PDA

View Full Version : FS100 vs. F3



Andrew McCarrick
04-10-2011, 05:51 PM
Looking to know the difference between these two cameras.

The FS100 seems to have the better codec but less overall features and the F3 has more professional features but the MPEG 2 codec. Would that be a fair comparison?

pulpfiction007
04-10-2011, 06:04 PM
The AVCHD of the FS100 is better than the XDCAM EX of the F3 according to our Barry Green. The 24 Mbits of AVCHD is just as good if not better than the 35 Mbits of the XDCAM EX. BUT....the F3 can do HD SDI 4:2:2 10 bit external recording and 4:4:4 with S-LOG which the FS100 can't do. It can go 8 bit 4:2:2 from the HDMI, but that's it. (No HD SDI)
Also the F3 has ND filters, better internal processing and deeper picture profile adjustments.

speedracerlo
04-10-2011, 06:17 PM
no one confirmed that the FS100 only does 8 bit 4:2:2 yet have they?
Or did they clear this up at NAB already

David G. Smith
04-10-2011, 06:20 PM
no one confirmed that the FS100 only does 8 bit 4:2:2 yet have they?
Or did they clear this up at NAB already

Yeah, I am pretty sure that has been confirmed.

nsoltz
04-10-2011, 06:31 PM
no one confirmed that the FS100 only does 8 bit 4:2:2 yet have they?
Or did they clear this up at NAB already

Confirmed at least two dozen times.

The FS-100 outputs 8 bit 4:2:2 but in Sony's implementation of HDMI 1.4 it outputs timecode embedded in HDMI.

metalalien
04-10-2011, 06:36 PM
The FS100 could possibly have higher gain settings than the F3. Although no one has set them side by side to confirm the 30db of the FS100 is really brighter than the 18db of the F3.

Andrew Stone
04-10-2011, 06:36 PM
This topic has been covered extensively in the threads about the announcement of the FS100 previously known as the S35 NXCAM (this is useful when performing a search).

One of the big negatives of the FS100 is the lack of built in ND filters. You can put screw on variable NDs on the end of your lenses but for many this was a show stopper. The FS100 does not have a professional connector for outboard recorders, however if you are willing to work with HDMI, you will be able to attach a nanoFlash and once the nF gets timecode over HDMI rolled into it's firmware update. The two will be well matched for delivery of broadcast acceptable footage.

The ergos and the diopter snoot on the FS100 are big pluses compared with the F3 if you are doing handheld work and the FS100 will allow you to do covert shooting much like you can with DSLRs. The F3 is too big to go unnoticed in a crowd. The FS100 is very light. The F3 is reasonably light but remember it is meant as a cinema replacement kind of camera, similar to a RED brick which is meant to be on a tripod, dolly or a steadicam with all the external support gear strapped to it.

Again, I would strongly suggest looking in the archives in this forum and the AF-100 forum here on DVXuser. They both contain a lot of information and views on the camera. What can be said with the amount known has been said.

Andrew McCarrick
04-10-2011, 07:42 PM
Alright, so in a comparision between the F3 and AF100:


Codec:
AF100 - AVCHD aka MPEG4
F3 - XDCAM EX aka MPEG2

Sensor Size:
AF100 - 4/3"
F3 - Super 35mm

Sensitivity:
AF100 - F8.0 normal (2000lx, 3200K, 89.9% reflex, 1080 59.94i)
F3 - F11 @2000 lux, ISO 800, 89.9% Reflectance (typical)

Signal-to-noise:
F3 - 63dB (typical)
AF100 -

Mount:
AF100 - Micro 4/3"
F3 - PL

Connections:
HD-SDI - Both 4:2:2
HDMI - Both 4:2:2
XLR x 2 - Both
Compiste - Both
Dual Link HD-SDI - F3
Timecode - F3
Genlock - F3

Gamma:
F3 - S-Log/LUT Workflow + Gamma Settings
AF100 - Gamma Settings

Base Frame Rates:
AF100 - 1080/60i, 1080/50i, 1080/30p, 1080/25p, 1080/24p, 720/60p, 720/50p, 720/24p, 720/25p, 720/30p)
F3 - 1920 x 1080/59.94i, 29.97p, 23.98p, 1440 x 1080/59.94i, 29.97p, 23.98p, 1280 x 720/59.94p, 29.97p, 23.98p, 1920 x 1080/50i, 25p, 1440 x 1080/50i, 25p, 1280 x 720/50p, 25p

