F3: B&H has listed F3 as "discontinued".
- Thread starter IronFilm
- Start date
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I'm not sure why you would say that. The Sony FZ mount is essentially a universal mount with a flange focal distance so shallow that it can be adapted to practically anything. Within a very short time there were adapters available for anything from Canon and Nikon to more obscure mounts like BNCR. And unlike the FS7 with its DSLR strength mount, the F3 has the beefy FZ mount that can handle anything from a Nikon prime to a large PL mount zoom without flexing etc.
I do agree that the ergonomics are bad for hand holding and the rear EVF is ridiculous. I'm pretty certain that a lot of people did not take the F3 serious, because it looks like a giant Handycam.
The internal codec was a joke on a camera that cost $14,000. And the $3000 sLOG upgrade was way overpriced. At the time of release there were really only two ways to record uncompressed 10bit RGB 444 from the camera. You either needed a Gemini444 or Cinedeck. Both options added $7000-10,000 (media included) to the cost, which pushed the price of an F3 package to over $20k. That was a real problem, because it put them in direct competition with RED and a whole different category of cameras. It wasn't until the advent of the cheaper Odyssey/Shogun recorders and the price reduced / free sLOG upgrade that the situation improved. But even at that Sony should have cut the price of the F3 to under $10k.
But regardless of all the marketing blunders (slog curves Sony?) the sensor in the camera is pure gold. As yoclay mention the huge receptors allow the camera to perform exceptionally well in lowlight and it produces a beautiful organic image. With the F3 available at rockbottom prices it appears to be experiencing something of a renaissance in the second hand market. I know of two DoP friends who are going to purchase one for HD work.
Harry, you and I know of all the advantages to the Sony FZ mount, but when it was released and for a while to come there was no way to adapt and electronically control the iris on Canon Eos lenses that SO MANY people owned at the time. People who were the prime demographic. Hence why the C300 was a no-brainer for all of the 5D owners when it came out.
The Optitek EF adapter was the first available and it's $1,800 and then the MTF monstrosity. Only just now after 5 years of the FZ mount being introduced is there a second option with the Metabones at $1000. Yes the FS7 mount is "inferior" in strength but it made it easier and cheaper for EF lens owners to electronically control their precious Canon lenses. I say that with sarcasm after witnessing the lengths and expenses people went through trying to electronically adapt their lenses. The smartest thing Sony did was making the FS700, FS7 and FS5 work with the lenses the MAJORITY of perspective customers own. Personally I think the EF adapters are a mess and I could never shoot with one. I was helping a buddy who sold his C500 set up his new FS7, with his Zeiss/Canon lenses mounted I was shocked when I saw the iris fluttering/strobing when adjusting the iris in a certain direction, I thought something was wrong until he told me all the EF adapters do that. No thanks.
Every F5/55 owner I personally know owns Nikon or Nikon mount Zeiss ZF lenses and most use it with the mechanical Optitek Nikon adapter that gives you dampened smooth clickless iris adjustment. Best $1000 I've ever spent.
Sry for the rant..
The Optitek EF adapter was the first available and it's $1,800 and then the MTF monstrosity. Only just now after 5 years of the FZ mount being introduced is there a second option with the Metabones at $1000. Yes the FS7 mount is "inferior" in strength but it made it easier and cheaper for EF lens owners to electronically control their precious Canon lenses. I say that with sarcasm after witnessing the lengths and expenses people went through trying to electronically adapt their lenses. The smartest thing Sony did was making the FS700, FS7 and FS5 work with the lenses the MAJORITY of perspective customers own. Personally I think the EF adapters are a mess and I could never shoot with one. I was helping a buddy who sold his C500 set up his new FS7, with his Zeiss/Canon lenses mounted I was shocked when I saw the iris fluttering/strobing when adjusting the iris in a certain direction, I thought something was wrong until he told me all the EF adapters do that. No thanks.
Every F5/55 owner I personally know owns Nikon or Nikon mount Zeiss ZF lenses and most use it with the mechanical Optitek Nikon adapter that gives you dampened smooth clickless iris adjustment. Best $1000 I've ever spent.
Sry for the rant..
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I hear you Fotojorno. Personally I'm a Nikon guy, but got lucky that I had some cine lenses in BNCR mount, which is dumb as a brick. P+S Technic made an adapter early on as part of the IMF universal mount.
By the way, nice work on your site.
By the way, nice work on your site.
And people are mystified why I tell them to buy Nikon lenses not Canon lenses when starting out their lens collection..... this thread is a great example why! 
I too was sensible enough to start out on the Nikon path right from the start (when I first got a Nikon D50, then later a Panasonic GH1 for video), never purchased a single Canon lens!
I too was sensible enough to start out on the Nikon path right from the start (when I first got a Nikon D50, then later a Panasonic GH1 for video), never purchased a single Canon lens!
