Arri went 4K by gluing 2 x 10 yr old Alexa sensors together...(65 they did 3 )..making a slightly bigger than FF sensor.. in 16-9 the new Arri is still 3840.. No 17-9 mode .. and only their new lens will cover the whole thing.. at $98,000 body only I would guess Sony are popping the bubbly at the news .. an actual new 4K FF sensor with a camera around the same price as the Venice. really could have blown them away .. their nightmare didn't happen..
F5: Anybody Using Anymore?
- Thread starter Ben_Ericson
- Start date
Arri went 4K by gluing 2 x 10 yr old Alexa sensors together...(65 they did 3 )..making a slightly bigger than FF sensor.. in 16-9 the new Arri is still 3840.. No 17-9 mode .. and only their new lens will cover the whole thing.. at $98,000 body only I would guess Sony are popping the bubbly at the news .. an actual new 4K FF sensor with a camera around the same price as the Venice. really could have blown them away .. their nightmare didn't happen..
Morgan might be right about the F3 "so called magic" being the bigger pixels. I confess not to have put it side by side with the FS7 except briefly when I bought my FS7- so I can't say whether it has more magic than the FS7. I didn't see it then though. I can tell you a few things for sure though.
When the F3 was the Sony top dog, everyone wanted to use the C300. It had the magic look and it was much harder to rent or resell an F3 - even though many DP's preferred the F3 to be honest. When the F5 came out everyone I knew raved about how much better it looked than the F3 and the F3 resale value really plunged. After the FS7 came out it dropped way below an an EX-3 in resale. Then after about a year you started to hear about how great the F3 was and how people liked it more than any of those other cameras. Now its the great Vintage camera.
I will stand by these points:
1- The F5 and FS7 are basically the same camera in different housings.
2- There is no way in hell an FS7 or F5 looks more like a C300 than an F3 - not the color anyway.
3 - As I said above you can make the color of all those Sony cameras ( plus an EX-1 or 3) indistinguishable just by matching the settings and throwing the FS7 phase around -7. (I haven't tested the F5 to see if it also needs that -7 setting but I suspect so. )
4 - The FS7 is much faster, quieter, has higher resolution and better DR than the FS7 with pretty much the same look otherwise. If you prefer that bigger pixel look or perhaps the type of noise in the F3 then you've gotten a helluva bargain . Be happy.
When the F3 was the Sony top dog, everyone wanted to use the C300. It had the magic look and it was much harder to rent or resell an F3 - even though many DP's preferred the F3 to be honest. When the F5 came out everyone I knew raved about how much better it looked than the F3 and the F3 resale value really plunged. After the FS7 came out it dropped way below an an EX-3 in resale. Then after about a year you started to hear about how great the F3 was and how people liked it more than any of those other cameras. Now its the great Vintage camera.
I will stand by these points:
1- The F5 and FS7 are basically the same camera in different housings.
2- There is no way in hell an FS7 or F5 looks more like a C300 than an F3 - not the color anyway.
3 - As I said above you can make the color of all those Sony cameras ( plus an EX-1 or 3) indistinguishable just by matching the settings and throwing the FS7 phase around -7. (I haven't tested the F5 to see if it also needs that -7 setting but I suspect so. )
4 - The FS7 is much faster, quieter, has higher resolution and better DR than the FS7 with pretty much the same look otherwise. If you prefer that bigger pixel look or perhaps the type of noise in the F3 then you've gotten a helluva bargain . Be happy.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I will stand by these points:
1. I do think my F3 had a nicer picture than my FS7 or F55.
2. Although the picture was slightly better, my current needs cannot me met by an F3.
3. I need HFR.
4. I need S-LOG2/3
5. I need a better internal codec than 4:2:0 8-bit.
6. I need 4K.
7. I need a better viewfinder than the F3 has.
8. I need 4 channels of audio.
9. I need better ergonomics than the F3 offers.
In my opinion, slightly better imagery out of the F3 cannot offset all the advantages offered by the other cameras. For someone else who doesn't need 4K, HFR, or S-LOG, then the F3 might make a great choice. It is a really nice starter camera for young people getting into the business.
1. I do think my F3 had a nicer picture than my FS7 or F55.
2. Although the picture was slightly better, my current needs cannot me met by an F3.
3. I need HFR.
4. I need S-LOG2/3
5. I need a better internal codec than 4:2:0 8-bit.
6. I need 4K.
7. I need a better viewfinder than the F3 has.
8. I need 4 channels of audio.
9. I need better ergonomics than the F3 offers.
In my opinion, slightly better imagery out of the F3 cannot offset all the advantages offered by the other cameras. For someone else who doesn't need 4K, HFR, or S-LOG, then the F3 might make a great choice. It is a really nice starter camera for young people getting into the business.
