw as the FX5 does? I currently shoot with a Sony A7SIII and use CWB all the time but I have a selfie stick with a whitebal card on it mounted to my Ultralight camera sled. I set my lighting, push the selfie stick down, take a white balance, and then I am good. Super easy as a one man show.

I would love to see a picture of that contraption, as I also now shoot on an A7SIII and also use a partial Ultralight sled. I've been shooting in artificial light but it woulds way more practical than stretching a whibal card out with one arm like I used to on the previous camera.

53 minutes ago, Davide DB said:

Custom WB could be a problem shooting in H.265/264 but in internal 16-bit linear X-OCN RAW video allows you to change and fine-tune white balance non-destructively in post without losing image quality.

which comes at a price of a minimum of 65-80 GB of data for 10 minutes of footage in the lightest X-OCN LT 4k 60fps....

14 minutes ago, bghazzal said:

which comes at a price of a minimum of 65-80 GB of data for 10 minutes of footage in the lightest X-OCN LT 4k 60fps....

Actually this is the first camera without insane RAW data rates. Raw data rate is comparable with the compressed H.264 and 265.

Other raw flavors (Red and Prores) are around 1Gbps. Hence it's the first time that a raw is a viable option for some problematic shoots without taking a mortgage for media cards.

Sony FX5 Codec & Data Rate Breakdown

• X-OCN LT (16-bit RAW): ~389 Mbps (at 24 fps) — highest quality raw option available internally on the FX5.

• X-OCN C1 (16-bit RAW): ~289 Mbps (at 24 fps) — balanced intermediate raw compression.

• X-OCN C2 (16-bit RAW): ~232 Mbps (at 24 fps) — maximum raw compression tier designed for smaller files.

• XAVC-I (All-I H.264): ~384 Mbps (4K 24p equivalent) — traditional heavy intra-frame codec.

• XAVC HS (H.265 Long-GOP): Varies down to lower distribution bitrates (typically 100–200 Mbps range depending on user settings) — significantly smaller footprint for non-RAW delivery.

1 hour ago, bghazzal said:

I would love to see a picture of that contraption, as I also now shoot on an A7SIII and also use a partial Ultralight sled. I've been shooting in artificial light but it woulds way more practical than stretching a whibal card out with one arm like I used to on the previous camera.

Yes, doing the white balance while holding a card and trying to hold the housing was impossible, lol... Here is a photo of the setup. It's just a cheap selfie stick off Amazon that had a 1/4 - 20 threaded hole in the bottom for the ball mount. Now taking custom white balance is easy as pie and it has made a noticeable difference in my footage.

I used aquaseal to attach an old dive slate to the back of the whitebal card to stiffen it up a bit too.

Edited July 30Jul 30 by ScubaBC

8 hours ago, Davide DB said:

Actually this is the first camera without insane RAW data rates. Raw data rate is comparable with the compressed H.264 and 265.

Other raw flavors (Red and Prores) are around 1Gbps. Hence it's the first time that a raw is a viable option for some problematic shoots without taking a mortgage for media cards.

Sony FX5 Codec & Data Rate Breakdown

• X-OCN LT (16-bit RAW): ~389 Mbps (at 24 fps) — highest quality raw option available internally on the FX5.

• X-OCN C1 (16-bit RAW): ~289 Mbps (at 24 fps) — balanced intermediate raw compression.

• X-OCN C2 (16-bit RAW): ~232 Mbps (at 24 fps) — maximum raw compression tier designed for smaller files.

• XAVC-I (All-I H.264): ~384 Mbps (4K 24p equivalent) — traditional heavy intra-frame codec.

• XAVC HS (H.265 Long-GOP): Varies down to lower distribution bitrates (typically 100–200 Mbps range depending on user settings) — significantly smaller footprint for non-RAW delivery.

Yes, the format is really impressive.

I was just pointing out that, even with the highest compression, the files are still about five times larger than what I currently get from my A7S III. That's already a significant jump in storage requirements.
As tempting as RAW is, coming back from each dive with 100–200 GB of footage on average is quite something to manage, especially when diving frequently. Saved for special projects I guess.

7 hours ago, ScubaBC said:

Yes, doing the white balance while holding a card and trying to hold the housing was impossible, lol... Here is a photo of the setup. It's just a cheap selfie stick off Amazon that had a 1/4 - 20 threaded hole in the bottom for the ball mount. Now taking custom white balance is easy as pie and it has made a noticeable difference in my footage.

I used aquaseal to attach an old dive slate to the back of the whitebal card to stiffen it up a bit too.

That's great, thanks - now I have a new DIY project!

Guys, my question about CWB of FX5 wasn't as much about the mechanical process and how to hold the card (although that play role too) as about how and from what camera calculates it.

Right now from brief mentions I found (and silly me there was FX5 in showroom near me couple days ago) it looks as if it calculates WB from the entire scene. Pretty much like Canon as recently as R5 did it from capturing the photo. Unlike your A7SIIIs and my A1 and somebody else's FX3s and R5iis where you have square box that you simply point at the middle of your white cards.

So imagine 25m depth, colors disappeared, you have your white slate in the frame together with some white corrals in the back and now camera needs to calculate the RGB gains and how is it going to decide...

Yes, shooting raw has greater flexibility but as you know from shooting raw images, which have far more flexibility than raw video, if you start on bad footing you are not going to catch it in post. Like shooting ambient in 25m on AWB good luck then in Lightroom...

And so in cinema OS on fx6 you are supposed to zoom in and fill the frame with that slate. Which is like impossible with wide angle lens unless you carry a sail underwater :-)

But FX5 presumably does not require that and analyze whole scene so that comes back to Canon's way of doing things in the past and its accuracy and challenges.

And I am not even bringing out the fact that at depths we are at extended unpublished WB territories where cameras somehow calculate RGB gains but then only say "above 9900K" and "red max" 🤣

Here the moment reviewer describes new CWB process, it is 44:54 mark

18 hours ago, RomiK said:

Here the moment reviewer describes new CWB process, it is 44:54 mark

So it's confirmed... that's really not great news for UW applications, especially for wide-angle.

3 hours ago, bghazzal said:

So it's confirmed... that's really not great news for UW applications, especially for wide-angle.

Let's see... until we get that thing under water we won't know. Analyzing metadata of raw stills from my GH5S and Sony A1 I found that both will get their max RGB gains a bit differently yet they can provide comparable pictures.

Like RGB gains for GH5S / A1 for one scene are

R = 5.90 / 8.81

G = 1.00 / 1.00

B = 1.28 / 1.01

and for the rest of similar 20-30m depth images it was similar so it was probably max for both cameras. And (not surprisingly) 10-bit log footage gave more or less similar outputs (I have to do video about this).

So back to FX5 CWB it depends on how will they identify neutral target and whether they will into account other parts of scene or not. Algorithms. And lastly how will that (presumably different from A7R6) sensor intelligence be able to interpret extreme R gains required in greater depths?

Perhaps @Alex_Mustard could provide some ambient extreme CWB A7R6 image for download for meta analysis?

Edited August 4Aug 4 by RomiK