F3: Any F5 - F55 user out there care to share their initial thoughts about cameras?

Sparky874

Sparky874

Well-known member
Hello everyone. I was just thinking this morning, all is very quiet from folks who have moved to the latest Sony models. I am a very contented F3 and F35 owner at the moment, BUT would still love to hear how people are getting on, and if they are happy they made the move - and if they have seen much of a difference certainly with the 2K image compared to that of the F3.

Let us know!

Best, Sparky x
 
I had my first real run and gun with my F55 the other day for Red Bull. It was outside, sun was in and out. I was constantly paranoid about exposer. But when I got back and looked at the footage, it looked awesome. Skin tones look incredible, highlights were handled and all was well. I would best describe the image as "Creamy and Buttery" no Sony "Video" whatsoever IMO. I could have been sleeping but, I stayed up just looking at footage.... People can say what they want, but the F55 will hold up to an Alexa all day long. Once this camera gets up to speed with all of it's coming upgrades, this camera will be a powerful and wanted camera.
Just, the post end needs to catch up with 4K XAVC.
Very happy I made the move, still have the F3 and still using it and the F55 will hopefully have a good run to look forward to as well.

I'm sure camera companies R&D's will hate me but.....I feel we are kinda at a point with these cameras where "we really don't need it to look much better." We have 4K, 2K, 1080, F65 Color. We have surpassed film in many ways etc. I won't need 5k or 8k, that no one can see it anyway. (of course maybe in the future of "Blade Runner" when we have 80 by 80 ft video billboards) Otherwise I will be happy with the image from the F55 for a good while.
Plus as a owner I feel I have all bases covered now for most jobs. One EX3, one F3/with AJA and the F55.
 
Thanks for taking time out to share you thoughts Jason. It's great to hear how positive your are about it so far. Just out of interest, what viewfinder did you use? On my F3 and F35, I use a TV LOGIC VFM-056W monitor. I couldn't imagine using these cameras without it as I rely so heavily on it for exposure mainly and focus. I'd probably want to use it on the F5/55 as well. Do you think there is a jump up in terms of picture quality shooting 2k material on the f55? I can see the advantages of being able to shoot great slow motion footage (which would be useful as I do a lot of sports) but I think the image I am getting off the F3 now using SLOG is very pleasing. Here is a frame from a recent shoot - and I decided NOT to grade it as I really liked it as it was! Thanks again for your time. Sparky
treetops pic.jpg
 
Hi,

did a quick comparison of the f55 and f3... verdict: in 2k you probably will not see any difference on Web/DVD/Small(2k) Cinema Screens.
but it's there. (i know, strange talking, but the image is cleaner and the codec is better... but it's not like going from an EX-1 to an F3)
check it out:
http://vimeo.com/63387501
turns out that FCPX and Sony 4k don't work yet without issues (green Ribbons)

Shot a TV Commercial here two weeks ago with the f55 in 4k. while it's great to shoot in 4k, have a better codec etc, i think
it would have (and the client) "felt" the same with the F3...

i feel that the F3 is a better "grab it from the Backpack and shoot" camera than the new F's...They're more Film Workflow to me (no mic holder, no
flipout screen, bigger batteries etc etc)

still if i'm able to sell my F3 at a decent price i will upgrade to an F55, if not then i'll pass...

cheers
 
krost-audiovisual said:
did a quick comparison of the f55 and f3... verdict: in 2k you probably will not see any difference on Web/DVD/Small(2k) Cinema Screens.
but it's there. (i know, strange talking, but the image is cleaner and the codec is better... but it's not like going from an EX-1 to an F3)
check it out:
http://vimeo.com/63387501
turns out that FCPX and Sony 4k don't work yet without issues (green Ribbons)
Click to expand...

Agreed. On a 1080p screen, I can tell the difference between 55 and F3 readily. But on web, all that fine detail from 55 gets smoothed over.

Internal XAVC can be pushed much farther in the grade of course. But it doesn't go as far as raw, it is possible to bring out the macro blocking artifacts if you try to do too much (and you should understand you have to get really extreme to get to that point).

