Brief encounter with an F3 today....

R

RyanDeFranco

Active member
.... and it's not an operator's camera. Think an EX-1 minus its best assets, with standard features in boring places. It looks as though the engineers saw an online photo of the Alexa and--last minute--tried to copy its sleek and simple button design. Submenus dominate the actual experience.

All the video out ports are arrayed on the back in a proud row with bulging, cartoonish rubber caps--clearly, the video out is some engineer's pride and joy. The screen feels rather small for $13,000 (though the RED LCD is such a damn luxury) and the whole package feels... well... light. And not in a DSLR, AF-100 or Red Epic sense either.

You hold it and you sense that it doesn't know what it wants to be.

F3-zoom-rocker-300x234.jpg

Have you noticed? Most online photos of the camera are taken from it's left side. That's because the right currently has a small, ungainly little handgrip. Gone is the beautiful machinery that dominates the EX-1 body--remember the first time you rotated the grip and felt your hand slide into the perfect position for that particular shot? Not here. Just a standard, video camera aesthetic without the blunt, Hasselblad shape of the AF-100 (at more than twice its price).

With specific White Balance options buried in the settings, the real handgrip missing, 4:2:0 without updates and annoying recorders, the F3 does not seem like what this excited guy calls the new horizon of creative vision.... it sounds like the camera everyone will get excited about because it costs a little bit more money.

Sony will spend more on promotion (already have), films will be shot with excellent lenses, lighting, camera rigging, proper crews and unbelievably large Sony monitors (already have), people will buy it and use primarily PL glass with it, it will be seen as slightly better for some time...

and become a doorstop after a while. Just like the AF-100, just like DSLRs. Hopefully my first experience with the AF-100 is more enlightening--and I hope seeing the F3 images projected in 4K makes up for today's quick experience--but between holding the F3 and witnessing the gamma in AF-100 videos, I'm still convinced it's best to wait. For those of you who can afford to make the leap from the "accidentally amazing" DSLRs to the next generation of video cameras that approach digital cinema....

I salute you. Until then, I'll be very happy with my "kludge" camera. :)
 
No you Have no idea what you are talking about..... The AF100 was the best doorstop i ever used. IF by door stop you mean low cost digital cinema system.
 
RyanDeFranco said:
films will be shot with excellent lenses, lighting, camera rigging, proper crews and unbelievably large Sony monitors (already have), people will buy it and use primarily PL glass with it, it will be seen as slightly better for some time...
Click to expand...

I think that is the point though, right?

For under $20k, you will be able to own a camera with 3 PL lenses and make a film that looks very similar to one shot on Alexa or F35.
 
What's the deal with new guys to this site making such bold statements with such flippant attitudes? Then they get all miffy about the whole thing when people disagree. There's still going to be a lot of people claiming the GH13 is a better camera than the AF100 or whatever else you want to substitute here. It's the attitude that us older guys can learn something from the new guys, and not the other logical way around...
 
stockfuel said:
For under $20k, you will be able to own a camera with 3 PL lenses and make a film that looks very similar to one shot on Alexa or F35.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, to be "on par" with the Alexa or F35 you'll have to have to record in S Log off board to a 10 bit recorder and use an appropriate color grading system.
 
RyanDeFranco said:
"Brief encounter with an F3 today...."
Click to expand...

Where? You went to some event and don't even have one photo to share with us, not even a camera phone? Suspicious.

RyanDeFranco said:
The screen feels rather small for $13,000 (though the RED LCD is such a damn luxury
Click to expand...

The Red LCD is an extra $2,700 Luxury. For 1/3rd that price you could buy a smallhd.

RyanDeFranco said:
and the whole package feels... well... light. And not in a DSLR, AF-100 or Red Epic sense either.
Click to expand...

You mean its light weight but bulky, thats because it's a complete digital cine camera as opposed to a modulated one.

RyanDeFranco said:
4:2:0 without updates and annoying recorders, the F3 does not seem like what this excited guy calls the new horizon of creative vision.... it sounds like the camera everyone will get excited about because it costs a little bit more money.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by annoying recorders? Like the same ones Red and Alexa use?

RyanDeFranco said:
Sony will spend more on promotion (already have), films will be shot with excellent lenses, lighting, camera rigging, proper crews and unbelievably large Sony monitors (already have), people will buy it and use primarily PL glass with it, it will be seen as slightly better for some time...
Click to expand...

xbk4y1.jpg


BonHomme

Some already good shorts like BonHomme were made using cheap PL glass and the onboard 35mb/s codec... and almost no budget (as in a few hundred for food). I don't think Sony is trying to cheat in anyway.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh! I didn't mean to be so hostile! My point is simple: price does not equal greatness.

I don't snap pictures of new cameras because when colleagues have been hired to shoot with them--Epic prototypes or F3 prototypes--I feel rather childish whipping out the iPhone and oggling what is, ultimately, a piece of plastic and silicon.

Doorstop: Every digital camera will go the way of the PD-150: once revered, now lovingly remembered and perhaps used for ironic or stylistic purposes, but otherwise handed down to film schools and those who don't have the means for new equipment. I did not mean the term "doorstop" as an insult, but as a realization of what all technology (and humans) end up as: dead meat. Everyone loves the "rinse, lather repeat" joke about how camera obsession rises and falls; can't we all admit that today's expensive cameras will look horribly dated in 10-20 years?

