Any other F900 users out there?
- Thread starter Mike Krumlauf
- Start date
rbirnbaum
Well-known member
Oh boy! damn... quite the collection.
rbirnbaum
Well-known member
The look on that Football video is great man! No super35 depth of field, but it looks great!
Ironfilm, interesting thoughts. With your around 10k posts over on crazy Andys site, I do, however, think a sanity check may be in order 
I think if folks are viewing their camera comparisons on laptops, youtube, phones, cheap "calibrated" monitors....etc....one might believe newer cams are superior. myself..... 20+ years into image making/manipulation and around $200k in gear. Mainly a hobbyist. Im the kind of pixel peeper who has downloaded all of Boyles tests throughout the years. Ive purchased multiple copies of 4k hdr blurays, (both digital and film aquisition) and a/b'd to equivalent streaming sources, bluray, dvd, and viewed on different screens, from lg oled, panny plasma, samsung led, different upscalers, etc...went to taranatinos 70mm road show and most recently, viewed a 70mm print of a space odyssey 2001 at paul allen restored cinemascope theater. I spend ungodly amounts of time pushing and pulling images in resolve and ps. literaly thousands of hours. Ive sought out and a/b'd shows that began production on film and then moved to digital, and then again to newer digital cams. lots of opinions out there some with more vested interest than others.
My take is the opposite of yours regarding new cams "really are better"
My position is that marketing folk are simply genious. They labeled throwaway consumer cams "cinema cam", stroked a few egos and suddenly the dslr devolution was on. recording your cat now = filmmaking. In the wake of the digital demise, we have thousands upon thousands of opportunistic bloggers and youtubers spreading their uneducated opinions with unabashed abandon. Of course views like mine are considered heresy, with the "good enough" mentality so prevalent today. Anyways, here I am waiting patiently until marketing figures out how to relabel audio capture into something glamorous. ooohh maybe zacuto will do a shootout and we can all make quality assessments from the compressed to $@!* stream on our $2 earbuds.
I think if folks are viewing their camera comparisons on laptops, youtube, phones, cheap "calibrated" monitors....etc....one might believe newer cams are superior. myself..... 20+ years into image making/manipulation and around $200k in gear. Mainly a hobbyist. Im the kind of pixel peeper who has downloaded all of Boyles tests throughout the years. Ive purchased multiple copies of 4k hdr blurays, (both digital and film aquisition) and a/b'd to equivalent streaming sources, bluray, dvd, and viewed on different screens, from lg oled, panny plasma, samsung led, different upscalers, etc...went to taranatinos 70mm road show and most recently, viewed a 70mm print of a space odyssey 2001 at paul allen restored cinemascope theater. I spend ungodly amounts of time pushing and pulling images in resolve and ps. literaly thousands of hours. Ive sought out and a/b'd shows that began production on film and then moved to digital, and then again to newer digital cams. lots of opinions out there some with more vested interest than others.
My take is the opposite of yours regarding new cams "really are better"
My position is that marketing folk are simply genious. They labeled throwaway consumer cams "cinema cam", stroked a few egos and suddenly the dslr devolution was on. recording your cat now = filmmaking. In the wake of the digital demise, we have thousands upon thousands of opportunistic bloggers and youtubers spreading their uneducated opinions with unabashed abandon. Of course views like mine are considered heresy, with the "good enough" mentality so prevalent today. Anyways, here I am waiting patiently until marketing figures out how to relabel audio capture into something glamorous. ooohh maybe zacuto will do a shootout and we can all make quality assessments from the compressed to $@!* stream on our $2 earbuds.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Ironfilm, interesting thoughts. With your around 10k posts over on crazy Andys site, I do, however, think a sanity check may be in order
I think if folks are viewing their camera comparisons on laptops, youtube, phones, cheap "calibrated" monitors....etc....one might believe newer cams are superior. myself..... 20+ years into image making/manipulation and around $200k in gear. Mainly a hobbyist. Im the kind of pixel peeper who has downloaded all of Boyles tests throughout the years. Ive purchased multiple copies of 4k hdr blurays, (both digital and film aquisition) and a/b'd to equivalent streaming sources, bluray, dvd, and viewed on different screens, from lg oled, panny plasma, samsung led, different upscalers, etc...went to taranatinos 70mm road show and most recently, viewed a 70mm print of a space odyssey 2001 at paul allen restored cinemascope theater. I spend ungodly amounts of time pushing and pulling images in resolve and ps. literaly thousands of hours. Ive sought out and a/b'd shows that began production on film and then moved to digital, and then again to newer digital cams. lots of opinions out there some with more vested interest than others.