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Why does it mystify you? I assume you are just getting started in the business and have never used real video or cine lenses. The problem with Nikon lenses is that they focus the wrong direction - -and that is a deal breaker for someone like myself who has been focusing the same direction with television and cine lenses for 30 years -- and continues to use those lenses most of the time. There is just no way to suddenly get yourself to focus the other direction on those occassion when you use a Nikon. I've got a ton of nice Nikon lenses that I use for stills, but for video, Canon is the way to go if you're going to use SLR lenses now that there are adapters that allow iris control. Unless of course, you have no prior experience and can used to the direction Nikon focuses -- but then you're screwing yourself for ever upgrading to better lenses down the road. Try reversing the clutch and gas pedal on a car and see how far you get.
Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
I find the Canon / Nikon thing maddening . Can't afford cine lenses so I'm stuck between the 2 . Nikon offers smooth iris pulls with an Emt or FZ adapter and that's a big deal, but it focuses the wrong way as Doug said and its hard to get used to. Canon leaves you stuck with steppy iris but on an Emt like the FS7 I can get image stabilization. The latter made me decide to switch to Canon for the FS7. (No one makes a Nikon >Emt or FZ that engages image stabilization.) For me IS is a bigger Positive than the iris problem is a negative. Unfortunately then Tamron comes out with a great 24-70 f2.8 with IS - and what the hell it focuses like a Nikon! Can't win.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I can't really see why canon is "the way to go" thier lenses are overpriced plastic rubbish with the hell of electric contacts to ruin your day. Loads of options for focus the Right way. Zeiss ,FD, oly hassy, mamiya, even tonka and stigma
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I didn't say to buy the "rubbish" Canons, now did I? One must be choosy. If you want to piss on all Canon lenses then I must disagree. But I thought the discussion was Nikon vs. Canon SLR lenses. Am I wrong? If you want to mix in other brands, then yeah, Canon may not be the way to go depending on many factors. Personally, I only use one Canon lens. The 200-400 f/4 with 1.4 extender because there is nothing else like it on the market.
Last edited:
It's simple for me, I've been focusing the "Nikon way" for 30 years, when the shoot occasionally has the budget for PL rentals it usually has budget for a AC pulling focus. My time with the EX-1 and DVX100 before that taught me how to flip the switch in my brain and reverse direction when needed. For the past few years I've been shooting 99% of my jobs with my F5 & F3, 99% of the time with my Nikon & Zeiss lenses. So for ME personally, there is no having to adjust to television or cine lenses. Now if someone had to shoot 50/50 PL & SLR lenses, that could get a little confusing.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I wish I had that switch in my brain.
For interviews or staged shots, not a big deal, but for sports, wildlife, news, run & gun, and documentaries I can't do it on the fly with a Nikon lens.
For interviews or staged shots, not a big deal, but for sports, wildlife, news, run & gun, and documentaries I can't do it on the fly with a Nikon lens.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I get the whole issue with the reverse focus on the Nikons. But the great thing about Nikon glass is that it is cheap, there is a TON of it out there and much of it has manually adjustable focus and aperture. All you need is a dumb adapter. If you're on a budget that is probably the way to go.
FD lenses are far rarer and have become collectable which drove prices up.
EF obviously requires a smart adapter to adjust the aperture, unless you can afford the ZF glass in canon mount. I think one advantage of going EF is that some day you could graduate to their cine lenses.
For me personally mixing Nikkors with other lenses hasn't been an issue, but I shot a mix of Nikon and Leica film cameras for many years. Usually three bodies at a time with 28/35/50/85 on Nikon F/F2/F3 and the M series. But obviously most focus pullers don't have the same experience, so I can see how it could be a PIA.
FD lenses are far rarer and have become collectable which drove prices up.
EF obviously requires a smart adapter to adjust the aperture, unless you can afford the ZF glass in canon mount. I think one advantage of going EF is that some day you could graduate to their cine lenses.
For me personally mixing Nikkors with other lenses hasn't been an issue, but I shot a mix of Nikon and Leica film cameras for many years. Usually three bodies at a time with 28/35/50/85 on Nikon F/F2/F3 and the M series. But obviously most focus pullers don't have the same experience, so I can see how it could be a PIA.
To clarify my "talent", during my years with the DVX100 and then EX-1 there were no affordable S35 cameras available yet so really didn't need to switch on/off focus direction, it was ALL video lenses until the F3 came out. Then it got confusing for a minute while I was using both. Lol
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Well we play a pretty long game here (coming from stills so have been 'investing' in AF dslr glass for a couple of decades) and basically Ive gone off pretty much all modern AF DSLR glass and avoid it where possible.
The lens you have may be good or the focus/VR may pack up in 18 months or so if you use it daily on the road in professional environments.
In my office we have recently killed 16-35 2.8, 24-105, and (2)70-200 2.8 canons .. and, to be fair, multiple (2)70-200/2.8VRs nikon and my 600/4 nikon died too. Basically they all have seem to have internal plastic gears and other bits that die.
