F3: Better F3 successor?

V

voyagervideo

Well-known member
Love my F3 (w/10-bit 422 S-log) but wouldn't mind 4K - which camera (FS7, F5, F55) is going to give me a comparably beautiful image in 4K with similar ease? I love how simply I can expose the F3, the colors, and the 'thickness' of the image - I get the impression one has to do a bit more work to get similar results from other Sony cameras.
 
I still love my F3 too.
Frankly, I don't think 4K is all it's cracked up to be.
But if you do want it, the real question is, what is your budget ?
 
I went from the F3 to FS7 and to me the FS7 is so much better. The most obvious thing is the cleaner image from the FS7 but also how easy it's to work with Slog3 and monitor LUTs. It's a very intuitive way of shooting WYSIWYG.
 
Osslund said:
I went from the F3 to FS7 and to me the FS7 is so much better. The most obvious thing is the cleaner image from the FS7 but also how easy it's to work with Slog3 and monitor LUTs. It's a very intuitive way of shooting WYSIWYG.
Click to expand...

Are you shooting internally or external Prores ?
Because I know that it's external4K output is a big issue for a lot of people.
Which means being stuck with an XAVC codec.
 
Image-wise I feel that the fs7 is comparable and also has a smaller footprint. Its not as easy to expose due to the log profiles pushing the sensors too much IMO, which also brings noise which stress the codec and so on. But with the on-board LUT and some practise you can get it to work.
 
yoclay said:
I still love my F3 too.
Frankly, I don't think 4K is all it's cracked up to be.
But if you do want it, the real question is, what is your budget ?
Click to expand...

I have an FS7 budget at the moment, but am in no hurry and could save up for an F5. One would assume given it's a "CineAlta" that the F5 would be more comparable to the F3 but it seems the FS7 gets more use for cinematic work. In either case I'm not terribly impressed by what I've seen from them - but I have seen SOME great looking stuff from both - which leads me to believe the milky, low contrast, "thin" color look is not characteristic of the cameras capability but of a style that for whatever reason many Sony users like. I am aware though that it could be that Slog 2 & 3 are a bit difficult to grade vs. F3 Slog. With the F3 it usually only takes minor tweaking to get it to look nice.

I am leaning toward an F5 only because I dropped $1K on a Metabones EF to FZ adapter, but the FS7 seems to have an ergonomic advantage.
 
Recently got a new job and everyone is on the 4k bandwagon so I quickly had to brush up and learn the workflow and the FS7. I've been bringing my F3 on shoots as a B cam and it matches well with the FS7 after learning how to use it well (shooting in Cine EI mode with Slog 3 at UHD 10bit, using waveform and zebras with the A709LC lut on the viewfinder to get an idea what its going to look like). I've been impressed with the FS7 and can see it being as a good upgrade. We are also getting an FS5 soon so we will see how that compares as well.
 
Hands down for the money A7sii or A7rii.

Color science that my 4 year old can grade, less in price than FS5 which appears to be missing features from big brother FS7/F5 anyways, and with the A7rii only you get 4K with full frame lenses or APS-C sensor crop.
 
Last edited:
I found the F5 is easier to actually shoot with as you have the side LCD and quick menu with V7 and hot buttons.. pretty much a straight lift form the Alexa .. but not on the dumb side.. the Fs7 you have to go into the not so logical Sony Engineered menu,s for alot of stuff.. the build is generally a bit more plastic/prosumer feel.. lens mount is not PL. .. ..rather flimsy E mount.. its much more targeted for the C300 /stills lenses users..and if you want RAW F5 is the way to go for sure.. but for the price its amazing,and the really stupid audio and EVF placement s of the F5 have been corrected.. both are very easy to use in Slog.. just put the REC 709 LUT into the VF and SDI out.. I wouldn't recommend the LC709A LUT if your only using it to monitor/ set exposure.. the levels and contrast are alot lower than 709..

Slog3.cine is very easy to grade.. the primaries are in line with REC709.. and the curve is linear above grey.. its not massive but more than P3 .. why do you need more really ?

My 2 cents
 
Last edited:
I have an F3 and personally have no real interest in 4k. For my taste it's too sharp and I don't need the data footprint. But I do long for slog3, which seems to be a lot easier to grade than slog1 and you can get the 709A LUT etc.

Which means either an FS7 or F5.

My beef with the FS7 is the e-mount. I have PL glass and I'm hesitant about mounting a 14lbs zoom on an adapter and having to potentially deal with flex induced by the lens itself or the follow focus exerting torque and throwing the picture out of focus. In contrast the F3 has an FZ-mount that's very beefy and obviously this is not an issue.

That leaves the F5. But it's a lot, lot more expensive.

So for the moment I'm sticking with the F3 and uncompressed 10bit slog1. I really have no complaints about the image quality of the F3. If anything it's a serious low light monster. I guess I'll wait and see what surfaces at NAB.
 
Totally agree re the E mount.. it sort of shows you the target buyer... and I think it really has been a C300 killer..
If you are making your own stuff I think you can safely ignore 4K for at least a few more years.. trouble is if you are a freelancer then you really need a 4K capable camera.. not so much for high end fancy drama/feature etc.. which is a pretty rarefied market..(and ironically usually Arri at 2.8K).. but Ive found a lot of corporate shoots are now 4K..so they can stabilize,crop for tight shots..zoom/pan etc for HD delivery .. and your not shooting a lot of footage so extra data isn't really a consideration ..
 