My take is the opposite of yours regarding new cams "really are better"
My position is that marketing folk are simply genious. They labeled throwaway consumer cams "cinema cam", stroked a few egos and suddenly the dslr devolution was on. recording your cat now = filmmaking. In the wake of the digital demise, we have thousands upon thousands of opportunistic bloggers and youtubers spreading their uneducated opinions with unabashed abandon. Of course views like mine are considered heresy, with the "good enough" mentality so prevalent today. Anyways, here I am waiting patiently until marketing figures out how to relabel audio capture into something glamorous. ooohh maybe zacuto will do a shootout and we can all make quality assessments from the compressed to $@!* stream on our $2 earbuds.
Dude! Singe handely the best response yet. If you are ever in Denver, im buying you a beer
. Totally agree man.Thanks. I'm glad you liked my analogy.
And to carry on my analogy:
Consider a 1930's vintage car vs a 1980's vintage car? The more vintage the car is, the trickier all these factors will be! And the greater troubles you might get from them. (yet the flip side is that the more vintage a car... the greater the enjoyment the vintage car collector seems to get from it!)
So as the car gets newer, if you're looking at more from a practical/business perspective then it could become more appealing (but the vintage car collector appeal of it goes down).
Start looking at say a well looked after premium 1990's pick up truck, and then you might have yourself a bargain performance workhorse for your needs!
And that is kinda what the F65 is, "the newest of the premium vintage cameras".
This is also where my interest lies personally. As I tend to come from a more pragmatic/business perspective. For instance my Sony PMW-F3 I jumped on it back when F3 prices had just fallen their heaviest for an extended period, and I got the best priced (by a country mile!) F3 at the time.
What will I do next?
A few thoughts:
1) Sony FS700 seems to be the sweet spot right now of cameras which have seen a massive MASSIVE drop in price, yet still are holding onto a slim amount of "modern day relevance in 2018/2019". And if the Ninja V gets a module with double support of SDI and TC then the FS700 will become far more appealing in my eyes.
1b) FS5 on eBay is only another grand and a half more than a FS700, yet is a much much nicer camera when used without a recorder than the FS700
2) ARRI Alexa Classic cameras have dropped massively, if they go into free fall and drop a few more thousand next year, then maybe?
3) My dream, some "unknown event" happens for the FS7 to get slashed in price on the secondhand market (a FS7 mk3?! Dunno. Even the FS7mk1 is such a strongly relevant camera, it is hard to see a FS7mk3 having a major impact on prices. The C300mk2 / EVA1 / UMP for instance still haven't shaken the FS7 from its #1 spot)
3b) F5 prices on eBay are nearly the same as a FS7.... I'd like an F5 even more! (as otherwise the FS7 needs the XDCA back)
4) Get another F3, for perfectly matching A & B cams (with luck you can see them for as little as US$700ish!)
5) Don't buy another camera at all. And just keep on waiting. (not spending money is always a smart default option to fall back on!)
6) a F65. But their prices are a little too close to what I think an ARRI ALEXA Classic will soon be priced at. And a 2K Alexa still has for now much greater market appeal (if I'm playing at being a DoP, trying to sell my services) I think than even the 4K F65 would do.
While I remain focused on the sound department, and just do camera work on the side, then another F3 is most likely for me. (I've been borrowing a second F3 from Panavision now and then this year, greatly enjoyed that! Using two at once to be able to meet brutal shooting schedules for the day) With the FS700 being the 2nd most likely possibility, but I want to see what happens with the Ninja V developments first. (but if I see a rock bottom bargain priced 7Q recorder then I might change my mind)
With F5/F65/FS7/Alexa being but pipe dreams that wouldn't be smart for me to make such a sizable investment into when professionally I'm primarily a soundie. (although sometimes I talk with friends about going into partnership to buy half of one each, then it might be a less foolish decision? Imagine say a Sony PMW-F5 for only US$2.5K each!)
