about to take the F3 plunge

Mwjace

Mwjace

Active member
After NAB and wieghing all the options We have decided to get 2 Sony f3s One will be the f3k with lenses the other will be without lenses. my budget was $58,000 so after getting the two cameras I'm Left with around 24,750 for accessories. below is what i am thinking of spending the rest on. Please let me know if i'm making a mistake or if in your opinion i should do something else


Ziess cp.2 prime lens 100mm 25mm 18mm $12,700

Reds 50-150 Zoom lens (this is intended to live on the F3L camera) $8,500
This seems to be the best zoom lens for the cost right?

2 of Red Rock Micro F3 bundles (which include rails, matte box, and FF) $4,221

this brings me to a total just above 57,000

We already have the following 2 Nano Flashes, 2 Vinten vision 100 Tripods, 2 Manhattan Monitors, ex3 batteries cables etc, Light kits
 
Sorry to hi- jack this thread but where can I find an f3 L instock ?

Congrats on your purchase that's a mighty find camera('s) !
 
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought the nanoflash's are 8bit?

Possibly worth budgeting in for 2 x 10bit recorders?
 
stockfuel said:
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I thought the nanoflash's are 8bit?

Possibly worth budgeting in for 2 x 10bit recorders?
Click to expand...


We thought of getting Ki Pro Mini or even the new Gemmi, but our whole plant is based on XDcam 50. so as of now will try the nanos out but if we need to will upgrade
 
MWJace,

In the spirit of full disclosure I sell equipment, and I have made my living most of my adult life recommending, assembling and using both the smallest and largest equipment packages ever assembled for motion pictures, major television series and the like.

If you are making a serious investment in hardware, and clearly with about $58K in your budget you are, so you may want to maximize your useability in the field and and your ability to recoup cost when you eventually go to sell this equipment.

The CP/CP.2s are great, but just so you are aware it's about 3-month lead time on those lenses from every dealer in the world right now. I'm a Zeiss dealer, and can tell you that no one has stock and no one is getting them faster than that at the moment. At first blush, I would say that you'd probably be better off with a complete matched set of Zeiss lenses, then mixing your set.

You may also wish to put hands-on any accessories you are actually considering, and more professional alternatives that are not on your list. If you've not done this already, I think you should. There is a lot of buyers remorse from people who make their purchase decisions based on what someone liked on the internet.

It's only about a month until Cine Gear Expo, and plane ticket, hotel room and car rental expense is a tiny price to pay when compared to to the money you are planning on investing in equipment.

Also, no one (myself included) can adequately evaluate your equipment purchase wishlist without knowing your intentions of how you are planning on using this equipment. If you can offer more details about how the equipment is to be used, then it would be possible to make proper recommendations for your individual situation.

I love the F3 camera, but consider for a moment that it may not actually be the right camera for you.
 
Last edited:
Personally, spending that much money on a 1080P camera is bull, and spending $20,000 on lenses that are no better than Nikon's $400 prime lenses is just malarky. This thread screams "I want equipment that makes my colleagues ooooh and aaaah" and the reality is that while the F3 is a bit overpriced (but useful none the less), this is still just a 1080P camera that, in terms of what lenses it requires, hardly needs anything different from what the realists slap on the front of their DSLR's.

Rent a set of Zeiss's and see if you can tell the difference from anything else, especially if this camera can mount Nikon sets. Also, I'd think there's better/more affordable support equipment to blow money on - then again, blow money on what you want to if you make $50,000 in a few months. But if not, spend wisely.
 
Snapper123 said:
Personally, spending that much money on a 1080P camera is bull, and spending $20,000 on lenses that are no better than Nikon's $400 prime lenses is just malarky. This thread screams "I want equipment that makes my colleagues ooooh and aaaah" and the reality is that while the F3 is a bit overpriced (but useful none the less), this is still just a 1080P camera that, in terms of what lenses it requires, hardly needs anything different from what the realists slap on the front of their DSLR's.

Rent a set of Zeiss's and see if you can tell the difference from anything else, especially if this camera can mount Nikon sets. Also, I'd think there's better/more affordable support equipment to blow money on - then again, blow money on what you want to if you make $50,000 in a few months. But if not, spend wisely.
Click to expand...

I think you're being a bit harsh. It's true that the CP/CP.2 lenses are a rehoused mod on the Zeiss ZF still lenses, but they do offer certain, potentially very worthwhile advantages. Specifically: more iris blades for prettier bokeh, long throws, pitch geared for follow focusing, with industry standard rotation direction (Nikon still lenses are reversed), consistent front sizes for mattebox and follow focus applications, witness marks, etc. In terms of PL lens sets, the CP.2s are actually near the bottom, but they're still a big step in the right direction from still photo lenses.

Whether the extra money is worth it depends on your workflow, client list, application, and overall cashflow. A lot of cheap gear can be hacked to do great things, but not necessarily reliably. When a client pays me to shoot, they want things to go quickly, and smoothly. A camera and lenses that help me do that better are absolutely worth extra expense.

And what's wrong with 1080p? For delivery to anything less than a 60 inch screen, viewers won't perceive a difference. The F3 has incredibly low noise, something that is in part possible because it's not a 4k camera. It's not "bull" if it's the right tool for the job and the client is willing to pay you appropriately to use it.
 
Snapper123 said:
Personally, spending that much money on a 1080P camera is bull, and spending $20,000 on lenses that are no better than Nikon's $400 prime lenses is just malarky. This thread screams "I want equipment that makes my colleagues ooooh and aaaah" and the reality is that while the F3 is a bit overpriced (but useful none the less), this is still just a 1080P camera that, in terms of what lenses it requires, hardly needs anything different from what the realists slap on the front of their DSLR's.