All right. My 2 cents.
I prefer the look of the F3 to the F5/55.
The larger pixel makes a difference in my book. Something more organic about it.
There's a reason the Alexa has not really gone 4K yet, and in my opinion this is it.
These are the only two cams with pixel sizes above 5.5 microns (F3 - 12 Microns. Alex - 8.3 Microns)
Higher resolution means smaller pixels and I often have the sensation of looking at video as a result.
Great looking video, but video nonetheless. Something about the F3 gets away from this.

It's heresy I know, but I think the BM URSA 4.6K provides a nicer image than what I generally see from the other Sony's.
The real issue is the reliability of the camera, which is an unknown, and BM certainly does not have a good track record.

I own an A7S, but feel the 4K coming out of it is inferior than the larger cams, mostly because SLOG2 is not great and HDMI is a nightmare.

My instinct says WAIT.

When the BM 4.6K drops, so will the prices of everything else. Global shutter is important for instance.
Given the incredible devaluation of the F3, I am certain the F5/55 will drop too this coming year as people move on.
NAB will level the playing field and frankly the time to swoop in will be after.
 
I think it is a hard choice.. the next move.

I like the F3 and see a certain big pixel magic, but with a shuttle and vlock it was too big for my use. Also I struggled to make Slog into a bright poppy corporate look.. which is the core of my clients (but does not reflect my personal taste!).

The FS7 lacks a certain mojo but the file sizes are great (small) and with speedbooster, and built in ND it is fast to use and easy to lens.

The BM looks great to me but will be big and heavy and slow to use with a matte box and all that hell.

To some extent the price crash of the F3 was the unsuitability for small jobs.. (compared to a C100 for corporate or bmc4k for lo budget drama) just like the F35 is wonderful but I could never carry it or afford a gimbal that could carry it!

Smaller cameras may not have the same price crash.

I would say..

Narrative? BM 4.6k
Solo shoot? FS7
Multicam, timecode, cine zoom, F5/55

Maybe FS7 for daily work and keep the F3 for narrative projects?

S
 
FS7 for cheapo lenses option, speedbooster, smallest footprint. Also very popular: clients ask for it!
F5 for raw, better mount, proxy recording, better audio and operability

But maybe also consider Scarlet-W?
 
starcentral said:
Hands down for the money A7sii or A7rii.

Color science that my 4 year old can grade, slightly less than FS5 which is missing features anyways, 4K with full frame lenses or APS-C... and more.
Click to expand...

But money aside, I think the FS5/FS7 is a decent successor to the F3. If you want to go with the CineAlta badge, then you step into F5/F55 territory which I'm sure you know.

Here's a thread outlining the various differences between FS5/FS7/F5/F55 I put together with help from the DVXuser community:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?341008-paper-differences-summarized-between-F55-F5-FS7-FS5

If you want to step completely out of Sony-land, I would suggest BlackMagic.
 
morgan_moore said:
I think it is a hard choice.. the next move.

The BM looks great to me but will be big and heavy and slow to use with a matte box and all that hell.
Click to expand...

I've worked with all the Blackmagic cameras and I am quite sure that out of ALL cameras, the Ursa Mini 4.6K is the most likely to look like a F3 image in 4K - I never had any issue matching 2.5k with F3. However, with BMD comes all kinds of practical issues - many of which the Ursa has solved like ergonomics, EVF, etc - but poor low-light vs F3 plus no NDs and a need for IR cut filter. I guess it's a somewhat better trade: I have to use a matte box or screw in filters, but don't have to hook up an external recorder.
 
Donny 123 said:
Totally agree re the E mount.. it sort of shows you the target buyer... and I think it really has been a C300 killer..
If you are making your own stuff I think you can safely ignore 4K for at least a few more years.. trouble is if you are a freelancer then you really need a 4K capable camera.. not so much for high end fancy drama/feature etc.. which is a pretty rarefied market..(and ironically usually Arri at 2.8K).. but Ive found a lot of corporate shoots are now 4K..so they can stabilize,crop for tight shots..zoom/pan etc for HD delivery .. and your not shooting a lot of footage so extra data isn't really a consideration ..
Click to expand...


All true. The reality is that for better or worse the commercial market is demanding 4k and slow motion. And you're not going to get either from the F3.

The F3 itself cuts both ways. Now in the used market it is a stupendous bargain considering the image quality and professional features. If you already own a recorder and can live with HD you're not going to find a better camera for under $4-5K. But it is ergonomically challenged and requires an external recorder. Fully decked out it's simply not a small rig. It's HD in a marketplace that's increasingly demanding 4k, even just for the sake of 4k

That leaves us with the FS7 with it's e-mount. Obviously a great camera, but once you go for RAW on the FS7 the price crosses over the $10,000 mark. And in that case it may be time to start hunting for a post NAB bargain F5, especially if you already own something like an Odyssey recorder.

At this point I really don't know what to make of BM with the still ongoing delivery fiasco of the past year. On paper the 4.6k looks very promising as does some of the beta footage floating around the net. But the camera is almost a year delayed and BM does not exactly have a sterling record when it comes to reliability, low light performance and tech issues like moire, FPN, dropped frames etc. It's one thing to roll the dice on a relatively cheap Pocket or Cinema Camera, but when we are talking about pouring $5000-8000 into a commercially viable rig this becomes more of an issue. People can say what they want about Sony cameras. They aren't perfect, but I don't think people are losing a lot of sleep worrying that they can't deliver the goods on a professional level.

Personally I'm not into RED, but obviously they are popular with a lot of other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top