You listed a whole bunch of negatives, then asked why it flopped? I think your question answered itself.
But I reckon the biggest factor was: the codec.
If they'd simply had available the popular ProResHQ/ProResXQ options in the F65 in it (like Arri has. And ditto many external recorders. And one of the strengths of the underdog BMD) then the F65 would have been many times more popular. (even RED has bowed to pressure and added ProRes to their cameras! Alongside their Redcode that they're so proud of)
Last edited:
Ironfilm, interesting thoughts. With your around 10k posts over on crazy Andys site, I do, however, think a sanity check may be in order
Haha!
I did just moments ago realize I was only a few dozen posts away from 10K! :-o
Didn't realize that, bit of a surprise. Maybe I should spend less time there...
Rather than go down a rabbit hole of subjective opinions of which or what "looks better", would you at least agree that what you described is very abnormal? Even by the standards of people who average forum browsers on sites such as dvxuser (or gasp, that other site!).
And by the typical consumers of the media we're producing for clients, then such behavior is very very extremely abnormal? (not just those of us who are working for low budget producers either. Even someone who is making the next multimillion dollar Marvel movie, is still making it for the average movie goer)
If there is an image difference between two cameras that only you can see (ok, plus maybe a few dozen other commentators. Still rounds down to the same number), then does that difference practically speaking really even exist?
("if a tree falls down in a forest and no one hears it....")
Even if you perform the most clinical and carefully planned shootout between dozens of cameras (and ship to me the perfectly calibrated monitors and specced PC to view it on, together with a handyman who installed it modifies my living room environment so I can view it under perfect ideal conditions that it is meant to be seen in), that then blows me away and convinces me that a F900/F23/whatever truly is the best camera in the entire whole world, would that still be enough to convince me to use that over (let's pretend) a VaricamLT/EVA1/F5/Dragon/whatever for some feature film I'm lucky enough to be selected to shoot?
Nope, sadly not. As all the others cameras still retain a bigger edge when it comes to those non-image areas. Thus why would I give up those very real benefits for ensuring a better production result for some razor thin image improvements that only I'd notice under ideal conditions?
It makes no rational sense whatsoever.
(but that is ok, love is irrational! ;-) )
Well damn! And that is exactly why I do still keep half an eye on the eBay listings. As I'd never pay $2K for a F23, but $500? SIGN ME UP!!
As I'm not inherently always against any of the older cameras. As eventually if their price is low enough, then the hobbyist/collector in me says WANT.
Last edited:
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
I still agree with mavs' points.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Here's my brief opinion:
Besides health and love, everything in life is about money, period.
If one is making a million dollars per year with a F900 then the conversations stops there. If not, and one is considering technology in today's world and is interested in making money (or more money), I think one has to be reasonable when comparing dated quality vs. dated hardware as there's a difference.
No one is questioning grandpa ALEXA, but that doesn't mean every single camera made before the industrial revolution is the right choice no matter how much one is in love with it.
Have to be sensible, and if not, then I truly do think ignorance is bliss.
---
And although I absolutely agree about many providing uneducated opinions either to make money or to hear themselves talk, marketing had nothing to do with the DSLR revolution, IMO. (That's an entirely different conversation.)
It's always of course been important because you want people to know about your products, but I think it's becoming less and less effective in this particular industry.
Regarding a camera, 99% of people today are interested in two things; (1) a camera that is fully-loaded, (2) a camera that is reasonably priced.
If you can’t do both, unfortunately no amount of marketing will save you.
Besides health and love, everything in life is about money, period.
If one is making a million dollars per year with a F900 then the conversations stops there. If not, and one is considering technology in today's world and is interested in making money (or more money), I think one has to be reasonable when comparing dated quality vs. dated hardware as there's a difference.
No one is questioning grandpa ALEXA, but that doesn't mean every single camera made before the industrial revolution is the right choice no matter how much one is in love with it.
Have to be sensible, and if not, then I truly do think ignorance is bliss.
---
And although I absolutely agree about many providing uneducated opinions either to make money or to hear themselves talk, marketing had nothing to do with the DSLR revolution, IMO. (That's an entirely different conversation.)