Rent a set of Zeiss's and see if you can tell the difference from anything else, especially if this camera can mount Nikon sets. Also, I'd think there's better/more affordable support equipment to blow money on - then again, blow money on what you want to if you make $50,000 in a few months. But if not, spend wisely.
Click to expand...

This post speaks to your inexperience, and many folks do make 50k in a few jobs. That is who this equipment is designed for. Good luck in your endeavors.
 
Viddovation said:
I think you're being a bit harsh. It's true that the CP/CP.2 lenses are a rehoused mod on the Zeiss ZF still lenses, but they do offer certain, potentially very worthwhile advantages. Specifically: more iris blades for prettier bokeh, long throws, pitch geared for follow focusing, with industry standard rotation direction (Nikon still lenses are reversed), consistent front sizes for mattebox and follow focus applications, witness marks, etc. In terms of PL lens sets, the CP.2s are actually near the bottom, but they're still a big step in the right direction from still photo lenses.

Whether the extra money is worth it depends on your workflow, client list, application, and overall cashflow. A lot of cheap gear can be hacked to do great things, but not necessarily reliably. When a client pays me to shoot, they want things to go quickly, and smoothly. A camera and lenses that help me do that better are absolutely worth extra expense.

And what's wrong with 1080p? For delivery to anything less than a 60 inch screen, viewers won't perceive a difference. The F3 has incredibly low noise, something that is in part possible because it's not a 4k camera. It's not "bull" if it's the right tool for the job and the client is willing to pay you appropriately to use it.
Click to expand...

Well said Viddovation...

100% agreed with you!

By the way... "CP.2's are actually near the bottom.." but in price only!
 
10-bit is WELL worth the $$, especially if you do any color-grading to speak of. I run a KiPro and the SxS usually. Both look good, but the 10-bit ProRes holds-up MUCH better in grading.
Incidentally, I'd like to drop a shameless plug that I have a KiPro currently for sale in the Classifieds here! ;-)
 
CinemaElectronika said:
By the way... "CP.2's are actually near the bottom.." but in price only!
Click to expand...

That could be a longer conversation. I've spoken to some DPs who love them, and others who are frustrated by them. Certainly, for the price, you wouldn't expect them to perform like a 100k+ kit of Arri Ultra Primes.

Also, despite having interchangeable mounts, they're not really meant to switch mounts in the field as a quick hotswap. Without collimating the spacing can be off when you switch mount plates - and if you're using a PL mount camera 100% of the time, you've added a additional point of failure. I've seen a Bartech Wireless system loosen the screws holding the back of the lens together, due to raw torque.

I don't get to work with PL primes nearly as often as I'd like (personally, a set of cinemodded Zeiss ZF lenses was affordable), but I do feel as though there are some better build quality lenses out there than the CP.2 lenses. And faster, for that matter - I used a set of Illuminia's once... excellent build quality, smooth iris and and focus with long pulls, and just enough drag. And the entire set was T1.3. Certainly, I like them better than the CP.2s. But it's all a sliding scale, and every tool has it's appropriate uses and place on a budget.

So, I wouldn't disagree with you, but I would say that once you get into the true PL mount lenses... there's a lot of room for personal taste and preference, and that different lenses have different advantages and drawbacks.
 
Snapper123 said:
Personally, spending that much money on a 1080P camera is bull
Click to expand...

I think you've been brain washed by Red propaganda. Many cutting edge films were shot in 1080p from Avatar, to Star Wars, to Slum Dog Millionaire, and on and on. Resolution doesn't tell a story, ever. Even on the big screen.

What Red had pretty well locked up for awhile was the large (approx.) film sized sensor. DOF does help tell stories by changing the focus of attention of audience. Now, not so much of a lock for Red on that score.

With regard to your lens statements I think everyone will agree that a good DSLR lens has more than enough resolution for 1080p (or even 4k for that matter.) There have been tests to back that up. People spend big money on a cinema lens for other reasons, like mechanics or a certain image look. Truthfully though some of the color and contrast characteristics can now be accomplished in post, but a great lens is still a great lens.

Where I can sympathize with your frustration is that many cinema products cost 10 times as much for a 10-15% increase in usability. Unfortunately that's due to extreme low volume creating high prices. If you don't need that 10-15%, by all means stick to the Nikons because if you get good ones they are great lenses.
 
High end glass is about matching and contrast.

Especially cooke and angenieux. They have the tightest tolerances with regard to color matching.

Also, cookes have amazingly low distortion on the wides. You get what you pay for.
 
I work for a college in Idaho and my client is the college. that being said most of the people i work with; the President, Administrator, PR Guys Etc. have never worked in video or have very limited knowlege. One of the sad facts is not only do i have to produce pretty pictures and a good story but we have to "look" professional at it too. This is where the F3 really helps me. we have quite a few cameras in our inventory panny 170s sony ex1s and ex3s. but what i have found is the bigger and "sexier" the camera the more comfortable administrators are. I cant explain it, but there is a percieved difference in showing up with a panny 170 and showing up with an old betacam camera. the Beta Camera is a bigger camera and in there minds the bigger the camera the more "Professional" the shoot. is this stupid and asinine. YES but this is the world i work in.

the f3 is a hefty camera and i can put Big lenses on it, i'm sure i could get away with only getting cheaper smaller lenses, or a different camera all together, heck we were pretty much set on getting the af-100 until NAB but while i was there this camera struck me as the best of all the worlds.

I agree with Timur that glass is about matching, after being at a demo of the f3 and seeing how well the ziess match the sony glass that comes with the camera i believe this is the best option.

Lastly i am glad for some of the decenting comments i like hearing from everybody as it helps me to make sure i am asking all the questions Thank you all for your input.

P.S sorry for rambling and jumbled thoughts i shoot video i don't write :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top