Variable Frame Rates:
F3 - 1-30 (1080) or 1-60 (720)
AF100 (in 1080 and 720) - 12p, 15p, 18p, 20p, 21p, 22p, 24p, 25p, 26p, 27p, 28p, 30p, 32p, 34p, 36p, 40p, 44p, 48p, 54p, 60p

So it seems like the F3 is the better cam (with an external recorder) between the AF100 and the F3, but is it really worth the extra $8k?

pulpfiction007
04-10-2011, 08:21 PM
Alright, so in a comparision between the F3 and AF100:


Codec:
AF100 - AVCHD aka MPEG4
F3 - XDCAM EX aka MPEG2

Sensor Size:
AF100 - 4/3"
F3 - Super 35mm

Sensitivity:
AF100 - F8.0 normal (2000lx, 3200K, 89.9% reflex, 1080 59.94i)
F3 - F11 @2000 lux, ISO 800, 89.9% Reflectance (typical)

Dynamic Range:
F3 - 63dB (typical)
AF100 -

Mount:
AF100 - Micro 4/3"
F3 - PL

Connections:
HD-SDI - Both 4:2:2
HDMI - Both 4:2:2
XLR x 2 - Both
Compiste - Both
Dual Link HD-SDI - F3
Timecode - F3
Genlock - F3

Gamma:
F3 - S-Log/LUT Workflow + Gamma Settings
AF100 - Gamma Settings

Base Frame Rates:
AF100 - 1080/60i, 1080/50i, 1080/30p, 1080/25p, 1080/24p, 720/60p, 720/50p, 720/24p, 720/25p, 720/30p)
F3 - 1920 x 1080/59.94i, 29.97p, 23.98p, 1440 x 1080/59.94i, 29.97p, 23.98p, 1280 x 720/59.94p, 29.97p, 23.98p, 1920 x 1080/50i, 25p, 1440 x 1080/50i, 25p, 1280 x 720/50p, 25p

Variable Frame Rates:
F3 - 1-30 (1080) or 1-60 (720)
AF100 (in 1080 and 720) - 12p, 15p, 18p, 20p, 21p, 22p, 24p, 25p, 26p, 27p, 28p, 30p, 32p, 34p, 36p, 40p, 44p, 48p, 54p, 60p

So it seems like the F3 is the better cam (with an external recorder) between the AF100 and the F3, but is it really worth the extra $8k?

Well, even without the external recorder the F3 seems to outperform the AF100....for sure in sensitivity. But only you can decide if it outperfroms the AF to the tune of $8000!

Duke M.
04-10-2011, 08:28 PM
The AF100 is only 8 bit out while the F3 is 10 bit, which is better for heavy grading.

Also, you've confused dynamic range with noise. No one knows the exact noise of the AF100, but the F3 seems to be exceptionally clean and noise free, and therefore superior to the AF100 in that regard.

With s-log the F3 will have higher dynamic range. With current on board recording I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if the F3 was a stop or so better in usable dynamic range.

Early indications were the F3 had better roll off to blown out spots, but I don't know if further tweaking still leaves that as the case.

zeke
04-10-2011, 10:16 PM
The FS-100 is capable of 8bit 4:4:4 with time code output via HDMI, that was confirmed at the E.C show in NYC.

vanvideo
04-10-2011, 10:31 PM
The FS-100 is capable of 8bit 4:4:4 with time code output via HDMI, that was confirmed at the E.C show in NYC.

I though tthat was later unconfirmed by Sony UK Product Manager Bill Drummond. Here he states it's 8-bit 4:2:2:

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2011/03/29/sony-and-the-fs100-exclusive-interview-with-bill-drummond-coming-soon/

Quote:

Let’s not beat about the bush, HDMI is becoming more professional every day and more and more professionals are using it for monitoring and other things but, you know, ultimately it does allow use of products like the Ki Pro mini and the Atmos Ninja which meet the requirements of our target customers. The HDMI outputs 4:2:2 8bit.

Andrew McCarrick
04-11-2011, 01:17 AM
I'm confused, Andrew. Wasn't this thread about the "FS100 vs the F3", not the "AF100 vs the F3"? Or maybe you wanted to compare two cameras where we actually know the specs? ;-)

Cheers,

Bill

I was comparing the AF100 and the F3, because to me it seems like the AF100 is a better camera than the FS100. I basically asked the inital question, because I wanted to find what camera to shoot my feature with. The AF100 and the FS100 are pretty much exactly the same minus a few things the AF100 has that the FS100 does not. Like built in ND filters, HD-SDI output, more variable framerates, and $2000 lower price tag.

imag
04-11-2011, 06:37 AM
I was comparing the AF100 and the F3, because to me it seems like the AF100 is a better camera than the FS100. I basically asked the inital question, because I wanted to find what camera to shoot my feature with. The AF100 and the FS100 are pretty much exactly the same minus a few things the AF100 has that the FS100 does not. Like built in ND filters, HD-SDI output, more variable framerates, and $2000 lower price tag.