It's always of course been important because you want people to know about your products, but I think it's becoming less and less effective in this particular industry.
Regarding a camera, 99% of people today are interested in two things; (1) a camera that is fully-loaded, (2) a camera that is reasonably priced.
If you can’t do both, unfortunately no amount of marketing will save you.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I'd argue that both of those are still about money... ; )
And yes, the DSLR "revolution" wasn't marketing. It was dumb luck/right place, right time, etc., etc...
Run&Gun
Veteran
I make my living (mostly) with 2/3" ENG and s35 cameras and while my favorite to use is still 2/3", I would be screwed without s35. Not necessarily because it's always "necessary" for the shoots I do with it, but because that's what the client wants. We all still do a LOT of shoots that would be better served with 2/3", and some clients can be "talked" into it, but so many are stuck on s35, just because...
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Agreed and thankfully everyone ive shot for has been more than happy with 2/3"
G
Guest
Guest
2/3” is dope!
heres my unwarranted half baked analogy regarding the devolution or evolution of image capture depending on your point of view.
film=food cooked over an open fire.
purpose built high end digital=food cooked in an electric oven.
the "good enough" cams=food cooked in a microwave.
each step is cheaper and easier, but lacks that "litte something" most everyone can taste, but finds a way to either justify, ignor, or has simply aquired a taste for the cheap and easy.
yeah wont dispute the dslr craze was a happy accident, but what and who perpetuated/s it? ignorant exuberance? marketing folk selling hollywood dreams ? bloggers? videographers who now=cinematographors? or just good old fashioned money? i dont find any of the answers palatable
film=food cooked over an open fire.
purpose built high end digital=food cooked in an electric oven.
the "good enough" cams=food cooked in a microwave.
each step is cheaper and easier, but lacks that "litte something" most everyone can taste, but finds a way to either justify, ignor, or has simply aquired a taste for the cheap and easy.
yeah wont dispute the dslr craze was a happy accident, but what and who perpetuated/s it? ignorant exuberance? marketing folk selling hollywood dreams ? bloggers? videographers who now=cinematographors? or just good old fashioned money? i dont find any of the answers palatable
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Heres what I remember... Canon released the 5D Mark 2 so photo journalists could shoot web friendly video files for their stories. Then, someone saw it and said "hey add 24p and it can be used for us filmmakers" and the deed was done. If you remember, the 5Dmk2 was at first 30p only and 24p came in a firmware upgrade.
NorBro
Major Contributor
One has to understand what shallow DOF for that kind of $$$ offered for many, many creative people.
It's simple in hindsight, but most humans have never seen motion pictures like that.
The 5D Mark II's biggest competitor at that time (arguably) was the DVX100.
Does one understand how this drastic change in image perception altered the human brain?
I understand 2/3 and S35 existed, but a revolution is usually attributed with the lower/middle end, and just think about what exactly everyone was able to get their hands on at that moment (and into the future, today).
It's simple in hindsight, but most humans have never seen motion pictures like that.
The 5D Mark II's biggest competitor at that time (arguably) was the DVX100.
Does one understand how this drastic change in image perception altered the human brain?
I understand 2/3 and S35 existed, but a revolution is usually attributed with the lower/middle end, and just think about what exactly everyone was able to get their hands on at that moment (and into the future, today).
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
No trust me NorBro I completely understand, but at the same time how many ends had to be cut in order for the lower class to get something as simple (And now in my opinion overused) as shallow dof? The companies cut corners to get a sensor in there that wouldnt overheat if you shot compressed video with it. Sorry for being stubborn but you're not going to convince me that I didnt make a good choice in my investments with equipment. In a world where everybodys image is beginning to look the same, i like shooting on more than adequate CCD technology that doesnt look like EVERYTHING.
Mike Krumlauf
Award Winning Filmmaker
Totally dude. I think in the big picture (no pun) thats what will always matter. That you have gear you enjoy and that if you are freelancing or working either as your main mode of income or as side or passive income you invest in gear you think is best. I'm lucky to get freelance jobs that are not nit picky on technical things.. most people I work for know nothing about cameras and are more focused on seeing a reel ive done and what I can give them as an employer.