Last week we got a 180 canon macro (for stills) and it feels (and I hate to admit it!) lovely out of the box.. will it last..? I dont know. VR/IS seems to be the weak mechanical link. Ive also just got a (1985?) 180 Nikkor manual, it is absolutely still functional.
Generally I think AF dlsr lenses should be the last option for video, I have moved away where possible from AF glass of any brand. I find anyone suggesting or coveting any AF DSLR glass for film to be making an odd choice and would certainly think that CanonAF is a poor base system for the videographer.
There are, of course, sometimes when the zoom ranges are not available in older MF versions and choosing AF does become an option that is a necessary evil.
S
Last edited:
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Fortunately I have no use for stabilization, AF, or AE.
Image quality, speed, and focus precision are all I care about.
Most lenses that have AF capability absolutely suck for manual focus, but not all. It depends on the model of lens. I wouldn't avoid a lens just because it has AF, I'd have to try it in MF.
Image quality, speed, and focus precision are all I care about.
Most lenses that have AF capability absolutely suck for manual focus, but not all. It depends on the model of lens. I wouldn't avoid a lens just because it has AF, I'd have to try it in MF.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The trouble is you may find that the lens focus movement starts to bind or slip even when you are using it manually because (AFAIK) you are still driving the movement through the AF motors system and some form of clutch. This seems to happen after a couple of years even with lenses that feel great out of the box.
At that point you will find the lens becomes a frustration to focus manually.
There are some AF lenses that have a positive click between af/mf like Tokina 11-16 but that aint Canon.
If the IS breaks the lens becomes a 'tilt shift' lens even when the IS is disabled (that has been the problem with our 70-200 canons)
S
At that point you will find the lens becomes a frustration to focus manually.
There are some AF lenses that have a positive click between af/mf like Tokina 11-16 but that aint Canon.
If the IS breaks the lens becomes a 'tilt shift' lens even when the IS is disabled (that has been the problem with our 70-200 canons)
S
Last edited:
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I do not share your concerns about my 200-400, or the 24-105 I just got for my FS5. Can't speak for other Canon lenses because I use PL lenses for 99% of my shooting.
25, 35, 50, 75, 95 Cine Xenar primes
15.5-45 Zeiss LWZ zoom
50-150 Red zoom
11-16 Duclos zoom
300 Red
25, 50, 85 Sony primes
All f/2.8 or better with zero automatic functionality
My earlier point was that if I was going to go cheap and use SLR lenses, I would choose Canon because of the focus ring issue. It matters not to me if you have broken many of your Canon lenses. I have never had a lens repaired or serviced in my life.
I wonder why your office continues to buy SLR lenses if they are so awful. Why not step up and get some video/cinema lenses for video/cinema work?
25, 35, 50, 75, 95 Cine Xenar primes
15.5-45 Zeiss LWZ zoom
50-150 Red zoom
11-16 Duclos zoom
300 Red
25, 50, 85 Sony primes
All f/2.8 or better with zero automatic functionality
My earlier point was that if I was going to go cheap and use SLR lenses, I would choose Canon because of the focus ring issue. It matters not to me if you have broken many of your Canon lenses. I have never had a lens repaired or serviced in my life.
I wonder why your office continues to buy SLR lenses if they are so awful. Why not step up and get some video/cinema lenses for video/cinema work?
Last edited:
Nikon 80-200 2.8 -old style, brand new $1,200 -I've had mine for 15 years and used to use it very roughly shooting action sports stills. Mechanically locks in to MF and is pretty close to par focal.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=10124669&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi
Aside from my 17-55 2.8 DX all of my other lenses are 10-30 year old manual focus gems.
IE: 85mm 1.4 -$500 used but metal & beautifully dampened focus with hard stops. Canon 85mm 1.2 -$1900 for plastic (I kid)
**Doug, I do have lens envy of you. Nice collection
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?N=10124669&InitialSearch=yes&sts=pi
Aside from my 17-55 2.8 DX all of my other lenses are 10-30 year old manual focus gems.
IE: 85mm 1.4 -$500 used but metal & beautifully dampened focus with hard stops. Canon 85mm 1.2 -$1900 for plastic (I kid)
**Doug, I do have lens envy of you. Nice collection
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
I agree completely that nikon is not the ideal system to buy into as a videographer (for reasons of focus direction). Im there through 'luck' ie having started with Nikon stills camera in 1989.
That does not mean that nikon fit, manual iris, is not a good way to go, be that zeiss, or some of the other options. Or even Canon fit manual glass.
Neither have I.. until recently!
I know I sound like a lens vandal but modern CaNikon AF glass seems to have gone wrong recently, (since 2010?) I think of a lens being a once a career purchase and still use much glass both AF (nikkor AIS?) and Manual I bought in the mid nineties. Since 'upgrading' to AF/VR lenses they just seem no longer to last.. the plastic cogs/clutches break and it is particularly frustrating for videography because often a lens will AF fine and be completely gaff for manual focus.
Let's see how you get along
S
Last edited: