Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Doesnt matter if its hobbyists or freelancers, I am very interested to see if anyone else is still working with the F900 camera? I've really fallen in love with mine over the past few months. 
Any other F900 users out there?
- Thread starter Mike Krumlauf
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
I’ve thought about it. Especially beginning to explore retro digital looks,
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
There are 4 of the Clairmont version on ebay right now for only $500 bucks.. ****ing steal! I wish I paid that little for my Panavision model lol
G
Guest
Guest
oof! That is good!
Mike,
What is it that you like about the F900?
I also like the old cameras, but get told over and over...forget the old cameras as the new stuff out now trump the old stuff from yesteryear. Could it be that the new cams are too perfect..too clinical ...with the old cams giving thier own special grungy look. IDK. But interesting you are so into the F900.
What is it that you like about the F900?
I also like the old cameras, but get told over and over...forget the old cameras as the new stuff out now trump the old stuff from yesteryear. Could it be that the new cams are too perfect..too clinical ...with the old cams giving thier own special grungy look. IDK. But interesting you are so into the F900.
G
Guest
Guest
I almost prefer having a $500 bmpcc and a vintage 16mm zoom, as that has better dynamic range and can emulate everything from 16mm to VHS and all small format vintage cameras in between. That said, the F900 still works in a news or eng world, and has the best 2/3” look that can be a great vintage camera for creating a found footage look.
But I know you weren’t asking me.
I also have an AJA Kipro mini and it makes using older cameras work so seamlessly with modern workflows. Proves 10bit 422 looks great and edits like butter. So smooth compared to all of the highly compressed codecs.
But I know you weren’t asking me.
I also have an AJA Kipro mini and it makes using older cameras work so seamlessly with modern workflows. Proves 10bit 422 looks great and edits like butter. So smooth compared to all of the highly compressed codecs.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Many reasons. Firstly, I tend to enjoy images coming out of a CCD block than a CMOS sensor, i love the ENG form factor and with the advancements in post tech its my belief you can get a better image out of these cameras than in their hayday. I had a Varicam H for 3 years before moving over to the Panavisied F900. I usually shoot HDCAM tape and digitize that to ProRes using my AJA KiProMini. I know some of you might be scratching your heads but i've gotten the best looking material working that way, very low noise, no artifacts of anykind.
QuickHitRecord
Veteran
Out of curiosity, what's different about the Clairmont version?
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
They built a reenforced new front face plate for the camera with a more reliable lens mount and its temperature controlled so no back focus issues like the stock F900. They also put the controls for the camera in the handle and added lemo power ports on the side of the body. The Panavision mod is a little more in depth with image. Clairmont is all external modifications.. panavision is both.. external mods as well as re calibration of the boards on the CCD block in the pre amp and CCD gains as well as their own Pre optical filter which helps the sensor see red frequencies more like film emulsions..
I don't have the f900 but do have a 9000pl which is an ENG version of the F35. I also use hdcam Sr, it has been an adjustment going back to tape but I haven't minded it so far. I see you are seeing the sights in Colorado, I took the 9000pl up to Aspen during the height of the fall colors change but didn't have the chance to use it. One of the disadvantages compared to a DSLR I guess.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Yeah, i recently moved from downtown chicago to the suburbs of denver per my fiance's work transfer. It is a really beautiful state, i did spend part of my youth here in Telluride but I will say, i am way to midwestern for my own good and am proud of my roots. the sooner I can figure out a way back to illinois, the happier I will be haha. More oppertunities in film in Chicago anyway compared to Denver... Denver is dead in the water right now.
The 9000PL always interested me from its release years ago. I see they are on ebay for about what an F35 is going for. I dont think they really did well but that doesnt mean they are not good cameras and per your comments on adjusting to tape.. honestly, ive always enjoyed shooting on tape compared to SD card given its cheaper archival purposes and idk, maybe theres just a part of me that didnt want to give up my roots, which is Mini DV tape from 99-2008. HDCAM and HDCAM SR are fine codecs, i really dont see why people have to crap all over old tech because its not what the majority of people are using. The F900, F23, F35, and so on are beautiful pieces of machinery that even in 2018 if used right can make one hell of an image.
yes, I agree. Having not ever used one of these cams I cant say for sure. But I have asked and asked and always get the feed back..forget them, move on. I am fascinated by the 9000 and 9000PL and the F23. I have done a real deep dive into the F23 - seems the F23 and the 9000 ARE a bit different and that the F23 has different internals compared to the 9000. But when I ask the pro's (because I dont know and dont have the experience to say myself) they uniformly say, forget the F23/9000/F35/F65 and get the latest C200 or EVA1 etc.
What I cant accept is how such high end cameras from 10 years ago can be so bad today. Are todays cameras REALLY as good as these? By that I mean, is todays lowend 4K camera got as good a CCD block or prism as the F23? Of course all the new cams are CMOS so of course they dont have a prism or CCD block, but my point is, the F23 had a very high end prism/CCD block that has never been replicated. Does todays footage through a C200 have the look of an F23 image? Sure its 4K, but I am trying to understand how the different images look and of course there is no way to do that other then having the cams in front of you and looking at the same scenes on a grading monitor. Another way of saying it is, does todays camera have the same depth to the image? the same color purity? Because if they do, then indeed there is no point to these old cams anymore other then if its your hobby. Still interesting whatever it is.
I know it must not be the best practice or even good practice, but how many times can you shoot to a HDCAM tape, digitise then shoot over it again? Tapes will eventually run out - if you only shoot to a tape once then use a new fresh tape - then what happens when you cant find tapes anymore ?
P.S. That Loveland Pass clip has a real depth to it. Beautiful.
Last edited:
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Yes there will come a day when you can no longer buy hdcam tape but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. By the time it does happen, shooting directly to the kipro is fine, you just need to be more cautious working in a 10bit native space when these older cameras were calibrated to capture only 8bits. Sure on paper the f900 has a 10bit out but that doesn’t mean you should be trusting it in every situation. Signal areas around things like lamps and street lights at wide angles have nasty vertical line artifacts because the imager was not set to fully articulate what it was seeing at 10bit. I saw this on the old varicam and the f900. When you shoot on tape, you are recording an image as the camera was built to see and the s/n ratio is much more controlled as well. So after that long ramble, the answer is, when you can no longer buy tape, I’ll shoot out the Sdi feed and just be cautious at my framing of things like lights. This isn’t to take anything away from these cameras, they just were built to be used a curtain way and if you capture media in that way you’ll be surprised just how beautiful the images are, even today
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
here’s my opinion. The manufacturers were really striking gold with these CCD cameras like the 900, f23 and so on. Even the viper was an incredible tool. Then red and hdslrs showed up and things began to change. People realized you could build a 35mm cmos imager much cheaper than a ccd. They took the cheap route. I think that people can get political about their views on all this and very passionate as well. I for one am a fan of how a ccd gathers its image over a cmos. Ccds have a personality to them and a depth I think cmos imagers lack. I know I’m in a minority on this and that’s okay, you’re more than able to get paying work with these old cameras and if you’re a hobbyist than how the market behaves to technology shouldn’t affect you because everything you do is purely passion
There are likely two core reasons why professionals recommend to forget about the F23/F900/F35/etc:
1) the newer cameras really do look better. Yes, someone feeling stubborn could be argumentative and debate that this statement is false, after all what "looks better" can be inherently subjective from one person to the next. However if these older cameras genuinely are objectively better, then surely they'd be in higher demand and used more often rather than being forgotten about?
2) professionals understand that the camera sensor is merely one small small component that goes into the cake mix which produces the final result. Thus they realize that all these non-image improvements make an big difference to the final product, such as: better low light, lower power consumption, smaller size, lower weight, faster boot up, better stability, LUT support, better media workflow, etc etc etc
And when discussing indie film productions (as anybody using these older cameras is likely on) these benefits are even further magnified.
If you're doing an ultra ultra low budget (perhaps just you the DoP and a single AC in support, plus a gaffer with only a full station wagon worth of lighting/grap gear) feature film for three weeks, then a 12kg 100W ISO 320 camera recording to tape is going to suck a lot more resources/time out of the production (thus leaving less spare to make a better film!) than a camera which is say 6kg 24W ISO 1600 and recording to Atomos SSDs with built in NDs too and rock solid without any quirks.
Now that doesn't mean that these older camera's can't still be a good choice for some people. But I fear many people might go into this without their eyes fully open to all the aspects. Not appreciating how they really hold up when it comes to the daily grind of shooting projects which must meet budgets and deadlines. Or the grind of a feature film week after week.
I feel these cameras are best suited to perhaps two kinds of people:
1) hobbyists (bit of expensive hobby though! But hey... some people spend a lot on golfing, or fishing, or cycling, or whatever). Because a lot of personal enjoyment can be got out of having a Hollywood Cinema Camera on your bookshelf. This is no real difference to perhaps a more directly relevant hobby as an analogy: a vintage car collector. Do these vintage cars still perform very well? Of course they can! They were beasts in their day. Can they still be fun to drive and even give a level of enjoyment that the enthusiast vintage car collector can't find elsewhere? Yup!
But does this vintage car out perform the latest racing car? Nope!
Is this vintage car the most practical daily driver? Nope!!
Is this vintage car the most cost effective choice? Oh hell no.
But do all this rational logic ever stop the vintage car collector? Nope again!
And I have no problem with that, people enjoy what they enjoy! However I feel a vintage car collector can be better off and have more balance, if at least they go into this with a certain self awareness of these facts.
If someone is buys a vintage car because they think it is the best daily driver they could have to do their shopping in and commuting to work, then they're likely going to slam into a lot of grief very soon. Instead they should approach it being aware this is a sub optimal choice as a daily driver, but that they want to make it anyway as a daily driver because of the joy they get from driving it daily, and thus in the process they'll make it a better daily driver as they'll approach its compromises head on (knowing for instance it breaks down more easily they'll keep an eye open to collect spare, knowing that it tends to leaks more oil than others then they'll always keep a spare oil can in the boot, etc etc) and won't feel so setback when the inevitable hiccups hit them.
Ditto if someone buys a vintage car because they think it will be "the fastest" car they can own, then again they're setting themselves up for disappointment. Instead they should just make the vintage car "be the fastest it can be".
2) the other ideal candidate to own these older vintage cameras is a professional (or maybe a recently retired one? Or other person who has someone acquired all this) who already has at hand (either owning, or easily accessible through his network) all the various supporting gear he might need: heavyweight tripods, Dana Dolly, heavyweight jib, expertise (maybe he used the same camera in the past himself, or has friends who know them well he can shoulder tap), PL mount lenses, camera rigging, friends who can help crew, stacks of V mount batteries, etc etc... thus he doesn't get hit by the full whack of the camera set up, but just what the body itself would cost. And likely already has a plan in place in how to make back his ROI (Return on Investment) on the camera body, maybe they're doing everything in house (so he has full control of the entire production and workflow), or perhaps he reckons having a unique camera can help give him a point of difference when marketing himself. ("hey he is the guy with the F35"... rather than just yet another one out of millions with a FS7 on his shoulder. However, you're better off if you've got one of those mainstream cameras in your stable as well, rather than only the one camera)
Ideally, the perfect owner would be someone who straddles both sides of these two aspects.
Quite a few of the owners I've seen post here on dvxuser I've felt slot into one of these two categories, or a blend of the two.
Last edited:
@Ironfilm
That's a pretty good way of expressing it. The analogy works well.
what about the F65...how does that fit into all that? Its still a high end camera with great specs. The only thing I can see against it is Size/Weight with weight maybe not THAT big a thing. Would you say today's modern, mini miracle cameras, really are better then the F65 as well?
I dont get why the F65 flopped. Expensive media. Sure. Heavy storage requirements. Sure. Locked into Sony. Sure. Other then that ?
That's a pretty good way of expressing it. The analogy works well.
what about the F65...how does that fit into all that? Its still a high end camera with great specs. The only thing I can see against it is Size/Weight with weight maybe not THAT big a thing. Would you say today's modern, mini miracle cameras, really are better then the F65 as well?
I dont get why the F65 flopped. Expensive media. Sure. Heavy storage requirements. Sure. Locked into Sony. Sure. Other then that ?
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Interesting... Well I can say without hessitation that I had more than enough work to make my ROI on both my varicams and my Panavised F900.. I paid off the varicam in 2 jobs and then sold my last H model that I referbed and took that money to get the F900 model I have now. So the money invested in these cameras have not gone to waste in a work environment. Listen, at the end of the day, I think every camera ever made from film, analog, digital has a place in the world of creating stuff. Its all about how the tools one camera can give you can help drive the material forward. I'm more than happy with my Panavision HD900F and I have satisfied customers as well. I think the reason why cameras like the F900 and so on are not more in demand is simply because there are not enough people who are really looking into them as viable options to shoot with. I mean, if you were in a position to shoot on Alexas and Amira's for everyjob, would you look into the F900.. No, probably not. But, under the same token, when I was working at VER in Chicago, we had older cameras and decks going out at least once every other week. Im talking F900s, Tape Varicams, the F800, HDCAM and XDCAM decks, HVX200s, EX1s and 3s... all these cameras and decks were getting plenty of work in the field still to this day, so, there are people who are still finding use in them in the working world. Cameras are just tools. And all Owner/Operators have their own ideals on how to make a living or do it as a side thing.. there is no gospel written saying "you must follow the market or you will die" BS. Do what you feel is best... if you want an F23/35 go for it.. if you want to finance a varicam LT go for it.. if those silly HDSLRs are your posion, knock em dead. Live and let live my friend
Run&Gun
Veteran
NEVER re-used a tape at the network level. Betacam, HDcam or DVCPro HD. Could you? Yes. But too many risks, especially as a lot of what we were shooting were important interviews with important people and there weren't "re-do's". I have talked to guys that shot BetacamSX(digital) at the local level and used tapes for 10's and 10's of passes(a year or more).
Yeah, I'm cherry picking here, but an F900 and VariCam(27 or 2700) is gonna boot way faster than pretty much any "cine camera" made today. My F55 and C300 turning on are glacial in comparison to my 2700.