First note that the deformation space for this problem don't really seat there, since you forgot that the map $F \to E$ is part of the data, and in principle can be deformed as well.
Moreover, if $X$ is complete, then the condition on the cokernel of the map $F \to E$ is open (clearly having a bigger cokernel is a closed condition and on the other hand the deformation can not eliminate the cokernel completely because the first Chern class [or the degree of the determinant] of $F$ and $E$ differ by 1). The conclusion of this is that in the case where $X$ is a complete curve, we only have to deform the morphism $F \to E$, the cokernel will be deformed in a way which is determined by the deformation of this morphism, and it imposes no conditions on this deformation.
The question of deforming a morphism $F \to E$ in general is quite interesting, because it is an example of a deformation problem which at least seems a little beyond classical homological algebra. Recall that the relation between deformations of $E$ and elements in the cohomology come from the fact that a deformation $\tilde{E}$ gives an extension $E \stackrel{\cdot \epsilon}{\to} \tilde{E} \stackrel{mod (\epsilon)}{\to} E$ where $\epsilon$ is the generator of the dual numbers $\mathbb{C}[\epsilon]$.
"Rotating this triangle by $120^\circ$", you get a connecting morphism in the derived category $E \to E[1]$.
If you try to deform a morphism $\phi: F \to E $, you end up with a commutative diagram in $D^b(Coh(C))$:
$$
\require{AMScd}
\begin{CD}
F @>\phi>> E \\
@Vd_\tilde{F}VV @Vd_\tilde{E}VV \\
F[1] @>\phi[1]>> E[1]
\end{CD}
$$
The elements $d_\tilde{F}$ and $d_{\tilde{E}}$ represent the classes in
$H^1(End(F))$ and $H^1(End(E))$ classifying the deformations, and the condition that the diagram is commutative in $D^b(Coh(C))$ imply restrictions on those, namely they have to map to the same thing in $Ext^1(F,E)$.
But this is not the hole story! The deformation of the morphism itself provide extra data to the deformation. This data, if you think about it, is something like $\textbf{choosing a reason for the diagram to commute up to homotopy}$.
In other words, the morphism $\tilde{F} \to \tilde{E}$ provides us, after passing to various injective resolutions of the things, with a given homotopy
$\phi[1] d_{\tilde{F}} \cong d_{\tilde{E}} \phi$, defined up to homotopy-of-homotopies (just adding boundaries in this case).
To conclude, the deformations of morphisms $F \to E$ can be classified (I think) by homotopy classes of commutative-up-to-chosen-homotopy squares
$$
\require{AMScd}
\begin{CD}
F @>\phi>> E \\
@Vd_\tilde{F}VV @Vd_\tilde{E}VV \\
F[1] @>\phi[1]>> E[1]
\end{CD}
$$
(I don't know how to draw higher coherences hin this interface, sorry) in the DG, or better stable $\infty$-category
$D^b_\infty(Coh(C))$. To the extent of my knowledge, this can not be written as a classical cohomology of anything, so you really have to work DG-ly here, but I might be wrong. This is not so bad, though, and with some effort one can actually write down what it means in concrete terms I think.