That all seems to be true. Until you look at the footage. To me, at least, the AF100 footage looks flat and the FS100 footage (what has been posted anyway) looks stunning. But it depends on your read. If you love the way the AF looks, or you think they can be timed to look similar, then the AF is almost certainly a better deal.

brunerww
04-14-2011, 06:17 AM
I was comparing the AF100 and the F3, because to me it seems like the AF100 is a better camera than the FS100. I basically asked the initial question, because I wanted to find what camera to shoot my feature with. The AF100 and the FS100 are pretty much exactly the same minus a few things the AF100 has that the FS100 does not.

Ok - I understand. Sort of :-) You were using the F3 as a "proxy" for the FS100.

But I wouldn't say that the "AF100 and the FS100 are pretty much exactly the same". The critical difference between the two cameras is the difference in sensor size. I won't repeat the Sony marketing hype or a bunch of percentages here, but the Super 35 sensor captures significantly more light than micro 4/3. If we assume that the image processing for the two cameras is equivalent, the Super 35 camera will beat the m4/3 camera in low light performance and dynamic range every time. That is why, in my view, the images that we have seen from the FS100 are so impressive. The big sensor is the killer app here. I say this as a GH2 owner, so I am definitely not a Panasonic or m4/3 basher.

So, my savings goal now has to be raised to $5850 for the FS100 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/761578-REG/Sony_NEX_FS100U_NEX_FS100E_Super_35mm_Sensor.html) -- from the $4795 I was going to barely be able to scrape together for the AF100 (http://www.adorama.com/PCAGAF100.html?kbid=66297). Darn you, Sony! ;-)

cgold
04-14-2011, 08:51 AM
Micro 4/3 is plenty big enough, its just that the AF100's sensor is about 12 Megapixels where the FS100/F3's sensor is about 4 megapixels

Sensitivity is about individual pixel size. A 3 megapixel micro 4/3 would be about twice as light sensitive as 12 megapixel S35 sensor (everything else being equal, which it never is). But.... the F3/FS100 have a completely redesigned sensor with about 1/3 the resolution of the AF100's sensor (A 4 megapixel bayer resolves 1080p quite well). So you have about 1/3 the pixels in about 2 times the area, giving you about 6x larger pixels.

For example, a 5D has a much bigger sensor then the F3, but since it is 21 megapixels it is not as sensitive as the F3.

If/when panasonic releases a m 4/3 camera with a pixel density optimized for video, it will be close to the F3.

brunerww
04-14-2011, 11:31 AM
Micro 4/3 is plenty big enough, its just that the AF100's sensor is about 12 Megapixels where the FS100/F3's sensor is about 4 megapixels

Sensitivity is about individual pixel size. A 3 megapixel micro 4/3 would be about twice as light sensitive as 12 megapixel S35 sensor (everything else being equal, which it never is). But.... the F3/FS100 have a completely redesigned sensor with about 1/3 the resolution of the AF100's sensor (A 4 megapixel bayer resolves 1080p quite well). So you have about 1/3 the pixels in about 2 times the area, giving you about 6x larger pixels.

For example, a 5D has a much bigger sensor then the F3, but since it is 21 megapixels it is not as sensitive as the F3.

If/when panasonic releases a m 4/3 camera with a pixel density optimized for video, it will be close to the F3.

You're right. Low light sensitivity requires: 1) a big sensor 2) video optimized image processing 3) video optimized resolution/pixel density. The F3 and FS100 have all three, the AF100 has only the first two.

That's why, at just $1055 more than the AF100, the FS100 is very good value for the money. Unfortunately for Panasonic, I'll probably sell my GH2 to get the extra grand.

cgold
04-14-2011, 02:06 PM
The good news is you might not have to sell your GH2 because that is just the list price, the camera will go for less, though we don't know how much less. (Remember the F3L's list price is 16,000, but it sells for 13,300, NX5U's list price is 5,000 and it goes for 4,000, ect.)

lennywood
04-18-2011, 12:27 PM
The AF100 and FS100 might compare to one another if you go by price and specs alone, but if you go by picture quality, they are worlds apart.