I think the biggest problem with the F3 is that internal it was only 35Mbps.. it didn't meet broadcast HD standard 50 Mbps.. the first S35mm sensor camera in that market that did was the C300.. great timing for them.. decent picture.. sold like hot cakes even with the worst camera design in the history of mankind ..
Lack of 50 Mbps.. why Sony?.. who knows.. still had the EVF in the wrong place.. I mean it wasn't that great.. !.. f5 is alot better I think TBH..
Lack of 50 Mbps.. why Sony?.. who knows.. still had the EVF in the wrong place.. I mean it wasn't that great.. !.. f5 is alot better I think TBH..
KeithM Z Syst
Member
The F5 and FS7 are virtually the same camera. Same sensor, same processing, same CFA, same codec, etc etc. The big differences are the body, and the recording media (this is why the F5 now has XAVC 480 and the FS7 doesn't).
The advantage to the F5 vs the FS7, in my opinion, is the ability to use the AXS recorders, the TC I/O, and the ability to dual or quad link 4k over SDI.
As others have said, if you don't like the out of the box color, you can always paint the camera. This has always been the way Sony intends you to use the camera. The out of the box is passable, but they expect you to make it into what you want. We have had more than one customer buy Sony cameras over competitors because you can paint the image in camera to absolutely nail brand colors.
The advantage to the F5 vs the FS7, in my opinion, is the ability to use the AXS recorders, the TC I/O, and the ability to dual or quad link 4k over SDI.
As others have said, if you don't like the out of the box color, you can always paint the camera. This has always been the way Sony intends you to use the camera. The out of the box is passable, but they expect you to make it into what you want. We have had more than one customer buy Sony cameras over competitors because you can paint the image in camera to absolutely nail brand colors.
A small caveat to what I said about all those cameras matching perfectly. That's my experience using my own user matrix. Presumably it would carry over into any other matrix setting but I have only tested mine. Also that's just for color: black levels , saturation and gamma have to be adjusted between cameras for a perfect match but that's easy and to be expected.
Grug
Veteran
I used to have an F3, moved to the F5, and now have an F3 again. The cameras make as near to an identical image as two different cameras can IMO.
The F5 is way better thanks to doing everything internally, and having so many more features. But the F3 still makes lovely images in 2018, and for jobs/clients that can't afford better, it's a great option to have (assuming you get one maxed-out with the Element Technica body armour and the 4:4:4 upgrade).
I just ran the F3 as a B-cam alongside my Alexa Studio on a web series, and it's remarkable how well the little Sony is able to cut in with footage from the Arri.
That said, if I had a little more cash lying around, I'd grab a used F5 in a heartbeat to handle those same smaller jobs - not having to worry about external recorders is a lovely thing.
The FS7 is a remarkable little camera, but only if you keep it barebones and use it as is. Hulked-out with rigging an accessories it gets pretty messy, pretty quickly. Any job needing timecode (which, for me, is everything I do) you're better off with the F5, it's just better setup for that sort of thing.
The F5 is way better thanks to doing everything internally, and having so many more features. But the F3 still makes lovely images in 2018, and for jobs/clients that can't afford better, it's a great option to have (assuming you get one maxed-out with the Element Technica body armour and the 4:4:4 upgrade).
I just ran the F3 as a B-cam alongside my Alexa Studio on a web series, and it's remarkable how well the little Sony is able to cut in with footage from the Arri.
That said, if I had a little more cash lying around, I'd grab a used F5 in a heartbeat to handle those same smaller jobs - not having to worry about external recorders is a lovely thing.
The FS7 is a remarkable little camera, but only if you keep it barebones and use it as is. Hulked-out with rigging an accessories it gets pretty messy, pretty quickly. Any job needing timecode (which, for me, is everything I do) you're better off with the F5, it's just better setup for that sort of thing.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I don't think media is the reason why. You can(and I do) shoot with XQD cards, with an adapter, in the F5/55 at any resolution, frame rate and codec that can be recorded internally.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Da ting is that ff35 seems to work in the 4-6k zone while s35 seems to be enough space for HD and thus it is for now - all cameras seem to point that way
Yes a down sampled 6K to get a "true" 4K after debayer will be a "better" image than a s35mm 4K sensor.. I think its going to be an excuse to force us all to buy new cameras !
Ben_Ericson
Well-known member
Is the F5 similar to the FS7 or the F3? to me, the F3 and FS7 look much different.
KeithM Z Syst
Member
Fair enough. I haven't done much testing with the XQD to SxS adapter.
If you don't like the FS7 colors, you certainly won't like the F5 because they are identical / very near identical. Doesn't Sony unofficially acknowledges this.