I'm really happy with my 55. But the biggest reason I am happy with it is ergonomics, handheld-ability, and image quality in the OLED finder. It has a positive impact on the quality of my work.
 
i haven't...
would be interesting though.. i suppose difference will be minor (except for shutter and to some degree cfa - which again
you might not "see" -but probably more feel-on a standard screen but that's a guess )

i do think both are amazing cams with outstanind iq for the money...

if i was to buy a camera now without owning one this is a very tough decision:
*get a unbelievably great value with a used f3 and wait 2years and see what happenz and get a used f5/55....
*go for a higher frame rate with the fs700 plus odyssey or a better image and aes/ebu with the f5
* or invest big in the f55 and hope the value holds for 4-5 years...

not easy....
 
4K choices, including minimum media, reader:

- FS700 + Odyssey7Q (no 4K raw) ~ $12,5

- FS700 + IFR5 + R5 + Odyssey7 (as monitor) ~ $20,6 (upgrade later to F5/55)

- F5 + R5 + EL100 ~ $30,9

- Bare F55 (no raw) + Odyssey7 (as monitor)~ $30,6 (add raw later)

Lots of choices. I've been bouncing between the last two. For me, it hinges on whether or not I can see a meaningful difference in color between the cameras, and the F55 is the best.

I'm beginning to seriously doubt I will be able to tell the difference, in which cast the choice is easy.

On the other hand, at $12,5 the FS700/Odyssey7Q is very attractive.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
I would also be very interested in seeing the results of the test between an F5 and an F55 in this regard. My understanding continues to be that a larger color gamut captured mapped onto a smaller color space (monitor or projector) can be less accurate than a smaller color gamut of capture. This is very different from film, where a full spectrum light is passing through 35mm film and virtually all colors in the films gamut can be projected. In digital, the larger color gamut needs to be mapped onto a smaller space (like REC709) and more data manipulation [guessing] is involved. I have found that when I properly white balance images captured with an F3 in S-log and compare the colors to raw image capture on my digital still camera, which is also properly white balanced, the colors/palette of both are surprisingly similar without any colorist treatment. Granted this is for normal skin tones and colors, not for fluorescents or extremely saturated colors.
 
I agree it isn't easy, I was ready to buy the f55 then I saw the 4k blackmagic and got completely confused again. I've always spent 30-50 k on cameras going back to the betacam days, the thought of spending 4-10 k is really appealing. The end result is absolute confusion, I was talking to some sellers and they are really feeling it. People aren't buying because they are waiting to see what's around the corner spooked by the constant announcements.
 
ryaninoz said:
People aren't buying because they are waiting to see what's around the corner spooked by the constant announcements.
Click to expand...
The latest being the 5D raw hack, which demonstrates that it's not technology which is keeping cameras from recording raw, but marketing.

The data rate for 4K raw 16 bit at 3.6/1 compression (F5/55/65) is less than uncompressed HD 4:2:2 10 bit! That means it could be transmitted over a single HD-SDI or HDMI port, and recoded to an inexpensive HyperDeck (which essentially is the recorder portion of the 4K Blackmagic Production Camera).

Should Canon, Nikon, or Panasonic decide to directly support raw with their DSLR's (which they could do with firmware), even the Blackmagic cameras would be essentially obsolete.

On the other hand, I'm tired of wait and see. It's time to shoot.

Cheers.
 
ryaninoz said:
I agree it isn't easy, I was ready to buy the f55 then I saw the 4k blackmagic and got completely confused again.
Click to expand...

The Blackmagic will make BEAUTIFUL images, but:

-it can't overcrank.

-it's going to be about a stop slower, if not a stop and a half

-audio, power, handheld is a mess (all rube goldberg contraptions)

Some people have high tolerances for dealing with "rigs" and tripling the weight of a camera to make it workable. I personally can't stand that stuff.

If working solo, my feeling is the more time you are spending being an AC and making sure your contraption works, the less time you are spending on the things that matter like where the camera is, where the light is, and what the subjects in front of the camera are doing. If you have a competent AC, then...things are different.
 