I sold my af100 because i did not like how it handled highlights at all, especially on skin. it had very little latitude and it was very noisy in the blacks.

I had a chance to play with the FS100 at NAB and was very impressed by how it handled highlights, how noiseless the blacks were even at 30db, and by it's wide latitude.

Sure, i wish it had nd filters in camera, that seems like an easy thing they could have done.

And i wish it had hd-sdi, but i understand that if it did there would be no reason i could think of to buy an F3.

Still, the picture quality out of that little box was impressive to say the least.

if i was you and was shooting a movie i would get an F3 or an FS100, and would stay away from the AF100. the af100 is a fun little camera, but not ready for prime time, in my opinion.

Rick Burnett
04-19-2011, 06:04 PM
The AF100 and FS100 might compare to one another if you go by price and specs alone, but if you go by picture quality, they are worlds apart.

I sold my af100 because i did not like how it handled highlights at all, especially on skin. it had very little latitude and it was very noisy in the blacks.

I had a chance to play with the FS100 at NAB and was very impressed by how it handled highlights, how noiseless the blacks were even at 30db, and by it's wide latitude.

Sure, i wish it had nd filters in camera, that seems like an easy thing they could have done.

And i wish it had hd-sdi, but i understand that if it did there would be no reason i could think of to buy an F3.

Still, the picture quality out of that little box was impressive to say the least.

if i was you and was shooting a movie i would get an F3 or an FS100, and would stay away from the AF100. the af100 is a fun little camera, but not ready for prime time, in my opinion.

I have an AF100 and want to pick up the FS100 as well, for the low light. One thing I noticed on a bunch of FS100 footage is that blowouts still had similarities to the AF100. Specifically, I saw something they were running at NAB (from the web) that had HUGE swaths of cyan in once shot from being blown out, and huge yellow areas in a sunlight overexpose. Both of which are not as elegant as say a 7D blowing out on similar material. On the AF100, by reducing the chroma by -2 I got a color saturation equivalent to the 7D, and I felt the blow outs looked fine at this setting. Did you play with the settings on the FS100 at all in this regard?

There are things I love about both cameras. I want to have both at the same time so I can really see which one I want to keep for the long haul, which I plan on doing. I *know* the AF100, and after tuning it for a few weeks when I got it, it does shoot beautifully. Slightly less low light capability than the 7D, but I was also able to get rid of all the noise in the blacks as well. My biggest thing is I want an even lighter camera and some more latitude, that's it. But man, those ND filters are SO AWESOME! :)

blackcat
04-19-2011, 10:50 PM
I want to have both at the same time so I can really see which one I want to keep for the long haul, which I plan on doing. I *know* the AF100, and after tuning it for a few weeks when I got it, it does shoot beautifully.

Great. Let us know what you find. I was interested in the FS100 at first, but as it stands, I am likely to stay with the AF100. There are surely some differences with the sensor and other features, like the presence or lack of ND filters. However, they both seem to be very similar in what they produce, especially once you consider tweaking the camera and quality post-production. I would like to hear if there is a huge difference with the FS100, but I am likely to stay with the AF100 until the next cycle of cameras. They are both going for something too similar for it to be worth switching for me. I am more interested in what comes out 2-3 years from now.

I am not trying to start an AF100 vs FS100 debate. Both seem like great options with some compromises. It is just that both are indie level large chip cameras with some different strengths and weaknesses, none of which I consider strong enough to switch to the other right now.

Lee Saxon
04-20-2011, 12:54 AM
I was interested in the original FS100 vs F3 topic, but everybody ended up talking about FS100 vs AF100 :-/

vanvideo
04-20-2011, 04:56 AM
I was interested in the original FS100 vs F3 topic, but everybody ended up talking about FS100 vs AF100 :-/

Well, to be fair, the FS100 and AF100 are more closely in competition. The FS100 and AF100 are closer to my budget. The F3, not so much.
If you can afford the F3, I think it's the general consensus, even from Sony, that the F3 is a better camera.

Osslund
04-20-2011, 05:18 AM
I have an AF100 and want to pick up the FS100 as well, for the low light. One thing I noticed on a bunch of FS100 footage is that blowouts still had similarities to the AF100. Specifically, I saw something they were running at NAB (from the web) that had HUGE swaths of cyan in once shot from being blown out, and huge yellow areas in a sunlight overexpose.


Actually I'm surprised how much you can recover with Magic Bullet looks. Even ugly pure blown highlights with yellow fringe can be smoothen and retrieved to something nice on the AF. I've been using a tool that makes the footage flat and then you can apply whatever grading you like.