You can use them on the FZ mount of the F5/F3 as well.
It is interesting to think "what if" Sony had put 50Mbps in the F3?
Dunno what the hell Sony was thinking in holding that back from the F3, especially even after the C300mk1 was released!
Last edited:
Grug
Veteran
They were obviously trying to protect their XDCAM broadcast camera line. Such a foolish move. If they'd had 50mbps 4:2:2, the F3 (despite it's ergonomic flaws) would have taken over the world, and the C300 would never have had the opportunity to make the impact it did (because everyone would have already bought an F3).
Just did another f5/fs7 shoot.. simple interview.. the fs7 Mk1 skin tones were different .. with just a Rec709 LUT applied ..(we shot slog3.cine ).. so won't be a problem.. the back ground looks very similar.. TBH I think the skin tone difference was down purely the different lenses .. the f5/CN7 was warmer as those lenses tend to be.. the fs7 was the much cheaper 24-? kit lens..
No doubt the reason behind Sony not putting 50 Mbps in the F3 was to do with suites in alot of meetings.. someone at Sony must have seen what was obvious to every DP in the world.. but its such a large bureaucratic place it took them all those years to get the f5 out the door.. TBH Im not sure Sony would even have the foresight to see that s35 would take over from ENG.. in those days they were pretty separate markets.. it was the corp world that went first to s35.. and so the kettle cam had its day in the sun.. till Sony caught up and conquered ..now its taken Sony an extra 15 years to get a very decent Alexa rival out the door.. much smaller and easier on power than the aging Arri steel brick power eating monster.. its clearly better than the Arri LF..(not sure what Arri was thinking with that) I wonder if they can pull an Fs7 kills C300 replay in the feature market..
No doubt the reason behind Sony not putting 50 Mbps in the F3 was to do with suites in alot of meetings.. someone at Sony must have seen what was obvious to every DP in the world.. but its such a large bureaucratic place it took them all those years to get the f5 out the door.. TBH Im not sure Sony would even have the foresight to see that s35 would take over from ENG.. in those days they were pretty separate markets.. it was the corp world that went first to s35.. and so the kettle cam had its day in the sun.. till Sony caught up and conquered ..now its taken Sony an extra 15 years to get a very decent Alexa rival out the door.. much smaller and easier on power than the aging Arri steel brick power eating monster.. its clearly better than the Arri LF..(not sure what Arri was thinking with that) I wonder if they can pull an Fs7 kills C300 replay in the feature market..
Grug
Veteran
This is swerving off-topic, but you can hardly call the the Venice 'clearly better' than LF. Each has significant strengths and weaknesses in their respective feature-sets.
Venice: (Good):
- Lightweight
- 8-steps of ND(!)
- More power efficient
- Dual-ISO
- 5 second boot speed(!)
Venice: (Bad):
- Maximum of 24fps using full sensor
- Limited variable frame rate capabilities in general
- No internal wireless features (requires more rigging gack)
LF (Good):
- Complete Prores Compatibility + Raw
- Alexa highlight handling(!)
- Built-in wireless FIZ controller
- Built-in wireless video
- 90fps using full sensor(!)
- 150fps using full width of sensor in 2:39:1 mode
LF (Bad):
- No internal NDs
- Hefty power consumption
- Hefty in general
Yes it was a fairly light hearted throw away comment .. but I do think the Venice for the price is a better camera .. a new sensor rather than two 10 year old ones glued together.. no special one off lenses needed to cover said sensor.. and just in design too.. it looks so much nicer .. not that I would ever be buying either.. but I do think it might be interesting to see if eventually now Sony can make some dent in the, well deserved , Arri hold over feature film.. /high end drama.. with a FF sensor camera thats almost half the price of the Arri.. and not needing a "special " set of lenses to do the most basic task.. cover the whole sensor .. sorry yes off topic.. just thinking out loud .. carry on number one..
Grug
Veteran
At half the price, it's certainly a significant difference! But I do think the lack of variable frame rates are going to hamper the Venice's uptake. If they could squeeze 48fps out of it (for a standard 2x slowmotion), I don't think it'd be an issue at all - but topping out at 24fps is an issue (you won't even be able to shoot TV shows for PAL markets with it in full-frame mode).
Also, you don't need special lenses to cover the LF, its sensor is almost identical in size to the Venice. You just need coverage for Vistavision, and there's now tonnes of glass, primes and zooms, both high-end and low-end, that will do that just fine.
Its a bit bigger than FF.. and isn't Arri making these lens that are the only ones that will cover the whole sensor .. on the wide end anyway..agree re the frame rates.. really Venice cant even do 25p.. that sound s a bit crazy..