By "light," I meant I missed the familar EX-1 form factor; this camera is in between the AF-100/Epic prototype I once briefly experienced on set and the EX-1 I'm used to. Having handled the F3, I want one or the other extreme (AF-100/Epic or traditional bulk).

By "annoying" I meant the Nanoflash, which will say its recording even when there's no card in it, and which you have to press record on seperately from the camera. The Alexa is way out of my range, but at the workshop that's being held in NYC tomorrow night, I'd be willing to bet you hit "record" and neither of those two problems are present.

I never said anything about "teaching older folks a lesson" I just wanted to share an experience I felt lucky to have.... in my experience with other shooters in my range (5 yrs experience), we have no idea what we're talking about compared to guys 10 years out, and we're monkeys compared to professional DPs...certainly meant no disrespect to anyone, and I don't mind at all if you disagree.

I just wanted to reassure people that the F3 does not promise some spectacular high end "cinema" user experience compared to the AF-100. It doesn't. Will people use it to capture breathtaking images and truly outstanding films? Absolutely. But in the end it's about the lighting, framing, and color grading--painting with light--not technical differences. People with bigger budgets will shoot on the F3, and that will influence the perception around its IQ.

That's what makes cameras like the AF-100 and DSLRs so attractive: they produce practically identical images (for our purposes) at a fraction of the cost. I do believe that the Red and Alexa produce an image that's much harder to tell apart from film, but for $5,000, the AF-100 is an incredible machine.
 
Last edited:
Joe Walker said:
Don't forget, to be "on par" with the Alexa or F35 you'll have to have to record in S Log off board to a 10 bit recorder and use an appropriate color grading system.
Click to expand...

Sure... but I think you will be able to get a similar, if not "on par", look with 4:2:2 / 10 bit....
 
RyanDeFranco said:
I just wanted to reassure people that the F3 does not promise some spectacular high end "cinema" user experience compared to the AF-100. It doesn't. Will people use it to capture breathtaking images and truly outstanding films? Absolutely. But in the end it's about the lighting, framing, and color grading--painting with light--not technical differences. People with bigger budgets will shoot on the F3, and that will influence the perception around its IQ.
Click to expand...

I rail against using the word "Filmic" when it comes to a sensor capturing an image. So I agree, a camera sensor cannot make something look like "a film" unless you're talking about "film stock."

The AF100 is a wonderful lil camera. While you can push the F3 to get an Alexa like image, I'm sure you can push the AF100 to get an F3 image as well.

But, if you already have a $10K+ camera body budget you're not looking to tweak the AF100.. you'll just buy the F3. Just like if you had $60K+ to buy the Alexa, would you really spend $13K plus all that hass le of creating a rig just to get something similar? No.

The F3 is a good upgrade towards the AF100 *if* you have the money and *if* you need the extra image quality. for $8K more its worth the money too. It's not like buying a master prime vs compact prime and getting a 2% increase in quality for a 300% increase in price.

Just look at what Fohdeesa pointed out on another thread, 18db of gain and barely any noise on the F3... can the AF100 do that? does the AF100 offer an upgrade path to 4:4:4? no. you're paying for extras, but im sure you could easily intercut AF100 footage with F3 footage.
 
vagarob said:
I rail against using the word "Filmic" when it comes to a sensor capturing an image. So I agree, a camera sensor cannot make something look like "a film" unless you're talking about "film stock." ...

18db of gain and barely any noise on the F3[/URL]... can the AF100 do that? does the AF100 offer an upgrade path to 4:4:4? no. you're paying for extras, but im sure you could easily intercut AF100 footage with F3 footage.
Click to expand...

Very well said. When you can intercut and get away with it, the difference becomes important only for those with the budget for improvement. The low noise and upgrade path are absolutely worth it to those who need them, but for me, there's a line between the best of digital cinema (Alexa, Red, Weisscam, Viper, Phantom) and the very appealing options in the budget category. Until I see a test or a film that blows me away, the F3 will sit firmly on the lower side of that line.

What's fantastic is that films like A Verse Before Dying will prove that you don't need the Red or the F3 to make outstanding images. It's about the artistry, passion and time spent planning, not the amount charged to your credit card.
 
RyanDeFranco said:
What's fantastic is that films like A Verse Before Dying will prove that you don't need the Red or the F3 to make outstanding images. It's about the artistry, passion and time spent planning, not the amount charged to your credit card.
Click to expand...

That production would have made videos from my iphone look great!
 
This is AF100 forum. Why won't you complain somewhere else?
You sound almost like you preordered AF100 and try to justify your rash decision :)
 
vagarob said:
The F3 is a good upgrade towards the AF100 *if* you have the money and *if* you need the extra image quality. for $8K more its worth the money too. It's not like buying a master prime vs compact prime and getting a 2% increase in quality for a 300% increase in price.
Click to expand...

This is not true. A master prime is much faster, color matched, sharper, and built far better. You get what you pay for. Plain and simple. You're not paying 13k for 200% better image quality. You're paying for the stability of sxs media, 444 dual link out, a real PL mount, true s35 fov, and the most build quality they can squeeze in.
 
TimurCivan said:
This is not true. A master prime is much faster, color matched, sharper, and built far better. You get what you pay for. Plain and simple. You're not paying 13k for 200% better image quality. You're paying for the stability of sxs media, 444 dual link out, a real PL mount, true s35 fov, and the most build quality they can squeeze in.
Click to expand...

idk, shane hurlbut just called master primes "s**t" so :)

id love to see a test with master prime vs something like a CP.2 - do you know of any? but anyways i won't make this into a lens discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top