F3: B&H has listed F3 as "discontinued".

I

IronFilm

Veteran
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/848144-REG/Sony_PMW_F3L_RGB_PMW_F3L_Super_35mm_Full_HD.html

Must've happened fairly recently, as I last checked out its B&H page not too long ago.
Shouldn't be too surprised, it was obvious this day was soon coming, especially after they slashed its brand new price down to only US$4k (the surprising fact is more why they hadn't discontinued the F3 earlier?? It sure has had a long life!).

Funny they still have on the page "Lease for as low as $483 / month"! :-o
 
IronFilm said:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/848144-REG/Sony_PMW_F3L_RGB_PMW_F3L_Super_35mm_Full_HD.html

Must've happened fairly recently, as I last checked out its B&H page not too long ago.
Shouldn't be too surprised, it was obvious this day was soon coming, especially after they slashed its brand new price down to only US$4k (the surprising fact is more why they hadn't discontinued the F3 earlier?? It sure has had a long life!).

Funny they still have on the page "Lease for as low as $483 / month"! :-o
Click to expand...

This is a great camera. I am not surprised it has been sold for so long. In many ways I actually prefer it's output to it's larger siblings the F5/55.
 
They must have had a ton of them in the warehouse .. I dont think anyone would buy one now though .. even at $4,000..
 
I don't know what makes you say that. F3 at $4000 is a steal, considering the C300, a slightly better camera, sells for almost triple that amount...
 
Just pulled up some interview footage I shot in 2013 with the F3, SLog, RGB 444 to a Pix240. Still looks amazing. I really loved that camera.

Ned Soltz
 
I know of a couple of features shot of the F3 (not saying) output to an external recorder. Real shame as its a worthy cam.

I know of a few shot on it that have been selected for Sundance & screened in cinemas and done very well. Glass also plays a big part ;)
 
I'm still shooting mine and like it very much. I've always thought it was an underrated camera. The ergonomics are something of a train wreck and once you add an external recorder it gets a little big. But it's reliable, the IQ is excellent and it has a full complement of I/O ports with the big FZ mount. I've seen clean ones go for as little as $2000-2500. If you already own a good external recorder, that's pretty hard to beat.
 
BeeHop said:
I know of a couple of features shot of the F3 (not saying) output to an external recorder. Real shame as its a worthy cam.

I know of a few shot on it that have been selected for Sundance & screened in cinemas and done very well. Glass also plays a big part ;)
Click to expand...

Pretty please say which ones ;-)

NorBro said:
B&H only had a few left...finally gone. If you really wanted a new one you can get this kit:

http://www.adorama.com/SOPMWF3G444.html
Click to expand...

Given all that it comes with (recorder, media, adapter), that is a not too bad deal for a new F3! Though going 2ndhand is still much much better value.
 
If this was a 2K camera and not Full HD, it would still be widely used. It is really a shame that we can't get a hack to uncompressed. Because this camera has a pixel count of 2468 x 1398. Which means that it could easily do 2K.
 
2K? I guess we move in different circles because I honestly don't know anyone who uses 2K or cares anything about it. What hurt the F3 was the ergonomics and the constant chase people have for the newest and shiniest camera. Anything that has been out for more than year or two is old.

But I do agree the F3 is a fantastic camera. Add an external recorder and Zacuto viewfinder and it is a hell of a machine.
 
yoclay said:
If this was a 2K camera and not Full HD, it would still be widely used. It is really a shame that we can't get a hack to uncompressed. Because this camera has a pixel count of 2468 x 1398. Which means that it could easily do 2K.
Click to expand...

The link below was passed on by a Colorist, Patrick Inhofer, in his newsletter a few weeks back. It's a pretty important read as a lot of people don't know that 2K as an acquisition format has some real problems unless you are simply doing a crop of the image into HD. The guy who actually wrote the article works for HBO as a "workflow specialist".

http://endcrawl.com/blog/2048x1152-...tter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TaoOfColor

And yes the F3 is still as good a camera as it was 3 years ago.
 
If only the F3 had been 50 Mbps, the C300 may not have reared its ugly head :).. and a a VF not at the back of the camera .. you really have to wonder who was making these design decisions in Japan.. although Sony has got the idea.. the same cant be said for Canon ..
 
Andrew Stone said:
The link below was passed on by a Colorist, Patrick Inhofer, in his newsletter a few weeks back. It's a pretty important read as a lot of people don't know that 2K as an acquisition format has some real problems unless you are simply doing a crop of the image into HD. The guy who actually wrote the article works for HBO as a "workflow specialist".

http://endcrawl.com/blog/2048x1152-...tter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TaoOfColor

And yes the F3 is still as good a camera as it was 3 years ago.
Click to expand...

Wait, doesn't 2K makes sense if you're delivering a DCI? To quote the article "There are legitimate reasons for shooting 2048×1152, but those legit reasons all have to do with cropping your final output." Wouldn't it be better to crop a 2k image than blow up a 1920x1080 to 1998x1080?
 
Last edited:
bill totolo said:
Wait, doesn't 2K makes sense to me if you're delivering a DCI? To quote the article "There are legitimate reasons for shooting 2048×1152, but those legit reasons all have to do with cropping your final output." Wouldn't it be better to crop a 2k image than blow up a 1920x1080 to 1998x1080?
Click to expand...

Exactly.
Further, the sensor size is 2468 x 1398, which gives a lot of room for downscaling. Why limit one's downscaling to FullHD?
In fact it is very similar to a Blackmagic Cinema Camera. The raw resolution is what size for that camera ? 2400 x 1350.

So in my opinion, all Sony has/had to do is offer some flavor of a RAW option for the F3, and it would have become relevant again. For a lot of people.
If only purely for reasons of perception in the modern market (In today's marketing a "2K camera" is going to sell a lot easier than a "FullHD" one).
But also more importantly for purpose of stabilizing in post, reframing, effects, shooting in scope, etc.

This is a video camera with the largest pixel size on the marktet. 12ms. The closest one is the Alexa at 8.2ms. Pretty much everyone else is hovering around 5.5ms.
I am certain this is responsible for a look that many people like myself really appreciate and which makes in my humble opinion a very "organic" look (for a lack of a better word).

Which is why I thought it was a shame that no one could hack it for RAW, though I suppose the issue is the pipeline for getting it out of the camera. But perhaps something like BM's "Lossless compressed 2.5K CinemaDNG RAW" would do the trick. That's all really...
 
Last edited:
The F3's biggest downfall at the time was that it didn't easily accept Canon Eos mount lenses, codec was a little on the light side, wasn't easily hand-holdable and didn't say Canon on it. Even when it was first to market with a Super 35 sensor, thousands of 5D owners couldn't grasp the concept of selling their one or two lenses and switching to Nikon in order to have manual iris control on the F.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top