Rick Burnett
04-20-2011, 06:26 AM
Actually I'm surprised how much you can recover with Magic Bullet looks. Even ugly pure blown highlights with yellow fringe can be smoothen and retrieved to something nice on the AF. I've been using a tool that makes the footage flat and then you can apply whatever grading you like.

I definitely agree. My general consensus at this point is if you do have some footage that looks blown out in a way you don't like, in post if you know what you are doing, you can tame that top end down. :)

lennywood
04-20-2011, 09:39 AM
@ Rick: glad to see you were able to get the af100 looking good. i am just not that patient a man, i wanted the camera to handle skin highlights from the get go. otherwise the af100 was very nice, and to have nd filter, and hd-sdi output, is wonderful, especially for that price. i will probably get the as100 when it is available, i will check it out more then. i am hoping for good latitude, and i do think it is better in low light, but the fact that you can get Olympus zooms that open to f2.0 for the af100 but the fastest zooms for the as100 will be 2.8 gives the af100 a one stop advantage right of the top.

Rick Burnett
04-20-2011, 10:13 AM
I'm a technology nerd, so when I get something, I push it as far and as hard as I can to get what I want. :) I've been absolutely thrilled with the skin tones I get. I just did a quick interview piece for someone and his editor actually made him ask him what camera it was because he loved the footage. And these guys shoot on Red as well. They were just surprised with the quality. I don't use m4/3 lenses on the AF100. I use all manual EOS lenses, which I prefer. So I am using F1.4 and up.

Pertaining to the original question, F3 versus FS100, I think it depends where you want to go and what you want to do. I've looked at footage from both and I think both, internal codec wise, aren't that far off from one another. I think the F3 has a lot of features, but I also think having just 2 ND settings is a lot more limiting than the AF100's 3. Everything has a tradeoff. Let's assume for a second I could purchase the F3 (because honestly, given I will have an AF100 and FS100 at the same time, I wouldn't be that far off). When I compare the two, I've got to look at where I am now AND what expectations I have.

Right off the bat, both the AF100 and F3 are larger than what I want. The freedom I've experienced with the 7D and it's size was a wonderful thing. I stuck that camera EVERYWHERE! I had wished the AF100 and F3 had a smaller footprint, but they don't. The FS100 does have a small footprint, and for me, that IS a selling point.

Second, the upgrade to use SLOG 4:4:4 has A LOT more cost associated with it. Not only would I need to buy the upgrade, which I am sure wont be cheap, but I'd also need a recorder that can record 4:4:4 as well. Again, more cost. That is not to say these are a bad thing, but to go all the way to the F3 would be seriously stretching my money, and there would be NO WAY I could afford everything else needed. I am just not at that point.

Now, the F3 has 10-bit HDSDI out. That's a HUGE plus to me. Having said that, I've been happy with the 8-bit on the AF100 after I tuned the settings. Granted, I'd love 10-bit, but I cannot justify the cost differential for the gain right now. I'd rather get 4:2:2 with a cheaper recorder 8-bit at the price points I am seeing. I had to make that value judgement myself as to what is important.

Instead of tying up $8k or more in the F3, that extra money will go a LONG way (if I had it) for all the other things I'd really like to have. Like:

1) Birger mount AND remote kit
2) Lenses
3) Batteries
4) External Recorder
5) Media (HDD and SDHC)
6) Software (FCPX)

And on and on. For some people, all these other aspects are very important to consider. This is why I'd pick the FS100 over the F3 so far from everything I have seen because where I am at in my situation, this makes the most sense. After going through owning a 7D and all that I bought to support it, then a AF100 and all I bought to support it, you realize that there are so many more costs that scale up as the data/quality formats extend up as well.

The biggest thing is, everyone's needs/limitations are different. All any of us can do is explain what are needs/reasoning is and hope it helps others who are trying to make the same decisions.

blackcat
04-20-2011, 11:22 AM
Pertaining to the original question, F3 versus FS100, I think it depends where you want to go and what you want to do.

I think that is exactly the point. I buy my cameras based on a specific indie project and/or the freelance market. The F3 has some pretty clear advantages over the FS100 and AF100, but that doesn't limit one from using the FS100 or the AF100 for some really great looking stuff. The F3 makes a lot of sense if one is working on something where the value of the F3 can be made back or if an independent film project will greatly benefit from it--assuming the budget is available.

I would think the choice between an FS100 or an F3 would be clear to most people who would be in a position to get an F3 for a project or work investment.