Nate Weaver said:
-it's going to be about a stop slower, if not a stop and a half
Click to expand...
The 4K camera is said to be 1 to 1.5 stops slower than the current BMCC. The BMCC is around 1 stop slower than an F55. The F55 is, per Sony, almost a stop slower than the F5. Altogether, that's 3-4 stops.

So instead of plugging a 2K in the wall with an F5, I'll need a 10K and a genny with a BMCC.

A great camera can't compose a picture, but it can save time, money, and headaches.

Cheers.
 
Admit One said:
The 4K camera is said to be 1 to 1.5 stops slower than the current BMCC. The BMCC is around 1 stop slower than an F55. The F55 is, per Sony, almost a stop slower than the F5. Altogether, that's 3-4 stops.
Click to expand...

Rounding error is a little scary there. 4 stops would be 250, but there hasn't been a popular 250ISO camera in quite some years.

But yes, somewhere between 500 and 250. And the difference between the moon backlight on a wide night exterior shot on a 2000-5000W putt-putt or not really being doable at all. Or yeah, the biggest light on the truck being a 1200 par.

4K BMCC will be really awesome for some things, but not so awesome for other things. There! I've summarized 10 pages of debate yet to come! :D
 
This may be a dumb question but I am curious. What do you mean the BM4K camera is a few stops darker? Is that because the F55 and Blackmagic 4k have way different sensors? Bigger sensor (more sensor to take in light) - easier to light (F55) and that tiny sensor in the BM4K means harder to light and harder to lens?
 
Chris Langer said:
What do you mean the BM4K camera is a few stops darker?
Click to expand...

All else being the same (kinda), the BM4K camera is shaping up to just be less sensitive. Looking like it will be around 320-500ISO

It's all about sensor technology, and the processing immediately after. Less noise means more latitude and higher sensitivity. It's not a "tiny" sensor on the BM4K, it's roughly the same size as the F5/55 (both super 35 sized, more or less)
 
BM 4K camera has a CCD as opposed to CMOS sensor. That's how they can deliver 4K global shutter for $4K. The CCD is not as sensitive CMOS hence the lower ISO. I suspect Nate is pretty close in his guess of native ISO.

Ned
 
Sparky874 said:
Hello everyone. I was just thinking this morning, all is very quiet from folks who have moved to the latest Sony models. I am a very contented F3 and F35 owner at the moment, BUT would still love to hear how people are getting on, and if they are happy they made the move - and if they have seen much of a difference certainly with the 2K image compared to that of the F3.

Let us know!

Best, Sparky x
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no regrets moving from the F3 to the F55 and admit I took a chance without really waiting for the F55 to get "time tested and true" but I also knew that once you dabble into the world of RAW shooting a lot of the "video look" goes away so for me knowing it would do "RAW" was some kind of safety net if it turned out the internal codec was not that great.

As it happened to turn out I think shooting with just the internal 10-bit 422 XAVC codec is damn good and way more filmic than the F3 with slog to external 10-bit recorder. Throw slog2 in there, global shutter and down-scaled 4k to HD and man what a winner. Then if you don't need "filmic" looks or want 4k then just shoot HD with 50mbps internal code, standard gamma, and away you go.

2k/4k vs HD, well that's subject to all kinds of debates. For me I don't care so much about the resolution but I think shooting 4k down converted to HD really looks better than just shooting HD or 2k natively. There is something different about the noise and other characteristics, etc.. but I definitely wouldn't call "4k" the number one feature of the F55.


Things I miss from the F3:
- TLCS (auto exposure tool)
- time interval recording
- spot meter
- flip out screen
- external audio pots

Things I don't miss from the F3:
- low bit-depth internal codec
- ugly yellow chroma noise around hot sources Sony never fixed
- frakenrig to record 10-bit slog
- form factor
- rolling shutter
- EVF I never used

Things I look forward to on the F55:
- Waveform Monitor & Histogram (coming soon finally)
- HFR
- More codecs
- Regular firmware releases make it like Christmas every couple months :cool:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top